Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 9, 2005, 10:24 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Kenny_Leong wrote:
Quote:
But I have also noticed that people try to over-do their photo and the results look completely unrealistic-which is more like trickery.
Quote:
I'm talking about over-enhancing a photo to make it look different than what you saw originally when taking the photo. It's like girls (or some guys hehehe) wearing facial make-up. Sure..you can put the make-up on...but you know it yourself that it's not your real face appearance with all that make-up on. Using camera flash to alter lighting....fine...but using software to over-enhance colour levels and saturation....just fooling ourselves really.
If you are referring to the art work that gets posted here... That does not even fall into this subject. In fact... That, IMO is what image editing is all about. The special effect stuff that people like NickTrop, Willow1, nzmacro, and others post here are outstanding, and I would love to get good at that kind of stuff (after I get good enough with my camera).

That is true Art in my book, and very inspireing.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 10:26 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
greenbaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 742
Default

I chose the FZ20 because of it's optics (sharp and bright lens),the long zoomrange, the OIS, and it's5MP.Not because of all the onboard image editing software.

I think, altering the pict adjustment settings is nothing more butneeding more time to take a picture, creating risk of the scene to change before you have the chance to nail it. Also, the pict adjustments you can do on cam, are fairly course; For example: If you want a vivid pic, and you put the saturation to high; there's a good chance of over-saturation. (I've never touched the saturation of my fz0 results, but that's a personal preference).
The cam doesn't put filters in front of the lens by altering the settings, so it's all post processing. But much less carefull than if it's done with some software on the pc.

Post processing won't chance the direction of the shadows; won't chance the positions of trees/buildings/animals etc. It's the frame that makes the picture. And an 'amateur frame' can easily be separated from a 'well thought frame'. Even if post processing is applied.

It's a very good thing to get the best out of the cam. But for me, a cam is a device that is capable of capturing a scene; Not a device that's capable of altering the captured image.

Very nice topic

GB


greenbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 10:29 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
jer1ivp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 335
Default

My 2 cents worth. The only time I get angry with not being told it has been PP is if the person is saying they have proved something. As in I have that photo of thealienstanding by his alien space craft. Jee come to find outit was false. What a shocker. The biggest reason I purchased the Panasonic FZ-20 was the "glass" and the OIS. Both of these I don't think you can fake with PP to much. If you are willing to take the time and go over the posts here you will find out what the camera will do. I know that if you line up 10 pictures and 10 pictures with PP I may not always get it right which is which. I still think you will get an idea of what the camera will do anyway.

The end. :-)
jer1ivp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 10:35 AM   #64
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 26
Default

Echo the fact that this is a most interesting topic. I am quite the newbie (a status I will hold onto for a long time me thinks), but before I could save up enough for the 20, I spent lots of time reading just about every book at the library on the topic. Although it should have been obvious, I was suprised at the level of tweaking in the darkroom that was used. In fact, it would be easy to say that only X% of the 'art' was done out in the field. Certain chemicals used only on specific parts of the print to bring out a feature, etc. I forget the title of the two books, but each print had notes on the composition, shot, and printing. All three were need for the result of course. So the negative is only the beginning in my eyes.


I certainly don't want to find myself getting lazy and relying upon software to do what I should have done with the camera. But, saying that, I have tweaked every shot that I have posted or printed in some small way at least. Sometimes to the point of real manipulation, such as using a cloning airbrush/healing tool to remove some small distracting part of the shot that was impossible to frame out. Now, If I add last month's centerfold on my arm that is a different story. Wait, I would hide that as well, so bad example.


Great stuff. gotta love passionate discussion!
wiseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 11:45 AM   #65
ret
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 25
Default

When you show pictures straight from the camera you are not only showing the limitations of the camera but the limitations of the photographer.

You don't always have the time, or the facilities, to take the best picture possible. When you show an unedited picture you are blaming the camera for your own faults as well as the cameras. This seems decidedly unfair to the camera as well as the photo's viewers.

I believe the end results of the photo are what matters and that includes editing.

If you want to show the cameras limitations and abilities you almost have to do it in a studio where you can control all of the conditions and have them repeatable. To truly show camera limitations and abilities you must compare it's pictures to those taken with another camera under identical conditions. :-)
ret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 11:59 AM   #66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

bobc wrote:
Quote:
If you are referring to the art work that gets posted here... That does not even fall into this subject. In fact... That, IMO is what image editing is all about. The special effect stuff that people like NickTrop, Willow1, nzmacro, and others post here are outstanding, and I would love to get good at that kind of stuff (after I get good enough with my camera).

That is true Art in my book, and very inspireing.

bobc
Well...that's true Bobc...that's no longer photography really. It's a combination of photography and painting/computer graphics art.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 12:21 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

nzmacro wrote:
Quote:
Yes it is about Panasonic cameras, but its also about photography. As soon as its resized its manipulated.

Is there any difference to altering the image using a filter on the front, or adding it in software ??, IMO there is no difference.
*snip

Danny.
Yeah...there is a difference. One is classic (pure) style. The other is electronic trickery. The thing I'm wondering about is how much people can be fooled when seeing photos that have been significantly modified such that the pure 'real' thing seen through our eyes (the original subject) is nothing like the photo. So maybe it's a purity issue. This goes for both edited AND unedited photos.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 1:07 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

bobc wrote:
Quote:

Your right. They move too fast, and the scene changes every time you point to a new spot, so you have to let the camera do the adjustment one way or another. I don't know if my approach is correct or not... Just trying to use the little knowledge I have combined with the little comman sence that I have...:?

Cheers bro...

bobc
My friend you hit the nail on the head. There is no RIGHT or WRONG when it comes to photography. There is only personal opinion and personal objectives. And I will fight to the death for your right to exercise both. I am behind you 100% and as long as your opinion is the same as mine you'll do fine.:G Kidding aside, I can't tell you what's right for you. I can only appreciate what you are trying to accomplish and offer my own slant on it. Like any art it's too personal to objectify into one slot. Different people will see different things.
So, far I think your sponging up the fundamentals at an amazing speed. I can't wait to see what you come up with next. Thanks again for this post and the opportunity to keep my mind as sharp as my eye.

smac

smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 1:47 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
What would you like "the rules" to be, and why? How is manipulation on the front-end of the process, different in your mind from manipulation on the back-end when in neither case it's straight from the camera?
Nick and Danny - I have no desire to set any rules here. I'm basically an old hippy anarchist at heart. Neither am I dercrying the use of post processing as a tool to make a "better" photo. As I stated in my initial reply to Bob's request for opinions (which is pasted below),to get a true idea of what the camera can do it is imperative that you see only what the camera did. That is particularlyimportant when considering how the camera will react to a filter or converter being added. When it comes down to the actualfinal exhibiting of the photo for the photos' sake and not as a demonstration of what a particular camera can do, then by all means use whatever editing tools are availble to get the results you're looking for. At that point it really makes no difference what camera was used.

Fred



In order to see what the camera can do it isessential to see only what the camera did. Ergo, resize only. No crop, no sharpen, no levels, etc. Of course there are many ways to make the camera do different things with different in-camera settings and/or add-on lens. If the purpose of the post is to demonstrate the use of a setting or lens, state what that is and post your sample pic straight from the camera so that we can get an unedited view. (Including exif data can help.) If the sample is out of focus, don't sharpen it. That could be an inherent problem with that lens/camera setup. Likewise with color enhancing. If the pic has lousy color, dont fix it with pp. Get a better shot with in-camera settings - if you can. If the close-uplens you're usinggives tack sharp focus at the center and soft at the edges and you crop off the edges and give us only the nice center portion, we get anexpurgatedversion of that lens/camera combo's output.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the post is to demonstrate what can be accomplished with post processing, post on and let us know what you did and how you did it. To really do your editing demojustice it would be most beneficial to give us the before and after.

fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 1:47 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Rezajune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 233
Default

to me digital photography is like getting a haircut.

Just because one has a great haircut does not mean it looks good.

You still have to style it with gel or mousse or whatever you want to get the desired you look you wanted originally.


Same goes for digital photography and it has to be enhanced....why...because it is digital and not film.

Just the word digital if you think about it means "processed" because it converts what the CCD sees and translates it into numbers. That in itself is processing and every CCD and every chip in every camera acts differently. What one camera might see blue..the other sees a slight brighter blue.

So it up to us and with our eyes and judgement to take those digital numbers and convert them "accurately" back to analog with post processing, unless of course you are taking pics with 35mm film, because there the processing takes place before the lens by adding filters and manually adjusting everything and not after the picture is taking with a CCD and a mini photoshop chip inside the camera.

Members say, "Well, don't you want to see an accurate assesment of how the FZ's take pics by posting pics that have not been processed?"

If you really think about it, if you add up all the pics posted in any forum that has not been processed, the pics are 7 out of 10 times crappy by not being in focus or could of focused better by picking a better subject.

7 out of 10 times the colors really are whacked..either by wrong setting, wrong lighting, not adequate lighting...etc..

7 out of 10 times...etc...etc..etc.

and the 3 out of 10 times....the pics look incredible because who ever took those pics..only picked out 1 out of 100 pics he took and knew which ones to pick out to post.

I suggest....take pictures of your haircut, then style it and take more pics,...and then post process them.

Happy new years to everybody


Rezajune is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:55 PM.