|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/21/2007
|
Exactly, Andre! Which brings hopefully also some deeper understanding and helps realizing that the exposure process itself is the fundament of any further work. Multiplying 0 by any big number (expept infinity ;-)) results on 0, so if the details are lost we could dodge and burn for months (or apply PS corrections) and the result would still be 0. (And we don't have infinite time for hoping that 0*oo will result in something that is not equal to 0 ;-))
Unfortunately the easyness of work with digital means somehow brought the impression that any exposure can be corrected afterwards, which to my understanding is the main reason of a certain general "lazyness" to bother about speeds and apertures and settings.. At least with film one knew that a careless exposure could mean hours of manual work, so one had to think well before shooting.
The remembrance of an oldtimer, I guess ;-)
Have a nice day,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 6/20/2007
|
Hi again Nick,
Yes, and we have to also remember that not every problem has a soloution in Photoshop or film for that matter. If your image is so blown out that there simply is no detail available, (whether film or digital) it would not matter how much we dodge and burn, we will still get no detail :)
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/18/2007
|
Thank you very much for the comments and also for the PS hints, Andre!
You are right, I am mainly interested in those things that happen at shooting time - camera, settings, film, and the like, but I am always grateful to know about such possibilities like those that PS offers, not as much for correcting photos, but mainly because they can be used as some kind of reverse engineering and let us know what should have been done differently at shooting time.
I have the impression that correcting some photo using some of the numerous methods of PS is good and nice, but the most valuable thing is that it also shows us in a reverse way what the problems of some given photo are, and thus also what the countermeasures might have been, that would turn the correction of the photo unneeded. Some kind of "afterwards teacher", if you like.
I try to apply your suggestions and I do realize many things by watching the changes on the photo. They do confirm that a film with a greater dynamic range would be preferable. Indeed a great help also for somebody like me, that wishes to work in the rather direct way whenever possible.
As about burning and dodging the physical way, I did use them some few times, but unfortunately not very often. I have to practice more on that, since it also teaches the same "reverse" way that PS also does.
Best wishes and thanks again,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Denis
{K:66407} 6/18/2007
|
Hi Nick, I know you are looking for solutions to your problem that can be corrected in the camera in combination with the proper film. So I won't go into detail about how to try and remedy this in Photoshop. I do know that you can simulate in Photoshop some similar methods that we used to use in the darkroom. (dodging and burning) overexposing or under exposing certain areas of a print in the enlarger. I have only done this in B&W myself, but I imagine the principle is the same in colour. Obviously you would give the burning candles a lot less exposure in the enlarger and the rest of the image, maybe a touch more time. Does that make sense to you?
Andre
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/17/2007
|
Thank you very much for the nice comment, Ahmed!
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/17/2007
|
Thanks a lot for the hint, Vandy!
I do bracket quite often, but sometimes even that won't help much. I realize, as the time passes by, that the films I use quite often do not always cover the range of dynamics necessary for such photos.
As about HDR, well for the time being it's indeed out of my monetary dynamic range (;-)) to do that the right way.
So, are there any films that are better in dynamic range? A search in internet didn't prove as fruitful as I expected.
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 6/17/2007
|
Thanks a lot for the comment and the hint, Fabio! Does the new photoshop solution apply selective lighting corrections, darkening the overexposed and higlighting the underexposed regions?
But indeed it is more the "handmade" solutions that I am interested for - camera/lens and settings.
Thanks again and have a nice Sunday.
Nick
|
|
|
|
Ahmed Ismail
{K:19853} 6/16/2007
|
I like this shot! Nice abstract image!
Regards, Ahmed
|
|
|
|
Vandy Neculae
{K:7990} 6/16/2007
|
braketing & HDR.
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:81109} 6/16/2007
|
photoshop has solved it in its new version... but your 'handmade' christmascandlelight still looks far better!
|
|
0 
