Stunning shot of Menindee Lakes

Errrr...... Sadly now one of our photos......if only!!

Cheers

Val

Oh for an edit button!

Should read "Sadly NOT one of our photos"........!

Don't worry J & V, It is a great photo & you showed us. Thanks.
Try the Preview button it's the next best thing to an edit button but not as good as.
Take care, Safe travels. Ma.

Should of read "professional photographer"

Yeh! Thank god for Photoshop and HDR. How couldv'e we ever taken photo's using without them.

The sad thing is you don't even have to be their to take the "once in a lifetime" photo...... just a handful of different shoots taken at the same place over a year.

Add a bit of this and a bit of that and hey presto..... a perfect shoot.

I think it should be law that you have to state if the photo has been enhanced and to what degree.

Hi olcoolone,

As a "semi professional" photographer, in that Photography is not my main job but I get paid to shoot weddings, commercial images and also sell my landcsape images as a side interest these sort of comments really frustrate me. While I agree that a lot of people use photoshop and HDR to "overcook" their images and make them look better than the actual scene or even use different photo's of the same scene taken at different times to make one super image if you will, a lot of Photographers including myself take great care and time to ensure the details and colours in the photo are a realistic representation of the actual scene at the time the image was taken. What a lot of people do not understand is that you CAN NOT achieve this without photoshop!

Before digital photography film photographers would process their film using chemicals and then use dodging and burning techniques in the darkroom to balance exposure and tone their images using different methods including gel filters, etc etc. Nowadays a RAW file is the equivalent of a negative and photshop is your darkroom. An original RAW file is always flat, washed out and has minimal contrast but all of the information to create a high quality image is stored in these files and you must use a RAW converter and photoshop to bring out the best in each file. It is up to the individual to use these programs to their own taste but just because the image has been processed in Photoshop does not automatically render it an "enhanced" or unrealistic image. I don't think it's fair to criticise or dismiss someone's work simply because they have followed the correct process to create a quality image. Digital Photography and post processing are as essential to each other as film photography and a darkroom.

Your comment "I bet the raw image was nothing like the one shown" is true because it is not meant to be. I have looked at the image of menindee lakes and it does not appear to have been over worked or pushed too far in post processing at all and it is a very good image.

The image below is a recent one of mine that I took on the south coast of WA. I am proud of this shot as I put a lot of effort into it. A lot of work was done "in camera". I used a long exposure to create movement in the water and also used filters to balance the exposure between the sky and the foreground. I converted the RAW file using "Capture One Pro 7" and finished off in Photoshop with a few layer masks as the foreground was still a bit dark compared to how it was at the time. I can safely say that everything about this shot including the colours, the detail in the rocks and the sky was exactly how it was at the time. Yes, I used photoshop and no, the raw file looks nothing like this.




Craig

That Menindee Lakes Photo is very, very good, it is sharp and it doesn’t hurt my eyes.

Hi Greig
I certainly don’t want put down you work, but truth is that it is a trend to rework photos to extremity.
What I don’t understand why water must look like mist, waves like cotton balls and rocks like sponges?
I’m getting yearly calendar from work. I always cover calendar pictures
with those awful “photos”. If they would be only pictures, and not a calendar with dates, I wouldn’t have it in my home.
I’m really sorry, but when I look at those pictures, they physically hurt my sensitive eye side as they are just too blurry.
Cheers Dana

Hi Dana,

The name is actually Craig and you don't have to be sorry. I don't expect everyone to like my work and everyone is entitled to an opinion. The image I have posted has not been "reworked" as you say at all which is the whole point of my post. The "mist" and "waves like cotton balls" are an effect achieved in camera at the time of capturing the image and have nothing to do with being "reworked" as you say. I like to capture some movement in the water in some of my photo's as I do not feel that super crisp frozen images of water do the scene justice all of the time but that's a personal choice at the time and I understand it won't be to everyones taste.

The rocks in my photo are a true representation of the rocks at that particular beach. Unless you have actually been there yourself and have seen them in real life I don't feel you are in a position to judge on that in my opinion. It is an amazing and unique stretch of coast with some very unusual rock formations and coastline. I have sold this image several times on canvas and it is nice to know it is appreciated by some enough to want it in their homes.

The whole point of my response is that I think there is a lot of ignorance out there when it comes to the use of imaging software. I was merely trying to point out that it is actually part of the process to use it as a darkroom is used in film photography.

Cheers

I am not against people using photo editing software but comparing it to darkroom processing is way of the mark.

As your well aware with software like Photoshop and a bit of experience you can manipulate the photo into anything including adding, blending and removing items you don't want in the photo, the spot color correction and enhancements when using Photoshop far exceeds what could of been done using conventional methods.

How can you add and alter focal points without using software...... there are so many thing you can do these days.

Years ago when taking photos you would wait for the right time and conditions and take maybe 12 shoots and then process them, you had to have good stock to start with...... not with DSLR and photo editing software.

I remember watching a doco on professional sports photographers and one guy was saying in the pre DSLR days we would take 100 shoots and then halfway through the game we would process then and get the to the media..... now we take 4000 shoots, have a look at them at the end of the game and send the best 100 by email to the media.

Cameras also play a big part and many consumers don't realise the difference with 1.6 x crop factor as opposed to a large format camera...... and the difference in processing capabilities of a $700.00 DSLR to a $1200.00 DSLR.

There are heaps of people who take fantastic shoots with the help of photo editing software but for some reason the don't understand the fundamentals of photography...... the funny looks and questions you get when you use a flash in daylight.

All I wish they would do is grade the amount of editing they have done.

So maybe we should start calling photographers; PC/Mac artists.

Hi Craig
My apologises for misspelling your mane.

I never claimed I'm pro or semi-pro photographer/computer photo editor.
I'm definitely not against what some one else likes or dislikes.
If you would be reading some other posts, you would know by now one of my mottoes:

"De gustibus non disputandum est "

In my case it doesn't matter how the photo is altered, if it is by taking longer expose or fixed on computer, it still hurt my eyes.

Cheers Dana

Missing my point completely unfortunately. It's true that Photoshop and imaging software has given us much more flexibility in what can be achieved than a darkroom ever could but I am not "way off the mark" comparing it to a darkroom at all. A raw file is designed to be processed in software just as a negative is designed to be processed in a darkroom. Thats my whole point, you can't have one without the other. I was not saying they are exactly the same but they are comparable.

This is from the luminous landscape website " A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image"

You could argue that simply taking a photo in Jpeg mode is also enhancing an image because when set in this mode, the camera applies contrast, saturation, white balance, sharpening and all of the adjustments at the time the image is taken. If taken in raw it leaves it up to you to do.

It's true that a lot of people go way over the mark and over process their images to the point of them looking hyper real and I suppose that is an evil that comes along with digital photography being available to everyone and so cheaply.

It has taken me a long time to learn about photography and getting the correct exposures etc in camera at the time. I have spent years and still learning how to perfect things like hyperfocal distance at different apertures and focal lengths, which lenses are sharpest at what apertures, which filters work best in which light and many many other aspects of actually taking photo's. It just bugs me when people dismiss all of that because you use a computer to process the image after it's taken when it IS actually part of the process.

Hi Dana,

Thanks for your response and I am sorry my photo hurts your eyes!!

I would just like to re-iterate that my photo is not "altered". I set my shutter speed to 3 seconds and opened the shutter with a cable release. The image is what was recorded on my sensor based on the movement in the water over those 3 seconds the shutter was open....there is no alteration. I am always open to having my work criticised as I am interested in other peoples point of view but you need to be careful when choosing words like "altered" and "reworked".

Thanks

Craig,
…… you need to be careful when choosing words like "altered" and "reworked".
Thanks for patronising, but last time I checked, we were still living in democratic country called Australia. I also checked on fact that we have a freedom of speech. That include choice of words we use, unless they not racist, inciting violence etc.

Dana

Dana,

OK!! Gee!! I'm, not sure how we moved from photography to politics but at this point we will just have to agree to disagree. I am simply stating that my photo has not been "altered" but is the original capture and is how the water looked based on the time of the exposure. Call it what you like but it is now clear to me that you should not be commenting on things that you know very little about. I was not being patronising, I think you are being a little bit sensitive though.

Craig

Dana

Perhaps I am the one being sensitive now but if you are going to take the time to criticise something that another person has put a lot of time and effort into then at least have the courtesy to be critical in a constructive way. Your use of the word altered is incorrect in this context. I am not taking away your freedom of speech by saying so and is absolutely ridiculous to suggest as much.

Craig

Craig,
I liked the photo very much and sent it on to a mate who is a professional. He does use photoshop but tiny adjustments to some of his photos.

He confirmed what you had said and he and his wife also liked it.

My vote . Very nice.

Thanks for the image,
RA.

Thanks RA!

Much appreciated, tough crowd on here :)

I wasn't really even seeking a critique just trying to make a point. Sometimes I think it's better just to keep quiet!

Feedback very much appreciated all the same.

Best Regards

Craig

Craig I'm with RA, I think its a great image.

I also agree with your sentiments comparing darkroom processing and now doing so with software.
In my younger days I played around in a darkroom doing all sorts of things to enhance or remove parts of the image.

Thanks John,

My love for Photography started back at school in the darkroom. A lot has changed since then thankfully. I can't see the Mrs enjoying a bathtub filled with chemicals :)

Appreciate your feedback

Craig

Craig,

What some of the "photo-shopping is cheating" pundits tend to forget is that legends like Frank Hurley and Ansell Adams doctored the b*ggery out of their photos as well. Most of Hurely's Shackelton and WW1 photos had the background and lighting changed.

Adams was adverse to touching up nature photos either to make them more spectacular...

Being going on since cameras were invented....

read "wasn't adverse"

Hi Scott,

Very true indeed. I was going to include that fact but did not want to come across as protesting too much! I just get annoyed when people always say "is that photoshopped?" and dismiss your efforts simply because they are not aware of the process.

90% of a good photo is the effort and the planning to be at a location at the right time of day. Lugging all of your gear, tripod etc up and down cliff faces, painstakingly setting up and making sure your focus and composition is spot on, and waiting for the light to be just right. All for that few minutes of nice light in the hope of capturing something special.

10% is how you process that shot later. As you can probably tell from my posts I get really defensive as people don't know the work and effort that is put in behind alot of these photo's and automatically write it off because you've used photoshop to create the final image as part of the process. Just trying to create some awareness but as I said people are entitled to their opinions!

Thanks for your response.

Craig

Hi Craig,

Thank you for your valued contributions. There can be no doubt that post-camera processing is an important part of the creative process, and even those who casually dismiss it as “just photoshopped” should realise that even the jpg images they get from their cameras are already heavily “fiddled”.

The effort that goes into being in the right place at the right time with the right composition, optimum exposure, depth of field etc is only the first step in the creative process. I can well imagine that you took quite some time to get the raw image you displayed above. The photographer who captured the Menindee photo is quoted as saying "I travelled 500 kilometres to chase that storm front, hoping to capture some special images and it was worth every kilometre for that one shot." This kind of commitment deserves recognition, not to be simply passed over as “just photoshopped”.

One thing that hasn’t been touched on here is the artistic opportunities to deliberately depart from simply recording reality as perfectly as we can. We can embellish a scene so that it looks as we’d like to see it, rather than as it was. I confess to forcing reds and golds in some of my sunrise/sunset shots. I confess to using monochrome for dramatic impact, shallow depth of field to focus interest on a subject, change aspect ratio and indeed use any other facility, in camera or post-camera, to produce something I’m happy to hang on the wall. Cheating? No. Just photoshopping? No – a deliberate creative process. As you say, others are entitled to their opinions, but each of us is also entitled to explore our own creativity.

It’s a pity this thread, like too many, went off the rails as it had real promise. I hope that you and others can ignore the negative responses and continue to offer your insights. There’s a lot of experience and expertise here that we can all benefit from --- that is if we aren’t routinely forced to keep our heads down below the parapet!

Cheers

John

Hi John,

Thanks for your support and I could not agree more with what you have said here. In support of your comments I would like to post the below photo I took on the same day at the same beach. We also made a return trip of 1200 kms over 4 days to photograph and explore this coast. I only really got 2 shots that I am really happy with. The one above and this one which I felt worked better in monochrome for dramatic impact :)

This was one of those right place, right time shots. As I was looking for a vantage point to set up my tripod this huge set wave came in and was a perfect A frame shape. Just as my camera found focus and I snapped she was positioned dead centre of it as it broke. Also, the rocks she is sitting on are almost the reverse shape of the wave itself. I love this shot as it says alot about my partner and is one of those images that keeps you inspired to shoot more....regardless of what anyone says!

I hope you enjoy it and thankyou again for your insightful response.

Best Regards

Craig

Beautiful image Craig :))

Excellent Craig - Love the simplicity and the way attention is focused on the subject by the simple symmetry, by removing the visual clutter provided by colour, by the tight camera focus centred on the subject and I suspect a pretty slow shutter speed to remove distracting detail from the moving background. And of course there's lots more... I reckon virtually all explorers of Aus carry cameras and we can all learn from seeing how others use their cameras. Thank you for sharing.

Cheers

John

Hullo Craig

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience about processing digital photos - I have learned a lot from what you have so clearly and patiently explained. Plus the images of course! The old proverb that "People don't throw stones at barren trees" is worth remembering.

And thank you J&V for initiating the thread. Although I had seen the image in the press, there was, of course, no informative discussion about processing techniques and the spectrum of artistic/creative intervention that can be used.

Cheers
Andrew

Hi John,

Thanks kindly for your feedback again. You have pretty much hit the nail on the head there. You obviously enjoy your photography as well and would love to see some of your photo's.

The shutter speed was actually a bit quicker in this instance, I saw the wave coming in and used the "Tv" or shutter priority mode and chose 1/1000 and hoped for the best. It was actually a bit dark but raw to the rescue it was easy to correct that exposure flaw. I guess that is where we have more of a luxury than the old film days where you needed to be spot on with your exposure. Now we have the luxury of getting it wrong by a few stops and can still bring it back after. Cheating? More like a set of very reliable training wheels :)

The lens I used was the 70-200mm f2.8 canon lens. It is taken at it's max focal length of 200mm at it's wide open aperture of f2.8. This has done 2 things...compressed the background and foreground and also blurred the wave in the background. Except for exposure correction and the obvious B&W conversion I didn't do much in PS except for adding to the natural vignette of the lens to draw the eye in to the scene a bit more.

Thanks again and if you would ever like to share some photo's or see some more of mine please don't hesitate to PM me.

To Andrew & Jen - I have actually never heard that old proverb so I had to google it.....the shame!! Anyway, I liked it a lot. I'm glad you have been following the thread and that you got something out of it. As I said in my earlier posts, everyone is entitled to their opinions and everyone is going to like something more or less than the next person. I actually just like getting out there and exploring and taking photo's and learning. Could be doing worse things!

Regards

Craig

Hi John,

Thanks kindly for your feedback again. You have pretty much hit the nail on the head there. You obviously enjoy your photography as well and would love to see some of your photo's.

The shutter speed was actually a bit quicker in this instance, I saw the wave coming in and used the "Tv" or shutter priority mode and chose 1/1000 and hoped for the best. It was actually a bit dark but raw to the rescue it was easy to correct that exposure flaw. I guess that is where we have more of a luxury than the old film days where you needed to be spot on with your exposure. Now we have the luxury of getting it wrong by a few stops and can still bring it back after. Cheating? More like a set of very reliable training wheels :)

The lens I used was the 70-200mm f2.8 canon lens. It is taken at it's max focal length of 200mm at it's wide open aperture of f2.8. This has done 2 things...compressed the background and foreground and also blurred the wave in the background. Except for exposure correction and the obvious B&W conversion I didn't do much in PS except for adding to the natural vignette of the lens to draw the eye in to the scene a bit more.

Thanks again and if you would ever like to share some photo's or see some more of mine please don't hesitate to PM me.

To Andrew & Jen - I have actually never heard that old proverb so I had to google it.....the shame!! Anyway, I liked it a lot. I'm glad you have been following the thread and that you got something out of it. As I said in my earlier posts, everyone is entitled to their opinions and everyone is going to like something more or less than the next person. I actually just like getting out there and exploring and taking photo's and learning. Could be doing worse things!

Regards

Craig