User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Photoshopped?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Photoshopped?

    Are these photos photoshopped or PP'd?

    Or lens/camera-related?


    I've been trying to achieve the "soft" look on my photos to no avail. I tried using PS actions but it doesn't turn out that way. =(


    I know this 2nd photo is photoshopped... I hope it is. lol
    Last edited by ricktas; 13-04-2011 at 1:42pm.

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,643
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Sorry, but I had to remove your links. Australian copyright law states that if photos/art etc are being assessed for critique/review type comments, along side the link to/ or image display, you MUST list the author of the work.

    You are welcome to repost your links, but you must include details of who the author/coypright holder is, and the name of the work (if there is one).
    Last edited by ricktas; 13-04-2011 at 1:44pm.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Nov 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm assuming Rick is referring to "fair dealing" provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). If that's the case, then in addition to providing the author/copyright holder, under current operation of "fair dealing," you must yourself provide criticism or review of the work, and not simply ask others to critique it. Reference: http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cm...01ee11eb7c.pdf - quote:

    "In general, a person or organisation can rely on a fair dealing defence only for his, her or its own use of copyright material. For example, it would not be regarded as a fair dealing for criticism or review to reproduce a photograph and invite other people to critique it. Rather, the person making the reproduction must themselves be making the criticism or review."
    However, I'm not certain that embedding an image that is hosted on another web page is actionable for copyright infringement. I suppose that's a form of "deep linking" or "framing" in which content is appropriated from another website without the viewer being aware that it has been originally published elsewhere. The legal issues of deep linking are discussed here: http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cm...dbff85f7a7.pdf. Quote:
    It is possible to “frame” material from other websites within your own, so that visitors to the site see the material without being aware they are actually looking at a different website. This practice may not raise issues under copyright law...
    According to the same page, providing a normal link to a page elsewhere on the web is probably not considered an infringement of copyright under Australian law, and even this "deeper" kind of use of materials may not raise legal issues.

    Just sayin'...
    Last edited by ElectricImages; 13-04-2011 at 3:39pm.
    --=3 In Veritas Lux E=--
    Bodies: Canon EOS 5D Mk II, Canon EOS 550D
    Lenses: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
    Strobist: 2 x Speedlite 580EXII, 4 x Yongnuo RF-603 Radio Tranceivers, Yongnuo ST-E2 IR Transmitter
    3 x Manfrotto Light Stands, 2 x Softboxes, 2 x Bounce Brollies
    Tripod: Vanguard Alta Pro 263AT, PH-50 Panhead

  4. #4
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,643
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Agree, but I have to protect the site from being taken down. And thus, I deemed the post could result in critique or review of the original photos and applied the fair dealing clause to it. I would rather do that than deal with a team of lawyers in a week's time

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Nov 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you want the full protection of that clause, then, you will also have to stipulate that content posted "for review" (and not created by the poster) includes an initial critique or review, as per the first reference I posted; otherwise, it is probably not considered a fair dealing exception.

    Cheers,
    Leonard.
    Last edited by ElectricImages; 13-04-2011 at 4:22pm.

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow... I'm sorry I wasn't aware that I'd be breaking the law by posting those links.

    Is this better?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/denemiles/4942133006/
    http://smashingpicture.com/james-appleton-photography/

    Is this photo PP'd or can this be achieved by just using the SLR coupled with the lens?

    As for the soft look.... is that achievable with the camera as well or is it Photoshopped?
    Examples can be found in some of this blog's photos.

    http://www.axioo.com/

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Nov 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Ladysith,

    Every image you linked to has been post-processed in some way. While you could theoretically shoot an image with the saturation and vibrance of the first image completely "in-camera" as a JPEG (with the camera doing the post-processing in one of its "modes"), most people on this forum would recommend that you shoot a RAW file, and post-process that to get the best possible image. The second and third links both contain post-processed images done this way.

    A "soft look" can be achieved in-camera using a diffusion filter screwed over the lens; or by using a cheap UV filter and smearing it with a thin film of Vaseline. However, the same effect is easily achieved in post-production, and it is usually regarded as better to start with a sharp image and add the texture/artifacts in later, rather than starting with a soft or blurred image and trying to get sharpness or detail back!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    27 Mar 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You probably need to be a bit more specific about what you are refering to by "soft".

    Some of those photos have "soft" flowing water, this can be achieved with a slow shutter speed, say 5-10s, by setting lowest ISO, small aperture and possibly a ND filter. A tripod is necessary to hold camera steady during the long exposure.

    Or the "soft" diffuse backgrounds (called "Bokeh" in photospeak) in some of the portraits is usually created using a lens with a large aperture. This limits the "depth of field" so only a small point of interest is in sharp focus. Generally this means expensive pro lens, but luckily most camera brands have a 50mm f1.8 prime lens that you can buy for about $100 which is perfect for this.

    Hope this helps.


    EOS 1D MKIII x2, EOS 6D; Samyang 14 2.8 IF ED UMC, EF 17-40 4 L, EF 24-70 2.8 L, EF 50 1.4, EF 85 1.8, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS, EF 100 2.8 macro, EF 400 5.6 L, 1.4x II TC, EF25 ET; Speelite 580EX, 430EX; Nissin Di866II; Yongnuo YN560i/ii & YN460ii, YN622C's, RF602's; Gitzo GT3541XLS + Markins Q20i; Manfrotto 055XProB + Giottos MH1301; Manfrotto 680B c/w Kirk MPA-1; Tamrac Pro5, ThinkTank Airport Accelerator, Airport Antidote V2, Pro Speed Belt + Racing Harness + Modular Skin Set; Lightroom 5.3, Photoshop CS5.
    myflickr

    Scarlet letters aren't that bad.. I rather like L



  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry what I meant was something like this with soft colours...

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/luciaan...th/5389527876/

    These ones would be a combo of both right?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Nov 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Um... no actually.

    That's a combination of a white vignette, to get the gauzy "soft" white edges on the photos, and a bit of fiddling with the brightness & contrast settings and white balance for each image. Some of those images also may have had a texture overlay added in Photoshop.

  11. #11
    Perpetually Bewildered
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,169
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As EI stated, these days I think most photographers would do all this in PP. In the 'olden days' there were filters, soft-focus lenses, etc, and also many 'home-made' techniques (stretching stockings over the lens, vaseline, etc) to get the results in camera, plus various (non-digital) image processing options.

    Just a note on using Flickr examples in case you're not familiar with it...If you open one of the images in your Flickr link (eg "Be Mine"), down the right hand side you will often see a list under "This photo also appears in". Often these will be groups devoted to this style of photography. Here for example I can see the "pastel and dreamy" group. If you click on the link (twice) the "pastel and dreamy" group page will open showing thumbnails of images from the group. Near the top of the page you will see a link to "Discussion" - opening the Discussion page will often show many posts discussing techniques, etc for this style of photography.

    Hope this helps.


    Cheers.
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •