My latest musings about photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    > Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    > http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php


    Some decent thoughts.

    I agree that the attitude toward digital as either being capable of more
    manipulation or needing more manipulation is misguided. We are used to
    the days when we sent our film to the lab and got back nice, color and
    exposure corrected prints. This made us think that film was superior in
    its ability to capture images accurately. What we fail to realize is
    that the lab manipulated the images as much or more than we do on our
    computers with digital. In fact, digital has a better chance of getting
    it right in the first place, because we can inspect the results
    in-camera by means of histograms and white balancing. Both media can be
    manipulated, and both sometimes need it to improve the results. You just
    learn the differences in your workflow and go with the one that gives
    you the better results or has greater convenience.

    This gives the nod to digital, for the same reasons that computer word
    processing beats out the typewriter. We have greater flexibility in
    digital, but that does not mean that the film photography did not
    require the same manipulations - just that they were more difficult in
    those days.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jan 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:07:02 +1100, "Wayne J. Cosshall"
    <> wrote:

    >Hi All,
    >
    >I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    >Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    >http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Wayne


    An interesting treatise. I don't agree with it all, but it does deal
    with some interesting ideas.
    BTW, "bares" should be "bears".

    --
    Angelina Jolie moved into
    a mansion in New Orleans
    with Brad Pitt where they
    say they will be very
    involved locally. The
    actress is nothing if not
    meticulous. Whenever Angelina
    Jolie orders in Chinese she's
    very careful to specify boy or girl.
    Bill Funk, Jan 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    > Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    > http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >

    My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with
    PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus).
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Jan 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:07:02 +1100, "Wayne J. Cosshall"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    >> Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    >> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Wayne

    >
    > An interesting treatise.


    I agree, it's interesting. I recently went digital. The experience,
    after a long vacation and about 1000 shots, 500 of them not discarded
    on the spot, was about as expected.

    First, I had expected to have to adjust for "expose for the highlights"
    instead of "expose for the shadows" which I had previously use (for color
    negative film.) This turned out to be true, very true, and very imnportant.

    Second, I had expected that the autoexposure in the camera would be better
    than the camera I had previously used (a Minolta X-700). This was true,
    using the Canon 30D's "evaluative metering", but still, the camera did a bad
    job on shots of glaciers or cloudy skies, very bad. I had to use the
    histogram a lot and be paranoid about checking it and using the "exposure
    conmpenation" wheel.

    Third, as I had never used autofocus, I had wondered how good it would be.
    I had expected that for really 3D images, using only the central focus spot and
    focusing on the desired point, button half down, then moving to the desired framing, it would
    work real nice. It did. I had expected that it would work well focusing
    on a scene which was all at infinity. It did not, on the whole, do as well as
    I expected. Even with the crummy focus screen, I could often do better
    by hand. I had not expected that **the** critical "autobracket" feature, which the
    30D lacks, would be focus bracket. I'm not sure why this vital feature is missing.
    The autofocus at infinity was OK for f/16 or f/11, but not for f/5.6 or f/4
    (for zoom lenses). For my 50 mm f/1.7, it seemed completely reliably OK only at f/8 for more.
    For closeups (e.g. flowers) I had expected to need to use manual focus and
    focus my moving the camera, and this turned out to be true.

    Fourth, I had expected that underexposed shots would in general be
    fixable if saved as RAW, and that was true.

    I had not expected that I would be playing with the ISO setting as often as I did. This is a whole
    new dimension to photography. It would not be necessary, of course, if the camera had
    an amplifier/ADC system that captured the whole dynamic range of the sensor, from
    1 electron to full wells, in one go. I found myself setting the shutter speed and
    f/number by hand and adjusting the ISO for correct exposure. This was a very strange
    experience. It did work, though.

    And then there is IS. I had heard it touted ... but had not expected the absolutely
    amazing miracles that I experienced. Handheld exposures of 1/2 second at 70 mm focal
    length, with my hands steadied on a window sill ... and they turned out quite useable
    and sometimes perfect .... that's a miracle.

    Finally ... there is Photoshop. I have used it a lot with scanned images.
    But with digital and RAW it is even better. The 18-55 kit lens that comes with
    the 30D is widely accused of being crap. It does have crappy ... very crappy ...
    lateral chromatic aberration at wide angle ... but that is trivially fixed
    with the camera raw import section of Photoshop. That fixed, I'm quite happy
    with this lens. It's not the 50 mm f/1.8 prime, but it's OK.

    The RAW import feature of PS for the 30D works wonders. I love it.
    I'm a tweeker, and it lets me get close to what I want in the linear domain,
    with no "shoulder" to the exposure, and I love that. The color temperature
    correction feature works perfectly, and I love that. I love playing with
    the "sharpness" setting to get it just right. I hate seeing picture with
    obvious white rings around black objects, or vice versa. Using this feature,
    I can set the sharpness just below that horror, and below the "too much noise"
    level, and still get a nice sharp image. I did not expect this to work
    as well as it does. Finally, on my recent vacation I took many photos
    of glacier scenes, which are, always have been, and always will be, hard to
    print. I found that the gradient mask combined with the "filter, sharpen,
    unsharp mask, radius = 250, amount in the 20-50 range" works wonders.
    The unsharp mask with a big radius and a modest amount is a great tool for
    under contrasty scenes. Finally ... with PS now working on 16 bit images,
    one does not have to worry about overprocessing resulting in those damn
    quantization artifacts. One merely needs lots of memory and a fast machine.
    I'm thinking of upgrading my PC to a dual processor 3 GHz machine
    with 4 gigs of memory.

    And then there are panoramas. I used to love large format. I tried
    Hugin on some panoramas I took, and the results are great. Next time
    I'll take a small tripod and try 2-D panoramas. This time I did only
    1-D ones.

    That's my take on just going digital.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Jan 21, 2007
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    VicTek Guest

    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    >> Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    >> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Wayne
    >>

    > My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with
    > PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus).
    > Dave Cohen


    Yes, Photoshop does cause one's wallet to be overexposed <g>. There are
    many photo-editing programs that are quite capable that cost a lot less than
    PS. I imagine there are jobs that only PS can do well, but as a hobbyist
    I've managed without it.
    VicTek, Jan 21, 2007
    #6
  7. On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:50:08 GMT, "VicTek" <> wrote:

    >> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>> Hi All,
    >>>
    >>> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    >>> Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    >>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>>
    >>> Wayne
    >>>

    >> My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with
    >> PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus).
    >> Dave Cohen

    >
    >Yes, Photoshop does cause one's wallet to be overexposed <g>. There are
    >many photo-editing programs that are quite capable that cost a lot less than
    >PS. I imagine there are jobs that only PS can do well, but as a hobbyist
    >I've managed without it.


    What about Photoshop Elements? (At least for us non-profit hobby
    photographers.) It only costs about $80. They even sell it at Costco!
    Steve Koterski, Jan 21, 2007
    #7
  8. Sounds like you are a fast learner. And experienced photographer.

    Your roving ISO procedure is new. Anyone else do this? I think we all
    end up checking our LCD after pictures are taken, to reassure ourselves
    that the highlights haven't been blown out and the color is right. No
    miracle procedures on light reading, even with digital. I think the
    ideal would be live preview, such as the R1 Sony and the Oly 330.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jan 21, 2007
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <45b3b419$0$4884$>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> writes
    >Sounds like you are a fast learner. And experienced photographer.
    >
    >Your roving ISO procedure is new. Anyone else do this?


    I do change the where required, it's an advantage of digital over
    carrying several cameras or interchangeable backs or attempting to
    recover something printable from an underexposed negative.

    >I think we all end up checking our LCD after pictures are taken, to
    >reassure ourselves that the highlights haven't been blown out and the
    >color is right.


    If I feel the scene could be problematic, otherwise I do not glance at
    the display.

    >No miracle procedures on light reading, even with digital. I think the
    >ideal would be live preview, such as the R1 Sony and the Oly 330.


    Only if it does not restrict or degrade producing photographs.
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
    ~Ansel Adams
    Prometheus, Jan 21, 2007
    #9
  10. VicTek wrote:
    >> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>> Hi All,
    >>>
    >>> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    >>> Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    >>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>>
    >>> Wayne
    >>>

    >> My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with
    >> PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus).
    >> Dave Cohen

    >
    > Yes, Photoshop does cause one's wallet to be overexposed <g>. There are
    > many photo-editing programs that are quite capable that cost a lot less than
    > PS. I imagine there are jobs that only PS can do well, but as a hobbyist
    > I've managed without it.


    In many ways a hobbyist is *more* at risk there; we don't mostly have
    the production rate, and hence the need for a really efficient workflow,
    that professionals do. We can afford the luxury of hand-tuning each
    exposure (just like we used to do in the darkroom).

    Personally, I'm addicted to non-destructive editing, and hence
    adjustment layers. Again, this is more an amateur problem in some ways
    (and high-end professionals of some sorts). People doing wedding work,
    say, will never look at a picture again after their first hit at it (if
    they even consider hand-adjustment at all, with that kind of volume), so
    doing destructive editing is fine. But I'm always going back to old
    photos (I've re-edited scans of old negatives, so I've adjusted that
    photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers,
    that I know of. Sigh.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 21, 2007
    #10
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    kosh Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > VicTek wrote:
    >
    >>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi All,
    >>>>
    >>>> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop
    >>>> and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my
    >>>> site at:
    >>>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>>>
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>>>
    >>>> Wayne
    >>>>
    >>> My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay
    >>> with PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus).
    >>> Dave Cohen

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, Photoshop does cause one's wallet to be overexposed <g>. There
    >> are many photo-editing programs that are quite capable that cost a lot
    >> less than PS. I imagine there are jobs that only PS can do well, but
    >> as a hobbyist I've managed without it.

    >
    >
    > In many ways a hobbyist is *more* at risk there; we don't mostly have
    > the production rate, and hence the need for a really efficient workflow,
    > that professionals do. We can afford the luxury of hand-tuning each
    > exposure (just like we used to do in the darkroom).
    >
    > Personally, I'm addicted to non-destructive editing, and hence
    > adjustment layers. Again, this is more an amateur problem in some ways
    > (and high-end professionals of some sorts). People doing wedding work,
    > say, will never look at a picture again after their first hit at it (if
    > they even consider hand-adjustment at all, with that kind of volume), so
    > doing destructive editing is fine. But I'm always going back to old
    > photos (I've re-edited scans of old negatives, so I've adjusted that
    > photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers,
    > that I know of. Sigh.



    Ihear good things about gimp... and it's free!
    application made for linux, it has many parralells to ps.

    I have ps, so have not spent too much time with it, but a skim thru
    themenus looked quite promising.

    kosh
    kosh, Jan 21, 2007
    #11
  12. Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:07:02 +1100, "Wayne J. Cosshall"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and
    >> Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at:
    >> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Wayne

    >
    > An interesting treatise. I don't agree with it all, but it does deal
    > with some interesting ideas.
    > BTW, "bares" should be "bears".
    >

    Thanks, I fixed the typo

    Cheers,

    Wayne


    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 21, 2007
    #12
  13. Dave Cohen wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop
    >> and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site
    >> at:
    >> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Wayne
    >>

    > My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with
    > PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus).
    > Dave Cohen

    True. And of course when I speak of Photoshop I also mean all the other
    similar programs.

    Cheers,

    Wayne


    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 21, 2007
    #13
  14. David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >
    > In many ways a hobbyist is *more* at risk there; we don't mostly have
    > the production rate, and hence the need for a really efficient workflow,
    > that professionals do. We can afford the luxury of hand-tuning each
    > exposure (just like we used to do in the darkroom).
    >
    > Personally, I'm addicted to non-destructive editing, and hence
    > adjustment layers. Again, this is more an amateur problem in some ways
    > (and high-end professionals of some sorts). People doing wedding work,
    > say, will never look at a picture again after their first hit at it (if
    > they even consider hand-adjustment at all, with that kind of volume), so
    > doing destructive editing is fine. But I'm always going back to old
    > photos (I've re-edited scans of old negatives, so I've adjusted that
    > photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers,
    > that I know of. Sigh.


    I love adjustment layers too.
    It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art
    photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as
    their 'vision' changes.

    Cheers,

    Wayne
    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 21, 2007
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    > I love adjustment layers too.
    > It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art
    > photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as
    > their 'vision' changes.


    Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit
    non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file
    before starting to edit?
    Paul Rubin, Jan 21, 2007
    #15
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Noons Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers,
    > that I know of. Sigh.


    gimp has adjustment layers as well...
    Noons, Jan 21, 2007
    #16
  17. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    >> I love adjustment layers too.
    >> It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art
    >> photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as
    >> their 'vision' changes.

    >
    > Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit
    > non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file
    > before starting to edit?

    Adjustment layers allow you to apply an effect, like levels or curves to
    a layer in a non-permanent way that allows you to turn it on and off or
    change the setting at will. They come automatically with a mask and I
    use them extensively on my complex image blends:
    http://www.artinyourface.com/elysium/index.html

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 21, 2007
    #17
  18. Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > Sounds like you are a fast learner. And experienced photographer.
    >
    > Your roving ISO procedure is new. Anyone else do this? I think we all
    > end up checking our LCD after pictures are taken, to reassure ourselves
    > that the highlights haven't been blown out and the color is right. No
    > miracle procedures on light reading, even with digital. I think the
    > ideal would be live preview, such as the R1 Sony and the Oly 330.
    >


    The Pentax K10D offers two modes which do the roving ISO automatically -
    Sv, which varies the ISO as part of the program, and TAv, which allows
    you to vary either T or A and changes the sensitivity to stop the other
    one changing.

    Since it does this in 1/3rd steps by default, and the shutter and
    aperture are also in 1/3rd steps, it's got a huge range of possible
    settings.

    David
    David Kilpatrick, Jan 21, 2007
    #18
  19. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    >> I love adjustment layers too.
    >> It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art
    >> photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as
    >> their 'vision' changes.

    >
    > Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit
    > non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file
    > before starting to edit?


    That's an assumed minimum; *always* archive the camera-original.

    The point of this kind of "non-destructive" editing is that I can fiddle
    with the main curves adjustment 5 times over three weeks, and fiddle
    with a couple of subsidiary masked curves adjustments, and fiddle with
    the masks on those subsidiary adjustments, in multiple photoshop
    sessions, without working on the real pixels over and over again.
    Changing the real pixels over and over again gradually ruins them --
    adjust up, and down, and over, and up a little again, and you don't get
    a picture that looks as good as the one you'd get if you made just the
    final net adjustment in one step.

    An adjustment layer is a layer of one of the supported tools (mine are
    essentially always curves layers) which sits there in the image stack
    and is applied to the pixels as they're presented to it. The original
    pixels sit at the bottom unchanged. When you print, or flatten the
    image and reduce the size and save a web copy, then all the adjustments
    are actually carried out -- in one pass starting from the original pixels.

    You can of course always start completely from scratch with the camera
    original -- but that means redoing *everything*. With an adjustment
    layer I can decide to just slightly darken the midtones, after thinking
    about it a week -- *without* having to start over and re-do everything.

    On a picture I'm trying to do real exhibition-quality printing from,
    I'll nearly always have two or three curves layers, often more. Usually
    all but one of them have layer masks. There'll generally be one or more
    retouch and alteration layers as well.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Noons wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >> photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers,
    >> that I know of. Sigh.

    >
    > gimp has adjustment layers as well...


    As of what version? I don't remember finding them, but I don't actually
    *use* Gimp, I just try to check in now and then to avoid being totally
    ignorant (like this, but oh well).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 21, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patzt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
    Patzt
    Aug 14, 2005
  2. W
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    405
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    My latest musing on the avocation of photography

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    292
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Jan 30, 2007
  4. PixelPix
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    768
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
Loading...

Share This Page