Filtered or unfiltered goldie M

[Goldie M]

I have struggled with photography up to now, one reason being I think that I can paint abit (not much) but I was always taught that a picture had not to be flat, that the character or what ever I painted had to stand out.( colour) had to be the main reason for bringing out this sharpness and possilbly differant shades of light. Yet I find lots of the shots I like and find interesting or noted for being noisey. When I have filterd some they then look flat to me, is this a trate with photography?
or is it me just not getting used to it? I 've put one of my Pictures in just to make a point, I can see the light and how it makes a differance.

The Butterfly photo has stronger colour but has been called noisey so I filtered one to see the differance and I still prefer the unfiltered one Looking for assistance Goldie

[MikeOxon]

I would say trust your own judgement because the camera doesn't have any!

Only you know what the subject is and what needs to be emphasised. I often increase the contrast or colour saturation, or use the 'dodge and burn' tools in Photoshop to make the subject stand out. It is also possible to add a little blur to the background for the same purpose. I suggest that you experiment with some of these tools to modify the photo until it suits you best.

As an example of how much modification can help with 'artistic impression', some pictures can make more impact if displayed in black and white!

Mike

[Padfield]

If that painting is one of yours, Goldie, then you're obviously an artist and you should remain true to your artistic instincts, even if you find yourself in disagreement with others.

That said, it's obviously very important to heed others' critiques and learn from their comments. In particular, there are some real experts on these forums (not me!) who can tell you how to achieve whatever particular effects you want. But they have to be effects that you want - there's no point in producing pictures you don't like.

Personally (and I know this is just me), I cannot understand this thing about cleaning up backgrounds - I like messy backgrounds. But not all messes are equally good. Some are ugly and distracting, while others set a butterfly in an amazing context, or lead the eye to the butterfly. I don't have a problem with blades of grass in front, either, if the blade is nicely framed and seems to be part of the picture.

In short, we're all on a learning curve, but ideally we're learning how to create pictures we are proud of and enjoy ourselves, rather than pictures others say are good.

Guy

[ChrisC]

Well said Guy.

Chris

[David M]

Personally (and I know this is just me), I cannot understand this thing about cleaning up backgrounds - I like messy backgrounds.

Hallelujah!

No, it isn't just you, Guy.

For me some photographs are just too sanitised and appear unnatural. Sure, they present the actual butterfly wonderfully well, but often you wouldn't be able to tell if the insect had been captured and photographed in a studio.

I accept that this is the standard by which judges rate the 'best', but I personally like to see something vaguely resembling the natural world in the background....which is probably why I'll never win any photography awards!

[Nick Broomer]

I also agree with Guy, as long as you are happy with your photos, then nothing else matters. They are your memories, and lovely ones at that.

There is a broad spectrum of wildlife photographers on this forum, on the way we photograph butterflies, if everybody were the same,then life would be pretty boring. Its the diversity of the photographers preferences to how a photo should look, which makes this such a great site. At the end of the day its the record shot of the butterfly that counts, because thats what we all love, what the background looks like is not relevant.

[Goldie M]

Thanks everyone for your input, the painting is mine Padfield I was in Canada for a while near the Rockies so I did quite a few, in the attic at present
Mike I don't have Photo Shop, I only have soft ware from my Camera, I did have a filter soft ware program but my computer went down and I lost it, I got abit disillusioned after that and disinclined to down load anything ,cost me a bomb to to get it put right, I had security has well which really bugged me. Maybe I'll try it again. Photoshop is very expensive though isn't it?

I loved looking at the Spiders and Butterflies Chris C, and thanks for your input .
Guy your advice seems to be just enjoy what ever you take and use your own jugement.
I agree this is a great forum for getting advice and most of the Photo's are brilliant has are the Photographers
I also agree with you David about the the backgrounds looking sanitised, I think back ground can give a picture life also a photo if it's presented in the right way( mostly how we want it )
Hideandseek, thats a great name by the way Love it thanks, and thanks to everyone Goldie

[MikeOxon]

I mentioned 'Photoshop' because it gives you a lot of control over your photos - if you enjoy that sort of thing!

You really only need the cheaper 'Photoshop Elements', unless you are into professional work, and there is also some free software called GIMP, which does much the same things, and can be downloaded from the web.

There's a fun program that I have mentioned before on the forums called 'dynamic auto painter', which automatically 're-paints' from a photograph in a variety of styles. Example below, based on a photo I took at Blenheim palace:

dynamic auto painter - Blenheim Palace

As you gather, I like playing with computers but do not have your skill with a paintbrush

Mike

[EricY]

I am another one who agrees with Guy, thankyou for saying that. It seems that people with big dslr's must have a neutral background but but to me the context of the shot counts for just as much. Anyway I could not carry a DSLR even if i could afford one! Eric

[Gruditch]

I think there is a bit of confusion here. Noisy, in photography, refers the speckles effect you get in digital pictures, when using high ISOs. I think some of you are getting noisy, mixed up with messy.

Goldie you can pick up Paintshop Pro 11 a very good little programme, for as little as £10.00 on Amazon.

Regards Gruditch

[Padfield]

I think some of you are getting noisy, mixed up with messy.

That's my fault. Goldie wrote 'noisy' and I changed it to 'messy' in my reply. I did say I wasn't an expert!

Guy

[Gruditch]

I didn't want to single you out Guy.


Regards Gary

[MikeOxon]

It seems that people with big dslr's must have a neutral background

I've commented before that compacts and other small-sensor cameras have an advantage, if you want good depth of field. Guy's photos demonstrate this excellently, when he places a foreground butterfly against a stunning backscene!

A camera,such as a DSLR, with a large sensor, tends to throw the background out of focus unless you use an, often impossibly, small aperture. so this style has become characteristic of these cameras.

Small sensors have improved enormously over the last couple of years. I recently bought a Lumix TZ25 to replace my old TZ5 (which went in a river- with me attached! ) and am amazed by the improvement in image quality. Photos at ISO800 are now acceptable, whereas the old camera became 'noisy' above ISO100. The image stabilisation is remarkable too, and allows full use of the X16 zoom lens, hand-held

Incidentally, I believe the sensor is the same as in the well-regarded FZ150 bridge camera.

It's 'horses for courses', as ever!

Mike

[badgerbob]

Personally I am a total thicko when it comes to computers. I also haven't got the patience to learn about how to adjust pictures etc. I have a friend that says I should shoot in raw but I believe for what I want jpeg is like me. Simple!!!! We are taking photos of the natural world and therefore the pics need to look 'natural' so whereas I get very jealous sometimes of these perfect photos I just have to accept that my limitations with the computer means I have to be happy with what I have, a small bit of sharpening and cropping is all I can do!!

[Neil Freeman]

I do not do much post processing apart from cropping and re-sizing and maybe a touch of sharpening or adjusting brightness or darkness. For this I use a free download called Photoscape, enough features for what I want and easy to use for an old luddite like me.

http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/index.php

At one point last year I started to try for the nice uncluttered pastel coloured backgrounds but noticed that my photos were starting to all look the same. Not only this, I felt that in trying to emulate this particular style of photo I was actually finding my photos a bit boring, something that I should never feel taking photos of such fascinating and beautiful creatures. I think what I am trying to say is that I started to worry a bit too much about the technical aspects of the shot instead of capturing a little bit of nature. I appreciate that for some the technical side of things is all part of the pleasure, just not for me.
Having said that, I do enjoy seeing a well taken photo of a butterfly against a nice uncluttered pastel shade background occasionally, and will still attempt to take some photos like this myself, just not too many together at once.

[Gruditch]

I think there is a bit of a misconception about post processing. Photoshop isn't there to turn a rubbish picture into a work of art. An image from a DSLR especially, is not supposed to be the finished product. A camera is no match for the human eye, for example it desperately struggles with scenes that contain dark shadows, or bright skies. Most top quality images that you see, (whether taken in raw or jpeg) would of been a damn good image to start with. Most pictures only need a tweak in shadows & highlights, and adjustment in levels, crop, then sharpen. If you butcher a shot, there is usually no way of rescuing it when you get home. I find the more processes I do to a image, the more unnatural it starts to look. So I have learnt what I can, and can't adjust, and know by just looking at the preview on my camera screen, what setting I need for each particular situation. I try to get it right in the field, and hope that when I get home, it will need just the minimum adjustments.

Obviously the appreciation of any particular picture is subjective, and the classic macro shot ( a main subject, and an uncluttered background ) isn't for everyone. But achieving that type of shot is technically quite hard, and even if you turn away from that type of image later, its a good way for the novice photographer to learn how to use their camera.

Regards Gruditch

[Jack Harrison]

Photoshop isn't there to turn a rubbish picture into a work of art

But you can use PhotoShop to turn a picture into a rubbish piece of art.



Vincent sees things differently.



How about a bit of fun then Pete? Select any of your photos and give us free rein to turn into a "piece of art". Excellent waste of time in the depths of winter. New thread needed perhaps?

Jack

[MikeOxon]

Have you been at the 'DAP' again, Jack?

I tried something similar last Winter, hoping someone would turn one of my rubbish pics into a competition winner, but had no takers. I agreed that messing about with pics like this is a good way of using the long (very long,in your case ) Winter evenings. Still, Spring is in the air

Abingdon,Oxon - 4th Feb 2013

Mike

[Jack Harrison]

Yes Mike, you put me on to DAP. It's huge fun isn't it?

Sunset here now 1709 hours and getting later by in excess of 2 minutes per day. After the equinox on 20th March, we will have MORE daylight than England. Indeed, once the clocks change at the end of March, I doubt that I'll be able to stay awake until sunset. However, the tourist season starts after Easter and the pubs then stock REAL ALE not just not this fizzy stuff which is all you can get at the moment. So maybe a stagger up the hill in the gloaming will force me to stay awake.

Actually, the toursist season might be starting the Saturday. The Mishnish (Roger knows it well) is holding the "Mince and Tatties World Championships".

Jack

[Padfield]

I've enjoyed playing with DAP too. I've even taken a few people in with this unknown Van Gogh painting of the Col de la Croix Road:



Guy