Contest 28: Discussion and related pics

Registered users may enter and vote on their favorite cactus picture!
User avatar
lophophora
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by lophophora »

Travis wrote:The actual picture I was talking about was Lophaphora's pic. With out the fancy editing that was probably only 1/3 as cool as it now looks. I very much enjoy the picture, but I don't think it can be judged on the same level as the non enhanced pictures.
I'm afraid I have to disappoint you - that photo has not been subject to any "fancy editing". It was slightly cropped, resampled to decrease the size of the file, and gently sharpened. Nothing else - in my book that doesn't count as "fancy editing". I'll be happy to supply the unmodified hi-res file as it came off my old Nikon D70 with all EXIF metadata available. I'm sorry if I come off sounding harsh but I'm a bit consternated about this. I've always taken pride in my photos and really don't appreciate Travis's insinuations.

The technique used to create this type of photo is pretty simple. It was taken in the afternoon with the Lophophora plant placed in direct sunlight while the background was in the shade. The light was metered in a single point in the brightest area of the flower, i.e. the flower appears normally lit while the background and the dimly lit parts of the plant disappear completely in the shadows. I used a small aperture (high f-number) for a greater depth of field. So no "fancy editing" just plain old fashioned photographic technique.
Sbradford89
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:38 pm
Location: Gap, Pennsylvania USA(Zone6-7)
Contact:

Post by Sbradford89 »

HEY how long do i have to post a photo. I got my camera charger today and i know today is the end of the contest, so what times it end?
So new... So much to discover...Sincerely Shala
User avatar
CoronaCactus
Posts: 10421
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
Contact:

Post by CoronaCactus »

Well, this gets a little tricky for those in different parts of the world where they are behind or ahead a day...but whatever your timezone is, midnight of the deadline day is the cutoff for submissions.
Paracelsus
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:03 am
Location: SF Bay Area CA

Post by Paracelsus »

Travis wrote:The actual picture I was talking about was Lophaphora's pic. With out the fancy editing that was probably only 1/3 as cool as it now looks. I very much enjoy the picture, but I don't think it can be judged on the same level as the non enhanced pictures.

All I know is that nearly anything is possible with a little tinkering in photoshop. This includes selective foreground / background darkening... re-shading... fixing a little corking... taking out that little scar on the top of a plant... ect ect...
First, I don't see anything that would suggest manipulation in Loph's pic. It is just a good example of exposure control.

Second, a lot IS possible using Photoshop. However, good photographs can be taken with ANY camera. Too much is made of the cost or quality of the camera being the reason why some folks photographs are better than others.

The primary reason higher end cameras (particularly digital SLR's) produce better results than consumer digicams has to do with the size of the sensor, and not some kind of magical in-camera digital manipulation. Even highly manipulated photographs have to start with proper exposure of the image. Paying attention to the different light available at different times of the day is perhaps the most important way to improve your photography. Buying an expensive camera will not result in better photographs unless you know how to use it.

Generally speaking, most photographers consider overall brightness, contrast, and sharpening adjustments to NOT be manipulation, since these are common practices in the darkroom. Any process that adds or subtracts portions of the photograph (copying, pasting, cloning, etc.) constitutes manipulation.

These are the rules from photo.net where a lot of professional photographers post work:

Unmanipulated

a single uninterrupted exposure
cropping to taste
common adjustments to the entire image, e.g., color temperature, curves, sharpening, desaturation to black and white
dust spots on sensor cloned out

Manipulated

double-exposure or fragments from several exposures
geometric distortion, e.g., to correct perspective
adjustments to just a part of the image, e.g., dodging and burning

I hope this helps define the types of modifications that are considered digital manipulation, and what is just good basic photography.

P.S.

I just read Loph's defense of his photo. I guess I didn't need to say anything at all. He simply proves the point I was trying to make above. His image is simply the result of good photographic technique, and composition. :)
Travis
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:52 am

Post by Travis »

lophophora wrote:
Travis wrote:The actual picture I was talking about was Lophaphora's pic. With out the fancy editing that was probably only 1/3 as cool as it now looks. I very much enjoy the picture, but I don't think it can be judged on the same level as the non enhanced pictures.
I'm afraid I have to disappoint you - that photo has not been subject to any "fancy editing". It was slightly cropped, resampled to decrease the size of the file, and gently sharpened. Nothing else - in my book that doesn't count as "fancy editing". I'll be happy to supply the unmodified hi-res file as it came off my old Nikon D70 with all EXIF metadata available. I'm sorry if I come off sounding harsh but I'm a bit consternated about this. I've always taken pride in my photos and really don't appreciate Travis's insinuations.

The technique used to create this type of photo is pretty simple. It was taken in the afternoon with the Lophophora plant placed in direct sunlight while the background was in the shade. The light was metered in a single point in the brightest area of the flower, i.e. the flower appears normally lit while the background and the dimly lit parts of the plant disappear completely in the shadows. I used a small aperture (high f-number) for a greater depth of field. So no "fancy editing" just plain old fashioned photographic technique.
I am not calling you a liar Lophaphora. If you say it was done with photo skill I believe you.

My camera is unable to do aperture settings ect... I can do spot metering but that is about as feature filled as mine gets. I also only have "auto" white balancing resulting in some funky pictures under my grow lights. SO, when showing off pictures I often tweak them...

I called out your picture because one can achieve that effect in photoshop with minor tweaking of a picture. (about 10 minutes depending on photoshop skills) Here is an example... this is willy06's picture before and after tweaking.


Image

Image
peterb
Posts: 9516
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Chandler, Arizona, USA

Post by peterb »

I'd propose that images for these friendly little photo contests here just stand or fall on their merits, regardless of photoshopping or adjustments. I like seeing all the photos and different aesthetics of the photographers here. There's no way to set any sort of standard for what degree of adjustment to brightness, contrast, cropping, background, effects etc. i permissible.

Keep in mind, these are just friendly contests on a friendly forum full of friendly people with friendly cacti and friendly photographs. :-)

in a friendly way,

peterb
Zone 9
Travis
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:52 am

Post by Travis »

peterb wrote:I'd propose that images for these friendly little photo contests here just stand or fall on their merits, regardless of photoshopping or adjustments. I like seeing all the photos and different aesthetics of the photographers here. There's no way to set any sort of standard for what degree of adjustment to brightness, contrast, cropping, background, effects etc. i permissible.

Keep in mind, these are just friendly contests on a friendly forum full of friendly people with friendly cacti and friendly photographs. :-)

in a friendly way,

peterb
Friendly cacti??? Mine often cause me bodily harm....

Travis
daiv
Site Admin
Posts: 23625
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Long Prairie, MN
Contact:

Post by daiv »

I think Peterb is right on this. But we should spell it out in the rules just to help minimize confusion.

Loph, man what a compliment on your image. I was impressed with it too - well done.

Well we'll have this sorted out for the next contest, but for now we should take images 'as is' since there was no rule when they were posted.
All Cacti are succulents, but not all succulents are Cacti
User avatar
lophophora
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by lophophora »

Travis wrote:... one can achieve that effect in photoshop with minor tweaking of a picture. (about 10 minutes depending on photoshop skills) ...
That might very well be true but I prefer to let my camera do all the work in 1/60 seconds ;-)
Paracelsus
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:03 am
Location: SF Bay Area CA

Post by Paracelsus »

I took this shot yesterday afternoon trying to improve on my submission. I don't like this one quite as much, but it's worth sharing:

Leuchtenbergia principis flower and shadow:

Image
User avatar
lancer99
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Falls Church, VA, US

I missed the deadline

Post by lancer99 »

Not sure if this has enough shadow/silhouette anyway, but I like it! :)

Image

Cheers,
-R
[/img][/list]
User avatar
hob
Posts: 4425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: sfk england z 8

Post by hob »

didn't really have anything suitable on the laptop while i was away :? but i shot this today and made 2 crops for you to see

Image
Image
incurable cactoholic
growing rebutia's with a mix of others.
Post Reply