6 replies to this topic

[familyman]

This is probably directed at Oy more than anyone. I recently moved from using a compact digital to using a DSLR (A lowly Nikon D3100 compared to yours) and was wondering if you could recommend any books. Having used 35mm cameras I understand the basics of over/underexposure, ISO settings etc but would like to know how to apply them more to digital photography.

Are the photos you post as taken or do you "enhance" them with Photoshop?

Thanks for any info.

[-Oy-]

Tom Ang's books are very good.

http://www.amazon.co...ography+tom+ang

Yes of course I "Enhance" my photos. It's a necessary part of the digital process. I shoot RAW format rather than JPG - so my shots come off the camera with no sharpening, contrast, saturation applied as they do with JPGs. I do this because in camera JPG processing applies the same adjustments to every photo, and I like to choose my adjustments on a shot per shot basis. Some people think this is somehow "cheating" lol!

Digital cameras, especially high end digital cameras, are designed to output finished photographs if that's what you want but also to capture the most and best data from which you can process them yourself. Shooting in JPG format and using them straight out of the camera will often usually produce the "family snapshot" type of photos that 90% of digital users are happy with, there's nothing at all wrong with that. In the same way, a film camera doesn't produce finished photographs. It produces negatives that require processing and printing. And in a similar way 90% of film photographers are/were happy with High Street lab 1 hour processing.

With film - the post processing was usually done by someone else. With digital, the "digital darkroom" is more accessible and it's easier for people to have a go.

You can still do it the old way. You can take your memory card to ASDA or TESCO etc and they will print them for you - and their machine will even make automatic adjustments for you - just like they do with films. And you'll get similar results.

How many world class film based photographs from people like Ansel Adams, Charlie Waite et all do you think are sold as prints "straight off the camera?" The answer is - none. They represent hours and hours of darkroom manipulation. If you want the best quality photographs you and your camera can produce, you need to take control and learn the post processing skills needed - it really isn't that complicated unless you get into the realms of digital art. The need to take control and do it yourself for the best results hasn't changed just because the medium has changed.

I hope that helps.

[non sibi sed omnibus]

Interesting comments--the same applies to music reproduction.However the purists may argue about "retouching" and the issues on one of the talent shows when tracks were remastered etc?
You can get a raw foto but does enhancing add any value to the finished article--do the end results become too clinical .I dont mean that we should still allow out of focus/heads cut off/over exposure etc to spoil but its when you go too far.regards--david bailey the 23 rd!!!!(only joking of course).

[-Oy-]

There is definitely a danger of going too far and there are many schools of thought on where the line is drawn.

A lot depends on the subject matter.

For the vast majority of my photography what I'm aiming to do with my digital editing is overcome the limitations of the camera and show the subject as our vastly superior eyes saw it at the time.

[Steve]

@-Oy- So what do you think of HDR photography have you tried it yourself.

@Non sibi 432 or 440 Hz probably a different thread for this.

Also @ -Oy- do you know were I can get my Canon 350Ds sensor Cleaned on the cheap I have a few spots that show up at certain Apertures plus the mirror needs a clean too.

[-Oy-]

Sensor cleaning: The cheapest way to get it cleaned properly is to either buy the stuff to do it yourself or look for a photography trade show where they often do it cheaper then the shops.

HDR: yes - I've done a lot of HDR and for the right shot it works very well. HDR fall into two camps. Firstly used for it's original intended purpose - to increase the dynamic range when there is too much in a scene for the camera to capture in one shot. Secondly to create an arty surrealist effect. My only beef with HDR is that a lot of photographers fall into the trap of using it too much when they first discover it - usually at a time when they should be concentrating on learning the basics of photography. HDR can produce some cool looking shots but teaches you nothing about actually using your camera. It[s used too often as a crutch rather than a tool.

I'll stick a few of my HDR shots up in a separate thread for you to have a mooch at.

[cumbriakid]

Excellent photos and clear explanation as to the requirement for enhancing.
If you post many more of these excellent photos you may be the cause of me blowing some savings on some decent digital gear.