photography crititque

[low_delta]

There are some popular photography editing techniques that I don't care for.

Like that thing where they desaturate a picture, and then have one thing in color, like the flower or the eyes.

And when they whiten up the whites of the eyes. Brightening the eyes (and teeth) a little is fine, but I often see it overdone, where the whites are really white.

And some HDR. I've seen some really great shots where it was used to blend different areas of lighting at night, and also some where it was used for pure artistic effect. But when it's just used to tweak brightness and contrast, it bugs me a little - if I can tell. I use curves. And I imagine some people look at my shots and can tell what I did and don't like it. So I'm not going to hold it against you - I'm just saying what I like and don't like. Either way, it's better than burning and dodging.

For me, it's all about keeping the techniques invisible. And when I can see that something was done, but I'm not sure what it was, that's usually cool. So as I become better versed with imaging techniques, I'm going to be harder to impress. But that's the case with everyone, I think.

Now if I can just figure out how to get richer color.

Oh, and vignetting. I don't like vignetting. So you can keep your Holgas.

Comments

[i.livejournal.com]

do you use photoshop?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Yeah.

[i.livejournal.com]

do you photograph in RAW format?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I tried it, but I didn't find it improved my pictures. The only thing I like about it is that the curves shows the histogram, and that you can crop and uncrop, and it saves the original. But after I do all the adjustments I can in the RAW editor, I still do a lot of PS work that I can't do in RAW. And even when I was just doing basic color adjustments in RAW, I could do better in PS.

[i.livejournal.com]

i do minimal tweaking on photoshop, but i have found a couple of things most useful.

if you photograph in jpeg format, image/adjustments/shadow-highlight is a great tool for bumping up the vibrance of an image and correcting for too much or too little lighting contrast.

i prefer to use raw because there is no compression involved in the editing process. the shadow highlight function in the raw editor has four sliders, giving you more control as well, although i still sometimes hit it with the two slider one in regular photoshop after i save as a jpeg. the other thing i like in the raw editor is the recovery function, which brings out areas that might have been overexposed due to contrasty light. on rare occasion, i bump the saturation a tiny bit or adjust the exposure, but for the most part i use the shadow-highlight feature.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I'll check those out. Thanks.

Most of my lighting adjustment is done in curves. I think it's a lot smoother and less noticeable than HDR. For color, I use some combination of Color Balance, Selective Color, a tiny bit of Saturation, and sometimes even Curves.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Ha ha! Shadows/Highlight gives it that HDR look I was complaining about. And if you go extreme, it makes it look like you burned it.

That's going to need some practice if I'm going to get it right. One thing I like about Curves is that it's all very incremental. You can see exactly where you're adding or taking away light. And you just slide it around. When I open up the S/H dialog box, I can't tell where the sliders are, and I can't even tell exactly where the original picture was.

[i.livejournal.com]

the RAW editor shadow highlight can be manipulated like curves.

i never go extreme though...

what is HDR?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

Notice the pic of the statue/fountain? The sky looks fine. The statue looks fine. But the two don't seem to go together. And even the statue doesn't have enough shadows. It doesn't look real to me. Not even like "enhanced reality".

It works well for night shots. The second shot on that page, though I don't like it, that's what I meant by artistic effect. If that's what you're going for, fine.

[i.livejournal.com]

never mind, i looked it up. not sure why you don't like it, but i admit to being a novice at photoshop. i'm taking a digital photo class in a couple weeks. maybe i'll learn something we can both use.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I just did a test. I used the same pic that had a horrible exposure, and used four different methods to improve it as much as possible. Predictably, Levels was the worst, since it doesn't allow the control over contrast, but it wasn't as bad as I expected. Curves actually turned out about the same as simple Brightness/Contrast. I finally figured out what Shadows/Highlights was doing, so it turned out fine.

I'm totally going to use that to get some pics into an HDR group on Flickr. ;-)

i never go extreme though...
Me neither. If I can see what I did, it's too far. Like I often do about +7% saturation. Not much.

Yeah, let me know what kinda things you learn in your class. I picked up a book, a while back, but I only use it for things like layers, masks, and other general techniques for creating.

[i.livejournal.com]

i will! all i know so far is bits and pieces people have shown me.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I was just poking around in the RAW editor, and noticed a few cool toys. I'm going to have to give it a try again.

It's kind of a pain managing my photos, though, since I can't see thumbnails in Windows. Oh well.

[i.livejournal.com]

the most important thing for me is that you don't lose any information when you manipulate in raw.

if you have adobe bridge, it shows thumbnails of raw images.

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

*blink* I didn't understand a word... ]


I guess that is why I point and click, and my editing is limited to cropping, straitening, and "auto correct". :D

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Those are the important ones. Besides, the better a picture you take, the less work you'll have to do on it. :-)

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

I think I will continue on that path..

[cynnerth.livejournal.com]

Oh, and vignetting. I don't like vignetting. So you can keep your Holgas.

My what in the where now?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

And watch your HDR, young lady!

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holga

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

*stunned*

CHEAP WINS BIG? wow.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Sure, if you're into that sort of thing. :-)

Here's a gallery of Holga pictures (http://www.flickr.com/photos/holgagirl/sets/72157600287662541/), from a Flickr contact of mine.

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

Ok, I have to admit.. some of those I like.. but that one off to the left.. with the extreme grain.. reminds me of an old vivitar 110 that I used to take pictures with in the 1970s!! Same.. cheap ass camera, but French made that time.

Some of those blown out black and whites though.. are pretty awesome.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

She's an accomplished artist. [collections (http://www.flickr.com/photos/holgagirl/collections/)] We have one of her prints hanging in our living room. The grain is through developing, btw. The Holga actually has good resolution, because the negative is so large, but the lens is so poor you lose definition.

I had a 110 Vivitar, back in the seventies, too. Horrible pics. Tiny negatives. Funny you should mention it - that one of the Edsel was from that camera.

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

Yep, that is the picture quality I remember!

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

There's this thing I've been calling "visual literacy."

You sum it up well by pointing out that the more techniques you learn to do in PS, the more you notice them elsewhere, and then you start to see them everywhere.

I've been advocating a little bit more Photoshop literacy for everyone, so that we can all "read" photos like we'd "read" a drawing or painting: as a product of someone's imagination, rather than as some objective "truth".

I think in today's photo-saturated culture, it's getting more and more important.

And I love vignetting, when it's real, like with a Holga, but I'm tired of fake photoshop vignettes. And white eyes. But I do like that selective desaturation a lot, myself, especially when it's used in unexpected ways, which doesn't include children or roses.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I found some of the desaturation thing on Flickr the other night. One showed a guy in a bright yellow sweatshirt, where only the shirt was in color. I didn't understand that one at all. I hope he was just practicing the technique, or having a little self-indulgent fun with it. Part of the literacy is knowing when to use it and when not to.

I saw a set of someone's photos of Milwaukee landmarks, which I am interested in as a subject. The photos were very well done in all respects (much better than my own), but they had that HDR look. In this case, it was appropriate, though, since it was architecture. You really do want to see all the details. I just thought it diminished the art-ness of them.

Yeah, when the whole photo has the Holga look, it's not as bad. When someone takes a regular picture, and airbrushes the corners? Eugh. And then there's the problem of vignetting showing up when you have a less-than-perfect lens on an otherwise good camera. I think that's unfortunate.

I'm contemplating on doing a photography clinic. Maybe we should do one on visual literacy as well.

[stellar7.livejournal.com]

Well. I read all of your links,and then went and then located a Holga on ebay :)
I am of the "put it in Photoshop , and mutate until it's a new image" school of photography. Which is to say, I don't really know what I'm doing. I need to find a class near me.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Cool! Be sure to share the results.

As for learning new techniques, just keep trying stuff. Check out all the menu items, and see how things combine with other things. Almost all I've learned about Photoshop I've learned on my own.