iridium7777
Established
this sunday, caught an ending of a show on pbs about a photographer art wolfe and his trip to iceland and the pictures that he took.
i know nothing of canon but looking at some lenses that he was using in the show they looked expensive, here's his equipment list:
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II body
Canon EOS 5D body
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM lens
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift lens
Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens
+ tripod.
and here are some of the pictures:
here are some others from different shows:
i had a dslr before, a nikon d50, and it never procuded anything that was ever so vibrant and clean in saturation as these pictures. the d50 also had a cheap-o kit lens on it. so let me ask this, how much of it is the actual equipement and how much of it is how he post processes?
do the raw files look like that coming out of this canon with the nice lenses? would the raw file coming out of a nikon with equivalent nice lenses be the same? or is a lot of work spent in ps to achieve those images and the originals look nothing like it?
i know nothing of canon but looking at some lenses that he was using in the show they looked expensive, here's his equipment list:
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II body
Canon EOS 5D body
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM lens
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift lens
Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens
+ tripod.
and here are some of the pictures:
here are some others from different shows:
i had a dslr before, a nikon d50, and it never procuded anything that was ever so vibrant and clean in saturation as these pictures. the d50 also had a cheap-o kit lens on it. so let me ask this, how much of it is the actual equipement and how much of it is how he post processes?
do the raw files look like that coming out of this canon with the nice lenses? would the raw file coming out of a nikon with equivalent nice lenses be the same? or is a lot of work spent in ps to achieve those images and the originals look nothing like it?
ruby.monkey
Veteran
And how much his skill at choosing the correct exposure? Why does it all have to be down to the hardware?
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Every digital camera ever made is purposely designed to take horribly flat photos with low saturation. They do this deliberately, so that the camera will capture the maximum tonal range possible. You are expected to adjust for this in post processing. Nobody's raw files look like that -- unless they just happen to shoot a scene with nearly neon saturation and a whole lot of contrast. Of course that is photoshopped. With a digital camera, after all, you don't have the option of loading a high contrast or high saturation film. You have the one sensor and you're stuck with it.
iridium7777
Established
that is also a valid question/answer.
you're saying all you have to do is get the exposure correct on any camera and your pictures will look like that? then in ps, you can just move the exposure slider and all you'd ever need is just one adjuster, and not hundred if not thousands that are available.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Using top quality glass helps with clarity, color and contrast of course. But as FallisPhoto says - due to the restricted dynamic and saturation ranges in the sensors, digital cameras have to do desperate things to preserve image and color data in RAW files (don't want to blow out those highlights do we? or clip the red channel). Post processing (both for color and sharpness) is a requirement.
(note. in camera jpgs usually have color and sharpening adjustments made already... typically poorly and without regard to subject appropriateness - this is the biggest reason for me to shoot raw when possible).
(note. in camera jpgs usually have color and sharpening adjustments made already... typically poorly and without regard to subject appropriateness - this is the biggest reason for me to shoot raw when possible).
FallisPhoto
Veteran
The word poorly can't be emphasized enough here.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
No. I'm saying that your question makes no allowance whatsoever for the skill of the photographer when actually taking the photo.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Well, actually it does. Both his skill with the camera and his skill with post processing come into it. It's kind of like how a really good film photographer should be skilled not only with his camera, but in the darkroom too. Both are equally important aspects of photography.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
There's nothing 'special,' processing-wise, about any of those examples. Shoot RAW files, and make simple Curves and Sharpening adjustments and you should be there.
If you want to go further, there are plug-ins that make things relatively easy to get my 'dynamic' results. As posted above, the best capture is going to give you 'flat' contrast and neutral saturation. After that, rudimentary knowledge of photoshop should get you the kind of images you're showing.
I would, though, like to contradict the usage of the word "photoshopped" as used in the third reply. I don't think most people refer to an image brought into Photoshop for the purpose of curves/levels and sharpening as having been "photoshopped." That term usually denotes images that have 'heavy' processing, 'retouching,' etc. done to them. Like removing items, smoothing skin, changing the color of a sky, etc. Of course, assessing the degree of "photoshopping" is a matter of personal perception and/or taste, i suppose. Personally, i think if you do something digitally in Photoshop that is the equivalent of what one could do in a darkroom, i wouldn't call it a photoshopped image. But, that's just me. And, of course, it ignores that there is/was all manner of 'darkroom trickery' that DOES involve the same types of 'effects' noted above....
If you want to go further, there are plug-ins that make things relatively easy to get my 'dynamic' results. As posted above, the best capture is going to give you 'flat' contrast and neutral saturation. After that, rudimentary knowledge of photoshop should get you the kind of images you're showing.
I would, though, like to contradict the usage of the word "photoshopped" as used in the third reply. I don't think most people refer to an image brought into Photoshop for the purpose of curves/levels and sharpening as having been "photoshopped." That term usually denotes images that have 'heavy' processing, 'retouching,' etc. done to them. Like removing items, smoothing skin, changing the color of a sky, etc. Of course, assessing the degree of "photoshopping" is a matter of personal perception and/or taste, i suppose. Personally, i think if you do something digitally in Photoshop that is the equivalent of what one could do in a darkroom, i wouldn't call it a photoshopped image. But, that's just me. And, of course, it ignores that there is/was all manner of 'darkroom trickery' that DOES involve the same types of 'effects' noted above....
russianRF
Fed 5C User
L-level glass is a thing to behold. I got an EF-S 60mm Macro lens, a poor man's L if you will, and it made my post-processing much easier because the pictures were closer to "good" than they were with the kit lens.
Photoshop (or whichever raw processing program) is as integral to the digital dark room as enlargers, paper-type, and developers are to the wet dark room.
It's hard to answer your question; you'd have to ask the man himself what he does. Just like analogue photographers have specific film/paper combos that give them the look they want, digital photographers learn a workflow from their favorite sensor (Nikon, Canon, etc.) to their favorite RAW processor. You pose an interesting question, but I doubt it can really be answered by anyone but the original photographer...
Photoshop (or whichever raw processing program) is as integral to the digital dark room as enlargers, paper-type, and developers are to the wet dark room.
It's hard to answer your question; you'd have to ask the man himself what he does. Just like analogue photographers have specific film/paper combos that give them the look they want, digital photographers learn a workflow from their favorite sensor (Nikon, Canon, etc.) to their favorite RAW processor. You pose an interesting question, but I doubt it can really be answered by anyone but the original photographer...
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I didn't intend to use the word "Photoshopped" in a negative sense. I do fine art, not documentary photography and, personally, I think the more creativity that comes into art photography the better. That said, I do most of my really off-the-wall stuff in the darkroom. It is just that there was no such thing as photoshop when I was learning how to do it and now that I have learned, what's the point of learning a whole new system just to do stuff I can do without it? Anyway, I'm coming from an art background and the word photoshopped has no negative connotations to me. To me, if you use photoshop, all your photos post-processed there are photoshopped.
Last edited:
jagarch
Member
Ah, but aren't there great film photographers who chose not to work in the darkroom? And thus their finished prints could be seen as a collaboration with their printer?
VinceC
Veteran
One human element that photographers bring is knowing when the light itself is ideal. Some photographers will wait hours for the light to be perfect, or wake up at 4 a.m. to be prepared for a few moments of fleeting dawn light. Or else you see special light and take advantage while it lasts. Here's some examples of a D40, one with its el cheapo kit lens, one with its el-cheapo telephoto zoom, shot with the default jpeg setting. The light was just gorgeous for a short time before sunset.
Attachments
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Because there are things you can do in the digital darkroom that are much easier than doing traditionally; indeed there are things you can do digitally that you can't do traditionally at all. Photoshop is a photographic tool, and like all photographic tools you get out of it what you put into it.
You started this thread asking how such gorgeous images could come from a DSLR, and how much Photoshop was involved. If someone started a thread asking how a gorgeous analogue/wet print was made, and then everyone told that person that a lot of darkroom work went into the print, how would you feel if that person's response was "well, I learned everything on Photoshop, so why bother learning the wet darkroom process?"
If you are satisfied with your wet darkroom results, then by all means continue as you have been; there is a lot to be said for wet darkroom magic. But if you want to open up an entirely new horizon in your photography (including your scanned negatives), then you need to learn Photoshop.
emraphoto
Veteran
coming form working on dslr's every day i will say that there is no magic bullet in achieving great results. there is a long list of things that through incremental results produce great photo's or prints. it starts with being a competent photographer, using suitable gear, understanding good exposure and how to achieve it, making changes in photoshop and how they effect the final image etc. etc. etc. you can have the best gear on the planet but if you don't understand color correction then the image suffers. have a $2,000 lens but understand it doesn't end there. it is merely a piece in a very large puzzle.
much like some of the great "film" images we have seen over the ages. the camera's weren't just spitting out these masterpieces. it took a lot of time in a darkroom or a very well developed relationship with a printer combined with good, dependable gear, a good eye for composition, a firm understanding of good exposure... you get the point.
much like some of the great "film" images we have seen over the ages. the camera's weren't just spitting out these masterpieces. it took a lot of time in a darkroom or a very well developed relationship with a printer combined with good, dependable gear, a good eye for composition, a firm understanding of good exposure... you get the point.
VinceC
Veteran
Was it Ansel Adams who said that creating the negative was akin to writing a musical score -- creating the print was like conducting the orchestra. It's essential that both are done well.
peterm1
Veteran
I posted a thread here recently posing the question about whether I was a photographer any more rather than an "image maker".
I had reached the conclusion that my focus now is no longer so much on the camera which is where in the analogue world it was totally - I mostly spend at least as much time in front of my PC as I do behind my camera. Every picture that comes out of my camera (that I think is worth keeping) at the very least gets tweaked for sharpness, noise, color and contrast adjustment. These are the basics and after that I begin the real work - conversion to black and white, further local tonal adjustments by dodging and burning etc.
Lets face it digital image making is a product of a system. I contribute my skills as a photographer in the selection of the image, compositional choices I make etc. The camera contributes its bit by competently and faithfully capturing the scene. Photoshop contributes its bit by taking the raw (and RAW!! ha ha) image and turning it into a final image.
To be honest there are very few pictures I have seen direct out of my camera that I would be proud to say are mine now that I have seen how much value is added by Photoshop (actually I now use Paint Shop Pro Photo as its easier and much quicker to use in many of its features but still has 95% of Photoshop's advanced - but slow and complex features for when I need them.)
To be sure a good camera is needed. I sometimes carry a pocket compact digital. When shooting digital its a nice competent little Sony digital. But in no way can it produce images anywhere near approaching my Nikon D200. So I repeat a good camera plays its part. If shooting analogue its either a Leica M or a Contax T2 for my pocket shooter. But even here the digitised output requires a lot of work to get it up to best standard and to realise its potential.
There are some people who make a philosophical choice to not go down the Photoshop / post processing rroute. Thats fine But if anyone tells you with "authority" that is not valid or needed then be suspicious of whether they are really informed.
In other words Don't let those who say that its categrorically all about the camera and your use of it sway you. Those who do say its all about the camera in unequivocal terms (and there are some traditionalists on this forum) "do not know and do not know that they don't know" just what improvements are possible by effective digital post processing. Well, some of them are like this anyway...some know but have deliberately chosen not to and thats fine for them. For me, there is no philisophical difference between using Photoshop and using an analogue darkroom to print up a beautiful image as did any of the photographic greats - not comparing my work to theirs of course. Its just a matter of technology and availability. I could never have a dark room. But I can have a digital darkroom.
So, I have found out and I am a convert because it has turned me from an amateur snapper of very very average snaps into someone able to turn out reasonably good quality and interesting images most of the time. And if there is a failure its mine, not the cameras and not photoshop's.
I had reached the conclusion that my focus now is no longer so much on the camera which is where in the analogue world it was totally - I mostly spend at least as much time in front of my PC as I do behind my camera. Every picture that comes out of my camera (that I think is worth keeping) at the very least gets tweaked for sharpness, noise, color and contrast adjustment. These are the basics and after that I begin the real work - conversion to black and white, further local tonal adjustments by dodging and burning etc.
Lets face it digital image making is a product of a system. I contribute my skills as a photographer in the selection of the image, compositional choices I make etc. The camera contributes its bit by competently and faithfully capturing the scene. Photoshop contributes its bit by taking the raw (and RAW!! ha ha) image and turning it into a final image.
To be honest there are very few pictures I have seen direct out of my camera that I would be proud to say are mine now that I have seen how much value is added by Photoshop (actually I now use Paint Shop Pro Photo as its easier and much quicker to use in many of its features but still has 95% of Photoshop's advanced - but slow and complex features for when I need them.)
To be sure a good camera is needed. I sometimes carry a pocket compact digital. When shooting digital its a nice competent little Sony digital. But in no way can it produce images anywhere near approaching my Nikon D200. So I repeat a good camera plays its part. If shooting analogue its either a Leica M or a Contax T2 for my pocket shooter. But even here the digitised output requires a lot of work to get it up to best standard and to realise its potential.
There are some people who make a philosophical choice to not go down the Photoshop / post processing rroute. Thats fine But if anyone tells you with "authority" that is not valid or needed then be suspicious of whether they are really informed.
In other words Don't let those who say that its categrorically all about the camera and your use of it sway you. Those who do say its all about the camera in unequivocal terms (and there are some traditionalists on this forum) "do not know and do not know that they don't know" just what improvements are possible by effective digital post processing. Well, some of them are like this anyway...some know but have deliberately chosen not to and thats fine for them. For me, there is no philisophical difference between using Photoshop and using an analogue darkroom to print up a beautiful image as did any of the photographic greats - not comparing my work to theirs of course. Its just a matter of technology and availability. I could never have a dark room. But I can have a digital darkroom.
So, I have found out and I am a convert because it has turned me from an amateur snapper of very very average snaps into someone able to turn out reasonably good quality and interesting images most of the time. And if there is a failure its mine, not the cameras and not photoshop's.
Last edited:
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
To take the question very literally of how much is equipment vs processing, you'd have to ask the photographer in question. Everybody's going to be different and there's no just looking at an image and being able to suss out exactly how much time was spent on it in what ways.
imajypsee
no expiration date
It depends
It depends
I use Canon equipment and the sensor noise on Canons in the early days of DSLR popular use (2004-ish) was significantly better than the sensor noise of Nikon. As with any photograph, knowing how to meter and how to use the camera's limitations is really important.
This was made with the crude Canon Digital Rebel/300D. It really has no ability to spot meter and exposure adjustment is fairly crude compared to later Canon models. For example, there was no actual manual mode on the 300D. The exposure was made in camera and it reflects what I saw thru the viewfinder
This photo was overexposed because the bird turned around and I did a poor job of guestimating the proper exposure. It was "rescued" in Capture One for Rebel, a program which I no longer use.
Pixel pitch also has a lot to do with how digital photos look; the 300D and the 5D have nearly identical pixel pitch which means the image looks smoother to begin with; this picture was made at nearly dark with the 5D and it has very little noise.
Another thing you might want to remember is that Art Wolfe is a well supported Canon pro; he will tell you how he uses Photoshop to enhance his raw files (you can buy the tutorial from him). That's the beauty of digital raw; it's way easier to get and develop beautiful photographs.
Mary in SW Florida, USA
It depends
I use Canon equipment and the sensor noise on Canons in the early days of DSLR popular use (2004-ish) was significantly better than the sensor noise of Nikon. As with any photograph, knowing how to meter and how to use the camera's limitations is really important.
This was made with the crude Canon Digital Rebel/300D. It really has no ability to spot meter and exposure adjustment is fairly crude compared to later Canon models. For example, there was no actual manual mode on the 300D. The exposure was made in camera and it reflects what I saw thru the viewfinder
This photo was overexposed because the bird turned around and I did a poor job of guestimating the proper exposure. It was "rescued" in Capture One for Rebel, a program which I no longer use.
Pixel pitch also has a lot to do with how digital photos look; the 300D and the 5D have nearly identical pixel pitch which means the image looks smoother to begin with; this picture was made at nearly dark with the 5D and it has very little noise.
Another thing you might want to remember is that Art Wolfe is a well supported Canon pro; he will tell you how he uses Photoshop to enhance his raw files (you can buy the tutorial from him). That's the beauty of digital raw; it's way easier to get and develop beautiful photographs.
Mary in SW Florida, USA
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Nothing obviously special about the post capture processing of the files. if you expose correctly and use good glass the 5D or 1Ds3 will churn out files that clean all day long. Being in the right place and pressing the button at the right time are important, as well as pointing the camera in the right direction
Mike
Mike