Paid Members Surf Digby Posted February 24, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) And a ( really badly done, gonna hopefully redo it) HDR photo of the castle behind my mum and dad's house. Â I'm not a big fan of HDR at the best of times. This isn't too bad on the walls, but the sky looks like it's been dropped in from another picture or has been painted over. I tend to find that HDR works best when it's only applied to certain elements of a picture. Â I tried doing a really overboard HDR image on this one, but still couldn't go all the way to the extremes some manage to. Â Edited February 24, 2015 by Nostalgia Nonce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted June 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted June 4, 2015 Â A manually done HDR, the Harris Museum in Preston. Still a bit of edging on it but far better than the automated mess that happened to the castle pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted September 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 6, 2015 Harking back to my rant about hipster photographers, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This twat has recently discovered film, decided it's cool, and now thinks that any pro who shoots digitally isn't really a pro and should be ignored. Â http://www.ambereventsblog.com/2015/08/30/film-vs-digital/ Â I use film, and I like film, but I know it's strengths and weaknesses and when it's best used. This blog post is embarrassing. It's not just biased, his points are actually factually wrong. Â Dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted September 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 6, 2015 I was actually angry by the end of the second paragraph. Someone who uses film is instantly better than 90% of other photographers. Jesus wept. When I did my degree I think I was in the final one or 2 years that actually had to do every stage with film ( the same with manual tape to tape editing for the video side of stuff) and there is a great argument for both giving you a lot more appreciation for certain aspects of of the process but the sheer level of wankery in that article is astonishing. I would also love to use his camera that that blow an image up to infinity with no distortion or loss in quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted September 6, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 6, 2015 I started pulling the article apart. There's something wrong in almost every sentence and it started to get a bit long, so I've streamlined it.  If you’re an engaged couple trying to figure out the best photographer to capture your wedding, you can eliminate 90% of the field by focusing on the best of the best: film shooters.  You can, if you're fucking stupid.  Film is very distinctive. One of the most common ways people distinguish between film and digital is that they say film looks almost 3D, because of the crazy depth of field it offers (‘Depth of field’ is when the background is out of focus, and the subject is in focus). Digital, on the other hand, looks flat compared to film.  Absolute bollocks. Every word of it. Depth of field is created by your lens (and - to some part - the distance from the flange to the film plane), not what you're recording it on. How do you focus a piece of film? Twat.  There’s no comparison for the way bokeh looks on film as opposed to how it looks on digital.  Bokeh is absolutely nothing to do with the film. It's created by the lens. If you use a film camera and digital camera with the exact same lens, the bokeh will look exactly the same. Again, how do you adjust the film to make some things out of focus but other things sharp? You don't, you use the lens for focussing.  The colors and contrast that film offers straight out of the camera are unreal. I say that it’s unreal because I’ve been a digital photographer for most of my career, and I’m just used to having to edit every single photo I’ve ever taken. With film, I don’t have to. If you take the same picture with the same settings on film and then on digital, with no editing, the difference is crazy. Film doesn’t need any retouching.  Ansel Adams (one of the greatest photographers of the 20th Century) disagrees with you. Here's his retouching notes. https://seanski50.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/james-dean-before-1024x680.jpg?w=549  it’s worth mentioning that film shooters are simply better photographers than digital ones  And people with petrol cars are better drivers than those with diesel cars.  there’s generally a combination of natural light from a window, and man-made light from the bathroom or something. These are completely different when it comes to photography, and digital has a hard time figuring out what to do with the different wavelengths. What this means is that the photographer will be sitting behind his computer color correcting for days, just so that the bride’s dress doesn’t come out purple, yellow, green, or blue. With film, what you see is what you get. No purple dresses,  Utter nonsense. If your digital camera can't work out what to do with the "different wavelengths" (or colour temperatures, as they're actually called. Since when were wavelengths measured in degrees kelvin?) you can either shoot RAW and adjust the white balance later (which is a 10 second job at most), or take a reading from a grey card (which is another 10 second job). The only way a professional would take days correcting this is if they went on holiday first.  And with film, what you see is what you get? Bullshit. Lightbulbs produce an orange light. We don't see it, because our brains correct it for you. If you use regular film under "man made light from the bathroom", it'll look like the picture on the left.   To get the colours natural looking, you need to stick a blue filter on your lens to correct it, the same as adjusting the white balance on a digital camera. You can get film that's balanced for artificial light, but it's no good outdoors as it makes everything blue (including the wedding dress).  So film is both more beautiful, and more practical.  Don't talk such utter shit. I doubt it's a coincidence that he didn't address the issue of ISO.  Not to mention the guy or girl behind the camera is a pro, who’s generally going to care more about each image, and is more artistic  "I shoot film, therefore I'm more artistic". I cook with gas rather than electricity, therefore I'm a better chef.I'm amazed that a) this guy is a professional, and b) the website allowed this to be published. Genuinely one of the worst articles I've ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted September 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted September 7, 2015 I hope you sent it to the blog.. This guy is a total cunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted September 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 7, 2015 They aren't accepting comments for the article anymore because of the sheer volume of people they got ripping it to shreds (they described it as bullying) and by the look of it he's disabled the twitter account mentioned, although if you search for it you'll get a few of the comments in replies. It really is crazy that anyone would think that is a good article to publish. He touches on sensor size but seems to have no knowledge of it affecting dof. Literally every single point he makes seems to make him seem dumber and dumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted September 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted September 7, 2015 Yeah, I don't know half as much about photography as either you or Surf, but even I could see it was bollocks. Facts aside, his argument just didn't make logical sense. "Film photography is more difficult so if you hire a film photographer their work will be better". Uh, or you will end up with worse photos... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted September 11, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted September 11, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted January 20, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted January 20, 2016 I've not had a chance to do much over the last few months but i've been messing around with a combination of macro filters and macro tubes. They can be a nightmare, with the dof being literally millimeters but i love how they turn out    Also I can't remember if i posted this one but here's a few of the phases from the Blood Moon last year  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted January 20, 2016 Nice! I love the detail on the wings in the first one. Â I was just thinking this morning with all the frost around my way I wanted to get out the macro tubes and get some shots. Especially as I have some flowers out back that were tricked into springing early from the warm weather and are now being mercilessly crushed by frost. Will make for a nice pic, I think. Working from home tomorrow so will try to do that early whilst they're still good and icy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 10, 2016 Moderators Share Posted March 10, 2016 So did get some macro shots after that.. some stuff I quite liked too. But I actually came here to share this picture I took the other night, because I was really pleased with the way it turned out -Â Â Spinning by Akhil Popat, on Flickr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted March 10, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Nice! How are you finding the depth of field with the macro tubes? I took this one and it was a nightmare, just breathing took it in and out of focus  Edit:  Stuck in the office and just got this  Edited March 10, 2016 by chokeout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 11, 2016 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yeah the focus is really tricky, I can imagine especially for something as precise as that photo! I got a new camera recently that has made things easier because it can a quicker shutter and higher ISO much more readily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted March 11, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted March 11, 2016 What camera have you gone for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.