Diamond Head, Holona Blow Hole, Makapuʻu Beach

[bakubo]

I post-process photos, although generally it is pretty straightforward:

1. Convert from raw -- adjusting white balance, exposure, contrast, etc. in the raw converter
2. Sometimes use PTLens to get rid of distortion
3. Sometimes level the horizon
4. Sometimes crop
5. Possibly further adjustments of color balance, saturation, contrast, shadows/highlights, etc.
6. Sharpen

Of course, if there are any dust spots I will clone them out. Occasionally, but not often, I might clone out some small object if it really hurts the image. Occasionally, I'll make a mask, work with layers, etc., but mostly that is more work than I want to do on an image so do it only on rare images.

Something that some people (not DK and others who used film) don't seem to realize is that even with film there was usually post-processing. Many famous photographers of the past spent a lot of time (or had their master printmaker do it) choosing how to develop the film, how to make the print, etc. Even the run of the mill person using color negative film and dropping it off to get developed got a post-processed print back. Shooting slide film was more "pure" *if* you just projected it, but even that involved choosing which slide film to use based on what "look" you wanted. If you make a print from the slide film then, again, choices can be made.

[david antony]

Less Dramatic. Yours are superb Don. (Elements 6)

[Bodak]

It's all in the doing David and you have done a fine job.

[david antony]

Thanks Bodak, it started with a great photo. :^)

PS. I mean't to post this on your thread! sorry Bodak.

[Dusty]

My (non-photographer) wife is from the unaltered school as for several years she thought the image was best exactly how it was captured, no matter if you blew the shot or not. Over the years she has learned that the camera/lens and/or the photographer does not always capture the image perfectly, so *altering* the colors and lighting after the fact is not so taboo with her now. These days she does not mind a play on richness or contrast etc., but heavily altered renders are still tough to pass by her.
-Sonolta

This is were I come from, too. A bit of old school, but not as bad as David's 'no crop'. One of the advantages of MF and 4x5 film was the ability to crop w/o losing much detail. However, I've seen several occasions where PP turns out really cool results, like Don has done here. I also recall some sunsets from the bluffs at Elsa, where the Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois rivers all meet, that were perfect except for the ugly barges on the river. Now days it would be easy to clone them out.

In the film days I always thought that the guys who entered photo contests with heavily altered photos were cheating, as it was a photo, not art, contest. Now it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.

Makes me wonder how far we are from the scenario in "Running Man", where Richard Dawson has the guys create the video death of Schwarzenegger's character with CGI. Even several years ago, a buddy remodeling an office at a local TV studio watched them alter a Three Stooges clip for an ad campaign. He said, "They made Curly do things he never did!"

Where does reality start and end anymore?

Dusty

[stevecim]

Hi All

I'll try some water shots, not in the same class has everyone else , but this is one of my shots that I like enough to put up on one of my walls (the one on the walls looks better has this is a scan of it, orig photo taken on a Minolta 600si 10+ years ago

Dromana Pier , Port Philip Bay, Victoria, Australia

[bakubo]

This is at Waikiki:

[fastson]

This is nothing more than a tourist photo.. I didn't have time to set anything up as the ship was firing its greeting shots. I was about to miss the shot because the ship had sailed behind some buildings blocking my view (I had expected the ship to fire the shots earlier), as I was travelling by bicycle and I had a tripod and a big backpack I couldn't relocate fast enough.. but to my luck I saw the ship coming into view again (between the two docks) and when it was in perfect view it fired the greeting shots. I had the 70-210 F4 with me and the 16-105.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/276 ... 5407_o.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is also why I couldn't relocate fast enough..


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/276 ... 6ce5_o.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KevinBarrett]

Here's some calm water

I got into this thread a little late and must have missed this one. It's easily the most impressive photograph on this thread (to my eyes) for any of several reasons: color, composition, creativity, you name it... I love it!

[KevinBarrett]

If I withhold all but complimentary feedback on photos it is because I am exercising a bit of tact. Normally, I withhold any criticism until I have posted a photo (or intend to shortly) in a thread, opening myself to the same criticism.







I believe I shot these in August 2005 on my Maxxum 5, well before I had a digital camera or even knew what an f-stop was. These are the images as provided by the photo processor on a CD with my prints. The location is Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica. Also, these are the last pictures I remember shooting that have any relevance to this thread.

I invite criticism, but I do not extend any invitation to edit or repost these images.

[fastson]

Flooded field.. heavily photoshopped (Taken with A100)
But I like the look.


Please view the 1200x version here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3508/330 ... cff5_o.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fastson]

Wow, thats what I call a flood.

[KevinBarrett]

Why not give a link to the full size image?

[bakubo]

To be honest, I don't even like posting 1000 pixel images to the web, but I do it anyway since some people are using 1650/1920 these days, including myself.

I know that my images are pretty small nowadays with a long dimension of 640 pixels. Back in 1997 when I created my first website my photos had a long dimension of 500 pixels because lots and lots of people were using dial-up and 15" and 17" monitors were pretty typical. My current website is my fourth and in 2006 when I created it I decided to go to 640 pixels. I have thousands of photos on there now and it would be a pain in the butt to go back and reprocess all of them to a larger size such as 800 or 1000. Someday I should though. Just like Don though, I wouldn't go larger, I think.

[bakubo]

I know what you mean about going back and reprocessing earlier poorly processed images. From time to time when I work up the motivation I go back and reprocess some of mine. Over time my skill has improved a bit and also what appeals to me changes. Some of my old photos really need a reworking. This is the reason that I don't bother, generally, to reprocess with layers, etc. and then save the full-size PSD file. I used to do that sometimes so that I wouldn't have to reprocess it later when I wanted a different size, but then I discovered that often a few years later when I went back to it I didn't like it so I would go back to the original and start over anyway. I generally just do a fairly quick pp, resize for the web, and save the small jpeg. If I need a bigger one later then I just go back to the original and start over.