Re: Birds In Flight
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:39 pm
steamtrainfan,
Those photos were taken with a Canon Rebel XSi and a Canon 70-300 lens. I now have the Canon D60, but would love to move on up the chain at some point. It's purely a hobby, so that keeps my budget in check.
As far as post processing, that is my Achilles' heel. I need to take a class, but I can certainly do the basic steps of digital post processing such as crop, light levels, color correction, sharpening as need be. I still work with Photoshop Elements 9, so you can see I'm not very up to date, but it suffices for my limited needs.
This particular photo was cropped and light levels adjusted. I chose to photograph them when the light was good, so these needed minimal processing. (That's not usually the case w/ wildlife as we all know.)
I think "photoshopped" has become a somewhat pejorative term, unfairly sometimes. I would venture to say ALL photos that win the prestigious awards have been through post processing. It's a basic and necessary step now that dark rooms are relatively obsolete. HOWEVER, only minimal and tightly constrained adjustments are allowed by the rules and you have to supply the ORIGINAL photo if chosen to verify its conformity to those rules. It's simply a type of software, but can surely be used in extreme ways.
My point is, labeling something as "photoshopped" can mean anything on the spectrum from slight adjustments, to adding/erasing elements that weren't even there to begin with. WHEW! Aren't you sorry you asked????
(MODS: please delete or move if inappropriate in this topic. )
Amoli,
Can I just re upload them to that topic? Would you like me to delete them here so they're not duplicated? Thanks.
Those photos were taken with a Canon Rebel XSi and a Canon 70-300 lens. I now have the Canon D60, but would love to move on up the chain at some point. It's purely a hobby, so that keeps my budget in check.
As far as post processing, that is my Achilles' heel. I need to take a class, but I can certainly do the basic steps of digital post processing such as crop, light levels, color correction, sharpening as need be. I still work with Photoshop Elements 9, so you can see I'm not very up to date, but it suffices for my limited needs.
This particular photo was cropped and light levels adjusted. I chose to photograph them when the light was good, so these needed minimal processing. (That's not usually the case w/ wildlife as we all know.)
I think "photoshopped" has become a somewhat pejorative term, unfairly sometimes. I would venture to say ALL photos that win the prestigious awards have been through post processing. It's a basic and necessary step now that dark rooms are relatively obsolete. HOWEVER, only minimal and tightly constrained adjustments are allowed by the rules and you have to supply the ORIGINAL photo if chosen to verify its conformity to those rules. It's simply a type of software, but can surely be used in extreme ways.
My point is, labeling something as "photoshopped" can mean anything on the spectrum from slight adjustments, to adding/erasing elements that weren't even there to begin with. WHEW! Aren't you sorry you asked????
(MODS: please delete or move if inappropriate in this topic. )
Amoli,
Can I just re upload them to that topic? Would you like me to delete them here so they're not duplicated? Thanks.
f/5 - exp 1/1600
