Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think you are missing the poit. I am a professional photographer and know very well what editing is required and done in many different scenarios.

The thread is about the CR sky and if anyone is expecting to see the sky as represented is very much mistaken.

The shots would be better placed in the photo section.

I have attached a shot where the sky is (as shot). Taken with a Canon 1ds Mark III and a 24-70L Lens at f11

I don't believe I am missing the point. As a professional photographer you should certainly know very well what editing is required to satisfy your clients, but you can't be expected to know what editing is required to satisfy people whom you don't know.

Another myth about photography is that the camera never lies. As a person who has taken photos with both film and digital cameras over many years, I know very well that skies can be a problem. The reason is, that the camera normally gets just one exposure at one F/stop and one shutter speed that has to be sufficient for both dark areas in the foreground and exceptionally bright areas in the sky.

What tends to happen with automatic, in-camera processing, or even the K-Mart processing of film and prints in the olden days, is that a compromise is made. Skies are often sacrificed in the interests of lighter shadows in the foreground. Skies often tend to become insipid and uninspiring, or even sometimes completely blown, white and devoid of detail.

This is one of the many instances when the camera lies (metaphorically of course).

However, when the photographer views the scene he is about to photograph, his own eye does not use just one F/stop like a camera lens. As he gazes at the bright sky, his pupil will significantly contract so that the retina will not be swamped with light, and so that he can discern every subtle shade of cloud detail in the brightest part of the sky.

Likewise, as his gaze shifts to the dark shadows in the undergrowth of the green foliage in the foreground, the pupil will dilate within a fraction of a second, so that the eye can discern with great clarity that grasshopper lurking in them thar shadows.

As I've mentioned before, this thread is about the Chinag Rai sky, and Villagefarang depicts that sky in his photos marvelously well.

Now it's true that I've never lived in Chiang Rai so I cannot argue with you about the accuracy of those skies in VF's photos. However, in Australia, where I spend most of my time, I've often seen skies as dramatic and brooding, and colorful and vibrant, as in VF's photos, so his depiction of skies are credible to me, and I like them. That's what counts.

However, as an aspiring Buddhist, I can state that everything is an illusion, so don't worry about it. biggrin.pngbiggrin.pngbiggrin.png

 

Nice post Vincent

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 564
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you are missing the poit. I am a professional photographer and know very well what editing is required and done in many different scenarios.

The thread is about the CR sky and if anyone is expecting to see the sky as represented is very much mistaken.

The shots would be better placed in the photo section.

I have attached a shot where the sky is (as shot). Taken with a Canon 1ds Mark III and a 24-70L Lens at f11

I don't believe I am missing the point. As a professional photographer you should certainly know very well what editing is required to satisfy your clients, but you can't be expected to know what editing is required to satisfy people whom you don't know.

Another myth about photography is that the camera never lies. As a person who has taken photos with both film and digital cameras over many years, I know very well that skies can be a problem. The reason is, that the camera normally gets just one exposure at one F/stop and one shutter speed that has to be sufficient for both dark areas in the foreground and exceptionally bright areas in the sky.

What tends to happen with automatic, in-camera processing, or even the K-Mart processing of film and prints in the olden days, is that a compromise is made. Skies are often sacrificed in the interests of lighter shadows in the foreground. Skies often tend to become insipid and uninspiring, or even sometimes completely blown, white and devoid of detail.

This is one of the many instances when the camera lies (metaphorically of course).

However, when the photographer views the scene he is about to photograph, his own eye does not use just one F/stop like a camera lens. As he gazes at the bright sky, his pupil will significantly contract so that the retina will not be swamped with light, and so that he can discern every subtle shade of cloud detail in the brightest part of the sky.

Likewise, as his gaze shifts to the dark shadows in the undergrowth of the green foliage in the foreground, the pupil will dilate within a fraction of a second, so that the eye can discern with great clarity that grasshopper lurking in them thar shadows.

As I've mentioned before, this thread is about the Chinag Rai sky, and Villagefarang depicts that sky in his photos marvelously well.

Now it's true that I've never lived in Chiang Rai so I cannot argue with you about the accuracy of those skies in VF's photos. However, in Australia, where I spend most of my time, I've often seen skies as dramatic and brooding, and colorful and vibrant, as in VF's photos, so his depiction of skies are credible to me, and I like them. That's what counts.

However, as an aspiring Buddhist, I can state that everything is an illusion, so don't worry about it. biggrin.pngbiggrin.pngbiggrin.png

 

There is a big difference between compensating form exposure issues and colorising/ over saturating shots. Whilst there is no issue with enhancing shots in this manner for impact , they are not a true representation on reality - and that is my point here, I have lived in CR for some time and have never seen the sky the colour represented. So to make the shot pleasing to those interested is ok but it is not the CR sky I know.

On the camera side - the dynamic range of the top end digitals can overcome some of your exposure issues

I know the OZ sky well also the ones ofter seen in the extreme northern hemisphere (with the northern lights) and they are very dramatic and have amazing colour variations - you should get yourself out here to CR to experience the difference. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the poit. I am a professional photographer and know very well what editing is required and done in many different scenarios.

The thread is about the CR sky and if anyone is expecting to see the sky as represented is very much mistaken.

The shots would be better placed in the photo section.

I have attached a shot where the sky is (as shot). Taken with a Canon 1ds Mark III and a 24-70L Lens at f11

I don't believe I am missing the point. As a professional photographer you should certainly know very well what editing is required to satisfy your clients, but you can't be expected to know what editing is required to satisfy people whom you don't know.

Another myth about photography is that the camera never lies. As a person who has taken photos with both film and digital cameras over many years, I know very well that skies can be a problem. The reason is, that the camera normally gets just one exposure at one F/stop and one shutter speed that has to be sufficient for both dark areas in the foreground and exceptionally bright areas in the sky.

What tends to happen with automatic, in-camera processing, or even the K-Mart processing of film and prints in the olden days, is that a compromise is made. Skies are often sacrificed in the interests of lighter shadows in the foreground. Skies often tend to become insipid and uninspiring, or even sometimes completely blown, white and devoid of detail.

This is one of the many instances when the camera lies (metaphorically of course).

However, when the photographer views the scene he is about to photograph, his own eye does not use just one F/stop like a camera lens. As he gazes at the bright sky, his pupil will significantly contract so that the retina will not be swamped with light, and so that he can discern every subtle shade of cloud detail in the brightest part of the sky.

Likewise, as his gaze shifts to the dark shadows in the undergrowth of the green foliage in the foreground, the pupil will dilate within a fraction of a second, so that the eye can discern with great clarity that grasshopper lurking in them thar shadows.

As I've mentioned before, this thread is about the Chinag Rai sky, and Villagefarang depicts that sky in his photos marvelously well.

Now it's true that I've never lived in Chiang Rai so I cannot argue with you about the accuracy of those skies in VF's photos. However, in Australia, where I spend most of my time, I've often seen skies as dramatic and brooding, and colorful and vibrant, as in VF's photos, so his depiction of skies are credible to me, and I like them. That's what counts.

However, as an aspiring Buddhist, I can state that everything is an illusion, so don't worry about it. biggrin.pngbiggrin.pngbiggrin.png

 

Nice post Vincent

Sorry i think i should have pressed the I Like button instead

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the poit. I am a professional photographer and know very well what editing is required and done in many different scenarios.

The thread is about the CR sky and if anyone is expecting to see the sky as represented is very much mistaken.

The shots would be better placed in the photo section.

I have attached a shot where the sky is (as shot). Taken with a Canon 1ds Mark III and a 24-70L Lens at f11

I don't believe I am missing the point. As a professional photographer you should certainly know very well what editing is required to satisfy your clients, but you can't be expected to know what editing is required to satisfy people whom you don't know.

Another myth about photography is that the camera never lies. As a person who has taken photos with both film and digital cameras over many years, I know very well that skies can be a problem. The reason is, that the camera normally gets just one exposure at one F/stop and one shutter speed that has to be sufficient for both dark areas in the foreground and exceptionally bright areas in the sky.

What tends to happen with automatic, in-camera processing, or even the K-Mart processing of film and prints in the olden days, is that a compromise is made. Skies are often sacrificed in the interests of lighter shadows in the foreground. Skies often tend to become insipid and uninspiring, or even sometimes completely blown, white and devoid of detail.

This is one of the many instances when the camera lies (metaphorically of course).

However, when the photographer views the scene he is about to photograph, his own eye does not use just one F/stop like a camera lens. As he gazes at the bright sky, his pupil will significantly contract so that the retina will not be swamped with light, and so that he can discern every subtle shade of cloud detail in the brightest part of the sky.

Likewise, as his gaze shifts to the dark shadows in the undergrowth of the green foliage in the foreground, the pupil will dilate within a fraction of a second, so that the eye can discern with great clarity that grasshopper lurking in them thar shadows.

As I've mentioned before, this thread is about the Chinag Rai sky, and Villagefarang depicts that sky in his photos marvelously well.

Now it's true that I've never lived in Chiang Rai so I cannot argue with you about the accuracy of those skies in VF's photos. However, in Australia, where I spend most of my time, I've often seen skies as dramatic and brooding, and colorful and vibrant, as in VF's photos, so his depiction of skies are credible to me, and I like them. That's what counts.

However, as an aspiring Buddhist, I can state that everything is an illusion, so don't worry about it. biggrin.pngbiggrin.pngbiggrin.png

 

There is a big difference between compensating form exposure issues and colorising/ over saturating shots. Whilst there is no issue with enhancing shots in this manner for impact , they are not a true representation on reality - and that is my point here, I have lived in CR for some time and have never seen the sky the colour represented. So to make the shot pleasing to those interested is ok but it is not the CR sky I know.

On the camera side - the dynamic range of the top end digitals can overcome some of your exposure issues

I know the OZ sky well also the ones ofter seen in the extreme northern hemisphere (with the northern lights) and they are very dramatic and have amazing colour variations - you should get yourself out here to CR to experience the difference. smile.png

What! You mean the Chiang Rai skies are not as colorful and as vibrant as the OZ skies?

Can anyone else confirm this? When I was in Mae Hong Son earlier this year, and the skies were hazy due to Hill Tribe burn off, the manager of the resort where I was staying, who prided himself on being an artist and showed me some of his works, claimed that the sky was magnificent during the wet season. Intuitively, I understood what he meant.

By the way, I do have a top-end DSLR, the Nikon D800E. For its price, size and weight, it's perhaps the finest camera that has ever been produced in the history of the human race. wink.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly over the past year - I have seen nothing like those posted ( I might go to Yanok lake tonight and see if the sunset is any better).

My brother is an artist (watercolour mainly) he paints some magnificent Scottish scenic pictures but the sky is never as deep and vivid.

I restate my point , the thread is about the Chiang Rai sky, if it said artistic representation of the CR sky.... but at least do not let people think the clouds are blue or the sky is purple smile.png

Being a C man - I have to strongly disagree on you last statement tongue.png

Edited by krobert6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly over the past year - I have seen nothing like those posted ( I might go to Yanok lake tonight and see if the sunset is any better).

My brother is an artist (watercolour mainly) he paints some magnificent Scottish scenic pictures but the sky is never as deep and vivid.

I restate my point , the thread is about the Chiang Rai sky, if it said artistic representation of the CR sky.... but at least do not let people think the clouds are blue or the sky is purple smile.png

Being a C man - I have to strongly disagree on you last statement tongue.png

Ah! I see! All is now clear. Since you are a C man I understand your dilemma. If you make the skies dramatic, you'll have serious noise and banding in the shadows. If you want the shadows nice and clean, you'll have diluted skies. biggrin.pngbiggrin.png

I hope the moderators do not remove these posts. We're just having a bit of fun. biggrin.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! I see! All is now clear. Since you are a C man I understand your dilemma. If you make the skies dramatic, you'll have serious noise and banding in the shadows. If you want the shadows nice and clean, you'll have diluted skies. biggrin.pngbiggrin.png

I hope the moderators do not remove these posts. We're just having a bit of fun. biggrin.png

You realize I might want to get back on topic at some point, but for now I am happy to let you guys play a little and let off some steam. Especially if it removes me from the crosshairs for a bit.wink.png

I have been trying to remember the last time I saw a black and white sky.huh.png Since no one is complaining about black and white representations of the sky, there must be plenty of them around. Pretty sure I haven’t seen any in Chiang Rai, however.laugh.png

Edited by villagefarang
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly over the past year - I have seen nothing like those posted ( I might go to Yanok lake tonight and see if the sunset is any better).

My brother is an artist (watercolour mainly) he paints some magnificent Scottish scenic pictures but the sky is never as deep and vivid.

I restate my point , the thread is about the Chiang Rai sky, if it said artistic representation of the CR sky.... but at least do not let people think the clouds are blue or the sky is purple smile.png

Being a C man - I have to strongly disagree on you last statement tongue.png

Ah! I see! All is now clear. Since you are a C man I understand your dilemma. If you make the skies dramatic, you'll have serious noise and banding in the shadows. If you want the shadows nice and clean, you'll have diluted skies. biggrin.pngbiggrin.png

I hope the moderators do not remove these posts. We're just having a bit of fun. biggrin.png

lols Vincent - we will have to start a C and N thread to battle that one out :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think photo shopping plays a major part in any photography these days, it's a rare photo I don't fiddle with, even if it's just a minor crop.

Back in the day it was a complex process involving darkrooms and smelly chemicals but now improvement is just a mouse click away.

I think if people are posting shots representing the Chiang Rai sky they you have natural colours and not be heavily modified. As most of the shots are heavily saturated and colorised they probably should be posted in a photography section under editing.

The few photos I have posted here have had no editing. That is why I posted them here. They are of the sky in Chiang Rai region

Your shots are not heavily edited - but when I see blue clouds of a purple sky - whilst pretty it is not a true representation of what you will see in CR

Can you please show me what you are talking about? I have an Olympus SP-600UZ. I shoot and then download. I do not edit after they are downloaded. I am sorry I am not a professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I love about this thread are the beautiful pictures. smile.png

Whether or not they are exactly 100% perfect representation of the actual moment the actual shot was taken

means less than nothing to me. I am not a photo critic nor a tech minded person when it comes to cameras.

I see the picture as a whole, the sky, the land, the crops, the water, all together they just look great to me & make me feel great.

I am not going to go to lengths to decide if it is 100% accurate as I am just happy to see them. wink.png

I hope I have not distracted to much here & it is just my personal opinion.

I hope to see more pictures here wink.png

Thanks to VF & anyone else that can contribute some. I just flat out enjoy them

Thanks

Edited by mania
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...