ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

SLRdude · 22 November 2006, 07:30 AM

I know that lately we have had a bit of debate on whether PS is a requirement or not in the digital age.
I believe that it is.

Let me show you something.

Below is a picture that I found on a different forum. It looked nice, but I felt that there is a lot more to it. It was straight from the camera, just resized.

Credit: Bruce Redding of TZ Time Exposure

After post processing the image in Photoshop... a whole different watch popped out.

And that is why no image that I post here (with the exception of the bike show lol) is left unprocessed.

Like in this case. The original looks good and there is nothing wrong with it. But it does not show the true picture.

mailman · 22 November 2006, 08:55 AM

Huge difference Chip. But why did you change the color of the strap?

BruceS · 22 November 2006, 08:55 AM

Great job Chip. I know I was very nieve re photoshop when I first went digital, and I'm still learning. The photos I posted even 6 months ago had very little done (just levels and sharpening). I'm learning now that even the good photos need a bit more to make them "pop", even the jpgs. It's taken awhile to realize that. I'm still a neophyte in photoshop, but I'm getting better

Oh course, I strive to get a picture exposed correctly the first time, but I see nothing wrong with making fine adjustments to a picture in raw processing. That' s one of the reasons to shoot raw, and it's always been done with film, although slide film has less latitude for exposure fixes. Whereas the film took care of saturation, contrast, and sharpness, with digital that's all done in camera, and depending on your settings, more will have to be added in post processing to have an optimal image. I turn off or reduce the levels of what my camera does now, and do most everything in post processing where I have more control, with the exception of jpgs.
Cheers,
Bruce

BruceS · 22 November 2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mailman

Huge difference Chip. But why did you change the color of the strap?

He didn't. Just brought out the colour that was there

mailman · 22 November 2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceS

He didn't. Just brought out the colour that was there

Ahh, I see said the blind man. It's just too hard to see in the dark light, right?

Uncle-AJ · 22 November 2006, 12:10 PM

Great example Chip..............................now if I send you a cople of thousand pictures of birds, do you think you could do the same for me?

22 November 2006, 07:30 AM	#1
SLRdude "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Chip Location: Dallas TX Posts: 6,194	Digital Darkroom I know that lately we have had a bit of debate on whether PS is a requirement or not in the digital age. I believe that it is. Let me show you something. Below is a picture that I found on a different forum. It looked nice, but I felt that there is a lot more to it. It was straight from the camera, just resized. Credit: Bruce Redding of TZ Time Exposure After post processing the image in Photoshop... a whole different watch popped out. And that is why no image that I post here (with the exception of the bike show lol) is left unprocessed. Like in this case. The original looks good and there is nothing wrong with it. But it does not show the true picture. __________________ Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. Yoda, Jedi Master CHIP Member # 87

22 November 2006, 08:55 AM	#2
mailman TRF Moderator & DATE-JUST41 2024 Patron Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: . Watch: 126610LN Posts: 35,388	Huge difference Chip. But why did you change the color of the strap? __________________ JJ

22 November 2006, 12:10 PM	#6
Uncle-AJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Real Name: Adrian Location: Bolton, UK. Watch: Daytona 116520 Posts: 6,844	Great example Chip..............................now if I send you a cople of thousand pictures of birds, do you think you could do the same for me? __________________ A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.........Segal's Law Member #10

22 November 2006, 08:55 AM	#3
BruceS "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Sir Daft Location: Cornwall, UK Watch: Too many Posts: 2,464	Great job Chip. I know I was very nieve re photoshop when I first went digital, and I'm still learning. The photos I posted even 6 months ago had very little done (just levels and sharpening). I'm learning now that even the good photos need a bit more to make them "pop", even the jpgs. It's taken awhile to realize that. I'm still a neophyte in photoshop, but I'm getting better Oh course, I strive to get a picture exposed correctly the first time, but I see nothing wrong with making fine adjustments to a picture in raw processing. That' s one of the reasons to shoot raw, and it's always been done with film, although slide film has less latitude for exposure fixes. Whereas the film took care of saturation, contrast, and sharpness, with digital that's all done in camera, and depending on your settings, more will have to be added in post processing to have an optimal image. I turn off or reduce the levels of what my camera does now, and do most everything in post processing where I have more control, with the exception of jpgs. Cheers, Bruce

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)