Official Photography Thread

[swampfrog]

Thanks, it's a 10 second exposure, which is why the clouds and water are amorphous. There was just enough wind that it was difficult to keep the tripod completely stable for that long, this was the best of a dozen tries. I have others at 3 to 4 seconds that were easier to capture, but didn't quite have the same effect.

[Katy Lied]

Like your photoshop edit. Creamy.

[swampfrog]

Like your photoshop edit. Creamy.

The first thing I noticed when I looked at the original is that much of it wasn't in focus, then my eye got attracted to what was in focus. And those are nice armpits and all, but I was pretty sure that wasn't the desired effect

[Northwestcoug]

10560415_933256043356849_4902821150481739209_o.jpg
10553726_932586556757131_8097549118337789987_o.jpg

Just iPhone pics. But I'm not sure I could have done much better with my SLR setup. Silver Falls State Park is amazing. Some of the falls rival those I've seen in Hawaii.

[swampfrog]

Just iPhone pics. But I'm not sure I could have done much better with my SLR setup. Silver Falls State Park is amazing. Some of the falls rival those I've seen in Hawaii.

You could do better What many don't realize is how much of "pro" photography is about the post processing done. For example:

10553726_932586556757131_8097549118337789987_o.jpg

FallsEdit.jpg

This took about 5 minutes in Lightroom. And that's just using the posted jpeg, I'm sure the original is higher resolution, and more could be done with it, especially the waterfall.

[swampfrog]

And number 2, which I don't like as much, a lot of areas of pure black that can't be recovered (at least easily). Shoot RAW with a DSLR and you'd be surprised what's hiding in the shadows (though you have to deal with noise issues). I'm by no means an image manipulation expert, there is a whole lot that can be done with Photoshop and I've heard good things about the NIK plugins which I may have to purchase some day for the detail recovery tools. Lightroom wasn't too hard to learn the basics, you can improve quite a bit in just adjust 9 sliders that are grouped together.

10560415_933256043356849_4902821150481739209_o.jpg

FallsEdit2.jpg

[Katy Lied]

I always look forward to SF's contributions to this thread.

[Northwestcoug]

Thanks SF. I really should make the jump to RAW. It's just too easy to manipulate jpgs when you have a lot of MBs to work with.

[swampfrog]

Thanks SF. I really should make the jump to RAW. It's just too easy to manipulate jpgs when you have a lot of MBs to work with.

RAW vs. jpeg. Again, I'm no expert. I read a lot, and I play a lot. All digital cameras start with something close to what is referred to a "RAW" image. It's as close as to what the "sensor" saw when the shutter was released as the camera manufacturer will let the end user see. There is some processing done on the RAW file also. On less expensive point and shoots, they will not allow access to the RAW file, just the jpeg. It's not exactly equivalent, but think of the RAW image as a film negative, and think of a jpeg as a print. When you produce the "print" in camera, software inside of the camera converts the RAW image to a jpeg. That conversion is done with some assumptions made by the camera manufacturer, some evaluative inputs from the "scene" that was captured, and user settings. Since the majority of people want a point and shoot solution, the camera manufacturer makes most of the "print" decisions. They have done this for a long time, they have controlled studies to determine what looks good to most people. So they give the user a little bit of creative control through some settings (parameters), and produce very nice prints (jpegs) automatically. These images can be fantastic, the hardware and software in todays' cameras are very, very good, and continuing to get better.

Many (possibly most) professional photographers consider the source image the canvas from which they will produce art. "A photograph is made, not taken." -- Ansel Adams. The pictures above were processed very quickly and I just copied the pixels from the screen to my computer (not a good place to start). I used some basic "dodging and burning" to selectively lighten some areas and darken others, I brushed out some highlights on some trees (too much light reflection from the sun). Raised the saturation just slightly, upped vibrance (which selects only unsaturated pixels and adds saturation), upped the clarity (which looks for edges and does a very controlled contrast adjustment at the boundary). Sharpened a bit, removed noise from areas where dark areas were lightened. Used tone curve to selectively lower the exposure on just the whitest pixels (waterfalls).

I'm an amateur, but I've recently printed some of my own for use in the home, the largest was 24 x 36, and then some that are 20 x 30. When images get that big, it's a whole different ball game. The most I ever learned about what I'm actually doing didn't occur until I had some images printed at 8 x 12 at Costco. It's something like $1.25 per print for this. Find your favorite 8 pictures you've taken and have Costco print them at 8 x 12. $10 very well spent.

You want to see what a pro does? Look here: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/...-blonde-chick/
The second image cycles between the original and what Mr. Morris refers to as the "optimized" image. I love successful artists with egos, because they've earned the right to be arrogant. I view the arrogance as passion, and you can learn a ton from passionate people that have turned that passion into success.

[swampfrog]

From a recent reunion:

Fairly tame owl:



"I see you"

[swampfrog]

Recent trip to the refuge.





"Going Fishing"



"Look What I Found"

[swampfrog]

Time for lunch.


I see something.


Going in.


Got it.


Bringing it in.


Down the hatch.

[Pelado]

Part of the allure of that sequence is that I can't tell if the background includes some sky, or if it's all water.

[swampfrog]

Part of the allure of that sequence is that I can't tell if the background includes some sky, or if it's all water.

It's all water. They are all crops, here's one of them with an alternate crop showing more water. In some ways I like this better than the tighter crop because of the 3rd wave in the background. They were all shot at f/10, probably would have been better off at 6.3/7.1 to blur the background a bit more, but I didn't want to lose detail in the reflections.

[wuapinmon]

swampfrog, those are excellent shots you got.