BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: All About Photography

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: All About Photography

Interested in learning art photography? Want to become a master photographer? The following questions and answers are divided into two main groups - digital imaging and traditional, film-based photography. Learn the techniques of both here. If you want to learn more about how to make great photos take Jed Manwaring's Getting Started: How to Make Great Photographs online photography course.

Page 3 : 21 -30 of 15091 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...1510
Next 10  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Harriet Feagin
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Harriet
Harriet's Gallery

member since: 10/25/2011
  21 .  Fall Color In Colorado 2013
Does anyone who is familiar with Colorado know anything about what to expect this year? Based on experience, can anyone predict what kind of fall color will we have? I know it is a crap shoot but I thought I would ask anyway. Thanks,

Harriet Feagin

9/3/2013 9:44:50 AM

  I haven't heard any predictions yet, but I saw some yellow spots in the high country last week. It will probably be a few more weeks until it peaks. This can be a good link for you:
http://www.9news.com/weather/outdoors/fall_colors/
U.S. Forest Service's hotline isn't updated yet for fall colors.
Maybe someone else has better information to bring to you!

9/3/2013 11:49:30 AM

  Thank you. I have a trip planned for the last week this month and your observation has given me hope. Thanks again.

Harriet Feagin

9/3/2013 2:18:20 PM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  I found this link too:

http://www.parks.state.co.us/ParksSearch/Pages/ParksSearch.aspx

Per their website.....Basically, click on the Colorado map at the locale you want. Select the Conditions tab, check the 'Fall Colors' box, and search. Each park will provide tips on what the colors in their park look like."

9/3/2013 5:58:56 PM

  Thank you, Ken. You have been so much help! If you ever plan on going to Colorado again, I would recommend a guide book written by Andy Cook. He guides photo workshops and I have been on two of his workshops (Tetons and Tennessee). His book is very, very good. With your guide and his, I am getting a good idea of where to go and what time is best. Thanks again.
Harriet

9/3/2013 6:41:18 PM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  Thanks, Harriet. Here's another book...an e-book, that looked pretty interesting:

http://www.mountainskyphotography.com/ebook

I'm sure we'd all love to have a similar photo as on the cover of his book.

9/4/2013 5:07:52 AM

  John Fielder's Best of Colorado has also been a very helpful book for me.

9/4/2013 6:30:42 AM

Rene Asmussen
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/13/2001
  I love the colours in autumn :-) I enjoy them :-)

made this one : https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos?pid=5908281550356510162&oid=100724332764877363114

/Rene
http://www.asmussenfoto.dk

9/8/2013 5:34:32 AM

Angela Morgan
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/2/2013
  i found this link too

12/30/2013 5:45:55 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Pamela K. Barrett
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Pamela
Pamela's Gallery

member since: 2/26/2007
  22 .  Unsharp Mask vs High Pass Filter
I've learned 2 different techniques for sharpening. The Unsharp Mask and the High Pass Filter. I was wondering which one is better or is it just personal preference? It seems to me the results are the same and Unsharp Mask is a bit of a more simple process. What are the opinions of others on these two techniques?

8/29/2013 8:01:40 AM

  Pamela, I have been using both sharpening techniques on images and don't have a runaway favorite too.

However, I feel that with images having predominantly edgy subjects (like tree leaves against the sky, etc), the High Pass Filter works better as it does not attempt to sharpen the sky part at all and just would sharpen the leaves or the tree trunks.

The difference between these is subtle though, IMHO.

UB.

9/3/2013 10:57:50 PM

  There are many sharpening techniques. I assume the method for High Pass that you are using is to run the filter on a new layer stamped visible and apply the layer in Overlay mode? There are other ways people use it.

The method stated above and the Unsharp Mask will end up making very similar results as Usman said, but depending on the settings you use. For example, running Unsharp Mask with a 10 pixel radius and 75% will be close to running High Pass at 10 radius -- depending on the image content. I say close, but you would be able to notice some differences.

Both methods increase edge contrast. It can be helpful to use them with over-all contrast reduction at times, depending on the image (usually images that are already very contrasty before sharpening benefit most). I use something similar to the following:

1. Stamp visible to a new layer.
2. Invert the content (Apple + I / Ctrl + I).
3. Blur the content (Gaussian Blur say 20 pixels -- this will vary depending on the image).
4. Set the layer to softlight mode.
5. Reduce the opacity of the layer to 20-25%.

You can keep the effect limited to the tone by separating out the luminosity...

I hope that helps!

Richard

9/12/2013 12:20:51 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Joan E. Herwig
joan-e-photography.com

member since: 4/1/2005
  23 .  photo ops in Nashville in early December?
Can anyone recommend good stuff to photograph in Nashville , TN? I am going there only for 5 days in early December (not much time to do my own recon).
Thank,
Joan

8/21/2013 8:13:18 PM

  Gruhns Guitar shop, The Parthenon (its a replica of the real one), Grand Ole Opry, The Nashville Predator hockey team... My sister lives close but I shoot mostly landscapes & critters around her house and the lake near Mt. Juliet. Jim Zuckerman lives there but he is in the Phillipines right now. Maybe email him and ask if he has some ideas :)
Have fun Joan

8/28/2013 4:39:32 AM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member
wildlifetrailphotography.com

member since: 3/2/2006
  Radner Lake is a beautiful natural area near downtown. It is a great place for wildlife and nature shots.

9/2/2013 1:52:59 PM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member
wildlifetrailphotography.com

member since: 3/2/2006
  Hey Joan, I lived in Nashville for 20 years. Downtown at night on Broadway is great to photograph. There is also a walking bridge over the Cumberland River near downtown. You can get some great shots of the city and the riverboat from that bridge. If you need any photo supplies Dury's is the place. If you like unique coffee shops try Fido Coffee Shop. It is a great place to people watch. Have fun!!!

9/2/2013 2:23:44 PM

Joan E. Herwig
joan-e-photography.com

member since: 4/1/2005
  Thank you both Carlton & Donald for responding and for your very helpful suggestions!

Can either of you tell me what to expect in terms of weather in Nashville December 4- 10?

9/2/2013 5:14:24 PM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member
wildlifetrailphotography.com

member since: 3/2/2006
  You just never know about weather in Tennessee. It is typically mildly cool in early December. Although, the weather has been cooler and wetter than normal this year, so you should be prepared for cold.

9/3/2013 5:43:14 AM

Joan E. Herwig
joan-e-photography.com

member since: 4/1/2005
  Thanks Donald!

9/3/2013 10:20:25 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Rajiv Chopra
Contact Rajiv
Rajiv's Gallery
crookedimagez.biz

member since: 12/25/2006
  24 .  Upgrading Photoshop
I have Photoshop CS3, and was thinking of upgrading to CS6. Now, I find that Adobe is pushing the Photoshop Creative Cloud. Which is advisable - upgrading to CS6 or the Creative Cloud?

8/9/2013 11:16:23 AM

  I guess that really depends on whether or not you want to own your software or just rent it for a monthly fee. From what I understand, CS6 is the last of the creative suites, there will be no more upgrades to it. Anyone wanting the latest and greatest upgrades will be forced into using the Creative Cloud. If you can live with CS6 the way it exists now, then upgrade to CS6. If, however, you always want better, then you'll have to get the Creative Cloud.

8/28/2013 6:08:59 PM

  I have read some reviews from unhappy customers regarding CS6. I have CS5 and love it.
Here is 1 review I read:
Once CS6 came out they got rid of the picture packages that thousands of photographers use (according to a recent poll) and they also got rid of the raw and psd review when you click on one of the files. CC never restored those features either further alienating it's customers.

9/11/2013 5:00:39 AM

  To be honest, as a Photoshop user for some 20 years, almost all of what I use was available in CS. Once you got past 16-bit editing and RAW, there were really few 'essential' changes that would redefine the way you enhance an image. I think I could argue positively for the Masks panel in CS4, and I'd be curious about the conditional actions in CC, as I have asked for that feature for umpteen versions now.

My knee-jerk response to someone wanting to upgrade is always an answer to the question "what is it that you don't have now?" And then the followup is whether it is worth the sometimes minimal change in workflow -- or whether it can also be achieved by what you already have in a different and perhaps even better way.

Carlton, as far as removing features, that is not the usual Adobe methodology. I mean it has happened, but usually they have a substitute - or a better way. A quick search suggests people have gotten picture packages to work by just borrowing and installing the old plugin from the previous version. There would also be other options, like scripting, smart objects and actions. I know people get used to their methods, but I think there are ways to get these things done. I hope that helps!

9/16/2013 12:18:18 PM

  Here's a couple more cents on this:

The new features in Camera Raw are interesting to me. CR is now a filter (no more closing an image to open it in Cr) with some neat enhancements. I particularly like Lens Corretion. Any-hoo ...

I use LR extensively but PS only rarely so I was not happy about a $200 PS upgrade. I am also completely uninterested in the $50/mo Creative Cloud -- don't need all the extra stuff.

Adobe has a new offer -- available just today -- called Creative Cloud for Photographers. $10/mo 'forever' price if you have a license for CS3 or better. CC for Photogs includes PS, LR and some cloud space.

After crunching the numbers on what I pay for annual LR upgrades plus occasional PS upgrades it is a no-brainer for me.

https://creative.adobe.com/plans/offer/photoshop+lightroom

9/18/2013 7:28:13 AM

  I still use CS5, and really haven't migrated to the Cloud to upgrade to CS6 for many of the reasons given above. You might consider upgrading to CS5 to update Photoshop, unless you want to pay a monthly fee for the latest version. You might be able to pay a simple upgrade fee to own the CS5 package.

10/5/2013 11:24:17 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
kerby lee pfrangle
BetterPhoto Member
Contact kerby
kerby's Gallery
pfrangle.com

member since: 4/19/2005
  25 .  Forward I received in an email....
I got this forward in the email and wanted to share....Perfect for Better
Photo member's.

I loved it.

Life is like a camera
Focus on what is important,
Capture the good times,
Develop from the negatives,
And if things don't work out,
Take another shot.

7/28/2013 9:04:17 AM

  That's great, Kerby! Thanks for sharing.

8/1/2013 12:05:53 PM

  This is really cool, Kerby!!! I printed it out to save. Thanks for sharing it with Better Photo members!! I loved it!!

8/4/2013 12:50:30 PM

 
 
  Meltdown 2013 0820
Meltdown 2013 0820
Summer Meltdown Festival
 
 
“Sometimes I arrive just when God's ready to have somone click the shutter.”
― Ansel Adams

8/28/2013 5:05:28 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
darlene brady
BetterPhoto Member
Contact darlene
darlene's Gallery

member since: 5/28/2013
  26 .  black and white with color in the eyes .....
how do you make the black and white photos that have color added like say in the eyes ?

7/22/2013 1:42:24 PM

Vanessa M. Lee
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/31/2012
  I have done something like this using Picasa (using Focal B&W) although, I'm sure there are easy ways and/or better programs out there.

7/22/2013 4:49:30 PM

  If you are using an editing program that uses layers (PSE, Photoshop, etc.), it is a pretty simple process. Using a separate layer to convert to B&W, you can then use a mask to remove the layer over the eyes. The color layer below will show through.

7/24/2013 6:30:08 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
wayne langston
Contact wayne
wayne's Gallery
photosforeveryone.com

member since: 11/14/2004
  27 .  3D Film Cameras
Friends:
I have in my "hot little hands," a Nimsol 3D camera! If my research is correct, you can use "regular" 35mm film.
I would like to know if this is right and if it is, where can you get this film processed??
I would like to use the camera, however if I can not process the film it is not going to work out.
Thanks for any information y'all can give.
Wayne Langston

7/14/2013 5:44:13 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  It does use regular film. You can get the negatives at any place that still develops film. It's getting it printed that you probably won't be able to do.
And is a big part of why that kind of camera failed. Could be a collectors item.

7/15/2013 9:09:51 AM

Wesley Oh

member since: 8/20/2013
  The Nimslo 3D uses 35mm color negative film. NImslo closed operations about 20years+ ago. To my knowledge no 3D processor of the Nimslo type exsit.

I actually owned and used a 3D Nimslo. Even have a few 8x10s in a box. I photographed my kid and actually used it for wedding novelty pics.

8/20/2013 3:49:33 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Nicholas Semo
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Nicholas
Nicholas's Gallery

member since: 6/27/2008
  28 .  New category for contest.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of flack for this,but here goes.
How about a new category for photos that aren't digitally enhanced in any way. After all isn't that what photography was all about, getting in right in the camera. In the days when we shot slide film you either got it right or you tossed it. Seems like all I hear now is "I'll fix that in photoshop". I've seen some awesome photos here and they are great to look at,but a lot of photos are heavily altered in photoshop or other programs. I've seen photos entered in the contest that didn't move forward were reworked in photoshop and then re-entered, heck...I've done it myself. I think the new category should allow only the minimum of work...cropping, dodge and burn, and a minimum of sharpening , only because of the nature of digital cameras. A re-submit to me would mean going out and re-shooting the subject under better conditions.
Just my 2 cents.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

7/3/2013 11:27:32 AM

  Love the idea. Would love to see this started.

7/3/2013 3:06:32 PM

  I think it's an excellent idea Nicholas. I would love it.

7/3/2013 4:11:44 PM

  Count me as a yes - great idea!

7/3/2013 5:05:35 PM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  I like the idea too. But where would you (or BP) draw the line as to what's digitally altered versus out of the camera? And how would BP know a photo isn't altered somewhat? Again, I'm all for it because we should all strive to get it right, in-camera. Just wondering how BP would know if something slightly cloned, or a bird "painted in", etc. THe only way I can think of is supplying the RAW image. But some people don't shoot in RAW. Good discussion topic.

7/3/2013 5:15:49 PM

  Good point Ken. I guess this is where we would have to have faith in the honesty of folks entering photos in that category. Hmmmm, I guess this may be the first obstacle.

7/3/2013 5:27:56 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  In the days of slide film you still had retouching and corrections when that slide went to print. Plus taking advantage of using different slide films based on their different characteristics of color rendition, contrast, grain, to get desired results.
But I understand your point.

7/3/2013 6:34:11 PM

  I personally feel that it is the end result that should matter and not how one comes to the end. In other words, it should be the right destination and not the route one took to reach there!!!

An image should be able to grasp the viewer and keep his attention for long, as long as this is achieved, I believe its a successful image. Whether it was all done in-camera (by the way there is a lot of processing done inside the DSLRs of these days if one is shooting in Jpeg or Tif modes) or with combination of some post-processing tools, should not matter, IMHO.

Correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe that there is any professional photographer using DSLRs who does not use some kind of post-processing.

UB.

7/3/2013 9:43:23 PM

  Anyone that shoots raw format has to use post processing, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Our state fair has an annual photo contest. The two main category's are traditional and non- traditional. Any photo altered in photoshop that includes cloning, painting in objects not in the original, severly altering the color or the use of photoshop filters to add dreamy effects is not allowed. Basically any processing other than a straight conversion from raw to jpeg, would not be allowed in the traditional category.

7/4/2013 4:13:42 AM

  Interesting idea, Nicholas.
Not so easy to do.

How would you draw the line on "minimum of work...cropping, dodge and burn, and a minimum of sharpening"?
Software in camera will do the processing for you in case you do not shoot in raw. Different cameras and settings...
Cropping can be easily achieved by walking closer to your subject (or zooming or using different lens)... why would you allow that?
Putting limits on level of dodge and burn is quite difficult, too. In the end it all comes down to judges.

A good photograph will stand out in any category, with or without Photoshop. It is only up to judges to reward heavy (or any) post processing.
And if you look at the winners you'll get the idea where they stand on this issue.

One more problem with a new category - you would need another one for each existing category. Like flowers with and without PP, landscapes with and without PP...

Maybe it would be better to abolish all categories and have only one - photography.

Just a thought.

7/4/2013 5:40:35 AM

  Cropping by moving in closer, using a different lens, or zooming in, is all done in camera and doesn't change the photo you were taking at the time.
I'm talking about trying to achieve the best that we can, with the tool we have in our hand (the camera) and not using external software to achieve something that can't possibly be achieved in camera.

7/4/2013 6:06:41 AM

  I still really like your idea Nicholas. If not a new category in the contest then maybe a club? Just a thought.

7/4/2013 4:20:03 PM

  I am absolutly agree with Usman, that "the end result that should matter". Digital photography is not just digital camera. It involves everything this technology can offer. And if we don't use it, there will be no progress. Speaking about RAW: you can do wonders within RAW software without ever using any filters. Everything - for the better final result. This is MHO.

7/5/2013 5:54:11 AM

  Is progress always for the better?

7/5/2013 8:18:15 AM

  Just to clarify...I'm talking about a separate category for folks that want to enter photos that have not been manipulated. Those that want to manipulate there photos still have all the other category's open to them.
Not everyone can afford to purchase photoshop, or other photo manipulating software, and not everyone is good at using it. It doesn't seen fair that everyone has to compete against photoshop experts.
Amazing photos were taken long before photoshop, but it took hard work, and waiting for the right conditions. I feel amazing photos can still me made without photoshop.

7/5/2013 8:48:00 AM

  In general - yes! And this is for a completely different discussion.
But to MAKE a great picture one should start with getting it right in the camera. There is no doubt in my mind about it. Certain things like a poor composition, light and focusing can't be improved enough with any external software to end up looking great.
But if I can add something that will improve the otherwise good picture even more OR convey a certain feeling or mood, why not use it?

7/5/2013 9:46:17 AM

  You are right, Nicholas. It's not fair that everyone has to compete against photoshop experts. But unfortunately the nature of the digital camera is that images have to be sharpened more and color edited (at least) to be good enough for a contest.

7/5/2013 10:01:21 AM

  Nicholas, are you suggesting that "non manipulated" photos can not fairly compete with "manipulated" ones? Why not?

There is plenty of great free software for those that can not affort PS. If somebody is not good at using it - well that's just lazy.
It's a tool - same as camera. How you use your tools is the difference between good and bad photo. The "in-camera expert" who is also a "photoshop expert" will always do better then just the "in-camera expert" or just the "photoshop expert".
The tools are there, why not use them? How you use them is the key.

There is a number of people (rather small number now) that think digital is not "real" photography anyway and that only film can produce the real thing.

Amazing photos will always be amazing photos.

7/5/2013 10:43:21 AM

  Pure photography or straight photography refers to photography that attempts to depict a scene as realistically and objectively as permitted by the medium, renouncing the use of manipulation. The West Coast Photographic Movement is best known for the use of this style.
Founded in 1932, Group f/64 who championed purist photography, had this to say:
Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form.
The term emerged in the 1880s to mean simply an unmanipulated photographic print, in opposition to the composite prints of Henry Peach Robinson or the soft focus painterly images of some pictorialist photographers. At first, straight photography was a viable choice within pictorialism, as, for example, the work of Henry Frederick Evans. Paul Strand's 1917 characterization of his work as "absolute unqualified objectivity" described a change in the meaning of the term. It came to imply a specific aesthetic typified by higher contrast, sharper focus, aversion to cropping, and emphasis on the underlying abstract geometric structure of subjects. Some photographers began to identify these formal elements as a language for translating metaphysical or spiritual dimensions into visual terms.
This aesthetic caught on in the early 1930s and found its most notable use in what came to be known as The West Coast Photographic Movement. Photographic superstars including Ansel Adams, Edward Weston his son Brett Weston, Dody Weston Thompson and Berenice Abbott are considered innovators and practitioners of this style. Many other well known artists of this time considered themselves practitioners of this West Coast counterculture and even formed a group known as Group f/64 to highlight their efforts and set themselves apart from the East Coast pictorialism movement.

From Wikipedia

7/5/2013 1:22:48 PM

  The only real purist is the one who watches the scene without a camera on his face and is keeping it to himself and not uttering a word about it to anyone.
Everything else is manipulation.

Those giants you mentioned were all masters of the darkroom and manipulated their photos to achieve their vision. They probably invented cropping, dodge/burn, sharpening and most of photoshop tricks.

Ansel Adams quote: “The film is the score, but the print is the performance.”

7/5/2013 3:12:23 PM

  This wasn't meant to become a debate, I was only interested in finding out how many people would be interested in a new category for the contest. Those not interested could continue to enter in the existing category's.

Now I have 6 photos to put on disc and taken to be printed for our state fair photo contest. After printing I have to cut Matt's for them then mount them per instructions. I will be entering these in the traditional photo category ( only minor adjustments allowed) as opposed to the non-traditional photo category (manipulation to your hearts content is allowed) LOL
I'll check this thread next week to see if there is any interest for a new category. Maybe then I can contact bp about it.
Dayna, you mentioned maybe start a club. It sounds like that may be the way to go. I wouldn't know where to begin....perhaps someone with the know how and ability to run one could get it going.
If I've offended anyone by suggesting this...it wasn't my intention. If my replies offended anyone, that also was not my intention.
Have fun and keep on clicking.

Nick

7/5/2013 3:46:24 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Nobody's offended. It's just a discussion on the topic, which is what this is here for. And you also did ask for anybody's thoughts.
Using photoshop isn't inherently an advantage, like being without the proper number of players on a team. Although I will acknowledge that there can be factors that come from the direction of the viewer of the photos. Like the common made-up term of Flickr effect. Which is the propensity for a seemingly plain photo on Flickr to get numerous "great shot" comments due to the maker of the photo just increasing the saturation of the color. If you bake with a lot of butter, you may get a lot of "ooh this taste good" no matter what you make.
But there's always an element that is not afforded to all entries of a contest. A photo of an elderly woman in Cambodia is just a photo of my next door neighbor to somebody in Cambodia. What's the big deal. But that same photo could be lauded as National Geo quality to a stateside judge of a contest.
So any perceived advantage of photoshop may not be an advantage that the photographer has but something on the other side of the viewer or judge. And that happens. Could you have black and white compete with color if you wanted nothing done to render the image other than how it is as you see it in front of you.

7/5/2013 7:38:36 PM

  Oops.....you're right Gregory... I did type "thoughts" I meant to say would anyone else be interested. My bad.

7/6/2013 7:11:36 AM

  Sorry.

7/6/2013 11:09:46 AM

Christopher J. Budny
BetterPhoto Member
chrisbudny.com

member since: 10/3/2005
  My two cents; the editing ultimately doesn't matter, as I tend to disagree with your opening statement that photography is about getting it right, in-camera. Rather, I agree with Usman's response, the end visual result achieved is the key factor for a displayed photograph. Does the displayed photograph tell the story, or convey the feeling, or meaning, or emotion, or concepts that the artist was trying to get across to the viewer? If the answer is yes, the photographer (like all artists in the history of art) has used his or her available tools and skills, whatever those may be at the time, effectively.

I tend to agree that Photoshop cannot fix a truly "bad" photographic capture---but what that really says to me, is Photoshop can't fix photographs that weren't first captured with the various elements deemed crucial to the success of communicating the photographer's vision to the viewer. Getting a scene right, in-camera, is often a big first step towards a successful image, but it has never really been the one and only step. (Even the "straight" photographers in the Wikipedia article you mentioned, had to choose (beyond their wet-darkroom choices!) their monotone pigment values and their paper types & surfaces for their prints - which subtly alter the way the viewer perceives the printed image.) And for some photographs, getting the scene right, in-camera, means producing a capture that at least initially, could look like garbage to some, but is the correct capture for achieving the envisioned end result.

On top of all that, today's cameras carry a veritable Photoshop suite of tools, already built-in. In-camera HDR, in-camera photo-stitching or pano, in-camera multi-exposure/single frame, in-camera adjustments to color, saturation, sharpness, creative filters, toning, borders, etc.---those are all now available "in-camera" on many models; yet I'm guessing for your category idea, contestants would need to leave all of those settings out of an image capture. Perhaps if the contestants had to gather together, shoot the exact same scene at essentially the same moment, all with the same focal length, same subject focus point, using their camera's most-neutral-settings... just maybe you'd have the basis for a judge to then evaluate which of those images, in the judge's opinion, is closest (to the judge's ideal) of "getting it right in camera"---and really, the judge needed to be present on the day of shooting! But when you let the contestants enter anything (trusting they will honestly abide by no editing), they still have many, many tools at their disposal to potentially create a more compelling image than their neighbor; depth of field choices, panning techniques, long-exposures, double-exposures---none of which slip into "editing" territory, but all of which "heavily alter" the scene...

The tool sets for all artists have evolved over time; the good artists throughout history have always known which tools to use, when to use them, and how to best use them to their advantage, to produce art that appeals to their audience.

My two cents... ;) Not trying to give you any flack! ;)

7/19/2013 9:06:18 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Jeff E Jensen
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Jeff E
Jeff E's Gallery

member since: 6/8/2008
  29 .  Phello Photographers Club Trip - Misc.
Whatever you like that doesn't fit in another category.

6/19/2013 1:24:00 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Jeff E Jensen
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Jeff E
Jeff E's Gallery

member since: 6/8/2008
  30 .  Phello Photographers Club Trip - Long Exposure
minimum of 20 seconds for this one

6/19/2013 1:22:50 PM

 
 
 
I'll start this one out. . . .

6/19/2013 7:13:06 PM

  This was the one thing I was really sad to have missed out on. Dawson loved anything to do with space, and I would have loved to have been able to see the Milky Way for him :)

6/19/2013 8:34:02 PM

  I will say this is the part of the trip I wanted most also. this is one awesome image. going in my favorites I may have to get a copy of this one for my grandson, he loves space also teresa

6/20/2013 10:27:16 AM

 
 
 
 
 
My version of Mike's image. I didn't realize I was zoomed in on my 24-70 lens. But I like this closer-up POV. I think the reflected rays give the sensation of a hole opening up beneath the figure -- vertical motion instead of horizontal.

6/20/2013 11:20:14 PM

  You are right, Stephen, the tighter POV creates a completely different feel. I like it.

6/21/2013 7:59:00 AM

  I really like it also Stephen love the color and sensation you created. very nice

6/21/2013 8:04:28 AM

  Love your shot Stephen!

6/21/2013 11:29:44 AM

  Thanks folks.

I really like the setting Jeff picked for the Milky Way pictures. I missed that in my efforts.

6/21/2013 7:40:50 PM

  Jeff, this is a very beautiful night exposure and love that mily way.

Stephen, your above shot is a winner IMHO. The zoom working magic here!!!

UB.

6/24/2013 9:00:55 PM

  Very impressive work, Jeff and Stephen. I am in awe of both images!

6/25/2013 7:44:10 AM

 
 
  Color at Night  Happy 4th of July
Color at Night Happy 4th of July
Canon EOS 7D, Tamron 18-270mm, f/8, 229 seconds, ISO 160.
Was Jeff suppose to be holding this as it shot?
 
  Spinning
Spinning
Canon EOS 7D, Tamron 18-270mm, f/8, 229 seconds, ISO 160
 
  Stars and Orbs
Stars and Orbs
Canon EOS 7D, Tamron 18-270mm, f/5.6, 229 seconds, ISO 160
 
  Watch OUt Elaine!!!
Watch OUt Elaine!!!
For some reason a lot of stuff kept coming towards Elaine!
Canon EOS 7D, Tamron 18-270mm, f/8, 182 seconds, ISO 160
 
 
Here are a few of mine!

6/26/2013 3:28:22 PM

  These are great Beth!

I find the 2 glowing eyes in Watch out Elaine a bit ominous. LOL!

6/26/2013 10:19:05 PM

  That color at night is pretty unique, Elaine. Nice set.

6/27/2013 5:47:59 PM

 
 
  Oh My!!!
Oh My!!!
Canon 7D, Tamron 18-270mm lens, 6sec., f/6.3, ISO 160
 
  I Hate When This Happens
I Hate When This Happens
Canon 7D, Tamron 18-270mm lens, 6sec., f/6.3, ISO 160
 
 
These almost meet the requirements. These were the poor eggs that Jeff and Doug were shooting, and what a great decorating job by his kids!

7/1/2013 6:03:53 AM

  love your titles theses were great shots Beth it must have been fun to watch also.

7/1/2013 8:41:42 AM

 
 
  Orbs
Orbs
 
  Fun with Steel Wool
Fun with Steel Wool
 
  More Fun with Steel Wool...
More Fun with Steel Wool...
 
 
Here are three of mine-finally!

9/14/2013 2:29:57 PM

  Looks Great!! I want to do it again!!"

9/14/2013 6:36:36 PM

  these are awesome shot Elaine it looks like so much fun. I hope I don't have to miss the next time.

9/15/2013 1:26:50 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...1510
Next 10  >>

Copyright © 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.