| Author |
Message |
John Little
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 65
Location: Centennial, Colorado
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: Photoshopping |
 |
|
Hi Mike - Paul,
I actually did not own Photoshop until a couple of weeks ago, and so a lot of my previous posts were just as they were shot.
Certainly between shots I made a lot of changes with the camera settings, and the like, and my pictures varied quite a bit. The change to the D200 has even more variety, because I am shooting almost completely Manual, and I like the way the camera works in that mode.
Now that I have Photoshop, I will need to elarn the program because there is a lot to it.
Like Paul, I will certainly use it for printing purposes. Otherwise for web pictures, and posting on the airport-data.com site, I am not sure anyone would really notice things because of the size of the picture file imposed (not a complaint Ken, you do have to pcik a size limit or you would have to charge us for the larger servers and storage space......<g>
John L |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Brad Campbell
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 30
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to think that any 'tool', (like photoshop but could be referring to myself also!) would be encouraged in almost any form of photography to improve a photo. I use Adobe Photoshop 6 but mostly limit my 'edit' to crop, resize, adjust levels, shadows/highlights, and sometimes hue/saturation or brightness/contrast. I usually make two layers: the first with unsharp mask and another with varying numbers of unsharp mask again. Very rarely, I'll use a dodge or burn tool and most of the time I use selective sharpening along the body and lines/markings of the aircraft.
On a side note: my computer crashed about a month ago. Luckily, I saw it coming and dumped all my stuff on an external hard-drive - whew! The new computer I got used the new Windows Vista instead of Windows XP. And guess what? The version of Adobe Photoshop Elements 4 is not compatible and did NOT work on Vista. I had to purchase the latest version of Elements.
_________________
Take care,
Brad |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
max_wedge
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that's a good example, I would go even further and clone out the white noise spots under the wing (and in other places)
Persnally I don't have any problem whatsoever with levels, curves and brightness/contrast type adjustments, as these are things that would be done when developing pictures "the old way" and if it was acceptable then, why not now?
AS to colour adjustment - well here you are simply compensating for the way modern digital cameras calculate white-balance, which is often an imperfect science. In the case of old scanned negatives or prints, you are compensating for the effects of time on the original media.
With cloning out extraneous details, it's a little less clear. My rule of thumb is that if it's a techincal photo, it's quite appropriate as it is simply abstracting only that which is important to the purpose of the photo. However if it can't be done well then I suggest it be left as is.
However I also like to avoid becoming complacent when taking photos by thinking that I'll just clone out any odd details. 1. this creates more post work, and I hate work! 2. it creates a sense of laziness that in the end only makes you a worse photographer. Not everything can be cloned out. It is FAR FAR better to get it right when taking the photo. I reserve cloning for those times when it just wasn't possible to get it right at the time, or for those times I simply screwed up 
_________________
My flickr aircraft |
|
|
|
|
And if you look at the aft window you'll see the hat/face of the person I removed.
) or to make some adjustment to the lighting.
