's Shoot at Boat Quay (Overexposed Series)

[vince123123]

I believe that there are many IR photographs posted out there which did not require an IR-modded cam. Care to enlighten what type of IR images requires the mandatory use of an IR-modded cam?

An IR cam is what I need to get that IR images which I wanted, as for these, I don't need to spend anything more to learn and try to get the correct effect I wanted .

I would humbly disagree - sometimes, bad advice is worse than no advice at all, so in this respect, your statement, couched in absoloute terms, is in itself bad advice.

Bad advice is worse than no advice.

 

[Hexlord]

Yeap.. talking point of CS now.. kekeke..

 

[whisper]

16 pages of babbling over a few overexposed pictures.

shudders.

 

[CreaXion]

16 pages of babbling over a few overexposed pictures.

shudders.

Did u read the whole 16 pages? Argument over mindsets.

 

[whisper]

Ya I skimmed through a few pages and decided only retards read all these.

 

[jbma]

CS used to be such a nice place... until everyone starts to think its their god-given right to be a critic.... sigh...

there's constructive suggestions... and then there are 'my dick is bigger than urs' criticism. lighten up people. why can't people just post pics for posting's sake? if u dun like the pic, then go to another post lor.

food for thot.

this statement is so preposterous.
will you accept if someone says dp makes more sense than the doc?
dont make such stupid comment, or at least tell us WHY you think the doc is more right than dp... :nono:
to me, both have their right and wrong views ...:think:

Yawn! These are :thumbsup:

 

[triotary]

LOLOL! I only read the first page and the the last page, which I saw this comic strip! LOLOL so fuuuuny!!!! lol which duck is the husband and which is the wife??? LOLOL

 

[deadpixel]

I believe that there are many IR photographs posted out there which did not require an IR-modded cam. Care to enlighten what type of IR images requires the mandatory use of an IR-modded cam?

IR photography can be applied to almost every genre of photography, including, but not limited to:

• Landscape (most typical)
• Portrait
• Abstract
• Macro

A typical IR photo on a non modified camera requires exposures of between 1/2 to 30 seconds, depending on the amount of NIR light available, whereas a camera modified for IR has exposures of between 1/2000 to 1/2 a second given the same amount of NIR light. With this difference, I'm sure it should be quite obvious where a modified camera would be better or in some cases necessary.

_

 

[vince123123]

Agreed, what I'm saying is that having an IR-modded cam is just like having a better piece of equipment. Without superior, things can still be done, perhaps just with a little more effort and patience. I've seen many great IR works done in Clubsnap which I believe was not done with an IR cam. So to say that one can't do IR at all without an IR modded cam may be a little extreme. And, I was wondering what specific things the thread starter needed (ie subjective needs, and not an academic discussion on what types of shoot requires an IR-modded cam) to shoot that requires the mandatory use of an IR cam.

 

[yilishengxian]

Agreed, what I'm saying is that having an IR-modded cam is just like having a better piece of equipment. Without superior, things can still be done, perhaps just with a little more effort and patience. I've seen many great IR works done in Clubsnap which I believe was not done with an IR cam. So to say that one can't do IR at all without an IR modded cam may be a little extreme. And, I was wondering what specific things the thread starter needed (ie subjective needs, and not an academic discussion on what types of shoot requires an IR-modded cam) to shoot that requires the mandatory use of an IR cam.

Its easier to do IR landscape, which I've done before than IR portraits using a non-modded camera.

Also, the autofocus, increase in shutterspeed and the advantage of composing with the filter still on makes the process much easier to attempt ... Shooting without the it for portraits required me to use slow shutter, for example, or even high ISO to get decent shutterspeed suitable for handholding, or to prevent movement from the model .

 

[CreaXion]

Ah TS

Just in case u missed the post. Are u trying to create this effect?
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=231141&page=15

 

[yilishengxian]

i wonder what's all these argument doing inside your thread, why don't you tell everyone what you learnt/got out of all these discussion to appease all the angry souls, and what you intend to do to improve. it's probably more productive that way. i can only advise that the basics must be well grounded before experimentation occurs; whether you are good enough in your basics in order to explore is up to you to decide, but once you post pictures in a public forum asking for feedback, be prepared that others are entitled to their views on the quality of your pictures (good or bad) ... whether you want to learn a thing or two from the comments is up to you.

Well, telling everyone what I've leant from all these is useless. I'd rather use what I've leant and produce the images which I want. I'll rather let the images talk for me ...

Whether they're good, or bad, is another matter ;p, as from what I see here, that final result which I really want to achieve doesn't look like it'll be welcomed here anyway. But overall, will be using the comments and discussions here.

 

[AncientMariner]

Well, ok settings of the camera.

None of those image enhancing settings were turned on ...

Sitting out the rain during a shoot, I recalled your efforts and tried this out with my flash at 1/4 power.

Contrast: +2, Saturation:+1, Sharpness:0

Photo unprocessed.

Perhaps I should have increased the power of the flash but the details in her upper lip was beginning to fade.

 

[yilishengxian]

Sitting out the rain during a shoot, I recalled your efforts and tried this out with my flash at 1/4 power.

Contrast: +2, Saturation:+1, Sharpness:0

Photo unprocessed.

Perhaps I should have increased the power of the flash but the details in her upper lip was beginning to fade.

The effects of this one looks strange ...

 

[CreaXion]

Sitting out the rain during a shoot, I recalled your efforts and tried this out with my flash at 1/4 power.

Contrast: +2, Saturation:+1, Sharpness:0

Photo unprocessed.

Perhaps I should have increased the power of the flash but the details in her upper lip was beginning to fade.

Of course lah. This is digital leh. Not film. Once overposed, sure lose detail one mah.

 

[madmacs]

Of course lah. This is digital leh. Not film. Once overposed, sure lose detail one mah.

shoot raw

 

[CreaXion]

shoot raw

U mean shoot raw can correct over-exposed photos?

 

[madmacs]

U mean shoot raw can correct over-exposed photos?

should be able to recover between 2-4 stops of detail.

some samples shot in 10d raw.

1/60s f/11 iso400 - as shot

1/60s f/5.6 iso400 - as shot - +2 stops more than 1st pic

1/60s f/5.6 iso400 - adjusted -2 stops in cs2 camera raw

some details are lost but can still recover quite a bit of detail.

 

[radi9red]

oh my goodness.. this thread is ridiculously long with people stating how artisitic it is for "under" and "over" exposure. Those are totally different from high-key and low-key photography and using RAW to create artistic high-key , low-key effects ??? goodness ... You're just playing with the silly slider for "Artificial exposure" control. you're simply either under the shadows or over the highlights when you start tweaking the silly PS too much..
end up with a photos with "minimal details"

I saw the pictures posted here, its deliberately overexposure and definately NOT high-key shooting. (where's the part of high key subject and various light tones ?? ) those photos tonal range are too wide to emulate a high-key shooting ..

 

[madmacs]

oh my goodness.. this thread is ridiculously long with people stating how artisitic it is for "under" and "over" exposure. Those are totally different from high-key and low-key photography and using RAW to create artistic high-key , low-key effects ??? goodness ... You're just playing with the silly slider for "Artificial exposure" control. you're simply either under the shadows or over the highlights when you start tweaking the silly PS too much..
end up with a photos with "minimal details"

I saw the pictures posted here, its deliberately overexposure and definately NOT high-key shooting. (where's the part of high key subject and various light tones ?? ) those photos tonal range are too wide to emulate a high-key shooting ..

you can dont read the thread i think :think: