articulate
Expedition Leader
I'm hashing some stuff out lately about the post-processing thread.
Real quick, let's set the stage:
Point of Enlightenment #1:
Point of Enlightenment #2:
Though I could talk about kids, other people's kids, some people's kids, and most people who aren't around, here's a post processed photo of some kids. The one on the left, fruit of my loins, if it's not apparent by the way she wears her hat:
This photo is post processed because the moment was happening and that half-child half-baby wasn't going to put up with those rocking sunglasses for very long. I knew when I shot it that it'd be pure luck and credit-cashing Karma if it'd come out just right: that's all right, I'll fix the white balance and exposure in Aperture methought.
Click. Click. Click.
The original photo came out overexposed with a blob on the left that I think was my wife (see Point of Enlightenment #2) that needed cropping, and the white balance was just a touch too warm. While I was at it, I added a little vignette to keep the focus in the middle. Ah! Blessed post processing software! Here to help me make a few corrections to a funny picture that I shot while hanging around camp this past weekend.
So, what does that do for the end result? Anything? Just cleans things up a little bit? The photo won't bring peace to the Middle East, or a solution to American health care (if only a photograph could do that). So is a little fakery with the software forgivable? Does it help you out as the viewer?
Here's my latest Point of Enlightenment: who cares about post processing if the subject matter is funny?
Just kidding.
Two things (that I can think of now) were new to me when I came to digital photography: white balance and the histogram. I'd read some photography experts say things like, "check your histogram" and I didn't what that was, or what to do after I checked it. Then I found out. A histogram, turns out, is a graph. I deal with graphs and charts all day at a desk. Photography is an avocation - it's mostly for fun. I don't want to deal with another graph in photography. A graph for my fun? It's about as useful as a three hole punch at the Expedition Trophy.
Besides, I didn't have a clue what that graph was showing me. Then I found out. And another photo expert said, "It only tells part of the story. Trust your eyes." Geez. I hate the histogram. I like Aperture and that clever slider for Kelvin and his one man band.
White balance: achieving the point at which white things actually look pure white in your photograph. We used to trust the ladies and gents at Kodak and Fuji for this part. Nowadays, your histogram displays what's going on with white in your picture. Arguably, if your white balance is "correct" in your digital photo, your picture will look as close to natural as possible. However, a histogram doesn't have a green light or a thumbs up or a dancing paper clip or anything that communicates to the novice (or drunkard), "Congratulations! Your white balance is correct. You now have a very dull picture."
So this past weekend, I took a few photos to try to get used to it. But I still don't get along with the histogram.
I've adjusted this photo to make the white as natural as possible. 2500 Kelvin, and the exposure knocked down by one stop to make the picture bearable:
The histogram should be showing a thumbs up. Good white balance. Boring picture.
Now . . . same boring picture of an exciting old mesquite tree in the thrilling desert:
4673 Kelvin. That's the only difference between these two pictures. Check the meta data if you want. T h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e.
I like the heat. And that way incorrect white balance. Does the color strike you as unnatural? (Let me guess, it does now, now that I've brought it to your attention right?) I say it's snazzy and deserty. Oddly, I had the white balance set for an auto detect, and this is what the camera produced, aside from my over exposure. I think we're all past the point that just because a camera takes a picture a certain way, it doesn't mean that the picture is true to the color of the scene as your eyes told you at the time. Here, the camera lied. Like it always does. But hell, same mesquite tree in a rising Sonoran sun.
I'm going to keep on thinking about, and practicing, this one.
Real quick, let's set the stage:
Point of Enlightenment #1:
I am really tired of talking about gear. When pro shooters get together we usually don't talk about gear, we usually talk about our kids.
Point of Enlightenment #2:
Maybe in SLC, but here we talk about whoever isn't around...
Though I could talk about kids, other people's kids, some people's kids, and most people who aren't around, here's a post processed photo of some kids. The one on the left, fruit of my loins, if it's not apparent by the way she wears her hat:
This photo is post processed because the moment was happening and that half-child half-baby wasn't going to put up with those rocking sunglasses for very long. I knew when I shot it that it'd be pure luck and credit-cashing Karma if it'd come out just right: that's all right, I'll fix the white balance and exposure in Aperture methought.
Click. Click. Click.
The original photo came out overexposed with a blob on the left that I think was my wife (see Point of Enlightenment #2) that needed cropping, and the white balance was just a touch too warm. While I was at it, I added a little vignette to keep the focus in the middle. Ah! Blessed post processing software! Here to help me make a few corrections to a funny picture that I shot while hanging around camp this past weekend.
So, what does that do for the end result? Anything? Just cleans things up a little bit? The photo won't bring peace to the Middle East, or a solution to American health care (if only a photograph could do that). So is a little fakery with the software forgivable? Does it help you out as the viewer?
Here's my latest Point of Enlightenment: who cares about post processing if the subject matter is funny?
Just kidding. Two things (that I can think of now) were new to me when I came to digital photography: white balance and the histogram. I'd read some photography experts say things like, "check your histogram" and I didn't what that was, or what to do after I checked it. Then I found out. A histogram, turns out, is a graph. I deal with graphs and charts all day at a desk. Photography is an avocation - it's mostly for fun. I don't want to deal with another graph in photography. A graph for my fun? It's about as useful as a three hole punch at the Expedition Trophy.
Besides, I didn't have a clue what that graph was showing me. Then I found out. And another photo expert said, "It only tells part of the story. Trust your eyes." Geez. I hate the histogram. I like Aperture and that clever slider for Kelvin and his one man band.
White balance: achieving the point at which white things actually look pure white in your photograph. We used to trust the ladies and gents at Kodak and Fuji for this part. Nowadays, your histogram displays what's going on with white in your picture. Arguably, if your white balance is "correct" in your digital photo, your picture will look as close to natural as possible. However, a histogram doesn't have a green light or a thumbs up or a dancing paper clip or anything that communicates to the novice (or drunkard), "Congratulations! Your white balance is correct. You now have a very dull picture."
So this past weekend, I took a few photos to try to get used to it. But I still don't get along with the histogram.
I've adjusted this photo to make the white as natural as possible. 2500 Kelvin, and the exposure knocked down by one stop to make the picture bearable:
The histogram should be showing a thumbs up. Good white balance. Boring picture.
Now . . . same boring picture of an exciting old mesquite tree in the thrilling desert:
4673 Kelvin. That's the only difference between these two pictures. Check the meta data if you want. T h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e.
I like the heat. And that way incorrect white balance. Does the color strike you as unnatural? (Let me guess, it does now, now that I've brought it to your attention right?) I say it's snazzy and deserty. Oddly, I had the white balance set for an auto detect, and this is what the camera produced, aside from my over exposure. I think we're all past the point that just because a camera takes a picture a certain way, it doesn't mean that the picture is true to the color of the scene as your eyes told you at the time. Here, the camera lied. Like it always does. But hell, same mesquite tree in a rising Sonoran sun.
I'm going to keep on thinking about, and practicing, this one.