Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: increased use of processing plugins

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default increased use of processing plugins

    I haven't done a rigourous analysis but it strikes me that we are seeing more and more images these days being posted in the critique forums that have been processed using plugins such as Nik (e.g., Color Efex) and Topaz (Adjust etc). And this is not just happening in the Out Of The Box In Camera and Post Processing Techniques (where I would expect these images to appear) but in Avian, Macro and Flora and Wildlife amongst others. Some of the results are visually fantastic while others IMO fall flat because of misuse or overuse of the plugin.

    I'm interested in what people think about this. Is running a portrait of a bird or mammal through a Nik plugin any different to normal processing procedures using ACR and Photoshop or your software of choice? These plugins can do some magical things not easily duplicated with standard techniques, and it's not easy to describe exactly what they do in many cases, other than defining the slider values used. Does this mean images processed with plugins better belong in OOTB?

  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I've wondered about this too and am interested in the responses. I have specifically wondered about the Content-Aware function in CS5.

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Ian- Content-aware fill is essentially a clever way of cloning so as an editing tool I have no issues with that so long as it's reported.

  4. #4
    BPN Viewer Tom Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California, Orange County
    Posts
    1,116
    Threads
    33
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=John Chardine;757893]

    I'm interested in what people think about this. Is running a portrait of a bird or mammal through a Nik plugin any different to normal processing procedures using ACR and Photoshop or your software of choice?

    No. IMHO, all images are processed. Doesn't matter how, final result is what counts. (Excluding of course cheating/changing the image content, context).
    Tom

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Tom Graham;757972]
    Quote Originally Posted by John Chardine View Post

    (Excluding of course cheating/changing the image content, context).
    Tom
    Interesting philosophical questions arise here. Isn't changing the image content analagous to changes in artistic expression in painting from the realism schools to the abstract schools. Is one inherently "better" than the other? Is color "better" than B/W? Is sharp "better" than soft?

  6. #6
    BPN Member Don Lacy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    3,566
    Threads
    348
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Just about everything that can be done with a plugin can also be done in PS if you know the techniques all they do they do is eliminate the need to learn the techniques some plugins do it better then PS but its all processing. To me OOTB images are obvious deportations from excepted forms of images or images that no longer represent photographs and also overtime some OOTB techniques gain acceptance and become part of everyday imaging like soft focus and shallow DOF found in Marco images.
    Don Lacy
    You don't take a photograph, you make it - Ansel Adams
    There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs - Ansel Adams
    http://www.witnessnature.net/
    https://500px.com/lacy

  7. #7
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    285
    Threads
    57
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I agree with Don. Everything an image enhancement plugin can do can be done in PS. I've spent lots of time over at retouchpro.com learning high fashion retouching and how some procedures can be of use for my avian photography.

    It takes alot of work to understand why and how you would follow and use certain procedures! But is quick once learnt. I don't see the difference between my running an action I've created and using a plug-in I've purchased. For those that don't know ps well, a plugin is a quick and easy route.

    I think it's a matter of overuse. Subtle is the word most should have in mind when using any enhancement plugins.

    kind regards.
    Stu.

  8. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I guess my feeling was that some of the processing using the plugins was getting beyond what you might consider typical or nominal, and into the realm of "Post Processing Techniques", as the tag line of OOTB goes.

  9. #9
    BPN Member Bill Jobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,275
    Threads
    91
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    There's no easy or one correct answer. Most plug-ins, as noted above, simply assemble 'actions' that turn the key and open the vast resource that is Photoshop to complex manipulations.

    Designers spend the time to create those actions, and we pay the price to use them.

    They are merely workflow tools that open our creative visions to unparalled possibilities.

    As John suggested at the top, sometimes the results are exquisite; at other times, unfortunate.

    The nature of digital photography at the professional level demands that we 'develop' the raw (negative) file to fulfill our vision.

    My personal strategy, when creating a 'photograph,' is to develop an image as close as possible to one that would have emerged from a film camera, had the image been properly exposed and focused.

    But when creating a 'photo art' image, there are no limits to what the workflow may produce. HDR processing comes to mind as an obvious example.

    The key to ethical processing, in my view, is to fully disclose, when appropriate or expected, any manipulations of the original captured image, unless of course the result is obvious.

    This is absolutely mandatory in most all 'news' uses, or in photographic competitions.
    Bill Jobes



    www.billjobes.com

    My BPN Gallery

    Walk Softly and Carry a Big Lens ™

  10. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jobes View Post
    My personal strategy, when creating a 'photograph,' is to develop an image as close as possible to one that would have emerged from a film camera, had the image been properly exposed and focused.
    But Bill, no image emerged from the film camera until it passed through the darkroom. Having done a fair amount of darkroom work in the past, I can say that that added many variables just as PS does today. I'm not arguing with the concept as I too like sharp representational images when I shoot birds and have been working hard to try to achieve them, but I still think the other things are photographs as well in their own right. Even those sharp images are "photo art".

  11. #11
    BPN Viewer Tom Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California, Orange County
    Posts
    1,116
    Threads
    33
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    "My personal strategy, when creating a 'photograph,' is to develop an image as close as possible to one that would have emerged from a film camera, had the image been properly exposed and focused."

    What color film, Kodak made what, 10 different negative ones at any given time? Or, maybe color film by Fuji or Agfa? Color print paper made by ? Which paper?
    Or perhaps rather transparencies/chromes/slides - choose Kodachrome, Ektachrome? Agfachrome? Fujichrome?

    Tom

  12. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    However interesting the discussion, my intention was not to bring back the issue of how much processing is acceptable. This has been discussed many times here.

    In the original post I skirted the issue. I'll be as plain as I can be- I see a very attractive image posted in one of the mainstream critique forums here at BPN, and it clearly (to me at least) is heavily post-processed. The poster admits to using Nik but gives no other details. Of what possible educational value is this? Even if the Nik details (plugin, slider values) were given, what good is it to know that for example "Detail extractor" was used? Does anyone but Nik really know what Detail extractor does? BPN is a nature photography educational website and in my opinion, showcasing images processed in this way has it's place but not in what I would consider more "pure" forums such as Avian or Wildlife.

  13. #13
    Ofer Levy
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Chardine View Post
    However interesting the discussion, my intention was not to bring back the issue of how much processing is acceptable. This has been discussed many times here.

    In the original post I skirted the issue. I'll be as plain as I can be- I see a very attractive image posted in one of the mainstream critique forums here at BPN, and it clearly (to me at least) is heavily post-processed. The poster admits to using Nik but gives no other details. Of what possible educational value is this? Even if the Nik details (plugin, slider values) were given, what good is it to know that for example "Detail extractor" was used? Does anyone but Nik really know what Detail extractor does? BPN is a nature photography educational website and in my opinion, showcasing images processed in this way has it's place but not in what I would consider more "pure" forums such as Avian or Wildlife.
    Excellent thread John - thank you for starting it.
    I think I know exactly which image you are referring to (will send you a PM) and interestingly when I saw it I thought exactly about the same thing. I agree with you that such images belong to OOTB forum.
    Cheers,
    Ofer
    Edit: couldn't send the PM as your mailbox is full.
    Last edited by Ofer Levy; 01-07-2012 at 08:02 AM.

  14. #14
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    PM mailbox emptied!!

  15. #15
    BPN Viewer Tom Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California, Orange County
    Posts
    1,116
    Threads
    33
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I'm curious about the image in question, would someone kindly post link here for all to see or PM me with it, thanks.
    Tom

  16. #16
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Chardine View Post
    However interesting the discussion, my intention was not to bring back the issue of how much processing is acceptable. This has been discussed many times here.

    In the original post I skirted the issue. I'll be as plain as I can be- I see a very attractive image posted in one of the mainstream critique forums here at BPN, and it clearly (to me at least) is heavily post-processed. The poster admits to using Nik but gives no other details. Of what possible educational value is this? Even if the Nik details (plugin, slider values) were given, what good is it to know that for example "Detail extractor" was used? Does anyone but Nik really know what Detail extractor does? BPN is a nature photography educational website and in my opinion, showcasing images processed in this way has it's place but not in what I would consider more "pure" forums such as Avian or Wildlife.
    John, the education you lament not receiving when someone says they used NIK, is the same as someone saying they used levels and curves. Unless all of the nitty gritty detail is provided there is no "educational value".

    At the end of the day we are not producing photographs IMHO; we are producing ART.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, the only real original photograph, were the original negatives before any filters were available. Clearly, that is the original Out of The Box image. Everything else whether down in a darkroom or in a computer is post manipulation to create what the processor wants to present as their representation of what they "saw" at the moment in question.

    I believe an image only belongs in the OOTB forum when the artist acknowledges that the image is not what was "seen" but what has been created.

    In response to the Siena image (http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp/93489-Siena) you said

    1) Shadow/Highlight adjustment to open shadows.
    2) Local contrast enhancement using USM at 20/50/0 to reduce fog effect in the middle ground.
    3) JPG sharpened.
    How much shadow/highlight adjustment; where were the settings before and after?

    You can see where I am going; is there any difference between saying you used NIK Color Effects Pro 4 tonal contrast and saying what you said?
    Last edited by Jay Gould; 01-07-2012 at 06:53 PM.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  17. #17
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Not sure what you're on about Jay. I never commented on the "Siena image". You must be mistaking me for someone else.

    I don't agree with your first comment. If someone said "I brightened up the image with Levels" then I know pretty well what they did. If someone said "I increased the contrast of the image using Curves" then ditto; hence the educational value.

  18. #18
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Chardine View Post
    Not sure what you're on about Jay. I never commented on the "Siena image". You must be mistaking me for someone else.

    I don't agree with your first comment. If someone said "I brightened up the image with Levels" then I know pretty well what they did. If someone said "I increased the contrast of the image using Curves" then ditto; hence the educational value.

    You are absolutely right ; it was Robert Amoruso.

    However, the point is the same. You might, based upon your extensive experience, "know pretty well what they did" when someone says "levels and curves"; however, from an educational standpoint - and that was one of your opening premises for the thread - others might night know. I might know what they did; however, I do not know how much they did or didn't do unless the details are provided.

    And, no one will learn any more from "levels and curves" than from NIK CEP tonal contrast unless the details are provided.

    I have to acknowledge that Artie, on his blog, provides the CEP4 tonal contrast settings so it does provide some additional educational value.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  19. #19
    BPN Member Bill Jobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,275
    Threads
    91
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Graham View Post
    "My personal strategy, when creating a 'photograph,' is to develop an image as close as possible to one that would have emerged from a film camera, had the image been properly exposed and focused."

    What color film, Kodak made what, 10 different negative ones at any given time? Or, maybe color film by Fuji or Agfa? Color print paper made by ? Which paper?
    Or perhaps rather transparencies/chromes/slides - choose Kodachrome, Ektachrome? Agfachrome? Fujichrome?

    Tom
    It doesn't matter; I was talking about a philosophical approach,
    Bill Jobes



    www.billjobes.com

    My BPN Gallery

    Walk Softly and Carry a Big Lens ™

  20. #20
    BPN Member Bill Jobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,275
    Threads
    91
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Cassell View Post
    But Bill, no image emerged from the film camera until it passed through the darkroom. Having done a fair amount of darkroom work in the past, I can say that that added many variables just as PS does today. I'm not arguing with the concept as I too like sharp representational images when I shoot birds and have been working hard to try to achieve them, but I still think the other things are photographs as well in their own right. Even those sharp images are "photo art".
    Yes, darkroom work could manipulate what came out of the camera, but in no way did it come remotely close to what is possible today in the digital realm. That was my point.
    Bill Jobes



    www.billjobes.com

    My BPN Gallery

    Walk Softly and Carry a Big Lens ™

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jobes View Post
    Yes, darkroom work could manipulate what came out of the camera, but in no way did it come remotely close to what is possible today in the digital realm. That was my point.
    Hi Bill,

    Well maybe, or maybe not. Contrast was controlled by development (negative, slide or print), and for prints, the paper and its development. Dodging and burning was done routinely in the dark room (I did it a lot on prints and occasionally in negative to positive back to negative). Did you know unsharp mask was a darkroom technique? It was used often by some photographers (took hours to days). I tried it but my results were not very good--hard to align things in total darkness. Did you know large format photographers kept images of clouds and inserted them into images with boring skies? Sometimes the same clouds were used more than once. Things were added/removed with the aid of airbrushing and chemicals that erased image detail. Of course, one really had to be an expert to do those things. Digital image editing has only made it simple, fasterr, and "for the masses."

    Roger

  22. #22
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    snip

    However, the point is the same. You might, based upon your extensive experience, "know pretty well what they did" when someone says "levels and curves"; however, from an educational standpoint - and that was one of your opening premises for the thread - others might night know. I might know what they did; however, I do not know how much they did or didn't do unless the details are provided.

    snip
    Jay- I think we are talking a matter of degree here. If someone told me they increased the contrast of the image using Curves, I don't really care by how much numerically, just that I understand what was done. In this particular case I would take from the comment that the RGB or LAB luminance channel tone curve was made steeper or made into an "S" shape of some sort. Likewise if someone said they brightened up and image with levels I would assume with some confidence that they sinched-up the black and white handles and adjusted the central one to the left. Again, by how much is not that critical to know but if I needed to know more details I could always ask. These are fairly basic Photoshop manipulations and IMO do not require "extensive experience". In contrast, I haven't got the foggiest idea what has specifically been done to an image if someone said they applied the Topaz Adjust Spicify preset or NIK's Color Efex Detail extractor preset with the every informative Detail extractor slider (!) amongst others. Don't get me wrong, I think these plugins are fantastic fun and I use them extensively, just not on images I would post to Avian, Wildlife or ETL for example.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    John,
    I agree completely. I understand levels and curves, and when someone says they used them, I qualitatively understand what they did and I bet I could reproduce their image given the raw. But, for example, Kerry posted in this thread,
    http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...5-Sunset-today
    where he says he used Topaz Adjust. I have no clue what he did besides the name of the software.
    (I'll be asking him.)

    Roger

  24. #24
    BPN Member Kerry Perkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Simi Valley, California
    Posts
    8,310
    Threads
    1,048
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    This debate surfaces pretty regularly here at BPN and my take is always the same. Evaluate each image as it is posted and don't try to make a generalization about processing. Is it appropriate for the forum in which it was posted? IMO, if the processing is obvious and the image is posted anywhere other than OOTB it should be moved. As mods we are frequently moving images to OOTB that should have been posted there in the first place. As for the notion that an image should only be displayed the way it comes out of the camera, I say nonsense and good luck with that (not suggesting that anyone said that in this thread, but it does get said from time to time here). Processing is required on virtually all images, especially if you are shooting in RAW. I learned to process images almost 50 years ago in a darkroom. Dodging, burning, cropping, altering contrast and tonal ranges - all done in the darkroom either by physical manipulation of the light from the enlarger or by varying the timing of the chemical baths. Even Ansel Adams said "you don't take a picture, you make it". Some people dismiss an image just because the word "filter" or "plugin" is used. Fact is, with few exceptions, everything that a filter or plugin does can be done without said filter or plugin. The third-party software is merely using the underlying code of Photoshop (or other image editor) to accomplish tasks that might be too time-consuming to figure out. This is why we pay money for this software. Logically, it works like this - filter GUI (graphical user interface) --> API (application program interface) --> underlying code modules of the editor. So, if I use Photoshop or Lightroom to adjust hue, saturation, white balance, contrast, brightness, and sharpness then people call it "standard adjustments". If I use a third-party filter (Topaz Adjust for example) to make the SAME adjustments, then people say "oh, you used a filter - no bueno". Why is that? To John's point, there are times when people use filters in ways that look unnatural and post the images in Avian or Wildlife, etc. In these cases, I think the image should be moved to OOTB and have done so on many occasions. I don't think it's an alarming trend or anything, but the true test for me is the opinions of the mods and other members. It's also not fair to generalize about contests. Some contests clearly state that images cannot be altered, others are less strict. Again, it's a case by case basis and not a hard and fast rule.

    Roger, my lack of detail in my post was just laziness! I will correct that, but part of the charter of OOTB is to get people to experiment with these filters and learn what they do. If you look at the top of the OOTB forum page, you will see a sticky that Denise and I made for the purpose of sharing workflow examples. You will notice that only a handful of people have been willing to "open the kimono" and reveal their tricks... Denise has written a very extensive book on how to use the filters, which provides lots of insights into what the different plugins are capable of doing. If you want to completely understand what they all do, the only way is to study them just like you have the "standard" adjustment techniques. There are over 40 sliders in Topaz Adjust 5 and most people use presets and make minor adjustments from there. Without actually experimenting with the filter you will not learn much from the statement "I used the HDR Low preset".
    "It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart, and head." - Henri Cartier Bresson

    Please visit me on the web at http://kerryperkinsphotography.com


  25. #25
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Kerry- I was unaware that this particular subject surfaces regularly at BPN. Apologies if I started a rehash of old stuff.

    I will split hairs on one point you made. Topaz and NIK plugins have stand-alone modes modes and do not need Photoshop to run. As far as I understand it they directly modify the image with their own code, then just give the image back to Photoshop. Of course there is a huge range of effects available in NIK and Topaz et al. and some do very subtle things that are easy to duplicate in Ps. Others do wild things that would be virtually impossible to duplicate. This is why people spend money on these add-ons.
    Last edited by Daniel Cadieux; 01-09-2012 at 05:52 PM. Reason: fixed typo as requested...

  26. #26
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    285
    Threads
    57
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Chardine View Post
    Of course there is a huge range of effects available in NIK and Topaz et al. and some do very subtle things that are easy to duplicate in Ps. Others do wild things that would be virtually impossible to duplicate. This is why people spend money on these add-ons.
    I have to disagree John on this point. People spend money on these add-ons because it saves time and effort. Not in how quickly an image can be 'finished' but in the days/months/years it takes to learn how to do the same things in photoshop. Virtually everything a plugin can do, CAN be done in photoshop. But takes practise and time to learn which is why professional high end retouchers are paid alot of money.

    kind regards.
    Stu.

  27. #27
    Lifetime Member Michael Gerald-Yamasaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA USA
    Posts
    2,035
    Threads
    311
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Hill View Post
    Virtually everything a plugin can do, CAN be done in photoshop. But takes practise and time to learn which is why professional high end retouchers are paid alot of money.
    Greetings.

    The idea that a person (make them as expert as you want) can replicate in Photoshop whatever a plugin can do is a stretch. Much of the secret sauce in Topaz tools comes from their method of subdividing the image to tonal regions (up to 50), selectively applying the filter and blending with nearby regions. Add to the option space a handful of adjustable parameters for each filter and multiple filter effects, then overlapped selective multiple filter effects and the option space far exceeds what a person could replicate (not to mention the complex mapping between PS methods and Topaz methods may actually be a significant challenge to reproduce).

    What software like Topaz provides is not just a matter of convenient packaging of PS actions.

    -----

    That said, back to the original topic... Sharpening is edge enhancement. Fine grain posterizing (also known as increasing contrast in curves) is also edge enhancement. Micro reverse-s curves (also known as unsharp mask) is also edge enhancement.

    John, I think what you're talking about regarding acceptable processing is a matter of what shade of gray is the limit. What filters are used and how automatic they are are not the issue. Honestly, I think it is a subjective choice whether something is appropriate for Avian vs. OOTB & there will be borderline cases and folks will differ. I don't think there is a objective way of determining what is too much processing or the tools that will provide such. JMO.

    Cheers,

    -Michael-

  28. #28
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    285
    Threads
    57
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Michael, sorry just a quick one. Sub dividing images into tonal regions is retouch 101. With some research you could find out how this is done or I could send you my action.

    Would like to just make a point that plugins aren't some mysterious magic. They alter pixels based on maths. The heart of photoshop is based around the same maths.

    Maybe the question should be why do we insist on looking at film for our basis?

    regards.
    Stu.

  29. #29
    BPN Viewer Tom Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California, Orange County
    Posts
    1,116
    Threads
    33
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Stuart - "Maybe the question should be why do we insist on looking at film for our basis?"
    Agree 110%
    Tom

  30. #30
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Gosh, some of the people I admire the most here on BPN understand when someone says "levels and curves" ; however when someone says Topaz Adjust or Nik CEP they have noooooooooooo idea what is meant! [friendly sarcasm intended!]

    Wow!

    If we go back far enough in time when "they" were newbies they too didn't know what was meant when someone says "levels curves". Today they do after choosing to learn the language and concepts.

    John: If someone told me they increased the contrast of the image using Curves, I don't really care by how much numerically
    Mate, when you were a newbie you did care about the numbers; that is part of how you learned.

    Those that do not understand the plugins - get over it! That is the new way for those that do not want to spend the years you spent learning levels and curves.

    Artie has jumped into Nik with both feet; perhaps you should too.

    In the meantime, for us that need more than "levels and curves" - numbers are nice; in fact all of the numbers provided in http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ing-RAW-images (the amazing first processing presentation and probably IMHO one of the best of the best all time teaching threads - sorry I didn't see it to play then), provided me and I have absolutely no doubt many others with a teaching session second to none. I have taken the image and simply played with duplicating what each of the posters did as a learning too for me.

    Saying "levels and curves" without the numbers teaches me nothing!

    And, I do agree that saying I used Nik CEP tonal contrast without more teaches you nothing too.

    Which, raises the question, just how in depth a teaching experience do you want BPN to be? To stir things, do you want the experience sorta shallow "levels and curves"; or, do you want the experience to be totally educational - provide the numbers.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  31. #31
    Lifetime Member Michael Gerald-Yamasaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA USA
    Posts
    2,035
    Threads
    311
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    In the meantime, for us that need more than "levels and curves" - numbers are nice; in fact all of the numbers provided in http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ing-RAW-images (the amazing first processing presentation and probably IMHO one of the best of the best all time teaching threads - sorry I didn't see it to play then), provided me and I have absolutely no doubt many others with a teaching session second to none. I have taken the image and simply played with duplicating what each of the posters did as a learning too for me.

    Saying "levels and curves" without the numbers teaches me nothing!

    And, I do agree that saying I used Nik CEP tonal contrast without more teaches you nothing too.
    Jay,

    Greetings. Numbers for curves (or levels for that matter) are somewhat useless without the original image to understand what was done. In the processing RAW images you had access to the raw file so the more detailed information was useful. I'm looking forward to the new Monthly Processing Raw Images Exercise for that learning experience.

    Saying "levels and curves" or "Nik CEP tonal contrast" or even just Topaz Adjust lets the reader know that that specific method or plugin was used. Learning what they can do and why/when they should be applied is an exercise left to the reader.

    There's only so much one can learn from just looking at the finished image (a small one at that) without the original, methinks.

    Cheers,

    -Michael-

  32. #32
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,099
    Threads
    166
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    As someone who uses Topaz Detail & Adjust frequently to get as close as possible to the natural appearance of the bird or animal I don't see this as falling into the ootb area which IMHO is for images which although not true to nature still excite and expand the imagination.
    Cheers: Ian Mc

  33. #33
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Michael, respectfully disagree. The numbers allow me to know the extent to which changes were applied. Changing something 20 points or 5 points tells me a lot. Adding or subtracting tells me a lot.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  34. #34
    Lifetime Member Michael Gerald-Yamasaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA USA
    Posts
    2,035
    Threads
    311
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    Michael, respectfully disagree. The numbers allow me to know the extent to which changes were applied. Changing something 20 points or 5 points tells me a lot. Adding or subtracting tells me a lot.
    Okay, fair enough. But I would guess that only a few experts in the BPN readership would get more out of "curves +10 at input 120" than "lightened in curves" without seeing the original.

    Cheers,

    -Michael-

  35. #35
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Gerald-Yamasaki View Post
    Okay, fair enough. But I would guess that only a few experts in the BPN readership would get more out of "curves +10 at input 120" than "lightened in curves" without seeing the original.

    Cheers,

    -Michael-

    Now we can agree because "lightened in curves" is different from "curves".
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  36. #36
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parsonsfield, Maine
    Posts
    2,183
    Threads
    199
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jobes View Post
    There's no easy or one correct answer. Most plug-ins, as noted above, simply assemble 'actions' that turn the key and open the vast resource that is Photoshop to complex manipulations.

    Designers spend the time to create those actions, and we pay the price to use them.

    They are merely workflow tools that open our creative visions to unparalled possibilities.

    As John suggested at the top, sometimes the results are exquisite; at other times, unfortunate.

    The nature of digital photography at the professional level demands that we 'develop' the raw (negative) file to fulfill our vision.

    My personal strategy, when creating a 'photograph,' is to develop an image as close as possible to one that would have emerged from a film camera, had the image been properly exposed and focused.

    But when creating a 'photo art' image, there are no limits to what the workflow may produce. HDR processing comes to mind as an obvious example.

    The key to ethical processing, in my view, is to fully disclose, when appropriate or expected, any manipulations of the original captured image, unless of course the result is obvious.

    This is absolutely mandatory in most all 'news' uses, or in photographic competitions.
    I totally agree!

  37. #37
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Several posters have referenced creating an image that is as close to what a film camera would produce. Why this slavish link to the past as a way of judging what is/can be/ and will be produced in the present and the future?

    When you used a film camera, and if you were a darkroom specialist and did your own processing, you produced photographic darkroom art. Today, we produce photographic digital art. Each stands on its own; certainly, I am not going to try to produce/emulate with all of the modern equipment and techniques available what was once produced with what is today antiquated equipment.

    Let me quickly say that we are not discussing capture techniques; those of the past certainly apply to today although updated to take into account the equipment that is now available.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  38. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    Several posters have referenced creating an image that is as close to what a film camera would produce. Why this slavish link to the past as a way of judging what is/can be/ and will be produced in the present and the future?
    Indeed! Film had an unnatural characteristic curve, poor signal-to-noise ratio, poor sharpness, and low dynamic range (especially slide film). Yuk!

    Roger

  39. #39
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Weimar, TX
    Posts
    934
    Threads
    274
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I'm kind of a less is more kind of image processor. I have a lot of the nifty tools but I primarily rely on some very minor tweaks and techniques that i've learned over the years in Bridge or Lightroom and CS5.1. If there's a lot of noise I might use noise removal software if the image is something that I want to try to salvage or post somewhere with "look what I saw" in mind (doesn't happen here. This place is hard core ). Too much noise usually means I hosed the exposure up really badly so a lot of "image" is missing.

    On a side note (not to shift the focus of the topic), Mac Holbert has been digitally manipulating images since at least 1989. He is co-founder of Nash Editions. He prepared the famous "Afghan Girl" image for print. Actually he prepared both of them for print. The "I try to shoot it like film" comments are noble and all that but I'm fairly certain that the published photographers of the last 23-ish years all sold images that were digitally manipulated at some level. The only thing that is "relatively" new about digital manipulation is the incredibly powerful tools that we have available to us for fairly low cost. As photographers we can own software that gives us the ability to horribly screw up a nice image or subtly enhance a nice image... but none of them will fix a bad image. Bad = bad and good = good whether it's produced with pixels or grain. Not processing raw files from a digital camera and displaying them should be a crime imho

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics