People here are really talented... I hope I can live up to some of it... 
The bouy at night by K3ntFIN, on Flickr
The bouy at night by K3ntFIN, on Flickr
Upvote
0
another point-n-shoot shot
Mt. Oberlin and Bird Woman Falls [reprocessed] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
Mt. Oberlin and Bird Woman Falls [reprocessed] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Here's a shot of the Milky Way rising over Indian Rock Arch in Yosemite National Park that I snapped this past weekend:
Peering into Time [Explored] by inter211, on Flickr
Peering into Time [Explored] by inter211, on Flickr
Upvote
0
wow; so you were wide open for 30sec at iso 3200 . . . what post-processing went in, that's freaking awesomeinter211 said:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I always have to ask, just like my wife always feels the need to touch flowers to see if they're realinter211 said:
The 'creative director' who works with my wife that is usually amazed at what my wife brings to work (my stuff) but I have watched him first hand churn out amazing images from absolute crap in photoshop.
It's great to see an image like yours that actually came from a camera and not someone's imagination.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Perhaps its a hold over from my film days, but doesn't anyone just shoot a great photo without a bunch of photoshop or HDR. Please don't get me wrong, I completely appreciate the talent of you who know the intricacies of Photoshop and Silver EFX Pro and the like. But what happened to the simplicity of composing a great image and exposing it correctly?
Upvote
0
infilm said:
Here are a couple shots, straight out of camera (not landscape, sorry). Sometimes, but usually all too rarely, the light is perfect for work straight out of the camera. Most of the time, this is with low contrast light on cloudy days.
SOOC by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
Clara by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
In most cases, the light is not terribly conclusive to optimal output straight out of the camera. Digital sensors have a nasty habit of blowing out highlights instead of a smooth transition to white like film. Most films were more forgiving in terms of exposure, and depending on what result one wanted, you could select a film with curves/contrast pattern/grain structure that most closely resembles the final desired output. Most professionals who did their own darkroom work often burned or dodged sections of their photos as required. Likewise, taking a roll of film to a lab also involved processing, much of which was sub-ideal, but processing none the less.
What I'm getting at is that processing has been around for a long, long time; it is not a new phenomenon. The techniques of processing have just become more accessible and easier to use. Admittedly, post processing is often abused, but I don't think that should tarnish the overall practicality of its use.
Silver EFX Pro is fantastic. If DSLRs had customizable firmware where one could input a certain film grain and rendering pattern, that would be very nice (depends on how well implemented and how long it would slow down camera operation). DLSRs simply do an awful job replicating the old film grain styles and rendering. If one has to use software to get the equivalent, so be it. I really would rather not drag a medium format camera around everywhere with a half dozen film types and have to switch off from one shot to the next, depending on what I wanted. Silver EFX Pro is a incredible time saver. I can take point-n-shoot shots and make them look like lovely medium/large format shots (not ideal, but the only camera I had at the time was a point-n-shoot).
Mt. Oberlin and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
reflections by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
into the storm by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
Upvote
0
dstppy said:I always have to ask, just like my wife always feels the need to touch flowers to see if they're realinter211 said:
The 'creative director' who works with my wife that is usually amazed at what my wife brings to work (my stuff) but I have watched him first hand churn out amazing images from absolute crap in photoshop.
It's great to see an image like yours that actually came from a camera and not someone's imagination.
I have to agree with you. I've seen plenty of images that have been over-processed and look nothing like the image that came from the camera.
Personally I like to try and get most things right in the field using my set of ND grad filters to tame the contrasts and planning ahead to know when the lighting is best to take the shot I'm going for. I find it more enjoyable to create images in the field rather than spend countless hours in front of my computer editing it via software.
Upvote
0
infilm said:
plenty of people do (as pinnaclephotography clearly demonstrates). when you start off digital shooting it always seems like everyone's using effects and filters these days but after a while you look around and find there are plenty of very talented folks that are shooting excellent files straight out-of-camera.
but please, don't go down the road of "the simplicity of film" making "great images". most of the "great" landscape work in the film days was anything BUT simple. and your compose-and-shoot bliss only existed because of all the work being performed by the chemicals in the darkroom. we are now our own one-stop-shops for film processing, and so we have to do digitally what was performed by a negative bath under red lights before.
I know, because I was there, processing Ilford film back then. lots of others on this forum were around for the glory days of film too. what we do now to get a great image is no better or worse than what we did then to get a great image. it still involves composition, color, form, proper technique, and an artist's eye.
Upvote
0
