Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: bwana on April 20, 2012, 12:38:20 pm
-
I remember when shooting film. I remember how doing it 'in camera' was key. Yes there was stuff you did in the darkroom, but more often than not it was hard to be scientific there-the cycle of developing, toning, fixing, washing, drying took so long. Having bokeh in the final image only came from your lens. Now though there are countless ways to add blur or defocus an image in post. I wonder why people still make a big deal out of bokeh. Developing an image and processing it is SOO MUCH FASTER. And the instant feedback lets me learn what works a lot faster. And I can do SOO MUCH MORE. But still, there are endless discussions about lens bokeh....
Is it just that people hate to sit in front of the computer and they just want it right in the raw? Or is there a subtle, unquantifiable subjective character that I am missing between bokeh and photoshop skill?
-
Absolutely right!
To hell with those 20th century, obsolete concepts like bokeh! We do not need no stinking bokeh... hell.. we do not even need stinking lenses... nor cameras.. nor people behind them or in front of them, stinking or not.
Just a computer, Photoshop and... Burt Monroy (http://www.bertmonroy.com/).
-
okay, ookaay. i get it. i just get into these introspective moods that makes me question things. i still use ND filters btw, because luminosity masks and gradients cant scratch my itch.
-
Is it just that people hate to sit in front of the computer and they just want it right in the raw? Or is there a subtle, unquantifiable subjective character that I am missing between bokeh and photoshop skill?
Yes...
-
Beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder.
Photoshop does a great many things but it will never be an antidote to bad or ugly photography. And the market is saturated with some really ugly Photoshop work.
-
Hi,
Bokeh is a 3D thing. The image PS sees is 2D, so there is no info about depth, so there is no way Photoshop can apply bokeh correctly.
Best regards
Erik
I remember when shooting film. I remember how doing it 'in camera' was key. Yes there was stuff you did in the darkroom, but more often than not it was hard to be scientific there-the cycle of developing, toning, fixing, washing, drying took so long. Having bokeh in the final image only came from your lens. Now though there are countless ways to add blur or defocus an image in post. I wonder why people still make a big deal out of bokeh. Developing an image and processing it is SOO MUCH FASTER. And the instant feedback lets me learn what works a lot faster. And I can do SOO MUCH MORE. But still, there are endless discussions about lens bokeh....
Is it just that people hate to sit in front of the computer and they just want it right in the raw? Or is there a subtle, unquantifiable subjective character that I am missing between bokeh and photoshop skill?
-
Nothing beats geting it right in-camera.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Nothing beats geting it right in-camera.
Except making it perfect in Photoshop.
-
Except making it perfect in Photoshop.
Just how possible is changing all the specular highlights in an image from hexagons to circles ?
The point about good Brokeh is the characteristic of out of focus areas, not just whether areas are soft or not.
-
True - and Photoshop can and will improve whatever starting-point the camera provides.
Two sides of the same coin.
-
Yes...
+1 Exactly.
-
But now photoshop CS6 also has tilt-unsharp-filters !!
So now I am thinking of trowing away my PCE lenses.. (and also they tilt some unintentionally)
-
Absolutely right!
To hell with those 20th century, obsolete concepts like bokeh! We do not need no stinking bokeh... hell.. we do not even need stinking lenses... nor cameras.. nor people behind them or in front of them, stinking or not.
Just a computer, Photoshop and... Burt Monroy (http://www.bertmonroy.com/).
LOL Great post.
That guy is pretty good. Does he take a picture then paint it? If he can draw that cityscape from memory I will be amazed.
-
LOL Great post.
That guy is pretty good. Does he take a picture then paint it? If he can draw that cityscape from memory I will be amazed.
We have Stephen Wiltshire (http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/) for that...
-
Of the enemies of making art there are three
1) the endless quest for technical perfection. This easily becomes a distraction when mastery of process is presented as a goal in an of itself. (guys are most susceptible to this)
2) sloppiness in thought and action
3) and sloth. Art requires work and the desire to do it.
-
There are lots of indefinable qualities in photos (also paintings, architecture and all art) that cannot be produced by any software. Photoshop, Illustrator, In Design are nifty and pretty useful,l but one can waste an awful lot of time trying to simulate things like bokeh when a Leica lens feels much better in the hand than a plastic mouse. I just had a look at the stuff that Munroy fellow puts out and it's completely beyond me why anyone would spend that much time to show how ugly the world can be when he could just take the smart phone into any suburban street in most "developed" countries. I call it the "hair shirt syndrome". But then I've never been drawn to self flagellation. Curiously I've spent much of the last 7 years researching dimensionallity and other qualities in Photoshop and have reached more dead ends than possibilities. As Cartier -Bresson did I'm considering moving to painting.