eyewall Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Everyone knows I enhance my photos. I don't try to hide that fact. The midday light is harsh to shoot in and I agree that a camera will typically dull things out compared to what the human eye actually sees. I am going to try and return during the "golden hour" this evening when the light is usually at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Regardless, great photos you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Cameras are real good these days, so I guess I just prefer the actual photo vs enhancing colors. Usually when they are enhanced it's even beyond what the eye actually sees. That's just me, though. I understand enhancing to get rid of bad light etc...but to me it's basically not the real thing when it goes beyond perfecting a pic. People enhance the sky, clouds etc...when that's not even the true look of what is beyond photographed. I'm heading out hiking but later I'll show you an example...of the raw photo not depicting what you are actually seeing because of lighting differences. You can be looking at stunning peak fall colors and take a shot of it, and it's all whitewashed. That's an instance of the camera not showing the real thing. In a lot of cases I find that the camera does not automatically depict what you are seeing in real life without some touch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxeyeNH Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'll turn this thread back to the foliage thread. Thanks for your imput. I just think enhancement is like cheating on a snowfall total. Anyhow it seems this is turning out to be a great year after the frost we had. Here is my netcam view. Nothing brilliant yet. My camera does seem to bring out the green hues for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm heading out hiking but later I'll show you an example...of the raw photo not depicting what you are actually seeing because of lighting differences. You can be looking at stunning peak fall colors and take a shot of it, and it's all whitewashed. That's an instance of the camera not showing the real thing. In a lot of cases I find that the camera does not automatically depict what you are seeing in real life without some touch up. Well it depends on the lighting too, so I get that part. I'm talking about enhancing it to the point where it's totally different than what you are actually looking at. Like, why take a pic and make it totally unrealistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Cameras are real good these days, so I guess I just prefer the actual photo vs enhancing colors. Usually when they are enhanced it's even beyond what the eye actually sees. That's just me, though. I understand enhancing to get rid of bad light etc...but to me it's basically not the real thing when it goes beyond perfecting a pic. People enhance the sky, clouds etc...when that's not even the true look of what is beyond photographed. Cameras are good. But look with your eye and then the un enhanced view in a hgh end camera lens. Huge difference. Nothing comes close to the resolution of a healthy retina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Cameras are good. But look with your eye and then the un enhanced view in a hgh end camera lens. Huge difference. Nothing comes close to the resolution of a healthy retina. Eh, I don't know. It depends on lighting too. See my other post....that's what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Eh, I don't know. It depends on lighting too. See my other post....that's what I mean. You're out of your league here....trust me...lol. Natural lighting or twilight, try matching what a healthy human eye can see. Human eyes ftw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Technically speaking (philosophy aside), the line between "camera" and "naked eye" is very ill-defined... you can't just point "a camera" at a scene and use the result as a control. If you warmed up your white balance, underexposed a half stop or so, and used a polarizing filter—all of which work to saturate foliage colors—you'd have a manipulated image straight out of the camera. Some people prefer to replicate those kinds of adjustments on the computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 You're out of your league here....trust me...lol. Natural lighting or twilight, try matching what a healthy human eye can see. Human eyes ftw. I think you are missing my point. Gene gets it. I'm talking about enhancing it beyond how the eye sees it. To the point where it's not even the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I think you are missing my point. Gene gets it. I'm talking about enhancing it beyond how the eye sees it. To the point where it's not even the same thing. See Julian's post above. That's what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Well it depends on the lighting too, so I get that part. I'm talking about enhancing it to the point where it's totally different than what you are actually looking at. Like, why take a pic and make it totally unrealistic? Yeah I think we are talking about slightly different things...I'm not a fan of enhancement beyond what could be perceived by the naked eye. I just think there are color ranges, be it foliage, sunsets, northern lights, etc that a camera may not perceive as strong as the naked eye. Just like that awesome sunset you see and take a photo of but later look at it and you're like it was so much better in person. I get a lot of people I hike with or work with that day "your photos come out so much better than mine" and really what it is is that by touching up the lighting it makes the photo match what their eye perceived. Sort of like you see some throw up a photo on FB captioned "beautiful fall foliage" and the photo is all whitewashed, the color seems really bland, etc...the reason the person took that photo was they saw these vibrant colors, not what looks like a dying tree. Usually the camera catches the color but it's masked in poor lighting, so by adjusting that you can bring the real color out...it's not just like going around and saturating photos with color beyond recognition. It's using tools in the processing to make a photo match what your eye was seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Yeah I think we are talking about slightly different things...I'm not a fan of enhancement beyond what could be perceived by the naked eye. I just think there are color ranges, be it foliage, sunsets, northern lights, etc that a camera may not perceive as strong as the naked eye. Just like that awesome sunset you see and take a photo of but later look at it and you're like it was so much better in person. I get a lot of people I hike with or work with that day "your photos come out so much better than mine" and really what it is is that by touching up the lighting it makes the photo match what their eye perceived. Sort of like you see some throw up a photo on FB captioned "beautiful fall foliage" and the photo is all whitewashed, the color seems really bland, etc...the reason the person took that photo was they saw these vibrant colors, not what looks like a dying tree. Usually the camera catches the color but it's masked in poor lighting, so by adjusting that you can bring the real color out...it's not just like going around and saturating photos with color beyond recognition. It's using tools in the processing to make a photo match what your eye was seeing. Good post. Enhancing towards what the naked eye sees prompting the desire to photo in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 See Julian's post above. That's what I'm talking about. Right, but see what Gene and I are saying. There are images out there enhanced to the point it's basically a BS pic. I don't see the need to make things brighter and more colorful than they actually appear in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I think you are missing my point. Gene gets it. I'm talking about enhancing it beyond how the eye sees it. To the point where it's not even the same thing. Do you think my shots go beyond the scene I'm actually looking at? Just curious, but I try to make my shots more accurately reflect what I'm seeing vs what comes out of the camera...but I want it to get at that point where people look at it and can not automatically assume they've been altered significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Good post. Enhancing towards what the naked eye sees prompting the desire to photo in the first place. Yes I agree totally. In talking about going beyond that which occurs a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Do you think my shots go beyond the scene I'm actually looking at? Just curious, but I try to make my shots more accurately reflect what I'm seeing vs what comes out of the camera...but I want it to get at that point where people look at it and can not automatically assume they've been altered significantly. No, not at all. I referring to other posters who sort of enhance a bit too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Right, but see what Gene and I are saying. There are images out there enhanced to the point it's basically a BS pic. I don't see the need to make things brighter and more colorful than they actually appear in real life.Yeah I'm not a fan of that...changing beyond what is realistic. I just think some alteration is required to get the photo to the point of what your eye saw in the first place. It depends on the subject and lighting based on how much needs to be done.The cameras ability to not be able to reproduce what the naked eye sees, is what leads people to be disappointed in their photos. Like I bet there will be thousands of folks in NNE looking and taking pictures of vibrant foliage this weekend, that will ultimately be disappointed in their photos, and they will tell there friends that it looked so much better in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Yeah I'm not a fan of that...changing beyond what is realistic. I just think some alteration is required to get the photo to the point of what your eye saw in the first place. It depends on the subject and lighting based on how much needs to be done. The cameras ability to not be able to reproduce what the naked eye sees, is what leads people to be disappointed in their photos. Like I bet there will be thousands of folks in NNE looking and taking pictures of vibrant foliage this weekend, that will ultimately be disappointed in their photos, and they will tell there friends that it looked so much better in real life. No argument there. Agree completely. Now take some good pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 For the three I posted I would say shot #3 is the most over the top. #2 I got lucky with lighting as a cloud passed overhead and created a bit of a spotlight effect on some of the foliage. I don't mind positng comparison shots going forward. I am night trying to BS anyone but I also like artistic license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Obscene colors today. I think the mountain is peaking. Sunny skies and temps in the 70s, coupled with a weekend...it is a sh't show up here. I can't ever remember this many people being in the parking lots up here. Literally running out of parking. Mountain Road is like 93 in Boston at rush hour, bumper to bumper. This is like when a big snowstorm falls right before Presidents Weekend and the the sun comes out. People coming out of the woodwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Obscene colors today. I think the mountain is peaking. Sunny skies and temps in the 70s, coupled with a weekend...it is a sh't show up here. I can't ever remember this many people being in the parking lots up here. Literally running out of parking. Mountain Road is like 93 in Boston at rush hour, bumper to bumper. This is like when a big snowstorm falls right before Presidents Weekend and the the sun comes out. People coming out of the woodwork. That is good to know. So basically avoid Stowe today . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxeyeNH Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Okay, I got to post again. Coastal is right in my opinion. Sometimes the camera will not catch what the eye can see. Many times I take twilight pictures and the foreground is almost black. With my naked eye the foreground still has light. So I am not opposed to those types of slight corrections. I just want to look at foliage pictures that are as close to what I would actually see. In the digital age we can always make almost any picture stunning. So many times I see fall foliage pictures and say, wow, I've never seen that. It just isn't honest unless you are letting people know you are making "art". Same thing for clouds. I can make a CuB base look near black and so scary looking you say "wow" look at that storm. Again its hard for the camera to "see" what we see but I think we know the difference between honesty and over manipultion. Just a great Sept 27th day going for all of the Northeast US. Not a cloud in the sky over New England, actually almost south to NC and west to Chicago. Temps near 80F, dews in the 50's and light winds, tens of millions people outside doing their weekend thing. Enjoy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 That is good to know. So basically avoid Stowe today . I heard from someone who drove the entire length of RT 100 today (they spent the night down in Wilmington at Mt Snow) and say they were blown away by the sheer volume of cars today. They said down near the SVT areas like Stratton/Okemo/Killington was packed, and then again in the Mad River Valley up through Waterbury to Stowe. I would imagine most spots are pretty packed today, I bet the Kang Highway in NH is seeing some serious traffic too, as well as Pinkham Notch and any well known mountain road in NNE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Kind of sucks NNE is peaking. Was hoping to see some color for Columbus weekend. Sometimes the lake modifies the surroundings so hopefully it hangs on. I noticed last year was peak 1st weekend of Oct away from the lake. Up in the whites it was almost passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Okay, I got to post again. Coastal is right in my opinion. Sometimes the camera will not catch what the eye can see. Many times I take twilight pictures and the foreground is almost black. With my naked eye the foreground still has light. So I am not opposed to those types of slight corrections. I just want to look at foliage pictures that are as close to what I would actually see. In the digital age we can always make almost any picture stunning. So many times I see fall foliage pictures and say, wow, I've never seen that. It just isn't honest unless you are letting people know you are making "art". Same thing for clouds. I can make a CuB base look near black and so scary looking you say "wow" look at that storm. Again its hard for the camera to "see" what we see but I think we know the difference between honesty and over manipultion. Just a great Sept 27th day going for all of the Northeast US. Not a cloud in the sky over New England, actually almost south to NC and west to Chicago. Temps near 80F, dews in the 50's and light winds, tens of millions people outside doing their weekend thing. Enjoy!! Yes...but photography can be an art too. I took some classes at UVM when I was there and we basically had entire photography classes on how to over-manipulate shots for the desired effect. Depends on what you are looking for...I always go back to the Northern Lights photos...the northern lights are stunning but often no where even close to what you see in pictures. Does that bother me? Not really because I'd rather see a stunning photo than some dull light green barely visible on a horizon. And wxeye...Julian brought up a great point in that you can purchase all sorts of expensive gear, high-tech filters and the such to manipulate your photo before you even download it to your computer. Is that being honest or manipulating it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Kind of sucks NNE is peaking. Was hoping to see some color for Columbus weekend. Sometimes the lake modifies the surroundings so hopefully it hangs on. I noticed last year was peak 1st weekend of Oct away from the lake. Up in the whites it was almost passed. Its kind of like a rolling peak at this point...there's still some green out there, especially under the crowns of the trees (like the tops are all changing, but still green needs to change lower in the tree), so I think we're sort of hitting that point where its hard to say exactly when peak is, but say over the next 7 days I think it'll all be pretty similar. Down in town we are still probably a week away from where the mountain is. You can see in this picture how the lower parts of trees are still green, with the crowns going vibrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxeyeNH Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 My brother lives in Aspen CO. They are peaking right now too. Much of the forest is evergreen but you can see the Aspen patches at lower elevations are 100% yellow. This picture just taken from the gondola. I adjusted shadow/highlights slightly and sharpened the picture but it is very close to his original cellphone pic PS Notice how high the Cu bases are. Those peaks are in the 13,000 foot range and the Cu are so much higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Kind of sucks NNE is peaking. Was hoping to see some color for Columbus weekend. Sometimes the lake modifies the surroundings so hopefully it hangs on. I noticed last year was peak 1st weekend of Oct away from the lake. Up in the whites it was almost passed. Peak around my part of the lake tends to be the 10-20th due to the high percentage of oaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxeyeNH Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Peak around my part of the lake tends to be the 10-20th due to the high percentage of oaks. eek, I have noticed that too. First peak is early October then a lull and after the peepers have gone back south we get a second oak peak. Here that occurs usually around Oct 14th or so. Your about 20 miles to my SE and about 600 feet lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.