Quote from: Veneratio on May 29, 2013, 07:01

Quote from: CD123 on May 29, 2013, 05:57

Quote from: Veneratio on May 29, 2013, 05:28

The camera records what you saw, the processing - with or without filters - is what YOU WANT people to see.

Riiiight!!!!    So the sensor, type of lens, etc, etc. has no effect. We should all be shooting with little instant cameras and save a bundle on expensive equipment then.

Yeah, that's what I said wasn't it? 

Camera produces the quality, the processing gives it the aesthetic appeal. Mind you, don't photographers say that a good photographer can take a great picture with any camera? The best camera is the one with you at the time?

The point I was trying to make Charl, was that the treatment applied in processing is not dictated by the image, or quality of it. A "look" can be applied to an image whether it was captured on a Hassy or Nikon Coolpix. We use expensive tools because they produce the quality and size we want, not the "look" we want.

Only photographers who do not sell their images as stock will make that statement about "any camera", as their images does not get rejected for out of focus, etc. which is caused by sub standard equipment.

It also depends which filter you are using, as some are merely intended to improve picture quality and others add effect or both.

So cheap cameras are sub-standard and out of focus because they are cheap? Where do you draw the line between cheap and expensive so everyone knows which camera to buy to make sure their images are in focus?

Also, I thought we were on a thread about Topaz filters......

Anyway, not going to get into an argument about it Charl, have a good day mate, no hard feelings, just a discussion.

Mind you, don't photographers say that a good photographer can take a great picture with any camera? The best camera is the one with you at the time?

I always said that, particuarly when I taught a beginners' photography class. I started off with the old jokes about togs vs camera and told the students about the Bert Hardy/Box Brownie photo.

Then I got astonished by the appalling IQ of some of the pics I was seeing, so I asked if I could use some in class (with the excuse that I hadn't used these models before). I was truly shocked. In the same images (taken as jpegs, which most users do, and some of the cameras only allowed jpegs anyway), there were areas smudged and areas 'oversharpened', even on the same focus plane and in good light. To my horror, I discovered that some of these cameras cost over �200 and in at least one case, over �300. Tiny wee digicompacts with allegedly gazillions of mp. I was truly shocked at the awful quality, as I have an old Nikon 3700 and a Canon G9 which are fine for most non-stock and some stock needs. My phone cam produces technically better images than most of these compacts, certainly in decent light.
Of course, I couldn't say to the sweet grannies whose "Son bought me the camera for Christmas" (a common scenario) and some of whom didn't have computers, that their actual physical cameras were cr*p. Luckily, they only wanted to see them on screen or print them out 7x5 or similar so for them it wasn't an issue, and certainly not one person asked me about these technical problems.

So now I'm really careful of the saying, "It's not the camera, it's the photographer".

All that said, I doubt if any software could rescue these particular images, bringing us back on topic.

Quote from: topol on May 28, 2013, 03:44

Quote from: disorderly on May 27, 2013, 12:09

Quote from: tab62 on May 27, 2013, 11:49

Just spoke to a friend of my mine and he told me that the majority of filters are for folks that don't know how to use Camera Raw or Photoshop very well. He feels that these filters are useless for the most part thus I will not purchase the Topaz...

... I rely on Imagenomic Portraiture for my people shots ...

That's is what he wrote. Imagenomic Portraiture was created exactly to target those who are at loss on what to do with a portrait in PP.

I have to disagree a bit. I use Portraiture as well though I know how I could retouch portraits. BUT: Microstock is a numbers game and a filter like Portraiture is a huge time saver for me.

Thank you, Rob.  My point exactly.  Portraiture lets me do in a couple of seconds what might take many minutes otherwise.  Maybe I'd get a result as good, maybe not.  (Probably not, but maybe.)  But to me the convenience is worth the price.

I have friends who can spend an hour or more retouching a single image.  They get great results, better than I can get in a minute or two.  It's all a question of how much you value your time and how much that potential improvement in quality is worth.

And let's also admit that filters can be fun.  They can take our images in directions we might not have taken otherwise.  There's value in that too.

I object to anyone who suggests that filters are somehow wrong or cheating or that somebody who uses them has inferior skills.  Any of those may be true, or they may be false.  Don't ascribe motives to actions unless you know.  And you can't know about anyone but yourself.

The camera records what you saw....

Completely wrong: the focal length is almost always different, and cameras record colors and especially the contrast of light and shadow totally differently. Actually you need to process . out of your shot to get what you saw - mostly very strong highlight and shadow correction.

Quote from: Veneratio on May 29, 2013, 05:28

The camera records what you saw....

Completely wrong: the focal length is almost always different, and cameras record colors and especially the contrast of light and shadow totally differently. Actually you need to process . out of your shot to get what you saw - mostly very strong highlight and shadow correction.

What the 4ell does it record when you press the shutter button then??? 

OP asked about Clarity - has anyone used it.  It is on sale until the end of the month, which is TODAY.  I was looking at it a couple weeks ago and then forgot!

is there a filter that would make my images more commercial value able?

Thanks Sbonk!

Deleted

I know a lot of portrait photographers who love the Topaz filters - and some of them blow up their work to fit over people's fireplaces - saving time is key for them. Sometimes it's about efficiency, not art. These are all serious photographers who get it right in the camera - they have studios with great lighting setups and they shoot classical portraits - but no portrait client wants to see the wrinkles etc that high quality equipment picks up

I haven't tried them since I'm happy with the Nik filters which I often use (you may want to check them out too). I find they're a good place to start, then go in and tweak things more with my tablet in PS. They're great both when I want to do something creative: "Detail Extractor" (a new one for me since I got the full set via the google buyout) is great when you really want to push a photo but don't want to go the full HD route. It's a great combo (with Tonal Contrast and sometimes Dark Detail Extractor-all in moderation) with Silver effects to bring out detail in Black & White images too. "Dynamic Skin Softener" and "Graduated Neutral Density" can make quick work of many photos - I find the neutral density filter adds a bit of clarity and skin softener does just what it says. I can do that work all by hand in PS but  sometimes the program does it for me - at least it's a worthwhile place to start and saves time.
 
A photo can be more than what the camera saw - that's the real fun. When you start adding textures and painting things in with your tablet - it's more than just photography - and it's not done to fix a bad photo but to enhance or even drastically change a good one.

Even if you're shooting jpeg you should shoot jpeg/RAW (great if you need to get news pix out fast). I had photos from Scotland taken with my D70 (6MP Kit lens). Really dark because I had knocked into the EV +/- button. I never deleted them and years later when I got LR3, realized that I could lighten them up, upsize them and they passed Alamy QC. The software got better and so what wouldn've been a noisy mess 3 years earlier was now a series of lovely photos - and what detail in the skies! I'm so glad I didn't delete them - but having the RAW data made all the difference.

I do go on when I have insomnia ... sorry