 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: it's good to start with filters as a question here posted by Bold Eagle on January 11, 2003 at 10:53:06:
than a scientific approach.I use whatever I have on hand to obtain the Image first (most important communication aspect ever devised)and fix any problem areas within photoshop i.e. glare,contrast,color etc.Which reminds me to mention, that everyone should keep a lens shade handy, or on every lens.For greater sharpness and contrast control.That extra glare robs pictures of colors and impact.
Follow Ups:
Photoshop or some other processing software can do wonderful things, but I'd prefer to get it as close as possible first. Hence the fussiness about filter specifics. The bright retaining ring on some Hoys filters, for example.A hood almost goes without saying, but we should say it. Not everyone has gotten the message. Unfortunately, my Nikkor 28-105 AF lens takes a hood that's both huge and ineffective. It looks like a cereal bowl! Fortunately, the lens itself is quite flare resistant. The Nikkor manual focus 35-105 was a fine sharp lens (at least mine was, but they did vary a lot), however, it was very flare prone. And guess what? The dedicated hood made things worse. I ended up using the Nikon HN-3 hood from my 35 mm prime lens. After that I started testing my lenses for flare. Use a Mini Maglite and while looking through the finder, wave the beam around the front of the lens. Mounting the camera on a tripod helps, and a dimly lighted room does, too. But it doesn't need to be pitch dark. Try looking for flare at each end and the middle of zoom ranges and largest and smallest apertures. Usually the widest focal length is worst. I've had a lot of surprises doing this. Some pleasant and some unpleasant. A Vivitar Series 1 28-105 f/2.8-3.8 (the older one with the shiny finish) has very low flare and ghosting. The Nikon 35-105 was terrible. Go figure.
It's not so much a techie versus artistic approach. It's really more of a "be prepared" and "leave nothing to chance" sort of thing. I took a note from Ansel Adams books. He was highly technical, measured, calibrated, and tested everything; and his preparation for a shoot was like a military campaign. (read about his preparation for "Moon Over Half Dome", he consulted an astronomer) Yet no one could ever say he was less an artist for it.
I happen to be a retired engineer, so the measuring and technology comes naturally. But when I go out to shoot, I know how my stuff behaves and I can concentrate on the artistic side. This habit started long before Photoshop was around to help me, and it continues today.
others did the printing.I will try your maglite test on my fav Nikon lens 24-120.Very hard for a lens designer to accommodate a lens hood on a very extreme wide to tele zoom,so I'll often use my free hand or fashion a paper flag.
I've been shooting or a professional for 30 years,so I leave nothing to chance I assure you.I've forgotten more than most know.Sorry 'bout that.
Photoshop is not a crutch,but the right tool for modern times,just as autofocusing is here when our eyesight isn't what it once was.All commercial pro work is done with photoshop,books magazines ,movies ,ads,fashion,and even Nature shots.Thats just the way things are done in today's world.
I hope people find something interesting in our post,and that we haven't bored anyone.
Next we can discus off camera flash!!!
I've never sold anything, so I'm definitely not a professional. I belonged to a camera club for a while, but I found it boring. I entered one competition, won first place (with a 5 x 7 print and ISO 400 film, yet)and decided I wasn't going to learn a lot more with that group.I live in a condo so a darkroom is not even possible. So the advent of image processing software and film and slide scanners was really a leg up for me. Darkroom on a desktop. For my needs, I'm in for well under $2000 including a suitable computer. Not a pro setup, but it gets me 8" x 10" prints, suitable for framing. I've found that a well processed 2 megapixel print is "suitable for framing". I have several sitting around in frames, and most people think they are enlargements. Wonderful, I can work in daylight and actually be sociable while working. As opposed to a troglodyte existance in my darkroom.
Ansel may not have been the best at printing, but in the Moon Over Half Dome story, he talked as if he had done the darkroom work. At least I read that into it. I'll have to re-read. He took a shot every two minutes for a couple of hours on glass plates, took them all back to the darkroom, and from them picked two to work with. Two weeks later he had the print. Photoshop would have cut that time dramatically, and a digital camera like the 11 mega pixel Canon or the 14 mP Kodak would have cut a lot of time also. He could have brought a lap top with him, and previewed the shots. In his era it took two trips a month apart.
As to eyesight, that's why I dropped the FE-2 and picked up an N-80. Great lenses and body, but often they weren't as sharply focused as they could be. Besides, I really wanted auto fill flash, flash comp, a built in flash, and a spot meter.
Off camera flash? As in a flash bracket, or on an extension cord, or studio lights, or my two Sunpak 444D's with SU-4 units, or...? I love using the SU-4. No wires and TTL. I can't forget I'm connected and pull things over anymore. Also, the SU-4 will even work with my point and shoots, the ones that control flash power; or any brand of camera, so long as the trigger flash has some sort of power control and sensor.
Bore anyone? With this snappy dialog?
Jerry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
