The Random Pictures ~Cakes Takes

[Lady_X]

here's a pic i took in blowing rock, nc.

 

[BlueScreen]

It's cool! Especially the colour change. What makes it so red?

 

[Geoff]

I've started a thread for my Florida wildlife and other random pictures.

Rather than clog this one up, I'll post just the one, with a link.

Thread here :

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s-other-friends-florida-geoff-s-pictures.html

 

[Lady_X]

It's cool! Especially the colour change. What makes it so red?

it's a bit of photoshop trickery/processing.

 

[BlueScreen]

it's a bit of photoshop trickery/processing.

Nice . I probably should get a copy of Photoshop sometime. Use gimp occasionally when I need that sort of stuff.

Also, nice photo Geoff! Didn't realise alligators are so big.

 

[RiderOnTheStorm]

here's a pic i took in blowing rock, nc.

lol @ 'blowing rock'

Nice one Erin, but I has to draw the line with the photoshoppin. At least post a before and after, please. =) Do you have that photo before your manip?

 

[Lady_X]

hmm...maybe. i don't know why though! i don't know of any digital photographer that does not do their post processing in photoshop....as far as i know that's how it's done....but i'll look.

 

[Lady_X]

nope...not on the new computer.

 

[ajblaise]

here's a pic i took in blowing rock, nc.

Nice... I like the contrast between the orange to green to light blue.

 

[SurlyAdam]

hmm...maybe. i don't know why though! i don't know of any digital photographer that does not do their post processing in photoshop....

That's because they have to. I don't really object to someone using digital. But you can spend $5,000.00-$10,000.00 on a camera and 3 hours in photoshop to create an image that a thoughtful film photographer could have created in camera with something he picked up at a thrift store for $5, and the digital image still won't look natural. Where's the soul? I LOVE film. Saturated slide film, like Fuji Velvia, creates what i wish I'd seen with my eyes.

I enjoy looking at the scene and deciding how I can make it come to life with a little thought and understanding of the light I have and the equipment I'm using. There's no post-production processing here. Just developed, scanned slide film.

Okay, Photoshop helped with this one. I used it to lighten the foreground.

 

[RiderOnTheStorm]

Where's the soul?

Exactly. Funny. "Photographs Steal Your Soul" is the name of my modded pics folder on my profile.

I enjoy looking at the scene and deciding how I can make it come to life with a little thought and understanding of the light I have and the equipment I'm using. There's no post-production processing here. Just developed, scanned slide film.

Okay, Photoshop helped with this one. I used it to lighten the foreground.

A little manip is good, you know. For cropping, re-sizing, straightening, lightening foregrounds, etc.

Nice photos. Especially this one. Gorgeous!

The mountains are like that here. With hues of pinks and purples in the surrounding sky. What time of the day was that one taken, morning? Where was it taken?

 

[SurlyAdam]

Thanks. Seems we share similar views on photography.

That's the Western Nevada desert along highway 6, between Basalt and Coaldale Junction. It was taken in late August, probably 10 minutes after the sun had set. Most of my landscape photos are taken 1/2 hour before - 1/2 hour after sunrise and sunset. That's when the light is soft and colors in the sky are most vivid.

The sky became even brighter a few minutes later. I miss those desert sunsets...

 

[Biaxident]

Very nice colors.

I unfortunately only have a digital camera. But I'm not one to manipulate a picture except to crop or re-size.

If it's okay to share, I took this one after a thunderstorm right around sunset.

No manipulation, that was the actual color.

Film fanatics don't hurt me...

 

[Geoff]

(reference to Surlyadam's post)

Nice shots.

I'm not sure I think Slide film is more "natural". Slide film with something like a velvia is.. of course.. as fake as a saturation boost in Photoshop. They both take the colours as the human eye would see them and boost them to be brighter than normal. Providing you dont choose *which* colours to boost (or change) it's pretty similar.

I'm not sure how you did the scan but there's some post processing oversharpening as well, particularly in picture 2 (default post processing in the scanner, perhaps).

 

[Lady_X]

Thanks. Seems we share similar views on photography.

That's the Western Nevada desert along highway 6, between Basalt and Coaldale Junction. It was taken in late August, probably 10 minutes after the sun had set. Most of my landscape photos are taken 1/2 hour before - 1/2 hour after sunrise and sunset. That's when the light is soft and colors in the sky are most vivid.

The sky became even brighter a few minutes later. I miss those desert sunsets...

oh my...i love this.

 

[SurlyAdam]

(reference to Surlyadam's post)

I'm not sure I think Slide film is more "natural". Slide film with something like a velvia is.. of course.. as fake as a saturation boost in Photoshop. They both take the colours as the human eye would see them and boost them to be brighter than normal. Providing you dont choose *which* colours to boost (or change) it's pretty similar.

I'm not sure how you did the scan but there's some post processing oversharpening as well, particularly in picture 2 (default post processing in the scanner, perhaps).

I know where you're coming from with your reference to Velvia's saturation. There may be also be some manipulation in the scanning process (the lab that developed the film scanned it), but it's a necessary evil to view them on a computer, and it's still not Photoshop level intervention. I'd rather view slides on a light table or projector, but that's not an option here.

I was originally talking about creating an amazing image in camera vs on your computer, and the process involved. It's about aesthetics really, I suppose. When I look at an image, I can usually tell if it were created digitally or with film (referring to natural), and the film images come across to me as more alive. I'm also referring to DSLRs, not a point and shoot camera.

I've probably become somewhat dispirited in the digital age of cameras too. It used to require a lot of study and experience to create an exceptional image. Now just about anyone with money and photoshop skills can make the viewer say "Wow!" I may have ruined this thread now, and turned it into a digital vs film monster as well. But I was really only expressing my views of photography and what I love about film. It's the intimacy of it. As a film photographer, you have to study the scene and decide if and how to make your film capture it. With a digital camera, you can set up your laptop in the field, taking pictures, recomposing and merging images till you get what you want. This seems like a disconnect.

The heart of photography to me is what I see from Ansel Adams (Large Format black & white) and Galen Rowell (35mm Velvia). These are people who understood light and film and I'm always amazed when I see what they've captured with their cameras. Digital images can look incredible, but there seems to be a loss of something real, at least to me.

When I see someone in the field with the latest Canon or Nikon digital SLR, I just shrug and smile politely. I'm sure they're looking me and wondering what I'm up to with that archaic 5lbs of camera, scanning the horizon with my spotmeter...

 

[BlueScreen]

Really nice photos Surly! The film does seems to have a smooth more natural look than the digitals. Especially looking at the sky. I haven't tried film much, but I'm guessing all the setting up for the perfect shot would be fun. In a way, digital takes some of the fun of playing round and trying new things out of it.

Is the line on the last photo a filter because of the difference in light levels, or is it two photos stitched?

 

[BlueScreen]

Oh yeh, and this one is incredible. How did you take it into direct sun with no flare or anything? Is that a long exposure too, or just the clouds making the effect? Looks a bit like a nuke .

 

[spirilis]

I never dealt with film much, always digital, but one thing that drives me utterly insane with digital is the "ISO" noise. That's the only part of a digital image which makes it feel "unnatural" to me. I try to shoot at the lowest ISO setting reasonable, using a tripod if necessary. I keep a 35mm f/1.4 lens around for darker circumstances. On my camera ISO <= 400 looks fantastic, above that you'll notice the noise if you blow it up to full resolution.

Beyond that I never notice the difference much, although I will say film images usually appear to have "softer" edges. I'm no professional though

 

[BlueScreen]

I never dealt with film much, always digital, but one thing that drives me utterly insane with digital is the "ISO" noise. That's the only part of a digital image which makes it feel "unnatural" to me. I try to shoot at the lowest ISO setting reasonable, using a tripod if necessary. I keep a 35mm f/1.4 lens around for darker circumstances. On my camera ISO <= 400 looks fantastic, above that you'll notice the noise if you blow it up to full resolution.

Beyond that I never notice the difference much, although I will say film images usually appear to have "softer" edges. I'm no professional though

Yeh, ISO noise sucks. I'm sure technology will keep improving though. I don't have an SLR, but the bigger CCD and lower noise would be one big reason if I got one. (As well as all the other million advantages over a compact ) Would mean I could take better night photos. Always wanted to try to photograph some nebulae. I have a feeling some of the big ones are possible without a telescope, and I'm surprised more people don't point their digital SLRs at the sky and see what they find.