Outdoor Photography Article

I personally would not support the idea of a contest. I think it is enough that we each share our individual visions, as reflected in the images we make.

Warren
 
Retriever,

I agree with you about the difference between Canon & Nikon in color rendition......that's why I shoot with a Canon 40D. There's really nothing I can see that's obvious to edit in your waterfall shot. A slightly longer exposure might have increase the water blur effect, but that's about all.

I looked at your entire album and the problem of exposures when there are great extremes from shadow to highlight, are evident in pictures #1, 2, 5, 12, and 27. The technique I used for the shot above would do amazing things for those, allowing you to adjust separately both the highlights and the shadows. In picture #28 your exposure was a bit too long.....usually 2-4 seconds is about right to get a pleasing blur to the water. But it also depends on the speed of the water.

This is one of my favorites from the high country around Bridgeport in the Eastern Sierras:

CRW_5988.sized.jpg
 
Mike,

Thanks. One of the biggest problems with digital is the limited (compared to film) dynamic range. Highlights are pretty much impossible to remedy. I'll have to play around in Photoshop a bit and see what I can do for the shadows on some of those shots.

Thanks again!
 
For decades, photographers have argued the virtues of the different film stocks. Having been a commercial and portrait photographer for all my adult life, I often switched back and forth from chromes to negatives. The transition to digital was easy for us because you expose it more like a transparency as opposed to a negative. Get it on the film - that was drummed into me very early on.

The limiting factor will generally be the final medium, usually paper. Your eyes can see more range than film; negative film has more range than transparency; both of those have more range than photo paper or printed medium. So, you are always "compressing" when there is a wide range of exposure in one image. Digital allows us to do that in a more convenient fashion than the darkroom.

For the amateur photographer, it has always been about convenience, and digital is WAY more convenient than film. We were early adopters of digital technology, and I always considered it another tool. We ran full film and digital labs concurrently during our transition. No comparison. I thoroughly enjoyed the film/lab process, but it was, literally, "the dark ages" compared to what can be done with digital.

There will always be those who think the old way is the best. And for them, film is it. I would never go back. Smaller, faster, no nasty chemicals, easier storage, and you are limited only by your imagination. For those who think digital is a "cheat", photographers have manipulated images since the early ages (like the "staged" photos during the Civil War).

I was in the business long enough to go through the transition from Black & White to color... and many photographers back then said that color stuff was just "a fad." :roll: And so it is with the digital technology. See what the big manufactures of photographic products have to say about the future of film.

When I was doing seminars for professional photographer associations, I often said, "Use the best tool for the job." One can argue film vs digital just like "single vs twin" or "which C-Dory is the best". :wink I have that answer: the one you like, the one you have. How you use it is limited only by your imagination.

Best wishes,
Jim B. (Master Photographer, Photographic Craftsman, Certified Professional Photographer... and VERY retired)
 
The thread sort of already exists - here. A little different than this discussion, but it could expand I suppose...


Wandering Sagebrush":2spfmdqu said:
.

1) Should we start a thread that gives stepwise techniques for working with Photoshop and perhaps other digital photography software?

Steve
Click to expand...
 
We have shifted to digital photos exclusively, since they're easier to store, easier to send/exchange and easier to develop. However, I also agree that they need some post processing to look their best.

Clearly, Photoshop is the best post processor available for general use. However it costs $300 to buy in. I use Paint Shop Pro, which is $100, and once in a while it's on sale at Fry's for less. I've worked with it for several years, and it looks and feels like Photoshop to me. The key is in learning it, because both have a lot of bells and whistles.

Anyway Paint Shop Pro is 1/3 the price of Photoshop, and just as good for me.

Boris
 
Although I have full photoshop, I find that 99% of what I want to do can be done in Elements--especially the most recent versions. I can see some clear advantages to Photoshop CS if you have large amounts of batch work. But many of these techniques and plug ins will also work in Elements. (I am still using Elements 6--and have not yet tried 7). I also like Canon--and currently use the D 40--I just cannot justify the higher end cameras, but do go for good glass.

For me (an amateur, who earned his way through college and med school doing photography) the beauty of digital photography was that you could do all which you did in the dark room (for me it was setting up a lab in a bath room, with blacked out windows)--and as Jim noted, no mess or fuss, plus it was a lot faster. It has made the hobby of photography a new adventure for me. I do love black and white and especially those of Ansel Adams of the High Sierra, where I sent many days when younger.
 
I use Irfan and Elements. Thanks for posting all of the comments, tips and links..
This site is a great learning tool, too! and super people!
 
One of my favorite photographer-specific T-shirts:

"Ansel Adams brackets"

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

He was clearly a true artist in his medium. Why would anyone think that if he were alive today that he would not be using the Zone System with digital technology? I've had the opportunity to meet some of the best photographers working in the past 30 years, and found they all may have some particular specialty, but they were always looking to create new and exciting images. The most important element isn't the particular type of camera, it's the eye and the imagination.

Oh, and I'm with Warren about keeping the images displayed here out of the competitive realm... one of the best things about this forum is the open, friendly attitude. I was a moderator on a sailing forum for trimarans, and it was always competitive. "Nice" is better. :wink:

Best wishes,
Jim B.
 
I bought a new photo printer today so that I can print larger format photographs. It was wonderful at the photo store, but I am having trouble with color rendition on my own machine. My suspicion is that I have something hinky going on between Photoshop Elements 4 and Epson.

If any of you folks out there in Dory land have some insight into the various applications and drivers, I would be appreciative of an offline PM or email.

Thanks,

Steve

Post Script: The printer is an Epson R1900 and I am on a Mac Powerbook.
 
Wandering Sagebrush":1nxhyjsn said:
I imported some of the photos back into iPhoto, then printed. Perfect color!!!! Love this printer.

Who out there is a Photoshop expert?
Click to expand...

Hi WS,

I made my living in photography; worked with PS since version 2.0 I certainly wouldn't consider myself an expert because of the vast capabilities of that software and each users application of it. Our usage was as a retouching tool... mostly, we made pretty girls look even better. For your color printing, you may be able to download printer profiles from the manufacturer. The study of color space is one that defies many professionals. You can manage color from within Photoshop and then profile your particular printer. Or, as most do, set it for auto and take what you get. There are as many variations for color as there are snowflakes.

You have to decide what the color output will be (your particular printer). That will make the decision for you if you work with CMYK or RGB. The color space is very different for those two outputs.

In the "olden days" of film and color labs, we used to set up a printer pack for each film type and shooting scene. Then we'd dial it in with a video analyzer to get the color where we wanted it. This is how "the lab" did their part to make everyone's color prints look good. So, as you can see, there was "manipulation" being done way before digital. :wink:

You also have to cailbrate your monitor. In one particular digital tech class, the instructor had us all pull up the same image as our first assignment - then work it up, ready for printing. Then he had us all walk to the back of the class... 20 students, 20 monitors, 20 DIFFERENT COLORS! Infinite. Whose is correct? It's all a matter of taste.

With a closed system: one computer, one monitor, one printer, you can work with trial and error if you don't profile. In a production situation like ours, we had to calibrate all the monitors and printers to keep consistency. Mac and Windoze, dye sublimation and wide format. It could be very frustrating, as a change of paper from the manufacturer would cause a color shift, as well. We bought materials in large quantities because of that.

Most of the printer manufacturers make it as easy as possible - they want you to use their product... a lot. Especially ink jet. The cost for ink makes fuel look like a real bargain! I once had a rep from Epson tell me, "Hell, we'd give the printers away to keep people buying ink." 8)

Good luck with the new printer. Surf around the manufacturers web site, usually under Support to see if they offer printer profiles and an explanation on how to use them with your particular set up. If it seems like more work than you care to do (and it is for most), just ask yourself: What Would Ansel Do? :mrgreen:

Best wishes,
Jim B.
 
If you are working with an Epson printer, to keep it simple, use Epson papers, and select the particular paper in the printer's print dialog screen.

Buy an inexpensive monitor calibrator such as the Huey (about $70).

Buy Epson Complete Guide to Digital Printing by Sheppard. It will explain all this in detail as well as the most complicated and confusing part, color management.

Good luck,
Mike
 
Jim and Mike: Thanks for the tips. I spent some time at the camera store, and think I have the solution. As soon as I get a couple of minutes to play with the printer, I will see if they were right. The fellow knew immediately what I was dealing with, and also told me that the preview feature was not a valid way to see what the printer would actually render.

I've got to stay away from that place. A D300 followed me home. I promised the Bride that I would sell a couple of boats, so if you want a drift boat or a lapstrake solo canoe, give me a shout.

Kind Regards,

Steve
 
Jim and Mike:

The guy at ProPhoto was right. The secret handshake is to turn color management off inside of Photoshop, and use "Perceptual" as the rendering intent. Now all I have to do is to remember that.

I concur with your comments on the price of ink. This printer is considered to be a thirsty one, especially when running 13x19 inch paper. Right now I am just using Epson Ultra Presentation Matte, and it seems to give a nice image.

I've never calibrated a monitor before, but will talk to some of the local digital experts on what to do with an Apple laptop.

Thanks again for your help!

Steve
 
I use Picasa exclusively; it’s free for download from Google.
Simple to use and great for organizing and sharing your pictures.
If you open a free Gmail account it comes with a 1 gig photo album and about 4 gigs of email storage.
Wish I’d got in on that IPO…
 
Back
Top