Saw a couple of flower photography posts.

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You don't need photoshop to take great pictures.

I agree, but it can certainly help. Again it also depends on subject matter. I find that with nature photos a fair bit more processing is involved. Even Ansel Adams "photoshopped" his photos all to hell in the darkroom.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Thx! You'd actually be surprised how little photoshop goes into my work. I shoot RAW so the majority of the stuff happens during conversion prior to photoshop. If you really want your tones deep and smooth, give RAW a try.

You're on the right track. Experiment with the light and keep working at composition. For colors, nail your WB and exposure and that's pretty much all there is to it 🙂

Don't worry so much about photoshop. The majority of my photography learning came from reading old 35mm film books.

Oh, but I do use RAW, with my Rebel XT anyway. The old Oly was too friggin' slow at writing TIFF files. I agree, RAW gives a LOT more control over a photo, but things still go missing for me. It may be because I shoot different subjects than you. I'm more of a macro/wildlife/grand scenic kind of photog, and with this comes light that's ALL OVER THE PLACE, not to mention major dynamic range issues which is an utter killer. For a lot of my scenics I MUST have two or more images so that I can blend them for greater dynamic range, and sometimes the results look goofy.

I still suck 🙁

I know what you mean. I do a lot of landscapes as well. Here's one that used 2 images and a blend:

http://www.andrewstiff.com/images/Valley.jpg

VERY NICE. Rocky Mountain National Park?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You don't need photoshop to take great pictures.

I agree, but it can certainly help. Again it also depends on subject matter. I find that with nature photos a fair bit more processing is involved. Even Ansel Adams "photoshopped" his photos all to hell in the darkroom.

This is true. There are many things you can do to vastly improve images in photoshop.

I really don't know of any of the pros that don't do post processing of some sort - film OR digital.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Thx! You'd actually be surprised how little photoshop goes into my work. I shoot RAW so the majority of the stuff happens during conversion prior to photoshop. If you really want your tones deep and smooth, give RAW a try.

You're on the right track. Experiment with the light and keep working at composition. For colors, nail your WB and exposure and that's pretty much all there is to it 🙂

Don't worry so much about photoshop. The majority of my photography learning came from reading old 35mm film books.

Oh, but I do use RAW, with my Rebel XT anyway. The old Oly was too friggin' slow at writing TIFF files. I agree, RAW gives a LOT more control over a photo, but things still go missing for me. It may be because I shoot different subjects than you. I'm more of a macro/wildlife/grand scenic kind of photog, and with this comes light that's ALL OVER THE PLACE, not to mention major dynamic range issues which is an utter killer. For a lot of my scenics I MUST have two or more images so that I can blend them for greater dynamic range, and sometimes the results look goofy.

I still suck 🙁

I know what you mean. I do a lot of landscapes as well. Here's one that used 2 images and a blend:

http://www.andrewstiff.com/images/Valley.jpg

VERY NICE. Rocky Mountain National Park?

Yup, beautiful place.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You don't need photoshop to take great pictures.

I agree, but it can certainly help. Again it also depends on subject matter. I find that with nature photos a fair bit more processing is involved. Even Ansel Adams "photoshopped" his photos all to hell in the darkroom.

This is true. There are many things you can do to vastly improve images in photoshop.

I really don't know of any of the pros that don't do post processing of some sort - film OR digital.

I agree with you totally, but it's not absolutely necessary.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Looney
What do you mean you used 2 images?

In a lot of scenics the camera's sensor physically can't record the drastic differences in light and dark areas of the scene. Like the picture Odin posted, if he only made one shot that shot would have:

1. Had the sky filled with detail, but the darker ground would have been way too dark and featureless.

OR

2. Had the dark areas full of detail, but the sky would have been completely blown out and too bright, making it featureless.

Blending two pictures, one exposed for the highlights and one exposed for the darker areas, and selectively blending them together (#1 + #2) , lets you have the bright areas and dark areas filled with detail in the same picture.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Thx! You'd actually be surprised how little photoshop goes into my work. I shoot RAW so the majority of the stuff happens during conversion prior to photoshop. If you really want your tones deep and smooth, give RAW a try.

You're on the right track. Experiment with the light and keep working at composition. For colors, nail your WB and exposure and that's pretty much all there is to it 🙂

Don't worry so much about photoshop. The majority of my photography learning came from reading old 35mm film books.

Oh, but I do use RAW, with my Rebel XT anyway. The old Oly was too friggin' slow at writing TIFF files. I agree, RAW gives a LOT more control over a photo, but things still go missing for me. It may be because I shoot different subjects than you. I'm more of a macro/wildlife/grand scenic kind of photog, and with this comes light that's ALL OVER THE PLACE, not to mention major dynamic range issues which is an utter killer. For a lot of my scenics I MUST have two or more images so that I can blend them for greater dynamic range, and sometimes the results look goofy.

I still suck 🙁

I know what you mean. I do a lot of landscapes as well. Here's one that used 2 images and a blend:

http://www.andrewstiff.com/images/Valley.jpg

What do you mean you used 2 images?

Two images blended together. In order to expose the foreground properly, the sky would be completely blown out. In exposing the sky correctly, the foreground is too dark. So two images are taken to expose each area and then blended together to get each different area exposed like it should be.

It's like using a graduated ND filter, but in photoshop. I could have used a graduated ND filter, but sometimes the difference in contrast is too great for even those to work properly. Here is a quick tutorial on the subject og digital blending:

http://www.jessespeer.com/making_the_image/2004_0712_chasm/index.html

 

[montanafan]

This is my favorite one of a bumblebee.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d112/montanafan/Img_0015aaa.jpg

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Thx! You'd actually be surprised how little photoshop goes into my work. I shoot RAW so the majority of the stuff happens during conversion prior to photoshop. If you really want your tones deep and smooth, give RAW a try.

You're on the right track. Experiment with the light and keep working at composition. For colors, nail your WB and exposure and that's pretty much all there is to it 🙂

Don't worry so much about photoshop. The majority of my photography learning came from reading old 35mm film books.

Oh, but I do use RAW, with my Rebel XT anyway. The old Oly was too friggin' slow at writing TIFF files. I agree, RAW gives a LOT more control over a photo, but things still go missing for me. It may be because I shoot different subjects than you. I'm more of a macro/wildlife/grand scenic kind of photog, and with this comes light that's ALL OVER THE PLACE, not to mention major dynamic range issues which is an utter killer. For a lot of my scenics I MUST have two or more images so that I can blend them for greater dynamic range, and sometimes the results look goofy.

I still suck 🙁

I shot a lot of flowers before I got into model photography, and the most important thing I learned is don't fight the light. I'll bracket a shot as a last resort, but if you're not rushed then just wait for the light to be right. Most of my flowers were taken an hour before sunset, and on a good day I'd come back with 10 shots tops. Be patient.

As far as figuring out the light, keep it simple. Think of everything in terms of one direction.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Looney
What do you mean you used 2 images?

In a lot of scenics the camera's sensor physically can't record the drastic differences in light and dark areas of the scene. Like the picture Odin posted, if he only made one shot that shot would have:

1. Had the sky filled with detail, but the darker ground would have been way too dark and featureless.

OR

2. Had the dark areas full of detail, but the sky would have been completely blown out and too bright, making it featureless.

Blending two pictures, one exposed for the highlights and one exposed for the darker areas, and selectively blending them together (#1 + #2) , lets you have the bright areas and dark areas filled with detail in the same picture.

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Looney
What do you mean you used 2 images?

In a lot of scenics the camera's sensor physically can't record the drastic differences in light and dark areas of the scene. Like the picture Odin posted, if he only made one shot that shot would have:

1. Had the sky filled with detail, but the darker ground would have been way too dark and featureless.

OR

2. Had the dark areas full of detail, but the sky would have been completely blown out and too bright, making it featureless.

Blending two pictures, one exposed for the highlights and one exposed for the darker areas, and selectively blending them together (#1 + #2) , lets you have the bright areas and dark areas filled with detail in the same picture.

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

Here's the problem - it was a great shot. Waiting for light can drastically change other factors such as clouds, etc.

I also was camping with friends and didn't have time to wait around a whole lot. They were frustrated enough at me waking them up at 4:30AM 😛

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Looney
What do you mean you used 2 images?

In a lot of scenics the camera's sensor physically can't record the drastic differences in light and dark areas of the scene. Like the picture Odin posted, if he only made one shot that shot would have:

1. Had the sky filled with detail, but the darker ground would have been way too dark and featureless.

OR

2. Had the dark areas full of detail, but the sky would have been completely blown out and too bright, making it featureless.

Blending two pictures, one exposed for the highlights and one exposed for the darker areas, and selectively blending them together (#1 + #2) , lets you have the bright areas and dark areas filled with detail in the same picture.

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

Here's the problem - it was a great shot. Waiting for light can drastically change other factors such as clouds, etc.

I also was camping with friends and didn't have time to wait around a whole lot. They were frustrated enough at me waking them up at 4:30AM 😛

LOL, I know what you mean. On Spring Break vacation, I woke my GF up at 6:00 and she was pissed. Oh well, she was happy when she saw this...

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/57465966.sunset.jpg

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

Here's the problem - it was a great shot. Waiting for light can drastically change other factors such as clouds, etc.

I also was camping with friends and didn't have time to wait around a whole lot. They were frustrated enough at me waking them up at 4:30AM 😛

Yup, often we don't have the time or the correct lifestyles to take our time. Or even the right seasons for that matter. Three days in RMNP, for example, yields 3 sunrises and 3 sunsets. That's not a lot of opportunity there especially when the weather's bad and the lighting's bleh. Vacations for sightseeing are hard to come by for non-photogs, and unfortunately we often have to make do with the light and improvise afterwards with software. As for seasons, the only time that I can really go anywhere is during spring break, and more often than not the weather+lighting sucks for the ONLY week that I'm out in the field 🙁

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Looney
What do you mean you used 2 images?

In a lot of scenics the camera's sensor physically can't record the drastic differences in light and dark areas of the scene. Like the picture Odin posted, if he only made one shot that shot would have:

1. Had the sky filled with detail, but the darker ground would have been way too dark and featureless.

OR

2. Had the dark areas full of detail, but the sky would have been completely blown out and too bright, making it featureless.

Blending two pictures, one exposed for the highlights and one exposed for the darker areas, and selectively blending them together (#1 + #2) , lets you have the bright areas and dark areas filled with detail in the same picture.

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

Here's the problem - it was a great shot. Waiting for light can drastically change other factors such as clouds, etc.

I also was camping with friends and didn't have time to wait around a whole lot. They were frustrated enough at me waking them up at 4:30AM 😛

LOL, I know what you mean. On Spring Break vacation, I woke my GF up at 6:00 and she was pissed. Oh well, she was happy when she saw this...

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/57465966.sunset.jpg

Haha yeah...they stayed in the tent and I took the car out and went to some lakes and stuff early and waited for sunrise. By the time I got back they were up and had breakfast ready so it worked out 😉

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

Here's the problem - it was a great shot. Waiting for light can drastically change other factors such as clouds, etc.

I also was camping with friends and didn't have time to wait around a whole lot. They were frustrated enough at me waking them up at 4:30AM 😛

Yup, often we don't have the time or the correct lifestyles to take our time. Or even the right seasons for that matter. Three days in RMNP, for example, yields 3 sunrises and 3 sunsets. That's not a lot of opportunity there especially when the weather's bad and the lighting's bleh. Vacations for sightseeing are hard to come by for non-photogs, and unfortunately we often have to make do with the light and improvise afterwards with software. As for seasons, the only time that I can really go anywhere is during spring break, and more often than not the weather+lighting sucks for the ONLY week that I'm out in the field 🙁

Luckily the weather was decent while I was there.

I am lucky enough to be able to get away at the proper times usually. Went to Death Valley last....April I think....back when there were bunches of wildflowers blooming.

Got there during sunrise and got this shot:

http://www.andrewstiff.com/gallery/deva/images/moonovermountains.jpg

I would love to be able to spend a couple weeks in one area but that isn't possible.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Or he could've waited for the light to come through the valley, at which point there isn't as much of an exposure difference between the foreground and the sky thus not necessitating an exposure blend. Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom work, but that's not what makes his shots great 😉

Here's the problem - it was a great shot. Waiting for light can drastically change other factors such as clouds, etc.

I also was camping with friends and didn't have time to wait around a whole lot. They were frustrated enough at me waking them up at 4:30AM 😛

Yup, often we don't have the time or the correct lifestyles to take our time. Or even the right seasons for that matter. Three days in RMNP, for example, yields 3 sunrises and 3 sunsets. That's not a lot of opportunity there especially when the weather's bad and the lighting's bleh. Vacations for sightseeing are hard to come by for non-photogs, and unfortunately we often have to make do with the light and improvise afterwards with software. As for seasons, the only time that I can really go anywhere is during spring break, and more often than not the weather+lighting sucks for the ONLY week that I'm out in the field 🙁

They don't call them once in a lifetime shots for nothing 😉 Photoshop is nice and all, but I can't help but feel it takes away from that unique wow factor. I have all the more respect for the guys that roam the wilderness just to get that single shot.

On the other hand, there are times where I'd be totally screwed without photoshop. For me it's a necessary evil, but I don't want to depend on it.

Like I said though, I'll bracket as a last resort, but spanning a big range in a single exposure isn't impossible.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

OMG, those are beautiful! Great photography work!:thumbsup:

 

[SaigonK]

my stuff..

http://www.is12.net

 

[ZoomStop]

They really are great shots. Still trying to get somewhere in the same ballpark as those.
Dumb n00b question... did you have to use a macro lens to get all those shots?