eyewall Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 There is still some great color around the Hinesburg and St. George areas in VT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 There is still some great color around the Hinesburg and St. George areas in VT. Yeah the immediate CPV seems to be doing well right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Here is one I took outside of St. George this afternoon. I didn't go crazy on the color enhancement (only to try and approximate what it looked like in person) and I brought out the sky which the camera over exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Here is one during the pouring rain near Hinesburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Nice! Love the gray against the color in the first one, and the lighting in the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Nice! Love the gray against the color in the first one, and the lighting in the second. Thank you. It was nice to take a quick excursion while on breaks from work. Here is to hoping I can catch some flakes at Bolton Valley on Sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Spin Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Messing with filters and exposure and shutter speed and whatnot while taking the picture is not any different than post-image editing. It's just a difference as to when you do the enhancing. I think its quite obvious when someone does something to make the picture look more realistic versus when someone over-edits the picture. It’s very interesting to hear the debate about post-processing images. I’m actually amazed that it’s even a debate, because it’s at best just opinion/preference, but more practically speaking, the point is moot. Photography is art, not science. Unless one is in a contest or is submitting work under contract in which specific techniques are not allowed, there are no rules. Even then, the disallowed techniques are usually just about adding and removing actual elements from the images, not global processing of the images. Saying that one can’t sharpen, adjust saturation, alter color, exposure, etc. is pointless, because unless one is shooting entirely in raw files (and even then, some of those are pre-adjusted in camera) your camera is already modifying all those settings and more before you even see the image. Every camera takes a different picture based on its sensor in the first place, and then they all apply all those processing settings differently on top of that. One could just as easily go out and buy a camera that automatically defaults to heavy saturation and sharpness (or just adjust the settings in camera), and then they would be allowed to have super saturated, over sharpened images… but that would be OK because they didn’t do any post-processing? If people weren’t allowed to process their images, they would have to go out and buy (or at least try) hundreds of different cameras until they found the one that happened to be the closest to the look they were hoping to get. And then that camera would probably be good for just one type of image, and they might need other cameras if they wanted to shoot different subjects and get an acceptable result. I’m trying to think of good analogies in other fields to relate to post-processing in photography, but it would be like telling every painter in the world that whatever paint colors of one specific brand were available at their local store was all they were allowed to use. They couldn’t mix any of the colors, or add white to make them brighter, or use another brand of paint that had a more saturated look. Also, woe to those painters who had poor eyesight, because they would only be allowed to create the exact blurry scenes that they can see without their eyeglasses. They wouldn’t be allowed to wear their eyeglasses to create a properly sharp picture from the beginning (in-camera sharpening) or fix their paintings afterwards back in their studio (sharpening in post-processing). Anyway, the bottom line is that there’s no “standard” camera - everyone’s cameras are already arbitrarily applying all these settings that people are talking about in post-processing to varying degrees. And, even if that wasn’t the case, the discipline is an entirely subjective art form anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 It’s very interesting to hear the debate about post-processing images. I’m actually amazed that it’s even a debate, because it’s at best just opinion/preference, but more practically speaking, the point is moot. Photography is art, not science. Unless one is in a contest or is submitting work under contract in which specific techniques are not allowed, there are no rules. Even then, the disallowed techniques are usually just about adding and removing actual elements from the images, not global processing of the images. Saying that one can’t sharpen, adjust saturation, alter color, exposure, etc. is pointless, because unless one is shooting entirely in raw files (and even then, some of those are pre-adjusted in camera) your camera is already modifying all those settings and more before you even see the image. Every camera takes a different picture based on its sensor in the first place, and then they all apply all those processing settings differently on top of that. One could just as easily go out and buy a camera that automatically defaults to heavy saturation and sharpness (or just adjust the settings in camera), and then they would be allowed to have super saturated, over sharpened images… but that would be OK because they didn’t do any post-processing? If people weren’t allowed to process their images, they would have to go out and buy (or at least try) hundreds of different cameras until they found the one that happened to be the closest to the look they were hoping to get. And then that camera would probably be good for just one type of image, and they might need other cameras if they wanted to shoot different subjects and get an acceptable result. I’m trying to think of good analogies in other fields to relate to post-processing in photography, but it would be like telling every painter in the world that whatever paint colors of one specific brand were available at their local store was all they were allowed to use. They couldn’t mix any of the colors, or add white to make them brighter, or use another brand of paint that had a more saturated look. Also, woe to those painters who had poor eyesight, because they would only be allowed to create the exact blurry scenes that they can see without their eyeglasses. They wouldn’t be allowed to wear their eyeglasses to create a properly sharp picture from the beginning (in-camera sharpening) or fix their paintings afterwards back in their studio (sharpening in post-processing). Anyway, the bottom line is that there’s no “standard” camera - everyone’s cameras are already arbitrarily applying all these settings that people are talking about in post-processing to varying degrees. And, even if that wasn’t the case, the discipline is an entirely subjective art form anyway. This is the only place where I have encountered this debate. I am in agreement with you and post-processing has been a reality long before photoshop in dark rooms. Honestly if people want to continue arguing about it perhaps a thread in off topic is in order . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 It’s very interesting to hear the debate about post-processing images. I’m actually amazed that it’s even a debate, because it’s at best just opinion/preference, but more practically speaking, the point is moot. Photography is art, not science. Unless one is in a contest or is submitting work under contract in which specific techniques are not allowed, there are no rules. Even then, the disallowed techniques are usually just about adding and removing actual elements from the images, not global processing of the images. Saying that one can’t sharpen, adjust saturation, alter color, exposure, etc. is pointless, because unless one is shooting entirely in raw files (and even then, some of those are pre-adjusted in camera) your camera is already modifying all those settings and more before you even see the image. Every camera takes a different picture based on its sensor in the first place, and then they all apply all those processing settings differently on top of that. One could just as easily go out and buy a camera that automatically defaults to heavy saturation and sharpness (or just adjust the settings in camera), and then they would be allowed to have super saturated, over sharpened images… but that would be OK because they didn’t do any post-processing? If people weren’t allowed to process their images, they would have to go out and buy (or at least try) hundreds of different cameras until they found the one that happened to be the closest to the look they were hoping to get. And then that camera would probably be good for just one type of image, and they might need other cameras if they wanted to shoot different subjects and get an acceptable result. I’m trying to think of good analogies in other fields to relate to post-processing in photography, but it would be like telling every painter in the world that whatever paint colors of one specific brand were available at their local store was all they were allowed to use. They couldn’t mix any of the colors, or add white to make them brighter, or use another brand of paint that had a more saturated look. Also, woe to those painters who had poor eyesight, because they would only be allowed to create the exact blurry scenes that they can see without their eyeglasses. They wouldn’t be allowed to wear their eyeglasses to create a properly sharp picture from the beginning (in-camera sharpening) or fix their paintings afterwards back in their studio (sharpening in post-processing). Anyway, the bottom line is that there’s no “standard” camera - everyone’s cameras are already arbitrarily applying all these settings that people are talking about in post-processing to varying degrees. And, even if that wasn’t the case, the discipline is an entirely subjective art form anyway. I agree with everything you said. My only point is my preference is for pictures that look realistic vs. ones who don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Photography is art, not science. And weather is science, not art. Who are you to swoop in and decide this debate is moot? There is a pretty enormous difference between the adjustments your camera is capable of and the ridiculous stuff you see online... viral pictures of supercells seem to be the worst offenders. I don't think anyone has ever said photos shouldn't be manipulated in the slightest. I do think photos should look realistic, especially on a science based forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 And weather is science, not art. Who are you to swoop in and decide this debate is moot? There is a pretty enormous difference between the adjustments your camera is capable of and the ridiculous stuff you see online... viral pictures of supercells seem to be the worst offenders. I don't think anyone has ever said photos shouldn't be manipulated in the slightest. I do think photos should look realistic, especially on a science based forum. Storm Chasers often sell their images as art, hence the heavy manipulation. Anyway again this is off topic and should be its own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Spin Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I agree with everything you said. My only point is my preference is for pictures that look realistic vs. ones who don't. Oh, I agree with everything in your post as well, I thought it was well put and was just choosing a quote among the many in the thread for following up in the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 All photos should be black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 All photos should be black and white. They practically are in winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Spin Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 And weather is science, not art. Who are you to swoop in and decide this debate is moot? There is a pretty enormous difference between the adjustments your camera is capable of and the ridiculous stuff you see online... viral pictures of supercells seem to be the worst offenders. I don't think anyone has ever said photos shouldn't be manipulated in the slightest. I do think photos should look realistic, especially on a science based forum. I don’t think one needs to be anyone special to decide if a debate is moot; it doesn’t mean it is, and it doesn’t mean anyone has to listen. I’m not a moderator trying to put a stop to the debate; the fact that there is a debate about the subject is actually quite interesting (and I don’t think the discussion is necessarily off topic in a foliage thread focused around photography). Just because a subject is scientific, does not in any way mean that the photography of that subject has to somehow be scientific, or even “realistic”. Professional scientific photography as part of research within a discipline can be a different story, but this is a casual thread about foliage. People pretty much say whatever they want in these threads within the rules of the forum, so it was surprising to see image processing getting an especially high level of scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 And weather is science, not art. Who are you to swoop in and decide this debate is moot? There is a pretty enormous difference between the adjustments your camera is capable of and the ridiculous stuff you see online... viral pictures of supercells seem to be the worst offenders. I don't think anyone has ever said photos shouldn't be manipulated in the slightest. I do think photos should look realistic, especially on a science based forum. Tell us how you really feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Tell us how you really feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Al Kaprielian just deleted his account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 For Eek, totally unaltered taken with a LG5 cell phone 5 minutes ago at work. I think they are nicer than your rain wiped pic with your expensive camera of the Bates backyard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Burning bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneypitmike Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 For Eek, totally unaltered taken with a LG5 cell phone 5 minutes ago at work. I think they are nicer than your rain wiped pic with your expensive camera of the Bates backyard Nice, Steve. Things are a bit more 'sticky' in GC. 54.9/54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Those cell phone pics aren't bad at all, you just need to clean the lens. raging downpour in progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Those cell phone pics aren't bad at all, you just need to clean the lens. raging downpour in progress. Haha I always have to remind myself of that. Sometimes I take one and be like hmmm, looks "cloudy" and then realize there's pocket lint all over the lens. I love how far cell phone cameras have come lately...can take a decent photo these days, even printing them they don't look bad as long as its like a 5x7 or 4x6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Those cell phone pics aren't bad at all, you just need to clean the lens. raging downpour in progress. Jelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Burning bush Just planted mine they are only a foot tall, Not very colorful.......................lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TauntonBlizzard2013 Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 Lots of bare trees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Just planted mine they are only a foot tall, Not very colorful.......................lol They're no longer sold in MA last time I checked. They were designated an invasive species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Not bad here in ECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Miser Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Not bad here in ECT Great shot, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Miser Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 This is from last Friday (Oct. 17) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.