| Author |
Message |
Paulo Calafate
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 18:29
Reply
@ Steve L: In fact, the hour of the day, the sky conditions and the day of the year, must have influence in this phenomenon.
Your pictures of these cold places are amazing. Do you use some camera protection? The camera works well with these low temperatures?
We can see the phenomenon that you and Zerega pointed in these pictures:
by intlmutt
by oscar H.
by D. Carlier
by Jaloiso
by Edmond
But, I found another pictures where we can see pure and bright white:
by Edmond
by Rikus
by Rikus
by PELLECUER Paul
And now? Are they with color manipulation? Another atmospheric conditions?
Only the authors can explain.
|
Vidar S
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 18:52
Reply
I've only seen a glaciure once, but It looks like all of this pictures have the exact colors. The water, mountains, the dirt and especially the snow gives me the reason to think they're real.
Sometimes it's easy to see the blue color in the snow. Large fields of snow and a bright low sun creates a huge amount of small shadows. Theses shadows are sometimes bluish. I will add some picture of it If the snow don't melt to much before it's sunny again.
|
A.Miguel Oliveira
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 19:24
Reply
Great topic, Paulo!
As I am not using Photoshop yet (practical reasons only, regarding new capacity to my CPU, time to learn it as I'm sure I will like to,etc; so, not that I'm against its use, on the contrary), I only learned from all of you and your expalnations. Being so, I can only "add" that I agree with almost everyone (it seems the general idea here is almost equal to all members), namely the words from Sérgio. Regarding the final result, and ONLY as a matter of personal taste in this particular case, as Vidar S says, I prefer something closer to Paulo's view, maybe with a little bit less white balance "compensation".
Very good explanation too, the one from Zerega about the cientific study of sunlight. On the other hand, Oscar and Paulo's talkings about photoshop work are to be studied in a new future (by me, of course).
Greets to all,
Miguel
|
|
A.Miguel Oliveira
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 19:45
Reply
Great topic, Paulo!
As I am not using Photoshop yet (practical reasons only, regarding new capacity to my CPU, time to learn it as I'm sure I will like to,etc; so, not that I'm against its use, on the contrary), I only learned from all of you and your expalnations. Being so, I can only "add" that I agree with almost everyone (it seems the general idea here is almost equal to all members), namely the words from Sérgio. Regarding the final result, and ONLY as a matter of personal taste in this particular case, as Vidar S says, I prefer something closer to Paulo's view, maybe with a little bit less white balance "compensation".
Very good explanation too, the one from Zerega about the cientific study of sunlight. On the other hand, Oscar and Paulo's talkings about photoshop work are to be studied in a new future (by me, of course).
Greets to all,
Miguel
|
Corneel Timmermans
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 21:44
Reply
I agree good topic,
I use photoshop sometimes too
but very moderate mostly just brightness and sometimes some tones. The first step is in my workflow is adjusting the "standaard shot" photo´s with the canon digital photo professional program. Than a frame in photshop and sometimes some crop or other editing.
grtz
corneel
|
TBM
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 22:00
Reply
@ Paulo: You are right, here are the 2 versions side by side:
When I first saw the picture on my computer, I was rather disappointed, because I couldn't find that particular warm light I had noticed in that winter late afternoon (and that my brain memory had stored...). So, after cropping it, i masked the sky, darkened it, then I worked on the istogram of the whole pic to build contrast, then I masked the sky again, and added a very light shade of orange to white.
|
fercar
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jan 08 23:27 - Edited by: fercar
Reply
Very good topic.
I think like some of the members who have participated in this matter.
Nowadays, the process to improve photos with certain computer programs are practically required to get interesting pictures to the world, and above all, what is more important, in view of the photographer himself.
I personally am studying various programmes such as retouching; PS, Artizen HDR, Photomatix and others, but I have a lot to learn yet.
I hope you will understand my words
Greetings
fercar
|
Steve L
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Jan 08 02:02
Reply
@ Paulo: Unfortunately, the only camera protection I have is using any available shelter to attempt to keep both me and the camera out of the elements. If it is very, very cold I put the camera under my coat between shots. If I am using my coat I try not to let the camera become so cold that it will fog up when I put it inside. I think, as with most or all of us, that the camera gets better care than I give myself. Ha, ha!
|
Bernhard
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Jan 08 10:17
Reply
Paulo, this is a great topic, thank you.
Regarding the photo by David Brosh I intuitively would prefer your whiter version. But only David could tell us what the place really looked like.
For me it is legitimate to edit pictures. By editing I (mostely) try to let them look like the reality that I saw in the moment taking the picture.
I am taking photos in RAW-Format only and use the Nikon Software Capture NX for the baisc procedure, correction of exposure, adjusting of the tonal values, chosing of the display detail. Then I save the picture as TIF and use Photoshop (CS3) to add a frame, get rid of sensor dust etc., resizing and finally sharpening and saving as JPG.
Regards,
Bernhard
|
|
Paulo Calafate
Member
|
# Posted: 10 Jan 08 15:31
Reply
@ TBM: you see, the distance soft the colors and details. In your original picture we can see very well this effect. The castle, the plants and the sky has poor color and sharpness. One more time the digital mechanisms and the lens didn't capture what your eyes saw. So, for me, you did a good and legitimate job in color and contrast terms.
@ fercar: When you highlight dark zones of your picture, you increase the noise in it. In this kind of pictures, with great contrast range, I think is better to take at least 2 pictures with different exposures and then try to merge them with some software edition. Or, in some situations you can use a Neutral Density gradual filter to decrease that light contrast.
In the picture below I merged 3 photos with different exposures (foreground rocks, landscape and sky):
|
TGB
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Jan 08 17:03 - Edited by: TGB
Reply
Personally I do not think it possible to recreate the true conditions existing when a picture is taken. The camera, after all, is purely a mechanical device while the aesthetics that prompts the recording of a scene is highly individual to the person behind the lens. The photographers impression of the scene, remembered from the time of taking the photograph, will be highly subjective and will affect any or all of the post processing that is required, which is why there are so many post processing techniques available. Every step in the process is affected by the hardware used; camera, lens, computer, software et al, so it seems to me that how the photographer interprets the final result of the post capture print and the use to which the final print will be put will be the major influences in the final output.
|
. 1 . 2 .
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 3