do f-stops and shutter really matter?
- Thread starter alef
- Start date
stdPikachu
Plughole in bathtub curve
sajana said:
You can't add details with photoshop that weren't in the image to begin with (unless you want to fabricate the entire scene, in which case learning 3DS Max would probably be a more worthwhile hobby). Image editing suites are fine for changing scratches, colour balances and the like (getting correct temperature pictures on slide film under varied FL lighting is next to impossible) Hence the image needs to be properly exposed in the first place.
All these people saying that mucking about with different f-stops and the like is pointless obviously haven't done any technically taxing photography, such as macro work. Sure, there's a time and a plce for auto-everything, but don't knock the tried and tested approach of "getting it right".
snadge said:
Bang on. It's everything in commercial photography.
One of the first questions I ask my art directors on a job is what DOP are we going for. It toatally gives the feel and accent of the work context. eg when I shoot for magazine A, the 'look' as dictated by the DOP that there readers respond to is mid range, quite long (11 - 16): For mag B the look may be full open (2.8 - 4.5) for product still life it's usually tight as - every tiny detail in focus (45 - 64).
It's the cornerstone of creative image making.
Chorlton said:
No, that's just lazy practise.
Get a grip on DOP (which is not rocket science) and you wouldn't need to 'worry' about it - you'd be able to apply it creativly and not have to dick around in p'shop later. "I'll sort it out in photoshop" is the mantra of the photographer who can't be arsed to properly learn the skill of taking an image in camera.
Pie 1 said:
darn straight....
its also the mantra of a photographer who doesn't want to spend all day dicking about outside and can be relaxing with a can and a bat in front of photshop later....
i am of course, saying these comments tongue in cheek, but it is something that i has been crossing my mind, better to learn the art of photography the way it was or to embrace technology and learn how to maxmise the potential of potatoshop? I think no one would argue its a wee bit of both but i think that knowing your way round after effects is becoming much more imporant in these days of more forgiving cameras and more pwerful editing tools
I think there is mibbe a wee bit of snobbery creeping in about photoshop and i'm not sure where its coming from - of course some people will always go overboard with it, its like anything else but subtle tweaks in photoshop are surely no different to dark-room trickery of the past? except maybe its easier and more immediate which may be the problem
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
In answer to the original question it all depends on what you are trying to achieve with your photograph. Good photo's can exist without knowledge of f-stops and shutter speeds, but try taking a photo of a fast moving object without a high shutter speed and you won't get what you want. Or try taking a photo of a night scene with a disposable camera and you'll get a heap of crap.
Chorlton said:
As a professional I do both but the later is redundant without the former.
Mis-guided. Again relying on your camera - or rather the camera's computer to 'forgive' you is lazy. I do not rely on my re toucher to forgive any mistakes. I give him images that are as near perfect as I can create them in camera and then we work magic so the client has exactly what they want. If the source is of poor quality (and I'm not talking file size!), there is some but not much p'shop can do.
No snobbery mate
Last week I was working on a £25k Imacon/Hassleblad system with the captures going down the pipe to a retoucher on a duel pro G5 and at the end of the day, one file ran to 78 layers and 2.8GB - 6 images to make one image - but each composite had to be photographicly bang on to start with... IN CAMERA.As a professional, I just wouldn't get away with not knowing in detail, every aspect of how to take a picture traditionally - And it's something I feel strongly about - that's all
Pie 1 said:
ahhh... we're coming at this from very different angles then - i'm firing shots off on a budget D-SLR while i'm at a wedding or at on a mountain walk - not paying my mortgage with them - so yes i take your point it is very important for you. And not so for me.
Hmmm. Sounds like inverse snobbery to me.sajana said:Elaborate discussion. With valid points for technical knowldege, am sure. But frankly apertures bore me.
and usually makes me think that people who know try to show themselves off as "better photographers."
While it's perfectly possible to take a blinding picture with zero knowledge of photography (and gawd knows, I've taken enough of those in my time!), understanding the technical functions of your camera can only enhance your ability to produce such shots on demand. Looking back over my old photos, I curse some of the opportunities I missed because I lacked a proper understanding of photography.
Similar threads
