Author Topic: Which view point looks better?  (Read 2533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Travis C.

  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • Karma: +3/-0
Which view point looks better?
« on: May 19, 2010, 07:44:31 PM »
Since I am at home for a little while with the baby I have been looking through old shot plus shooting a few more. I can't wait unitl I get my hands on a SLR and move on from this SD1200is Point-n-Shoot.

From distance


Or

Closer


Also is it better to shoot a shot with the image adjusted from before or in a postshot program?

grumpy

  • *****
  • Posts: 4291
  • Karma: +21/-5
    • ctflyfishingforum
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2010, 10:19:36 PM »
I try to take a shot without having to do anything to it straight from the camera, most of the time, i'll wind up cropping the pic because i didn't want something in it to take away from what i was seeing or trying to get everyone else to see what the main object of the pic was about.

Grumpy

MikeA

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16406
  • Karma: +65535/-4
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2010, 10:18:01 AM »
Both pics have the bridge centered. I'd use the larger pic and crop it so that the bridge is offset in the image.


Using images straight out of the camera is a quick and easy solution but post processing is part of the job. The PC is the new dark room and you can really bring out the cameras potential by playing with it.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

oldtimer

  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • "The mountains are calling and I must go."
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2010, 11:10:29 PM »
I agree with the centering as mentioned above.  Your options may be limited though.  The lighting also bothers me.  The blown out sky doesn't work for me.  Just my openion. ::)

As for post processing vs. in camera,  I can't afford a good photo software that I need.  If I could, I would get it.  That being said, most of my photography is done "in camera" except for cropping.  I do use a Canon XTi and have gotten some good results.

Mike Hill

  • Fishless
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Karma: +7/-5
  • Mike - the OTHER Mike!
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2010, 07:56:21 AM »
Travis

It's infinitely better to have the best shot in-camera.  Which means learning your camera and how it reacts is important.  Post processing has it's limitations - it cannot counteract/remedy all ills.  And some if not arguably all post processing also degenerates "image quality".  Think about it, something as simple and innocuous as cropping.  If you crop something say 50%, you have to enlarge it 100% to get the same size image.  When you enlarge the image you are also enlarging the pixels so to speak - the photo won't be as sharp.   Plus who wants to sit around for 30 minutes "fixing" something that could have easily been avoided to begin with?  I don't have that much time on my hands.  I've got tens of thousands of photos or more - add up the time it would take to post-process each one.  But then again, it is fun to sometimes make something that did not exist.  I've been known to spend hours in a darkroom playing around with chemicals, dodging, burning, etc.....Same thing with CS - it is fun to play around with, for me especially with B&W.  For me post-processing is saved for the few that I think can really be punched up!  I might do a lot of minor stuff like adjust light levels a bit, crop, add some contrast or adjust over all color when I forget to change my white balance.  There's lots of things fun with post-processing - you just have to be prepared for putting the time into it. 

As far as the pic goes - (I'm going to get a little icky sticky, oooey, gooey) which one expresses what you are trying to say or what are you trying to show the viewer, or what one captures the moment that you wanted to capture.  There was some reason you wanted to take this picture.  Something that drew you to press the shutter - what was it?  Then which one conveys your vision better?

They are both fine photographs.  An old bridge in either early morning or late evening light (my guess is Eastern early morning light).  Can evoke a lot of emotions.  As far as me, I like the further away one.  I love perspective,  The lines lead your eyes to something somewhat mysterious that needs discovering and to me that is powerful.  AND I'm on that trail to discover the mystery!  For me the other one does somewhat the same, but not as effective - its more intimate - not as mysterious.  Centering is not problem.  Off center would likely change the emotion - and make it a picture of a bridge - one of millions - ho hum.   Sky, nothing you can do about it, unless you have a graduated ND filter or know your stuff in post-processing layers.  You have a lot of darker than 18% gray that the camera is balancing with the neutral sky and the sky lost.   If you exposed for the sky, likely the rest would be too dark. 

Travis C.

  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2010, 09:12:56 AM »
Thanks guys for all the input. I havent done any processing on these other than a crop on the top one to even up runners for the old road. I wondered if the pictures wouldhave turned out better if I had changed some more settings within the camera before shot. I will just have to keep shooting the see what all this camera can do, I have yet to really push it's limits.

Mike H. It was in the morning. The sun was just coming up and peeking down Betty's access. I sure am gonna miss that old bridge. That was the main purpose to get a pic for memory sake. It just happen to have some sun and be in the winter.

MikeA

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16406
  • Karma: +65535/-4
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 09:29:31 AM »
Mike the only way to unleash all of the camera's potential is to shoot RAW. At the very least you have use PP to convert the image to jpeg or tiff. If your shooting jpg I got news for ya, your images are being post processed.

For my most precious shots I'll always shoot raw and edit it post. It goes without saying that exposure has to be right but why would I want to let the camera decide what my image looks like for all the other settings? Like I said, for the best your gear can be, and if your getting paid to cover your ass, you should be shooting RAW and you will have to PP.  
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Leo deMonbreun

  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
  • Karma: +11/-5
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2010, 09:35:11 AM »
Hey Travis.
 Nothing can replace a well shot and planned image out of the camera.  It takes a good shot to start off with so that the end result that you print is a good image.  Now having said that, post processing can take a good image and make a better one out of it, and an excelllent one and make a show stopper out of it.

The big issue is, preference!  Just like everything else, how much do you want to invest in it for your own pleasure.  Time and money are the biggies.  Oldtimer nailed it, good PP software is not cheap.    There are several on the market today like Elements from Adobe that you can pick up fairly reasonably on Fleabay if you watch for them, but many of the softwares are very expensive.   There are some freebies out there that do a pretty good job if all you want to do is touch up a nice image a bit, but they aren't as effective as one that you invest in.

Right now I am using Lightroom 3 Beta 2 which isn't even released on the market yet. It is a trial version and I really do like it.  I also have Photo Studio 3 (freebie), Picasa (freebie), and a couple more.  I can tellyou that the Lightroom 3 walks circles around the others and there are basically no limitations to what can be done with it.  I also use 2 other softwares for Panorama view that can really enhance the experience by stitching pictures together  to make panoramic scenes.  Some cams come with a similar version of that software built into them now.

The big difference in MY personal preferences is that I have time to play with this stuff a bit, and the more I learn the more I want to learn and to do with it.  Bottom line:
shoot the best shots you can shoot with all the composition stuff, leading lines, Golden rule, Rule of thirds, all that stuff.
and process it if you like but you don't really need to in able to record memories.  Processing just adds another dimension to the experience, but an enjoyable one.

a neat link for you

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
"For the supreme test of a fisherman is not how many fish he has caught, not even how he has caught them, but what he has caught when he has caught no fish." - John H. Bradley

Mike Hill

  • Fishless
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Karma: +7/-5
  • Mike - the OTHER Mike!
Re: Which view point looks better?
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2010, 09:57:52 AM »
In-camera, if you had bracketing available would have been nice.  If I had the time, I would have bracketed underexposure by 1/2 stops to at least 2 stops underexposure.  That used to be painful to the wallet in the past shooting pro-transparency film that might cost $30 per roll or more with processing.   The bracketing would have done one of two things.  The sky would have been bluer but at the expense of everything else.  You might have picked up the color temp. of the early morning light.  Your mind probably remembers it, but the camera didn't get it.  Some cameras have a "setting sun" or sunset setting to compensate, but all you need to do is underexpose a little.  

In fact, when I know I'm going to post process I want a slight underexposure.  With digital and post-processing you can bring out and reveal details in shadows, but you cannot bring back details lost in overexposed (blown out in photog jargon) areas.  Theoretically, you could have gotten a "correct" exposure on the sky, then in post-processing bring out the highlights and up the lighting level in the foreground and bridge.  

Mike, I agree with the RAW file.  But he doesn't have that available in his Point and shoot.  Only JPEG.  And some post-processing, especially in some programs on some JPEG compressions can be very damaging to the file.