I just updated my very amateur website, www.snsgallery.com , with pictures I took in the last couple months from Crested Butte and other places around Colorado. Take a look and let me know what you think!
Printable View
I just updated my very amateur website, www.snsgallery.com , with pictures I took in the last couple months from Crested Butte and other places around Colorado. Take a look and let me know what you think!
Very cool! Nice site.
For some reason your B&W images seem really flat. If it's not the compression that's hazing them I think your conversions need some work. Looks like they need a curve adjustment and a warming or sepia filter. Are you shooting RAW? If so what convertor are you using and where and how are you converting to B&W?
There's no pop to the images...
http://truth.smugmug.com/photos/103821577-L-5.jpg
It might be a really simple fix.
Also, who are you using for your prints?
I actually shoot in jpg form, and don't do any conversions or adjusting to my pictures. Personally, i think its kind of cheating- I like to leave my pictures for how I took them, without adjustments. I know its not the popular way of thinking these days with all the PS resources out there, but its the way I do it.
I use a couple different sites for prints... I just found out about Printroom.com, so I may start using them.
I'd be open to suggestions on how to make the contrast in the B&W pics a little better...
Well, why do you consider it cheating? Is it because your capture is digital, vs film?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Christmas
If you talk to any long time B&W film photographer, you'd be amazed how much work is done in the darkroom on negatives and prints. Ansel Adams was well known for his masterful work in the darkroom.
Even if your objective is just to faithfully reproduce the original scene, you should make use of the tools available to you to enhance your image.
I'm not sure why I consider it "cheating"... but for some reason, I like to capture the original scene with the camera and challenge myself to do it the best way possible without altering the file (except for cropping). I know that a lot of my pictures aren't of the highest "picture quality", but if you notice, a lot of them have interesting aspects and POV's. By no means am I a professional- I just take pictures when I go hiking and take trips... and I like to share them with friends and family when I can.
I can respect your desire to stay true to an image, but is the camera really capable of reproducing an image exactly as the eye sees it? Do you actually see in black and white? Tracy's got it right. Developing digital is that same as developing film, ya just use different tools to do the same things. You're trying to sell your photos as art yet you are offering a product that might as well have been printed at walmart in under an hour.
You have a great collection of captures on your site, but right now they are only that, captures. To me that's only half baked, it's as if you're hiding your works from people. If you want to give developing the images a go I'm more than happy to walk ya through my B&W process, but by no means am I an expert. If you can start to shoot RAW, even if it's only to give you the ful array of options in the future. Every pro that shoots digital shoots RAW. It allows for control in developing that jpg just can't do, escpecially exposure control.
I understand your point better now. It's very important to master the skills you're working on right now. Photoshop won't compensate much for a shitty picture.
But... you could start playing around with post processing and learning how you can "push" your "digital negatives". I think you'd be surprised and pleased with the results.
Dont consider it cheating.
There are TONS of things film photographers can do after they take a photo.
Having a good bit of darkroom experience, I limit my digital manipulation to things I know I could accomplish in the darkroom.
The one exception to this would be a noise reduction\sharp enhance if the photo needed it for some reason.
edit
Technically, film photogs even have control over ^^ this ^^ by selecting film speed, iso rating, and development schedules and chemicals.
I can respect your desire to stay true to an image, but is the camera really capable of reproducing an image exactly as the eye sees it? Do you actually see in black and white? Tracy's got it right. Developing digital is that same as developing film, ya just use different tools to do the same things. You're trying to sell your photos as art yet you are offering a product that might as well have been printed at walmart in under an hour.
You have a great collection of captures on your site, but right now they are only that, captures. To me that's only half baked, it's as if you're hiding your works from people. If you want to give developing the images a go I'm more than happy to walk ya through my B&W process, but by no means am I an expert. If you can start to shoot RAW, even if it's only to give you the ful array of options in the future. Every pro that shoots digital shoots RAW. It allows for control in developing that jpg just can't do, escpecially exposure control.
One of my favorite book that opened by eyes to film post processing, as I was a purist much like you but with film, is this book;
http://www.amazon.com/Master-Printer...e=UTF8&s=books
I love it because it shows you a before and after, tells you exactly what they did. Its one thing to have an eye for a scene, but another all together to have an eye on what needs touchup, balancing, and adjustment.
The guy is really impressive. Just looking through your b\w's, they would improve drastically with a helping hand as in that book.
the negative reviews that book got is undeserving. I expect those people were looking for a step by step how to book which this is not.
For that there are other books and teachers.
Good points... and I think if I were willing to take a lot more time with the pictures post-processing, I would probably be more conducive to try. How long does it take to edit the pictures like you're talking? I'm more into capturing what I can with my P&S instead of doing a lot more with an expensive camera- I've got a 7.1mp Canon sd550, nothing fancy at all... I'm pretty sure I can't shoot in RAW, but I'm not positive.
The only reason I am selling prints on the website is because a lot of friends/family have told me that I should try... I had the website up already, so I figured I'd add a section selling them as well. So far, I've only donated them to charity and "sold" them that way.
well if you wanted to PP all of them, give up now
just take the ones you really like and want to hang on your wall or something.
For example, Ill be lucky if I end up printing 1 shot from a roll of 36.
Generally its more like 1-3% of the shots I take end up being 'good'.
I remember asto saying all the shots he posts up on this board are his rejects....and he posts A LOT of badass shots. On that same notion, I know Natl Geo photogs go through velvia like water. Something like 2-3000 THOUSAND rolls of film get shot on a story. Theyre lucky if 15 make it to print.
so to more directly answer, the ones you choose to PP, should be ones you want to spend time on to make them look great. An hour? depending on your digital skills. Mine suck so Id be at it all day....the one thing I will miss when I convert to a dslr will be the darkroom and how powerful and easy it is to manipulate the photos.
and I havent said it yet, but youve got some great shots there.
Think of the shot you take as the beginning of the creative process and not the end.
If this were film, youd still be manipulating light to create your final image in the darkroom.
PP = Post Process?
Can I do that with JPEG files? I'm pretty sure I can't shoot in RAW with my new camera.
yea PP is post process...at least in this conversation ;)
you can do it with any file your digital photo editor will open
as far as if its better to do with a jpeg or raw I dont know.
Im not a digicam person yet as Im waiting for the right body to come along.
RAW = most basic file format your camera will output. The best for editing, capture, etc. Several times larger than jpgs, so more storage and processing oomph required to deal with. You can postprocess jpg's as well.
Check out a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Photographers by Martin Evening for some postprocessing tips/workflow, etc.
Good Stuff Steve! I've had the same camera for about 9 months & like it for what it is. I travel with my SLR as well & try & use one for instant gratification & the other for shots I'd like to keep. I haven't messed around with editing much either. It was good meeting you & Sarah the other day.
Yep, good to meet you too Scott. We'll have to get together to make some turns this year for sure.
I prefer the smaller digicam P&S for ease of travel, mostly. I like to take pics when I mtn bike and hike (and hopefully ski), and the small cell phone-sized camera is so much easier to deal with. Its only a hobby, not a profession, so I'm not worried too much about PP.