I was just wondering if you used any Photoshop magic or not. I am a Yearbook Advisor at my school and I am always trying to learn cool photography tips and tricks to teach my students.
I have this image as my desktop now. _________________ 1967 Fender Coronado II
AVRI Jaguar
1977 Mullet-stang
CAR Competition Mustang RI
1973 Fender Bronco
Baja Telecaster
Squier Vista Super-Sonic
Squier Hello Kitty Pink Mini Strat
MBM Saltbreaker/Saltbooster
MBM Fuzzface
MBM Civil War Big Muff
I was just wondering if you used any Photoshop magic or not. I am a Yearbook Advisor at my school and I am always trying to learn cool photography tips and tricks to teach my students.
I have this image as my desktop now.
Oh what an honor!
Nah sorry I am a bit of a photoshop/editing novice. The thing I find with film is it doesn't need much doing with it straight from the scanner. I am doing all my editing in Lightroom 4 at the moment so it is all basic stuff. I like to be fairly honest with film so if anything needs really heaving editing I just wont use it. The most I do is apply sepia sometimes.
I do more with digital files but it is more to try and make it look more like film.
Is there anything in particular about the picture you like? Maybe someone could chip in and suggest a digital alternative edit?
I used photobucket for the original picture weird it is not showing up. I could email it to you if you like so you could compare.
Joined: 24 May 2008 Posts: 3230 Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject:
Nice. Last one is really cool.
Read this earlier about Canon lenses... "Interesting fact: lenses are so precise that if they were to be enlarged to the size of a sports stadium, the margin of error would be less than the thickness of a business card."
Some more photos. Some came on near on perfect think, but most didn't, which I don't really mind. I took most photos with a couple of different settings, so I suppose they were supposed to not all come out right.
I'm trying not to do any post processing because at the moment I'm more concerned with the process than the result, ie taking photos, getting good at judging light and looking for where to put things in a picture rather than having great photos to show.
Having said that, the one of the rocks has been given a quick go over with Aperture's auto enhance tool. The rest* are as I got them from the lab, who are developing and scanning them for me. I have no idea if they are doing much to them or if their scanning process is set up to dress bad photos up a bit.
* - the rest of this lot that is, the previous lot I can't remember, they might have been fiddled with in Aperture, some of them definitely and obviously have been, like the one of the shipping containers on my flickr. _________________
I'm trying not to do any post processing because at the moment I'm more concerned with the process than the result, ie taking photos, getting good at judging light and looking for where to put things in a picture rather than having great photos to show.
Having said that, the one of the rocks has been given a quick go over with Aperture's auto enhance tool. The rest* are as I got them from the lab, who are developing and scanning them for me. I have no idea if they are doing much to them or if their scanning process is set up to dress bad photos up a bit.
* - the rest of this lot that is, the previous lot I can't remember, they might have been fiddled with in Aperture, some of them definitely and obviously have been, like the one of the shipping containers on my flickr.
You should be able to ask what they do to them/ask them to leave them as is. I am surprised to see dust on the pictures if the lab are scanning them I would of thought that was bad crack like.
I'm trying not to do any post processing because at the moment I'm more concerned with the process than the result, ie taking photos, getting good at judging light and looking for where to put things in a picture rather than having great photos to show.
Having said that, the one of the rocks has been given a quick go over with Aperture's auto enhance tool. The rest* are as I got them from the lab, who are developing and scanning them for me. I have no idea if they are doing much to them or if their scanning process is set up to dress bad photos up a bit.
* - the rest of this lot that is, the previous lot I can't remember, they might have been fiddled with in Aperture, some of them definitely and obviously have been, like the one of the shipping containers on my flickr.
You should be able to ask what they do to them/ask them to leave them as is. I am surprised to see dust on the pictures if the lab are scanning them I would of thought that was bad crack like.
I might do that, it'd be good to know for own sake in the future. I noticed the dust thing too and was a bit surprised. I thought that there was infra-red magic in scanners that stopped this happening? _________________
I might do that, it'd be good to know for own sake in the future. I noticed the dust thing too and was a bit surprised. I thought that there was infra-red magic in scanners that stopped this happening?
Yeah the labs should be clean enough that dust isn't a problem, there isn't much on there and they would be easy to get rid of in photo editing software but if you are paying money for it I would suggest it is bad form. There is dust all over my pictures that I have to edit out but I process and scan them myself in a falling down dusty house with a dog and a cat so I would expect it.
What do people think to me setting up a flickr group for shortscale? so we can have a pool of art from our shortscale crew? invite only sort of thing.
Joined: 24 May 2008 Posts: 3230 Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:57 pm Post subject:
Thanks. Did you set it to a 3-a-day limit? Not complaining, just wondering. I think it's probably a good idea actually, makes people think a bit more about what they put in.
I added my first 3. Tried to pick a variety of formats and styles. Once we get more people and submissions we could maybe create sets for different formats, styles etc.
Thanks. Did you set it to a 3-a-day limit? Not complaining, just wondering. I think it's probably a good idea actually, makes people think a bit more about what they put in.
I added my first 3. Tried to pick a variety of formats and styles. Once we get more people and submissions we could maybe create sets for different formats, styles etc.
I did. Most quality groups I come across seem to allow 3 only any less than that and it is a bit slow. But if people disagree I would rather keep people happy and posting pictures than not so just say.
Got another roll of film developed today. Pretty pleased with it some of the shots, but I'm looking for a bit of advice about exposure.
Basically, I've been taking the same photos a couple of times till I get the hang of things, so I've been getting the same photos under and over exposed. Sometimes I get a photo I like, sometimes I get a few photos that don't seem right.
If you had to pick one photo from each of the following groups, which would it be?
I would probably pick the first one of each set, you probably could of over exposed another half or full stop on most of those. they are all quite high contrast(New Zealand sun!) so something is always going to be a little off.
My advice would be pick the one with the most shadow detail(if that's what you want) you can always make the sky's darker later on. With film the detail in the highlights will be there even if they are over exposed. But you are less likely to be able to pull the detail from the shadows if they never made it there(not long enough exposure).
I would say the fact you are doing it all without a meter is fucking amazing dude.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Uploader
Wiki
Builder
