Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-03-2008, 09:32 AM   #16
Igilligan
Guest




Gooshin

QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
i'll spew my rhetoric again... take it with a grain of salt


with the advancement in digital post processing techniques, a lens's colour rendition and the so called "3d" qualities become somewhat meaningless,

hence the only real benchmark that is left is lens sharpness

as for bokeh, thats entirely subjective.
Hey Gooshin, I dont have the money for the "3d lenses". I wish I did. I do have some very sharp old cheapies though. I would love to know your workflow on how you get your 3d look with post processing. I have not been able to really achieve it yet.

Can you post an example of a sharp shot that you have PP'd and were able to get that 3d look with it, and then tell a post processing newbie like me how you did it, what program and workflow?

It would be much appreciated.

04-03-2008, 09:46 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
Hey Gooshin, I dont have the money for the "3d lenses". I wish I did. I do have some very sharp old cheapies though. I would love to know your workflow on how you get your 3d look with post processing. I have not been able to really achieve it yet.

Can you post an example of a sharp shot that you have PP'd and were able to get that 3d look with it, and then tell a post processing newbie like me how you did it, what program and workflow?

It would be much appreciated.
tell you the truth i dont know what this "3d" thing people are talking about, how can a flat photo be 3d

but, having said that, people have commented on the following photographs telling me that they look 3D... i guess i'll just go by their comment.

and the work process is very simple, you jack up the blacks and the fill-light scrollers to 100 points then start backing off to balance the noise and colour deformation (particulary the blue and reds), then you start diddling around with WB and saturation to get the look you want...


ohh and all of these are done with a 150 dollar lens...


my moms flat,




my friends flat....






me... at a place called Red Room (younger Torontonians should know this place...)

04-03-2008, 09:57 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
It's all about time

QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
it always surprises me how people tend to forget that "true" photographers spent countless hours in a darkroom

photoshop is the digital age's dark room... hence the adobe program, lightroom......
This is true but why spend more time than necessary? I don't know about you, but my "free" time is precious to me, I don't need to spend it needlessly re-creating something that happens automatically every time I click the sutter.


QuoteQuote:
also there is such a thing as "preset", once you know how your lower-grade lens shoots, and once you find how to fiddle with your low grade lens photographs to make them look high grade, you just save that preset and off you go..
Again, why spend the time? By the time you've spent getting XYZ lens to 'sorta' look like a first class prime, I will have taken and processed innumerable pictures with said prime, without having to remember which process was saved where.


QuoteQuote:
in any case, i would love to own a 31 or a 77, but what i'm saying is that one doesnt have to go bannana's hording the best glass to produce awesome pictures.
Actually what you said was "because of photoshop all that matters is lens sharpness" To which I reply as above. Besides I do not a) drive myself bananas. or b) hoard lenses.
I save my money to buy what I want. Does a good high quality prime make me a better photographer? No. Like any craft what makes me a better photographer is more practice, and I'd rather practice shooting photos than practice trying to get a lens to look like what it's not. What a good quality prime does give me is an easier way to capture the best shots I'm capable of.

NaCl(and being lazy I'm all for "easier" )H2O
04-03-2008, 10:03 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Torphoto's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trinidad W.I.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 620
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
it always surprises me how people tend to forget that "true" photographers spent countless hours in a darkroom

photoshop is the digital age's dark room... hence the adobe program, lightroom.....


also there is such a thing as "preset", once you know how your lower-grade lens shoots, and once you find how to fiddle with your low grade lens photographs to make them look high grade, you just save that preset and off you go.



in any case, i would love to own a 31 or a 77, but what i'm saying is that one doesnt have to go bannana's hording the best glass to produce awesome pictures.
I'm not much older than you since I know the Red Room and Photoshop is much more than the darkroom ever was, all the old school guys were able to do were dodge and burn, crop and adjust colour, brightness and contrast. After that it was layering negs or even cutting them up ( copies of course ) to get effects and airbrushing by hand on the prints themselves.

I notice today alot of new photographers are altering their images greatly in photoshop, this isn't photography per say but graphic arts, which is different.

04-03-2008, 10:09 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 419
When most people comment about a photo having a "3D look" they are usually saying that because of specular highlights on the main subject and other objects in the frame.

A specular highlight is the bright spot of light that appears on shiny objects when illuminated. Specular highlights are important for "the 3D look" because they provide a strong visual cue for the shape of an object and its location with respect to light sources in the scene.

The folks over a Strobist did a nice article about controlling specular highlights a while back:

Strobist: Lighting 102: Unit 2.2 - Specular Highlight Control

You don't have to use a 77mm Limited to render amazing specular highlights. You just have to be a thinking photographer who understands the relationship between your subject and light ... and have a sharp lens. Smooth bokeh helps when there are good specular highlights in an image because harsh bokeh often distracts your attention from well-defined specular highlights.

Here's a photo that I took with a $80 Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 lens at f/4. I feel like the combo of smooth bokeh and specular highlights (particularly the catchlights in the eyes) help to give this image a "3D quality." No Photoshop manipulation here.

04-03-2008, 10:18 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
This is true but why spend more time than necessary? I don't know about you, but my "free" time is precious to me, I don't need to spend it needlessly re-creating something that happens automatically every time I click the sutter.




Again, why spend the time? By the time you've spent getting XYZ lens to 'sorta' look like a first class prime, I will have taken and processed innumerable pictures with said prime, without having to remember which process was saved where.




Actually what you said was "because of photoshop all that matters is lens sharpness" To which I reply as above. Besides I do not a) drive myself bananas. or b) hoard lenses.
I save my money to buy what I want. Does a good high quality prime make me a better photographer? No. Like any craft what makes me a better photographer is more practice, and I'd rather practice shooting photos than practice trying to get a lens to look like what it's not. What a good quality prime does give me is an easier way to capture the best shots I'm capable of.

NaCl(and being lazy I'm all for "easier" )H2O
i dont want you argue, you dont understand my point of view on the whole idea of "digital photography" as a whole

you are still stuck in the traditional way of approaching photography.



i'm not trying to recreate the qualities of a given lens, i'm going above and beyond to create something more than either of those lenses would do "naturally".
04-03-2008, 12:02 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
i dont want you argue, you dont understand my point of view on the whole idea of "digital photography" as a whole

you are still stuck in the traditional way of approaching photography.



i'm not trying to recreate the qualities of a given lens, i'm going above and beyond to create something more than either of those lenses would do "naturally".
Well, I have to admit this is the first time I've been called a traditionalist. If you want to concentrate on the 'digital' part of digital photography, fine by me. Myself I'd rather concentrate on the 'photography' part. I do know one thing, like in any craft, the more I shoot, the more likely the better I will get.

NaCl(my own preference is to be outside, shooting rather than inside, computing)H2O
04-03-2008, 12:22 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 103
Here are my thoughts on this.
Photo editing as a way of saving money on lenses is a bad choice. You'd be better off by spending that time looking for a better paid job, and get the expensive lenses. And in the end you're still left with the lenses.
If you're editing because you like it, that's another story.

04-03-2008, 12:32 PM   #24
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
i dont want you argue, you dont understand my point of view on the whole idea of "digital photography" as a whole

you are still stuck in the traditional way of approaching photography.



i'm not trying to recreate the qualities of a given lens, i'm going above and beyond to create something more than either of those lenses would do "naturally".

Gooshin, I think I get what you're trying to say, but consider this - once someone masters any particular PP package, they can do amazing things with any image - that person doesn't even need to be a photographer. In fact, they don't even need to be the one who took the photograph in the first place. This means that virtually anyone who takes the time to go through a software manual and an online tutorial can do what you're talking about doing. PP is just not that special - basic PP is increasingly necessary, but not a special skill by any means.

What is special is the ability to see and capture the image, and the lens is integral to that. I think that as time goes on, people will tire of the "PP look". I think it's already happening - the novelty wears off. It just may not be the best idea to depend too heavily on PP as a self evaluation skills benchmark, IMO.

(and before you call me a 'traditionalist', or some such, know that I've shot exactly two rolls of film in SLR my entire life - started with digital in 2002 and shall stay there.)


.
04-03-2008, 01:10 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 338
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
This means that virtually anyone who takes the time to go through a software manual and an online tutorial can do what you're talking about doing. PP is just not that special - basic PP is increasingly necessary, but not a special skill by any means.
I beg to differ. PP is a skill, and an artistic one at that. Not everyone will, or even can be good at it. Sure you can teach a monkey to click "sharpen" but it takes alot more to know what to use, when and how.
04-03-2008, 02:00 PM   #26
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Geekybiker Quote
I beg to differ. PP is a skill, and an artistic one at that. Not everyone will, or even can be good at it. Sure you can teach a monkey to click "sharpen" but it takes alot more to know what to use, when and how.

I think that if you take a survey of some of the newer free Photoshop tutorials out there, you may end up changing your mind - even the most difficult workflows are described in detail now.

Applying those lessons takes practice, but like I said, you don't even have to be the one who took the photograph to get 'good' at it.
04-03-2008, 02:40 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 419
I hate to sound like a moderator, but ...

How did we take a very focused thread talking about lenses and turn it into a debate about Photoshop? Let's try not to hijack this thread and keep it on the original topic of lens choice and the advantages of one lens over another.
04-03-2008, 02:49 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 338
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think that if you take a survey of some of the newer free Photoshop tutorials out there, you may end up changing your mind - even the most difficult workflows are described in detail now.

Applying those lessons takes practice, but like I said, you don't even have to be the one who took the photograph to get 'good' at it.
Doesn't matter really. Nobody can tell you want looks good or what effects to apply. They can point you in the right direction on the "how" but thats about it. Lets just say tutorials can help with technical decisions, not artistic ones.
04-04-2008, 04:24 AM   #29
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
I was in the very same shoes few months ago. We were choosing macro lens for my fiance, and I offered her exactly the same options (with Tamron 90 instead of tamkumar) + Petnax DFA 100.
Final decision was to go with 105 Sigma. Why? Highly recomended Tamron 90 wasn't available and 70mm was bit too short for my fiance's needs. So you'll have to be closer to subject to achieve 1:1.
70mm is sharper lens, but suffers more from purple fringing (nothing serious though). I'd say for portraiture and still macors 70 would be better, for macros of anything you might scare off easlily 105 gives you bit more distance...

Last edited by axl; 04-04-2008 at 04:31 AM.
04-04-2008, 07:49 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Geekybiker Quote
Doesn't matter really. Nobody can tell you want looks good or what effects to apply. They can point you in the right direction on the "how" but thats about it. Lets just say tutorials can help with technical decisions, not artistic ones.
EXACTLY, THANK YOU.

those of you that think that photoshop is all about clicky-clicky are just as bad as those people who think owning a fancy camera makes you a better photographer.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dg, dg macro, k-mount, kids, macro, pentax lens, portraits, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tips for shooting kids...ok that sounds bad lol...*Photographing kids iNick Photographic Technique 11 08-15-2010 01:51 PM
People My Kids - First Shots With My New Sigma 70-200 Ari Post Your Photos! 1 08-02-2010 11:27 PM
Best lens for indoor kids portraits in low light gbandi Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 24 03-06-2010 04:13 PM
Kids Portraits... YES, KIDS!! *grins* DuckysDoll Post Your Photos! 6 04-24-2009 02:21 PM
Low light portraits of kids legacyb4 Post Your Photos! 2 10-03-2008 01:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top