Digital photoshopping that I was talking about is merging multiple
images with different exposures. I'm not oppose to any kind of image
manipulation and thinking it's a cool technology. After viewing
Graham's images, wow, the sky and earth can live peacefully together,
I don't see how my e300 can produce such results without merging
images.
On 7/22/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
> > Many landscape images of Graham nicely depict the earth and the cloud
> > which are not easy or even impossible to create with digital camera
> > without photoshop.
> It appears that you assume that Graham's posted images are created in
> some 'pure' way directly from nature to film to the images he posts
> without manipulation or any processing in a photo editor. That in not
> correct. Graham uses filters with his B&W film and PS for both B&W and
> color images.
>
> I believe that it is no harder to create those kind of images with
> digital than with film. Some of the skills overlap and others are
> specific to each medium. If you cruise around the pro's sites, you will
> find stunning images created with digital cameras. The process of
> scanning is not automatic, somehow creating a finished image.
> Considerable skill is exercised in the scanning application and/or an
> image editor to get a great image. Automated scanning software can
> produce perfectly nice results, like those from automated consumer
> printing of 4x6s. Great images? No.
> > It makes me thinking that shooting landscape should be done in negative
> > film, 'coz it has wider range of exposure.
> I don't know what the theory and/or scientific measurements show for
> sure. I seem to remember someone doing and posting results of some
> careful testing with a pro Nik*n that showed RAW files and color neg
> film to be pretty close in overall brightness range they can capture. As
> a practical matter, I've scanned quite a bit of film and shot a lot of
> Can*n RAW files and don't believe either one is inherently better. They
> are very different, and one has to know how to expose them. Much of
> color neg's extended range is in the direction of tolerating
> overexposure, while Raw files are less so.
> > I wonder if most pro landscape shooters convert to digital or are they
> > still shooting negative ?
> >
> I don't have a survey at hand, but I'll bet most, but not all, have
> converted partially or completely to digital. High end DSLRs simply
> resolve more detail with less noise/grain than the films 35mm
> landscapeists were using. Many also feel they are equal to or better
> than common 120/220 MF films/formats. Since detail without noise/grain
> is the holy grail of many of those folks, digital is a natural for many
> of their applications.
>
> By the way, the great/famous B&W photographers of the last century
> manipulated their negatives extensively in the darkroom. Many of the
> great color landscape photographers manipulated their images through
> choice of film, through use of filters, through choice of paper and
> through manipulation in printing. If you want to avoid PS because it
> takes time and effort to learn and use, I feel your pain.
>
> If you want to avoid post processing in the hope that there is some holy
> grail of simplicity with film that will get you images like Graham
> creates without learning and using many forms of photographic expertise,
> good luck. It's not the film, equipment and software that create his
> great landscapes, it's Graham and his eye, skills and experience that
> account for the quality.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
when you were born, a problem was solved
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|