@#!
- Thread starter lancey
- Start date
Tupi Guy
Senior Member
How much is too much processing? I merely adjusted the gamma and contrast. The noise is inherent cos i shot at high iso. The originals are cleaner and more sterile and flat. They are unacceptable to me.
ymmvi see high iso on purpose.
"adjusted the gamma and contrast" but isnt it adjusted by alot not by a few points.
hmmmm many of the pictures were originally high contrast like the first one i commented on with the palm trees, by recovering the shadows dont you think youre reducing the contrast and making the image seem flatter?
anw out of curiousity did you want your images to look like this when you shot them?
sorry i hope you dont mind all the questions =)
"adjusted the gamma and contrast" but isnt it adjusted by alot not by a few points.
hmmmm many of the pictures were originally high contrast like the first one i commented on with the palm trees, by recovering the shadows dont you think youre reducing the contrast and making the image seem flatter?
anw out of curiousity did you want your images to look like this when you shot them?
sorry i hope you dont mind all the questions =)
yep. If the shadows do nothing for me, i'll burn them out in the first instance. Not a fan of tonally balanced photos either(not anymore). I really wun care how much i have adjusted the gamma/contrast bar as long as the results look right to me. Yes, i intended them to look the way they were presented..how could it be otherwise?
Anyway, differences in detail perception, pixel definition and highlight/contrast/shadow qualities are just that, a personal preference..and they ultimately mean very little to me.
Anyway, differences in detail perception, pixel definition and highlight/contrast/shadow qualities are just that, a personal preference..and they ultimately mean very little to me.
"Not a fan of tonally balanced photos either(not anymore)" why? who(which photographer) changed your mind? moriyama perhaps? http://www.photography-now.com/pn/Bilder/Bilder/gross/K07623B004503.jpg
"as long as the results look right to me." by looking right to you do u mean the way you saw it when you took the photograph or does it only become clearer in the post edit.
"as long as the results look right to me." by looking right to you do u mean the way you saw it when you took the photograph or does it only become clearer in the post edit.
i have many influences but primarily im interested in shortening the contrast range in most final edit. i believe in that way, i can concentrate on things i really want to show, rather than say a distraction such as the shadow details of the elements of the picture.
yes, looking right to me means looking right at the post edit stage. But as i mainly shoot digital, i can already choose what has potential just after the shot.
"in that way, i can concentrate on things i really want to show, rather than say a distraction such as the shadow details " you seem to really disklike shadows, but yet when i look at your photographs i get the feeling that the people in them are all 'shadows' themselves.
did u use to use film? do u think your 'vision' can be better achieved by using film e.g. pushed tri-x or neopan?
this guy uses neopan 1600 exclusively
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/junku-newcleus/popular-interesting/
did u use to use film? do u think your 'vision' can be better achieved by using film e.g. pushed tri-x or neopan?
this guy uses neopan 1600 exclusively
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/junku-newcleus/popular-interesting/
