shortscale photography thread.

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:04 pm

Not seeing the original image

I was just wondering if you used any Photoshop magic or not. I am a Yearbook Advisor at my school and I am always trying to learn cool photography tips and tricks to teach my students.

I have this image as my desktop now.

Post by **Hurb** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:16 pm

taylornutt wrote:Not seeing the original image

I was just wondering if you used any Photoshop magic or not. I am a Yearbook Advisor at my school and I am always trying to learn cool photography tips and tricks to teach my students.

I have this image as my desktop now.

Oh what an honor!

Nah sorry I am a bit of a photoshop/editing novice. The thing I find with film is it doesn't need much doing with it straight from the scanner. I am doing all my editing in Lightroom 4 at the moment so it is all basic stuff. I like to be fairly honest with film so if anything needs really heaving editing I just wont use it. The most I do is apply sepia sometimes.

I do more with digital files but it is more to try and make it look more like film.

Is there anything in particular about the picture you like? Maybe someone could chip in and suggest a digital alternative edit?

I used photobucket for the original picture weird it is not showing up. I could email it to you if you like so you could compare.

Post by **Hurb** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:24 pm

OK to say I absolutely fucking love my new Bronica would be a real understatement...

Post by **Hurb** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:46 pm

more

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:47 pm

Nice. Last one is really cool.

Read this earlier about Canon lenses... "Interesting fact: lenses are so precise that if they were to be enlarged to the size of a sports stadium, the margin of error would be less than the thickness of a business card."

Pretty mental.

George · Post by **George** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:30 am

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:27 am

Some more photos. Some came on near on perfect think, but most didn't, which I don't really mind. I took most photos with a couple of different settings, so I suppose they were supposed to not all come out right.

Still trying to do the light thing completely manually using what I've read on here: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr

Post by **Hurb** » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:39 am

This one is really really nice.
What sort of post processing are you doing? is it the lab scanning them for you?

Just added you as fwend on flicr too.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:03 am

Thanks! I like that one too.

I'm trying not to do any post processing because at the moment I'm more concerned with the process than the result, ie taking photos, getting good at judging light and looking for where to put things in a picture rather than having great photos to show.

Having said that, the one of the rocks has been given a quick go over with Aperture's auto enhance tool. The rest* are as I got them from the lab, who are developing and scanning them for me. I have no idea if they are doing much to them or if their scanning process is set up to dress bad photos up a bit.

* - the rest of this lot that is, the previous lot I can't remember, they might have been fiddled with in Aperture, some of them definitely and obviously have been, like the one of the shipping containers on my flickr.

Post by **Hurb** » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:58 pm

BacchusPaul wrote:Thanks! I like that one too.

I'm trying not to do any post processing because at the moment I'm more concerned with the process than the result, ie taking photos, getting good at judging light and looking for where to put things in a picture rather than having great photos to show.

Having said that, the one of the rocks has been given a quick go over with Aperture's auto enhance tool. The rest* are as I got them from the lab, who are developing and scanning them for me. I have no idea if they are doing much to them or if their scanning process is set up to dress bad photos up a bit.

* - the rest of this lot that is, the previous lot I can't remember, they might have been fiddled with in Aperture, some of them definitely and obviously have been, like the one of the shipping containers on my flickr.

You should be able to ask what they do to them/ask them to leave them as is. I am surprised to see dust on the pictures if the lab are scanning them I would of thought that was bad crack like.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:06 pm

Hurb wrote:
BacchusPaul wrote:Thanks! I like that one too.

I'm trying not to do any post processing because at the moment I'm more concerned with the process than the result, ie taking photos, getting good at judging light and looking for where to put things in a picture rather than having great photos to show.

Having said that, the one of the rocks has been given a quick go over with Aperture's auto enhance tool. The rest* are as I got them from the lab, who are developing and scanning them for me. I have no idea if they are doing much to them or if their scanning process is set up to dress bad photos up a bit.

* - the rest of this lot that is, the previous lot I can't remember, they might have been fiddled with in Aperture, some of them definitely and obviously have been, like the one of the shipping containers on my flickr.
You should be able to ask what they do to them/ask them to leave them as is. I am surprised to see dust on the pictures if the lab are scanning them I would of thought that was bad crack like.

I might do that, it'd be good to know for own sake in the future. I noticed the dust thing too and was a bit surprised. I thought that there was infra-red magic in scanners that stopped this happening?

Post by **Hurb** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:52 am

BacchusPaul wrote:
I might do that, it'd be good to know for own sake in the future. I noticed the dust thing too and was a bit surprised. I thought that there was infra-red magic in scanners that stopped this happening?

Yeah the labs should be clean enough that dust isn't a problem, there isn't much on there and they would be easy to get rid of in photo editing software but if you are paying money for it I would suggest it is bad form. There is dust all over my pictures that I have to edit out but I process and scan them myself in a falling down dusty house with a dog and a cat so I would expect it.

What do people think to me setting up a flickr group for shortscale? so we can have a pool of art from our shortscale crew? invite only sort of thing.

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:08 pm

A flickr group is a great idea!

Post by **Hurb** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:26 pm

OK maded one!

It is invite only so if you want to join please let me know you are on flickr

I have invited Dan and Paul because I could remember they were on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/groups/shortscaledotorg/

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:14 pm

Awesome

I will add a few of my favourite shots shortly.

Post by **Hurb** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:47 pm

Made you an admin so feel free to add any other shortscale members

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:57 pm

Thanks. Did you set it to a 3-a-day limit? Not complaining, just wondering. I think it's probably a good idea actually, makes people think a bit more about what they put in.
I added my first 3. Tried to pick a variety of formats and styles. Once we get more people and submissions we could maybe create sets for different formats, styles etc.

Post by **Hurb** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:24 pm

DanHeron wrote: Thanks. Did you set it to a 3-a-day limit? Not complaining, just wondering. I think it's probably a good idea actually, makes people think a bit more about what they put in.
I added my first 3. Tried to pick a variety of formats and styles. Once we get more people and submissions we could maybe create sets for different formats, styles etc.

I did. Most quality groups I come across seem to allow 3 only any less than that and it is a bit slow. But if people disagree I would rather keep people happy and posting pictures than not so just say.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:37 am

Got another roll of film developed today. Pretty pleased with it some of the shots, but I'm looking for a bit of advice about exposure.

Basically, I've been taking the same photos a couple of times till I get the hang of things, so I've been getting the same photos under and over exposed. Sometimes I get a photo I like, sometimes I get a few photos that don't seem right.

If you had to pick one photo from each of the following groups, which would it be?

► Show Spoiler

Post by **Hurb** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:45 am

I would probably pick the first one of each set, you probably could of over exposed another half or full stop on most of those. they are all quite high contrast(New Zealand sun!) so something is always going to be a little off.
My advice would be pick the one with the most shadow detail(if that's what you want) you can always make the sky's darker later on. With film the detail in the highlights will be there even if they are over exposed. But you are less likely to be able to pull the detail from the shadows if they never made it there(not long enough exposure).

I would say the fact you are doing it all without a meter is fucking amazing dude.

http://www.redisonellis.com/exposure.html