Oct 2, 2010
From top left to right.
Gleaton
Blown out exposure but still a good tube
Busey
E. Thomas
'The Media'
Bradford of Andrews Water Photography
Thomas Brothers of Thomas Brothers Productions
Camera/Post Processing Talk
**After looking at the photos I posted in my last post before this one I noticed something looked wrong. They looked way over sharpened, had a weird blueish/violet tinge, along with some other weird colors etc.
I used my new lens with a UV filter on it to protect the front lens element from the salt and sand. At first I thought the UV filter was fringing the photos. Then I remembered I had the setting in Photoshop calibrated for my other lens which had a myriad of problems. My old lens was soft, off color, and just beat. In Photoshop you can create automatic algorithms for editing your photos. I changed them up and calibrated everything for the new lens. It could be just me but I didn't like the results of yesterdays post processed shots. This new lens basically needs no post processing.
Which one looks better?
You're probably going to say the bottom one because the face of the wave is lit up. But if you look at the larger image in my last post it looks cartoonish. The above photo isn't the original but it is only slightly edited lighting up the face of the wave a little. I can't just brighten details that physically are not there in the digital image file. When I try to brighten details that weren't captured by the camera, the result becomes pixelation and cartoonish looks, which is the computers way of trying to enhance detail that is non existent.
The above photo is more 'natural.' I only enhanced what the camera was able to capture. This photo was taken during the late morning hours when the sun was in the worst possible position for taking pictures/video. Highlights are exaggerated by the sun and in turn darken the shadows (face of the wave) even more. No matter what aperture, shutter speed, or ISO I had my camera at would save such a severely back lit photo; not to mention the bright reflections of the foam and water surface.
Mike C
Leave me a comment if some of the stuff I am saying is off or there is something more I can improve. I've never taken a digital photography class but want to in the future. To leave a comment you have to scroll back up to the title.
Gleaton
Blown out exposure but still a good tube
Busey
E. Thomas
'The Media'
Bradford of Andrews Water Photography
Thomas Brothers of Thomas Brothers Productions
Camera/Post Processing Talk
**After looking at the photos I posted in my last post before this one I noticed something looked wrong. They looked way over sharpened, had a weird blueish/violet tinge, along with some other weird colors etc.
I used my new lens with a UV filter on it to protect the front lens element from the salt and sand. At first I thought the UV filter was fringing the photos. Then I remembered I had the setting in Photoshop calibrated for my other lens which had a myriad of problems. My old lens was soft, off color, and just beat. In Photoshop you can create automatic algorithms for editing your photos. I changed them up and calibrated everything for the new lens. It could be just me but I didn't like the results of yesterdays post processed shots. This new lens basically needs no post processing.
Which one looks better?
You're probably going to say the bottom one because the face of the wave is lit up. But if you look at the larger image in my last post it looks cartoonish. The above photo isn't the original but it is only slightly edited lighting up the face of the wave a little. I can't just brighten details that physically are not there in the digital image file. When I try to brighten details that weren't captured by the camera, the result becomes pixelation and cartoonish looks, which is the computers way of trying to enhance detail that is non existent.
The above photo is more 'natural.' I only enhanced what the camera was able to capture. This photo was taken during the late morning hours when the sun was in the worst possible position for taking pictures/video. Highlights are exaggerated by the sun and in turn darken the shadows (face of the wave) even more. No matter what aperture, shutter speed, or ISO I had my camera at would save such a severely back lit photo; not to mention the bright reflections of the foam and water surface.
Mike C
Leave me a comment if some of the stuff I am saying is off or there is something more I can improve. I've never taken a digital photography class but want to in the future. To leave a comment you have to scroll back up to the title.
0 comments:
Post a Comment