HOME | DD

tkach In reply to MotorHeart [2005-07-21 12:25:30 +0000 UTC]

Thanks man,

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tkach In reply to Ironicph8 [2005-07-12 18:06:01 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, the water was very calm at the movement of our ship passing by and the weather seemed just perfect....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tkach In reply to coshipi [2005-07-11 12:42:51 +0000 UTC]

About the sharpness part, we were sailing by so it's sort of caught in motion and I dislike applying any filters etc in photoshop to the works that I post here so, haven't used any here. About the size, there's of course a bigger version, like I mentioned I was using my cell to get online all the time and it's rather expensive to upload/download webpages/images so the size of the images being uploaded were intentionally made small.
If you do like I can post a larger version of this particular picture.

Thank you for the critique, mych appriciated,

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

coshipi In reply to tkach [2005-07-11 12:53:40 +0000 UTC]

Fair enough! Don't worry about the size - unless it's sharper, there's no great virtue in a bigger version.

Personally, I don't mind using filters at all, if it's simply to get the most out of a picture, as long as it doesn't create unpleasant side-effects. Sharpening often produces nasty outlines on high contrast edges, for example. But the general principle of filtering is okay, I think - it's just compensating for the fact that cameras aren't perfect. Unless you use them to create unreal images, of course

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tkach In reply to coshipi [2005-07-11 13:24:57 +0000 UTC]

Ok.
Well yes, I suppose you are right about the filters etc, but then again in this case here it was my decision to post works that have none or the smallest amount of "un-natural" elements. Perfer to take it to the max. on the first shot then sitting all night in PS and working it out
But of course sometimes it's a must!
Cameras aren't perfect.... ex.: while on the boat sailing somewhere at night decided to go out and take some night pictures... Took the tripod and the cameras (canon 300x and the c-750). The last has a max time of exposure just 16 sec which isn't enought for 50 iso and if I used 100 or even 200 there was too much noise on the picture and the first didn't even go off.. It has the bulb function but obviously it was too dark for it to open the shutter....

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

coshipi In reply to tkach [2005-07-11 13:49:21 +0000 UTC]

"Perfer to take it to the max. on the first shot then sitting all night in PS and working it out"

Absolutely! A lot of my Photoshop work has been cleaning up ancient transparencies, I don't tend to do much to digital pictures - except for fun. Some of the title pages for my writing are downright photomanips, but they're not trying to be anything else.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tkach In reply to coshipi [2005-07-11 13:51:50 +0000 UTC]

Well you have ad a long experince with film and now find digital as something fun but for me it's otherwise.. I've done things on digital more than on film, well at least till now
Or perhaps i've understood your message some other way?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

coshipi In reply to tkach [2005-07-11 13:57:09 +0000 UTC]

Digital isn't so much fun, as just the natural way to take pictures now, it seems to me.

Obviously I tried to do my best with my transparencies when I first took them - I never expected to be able to do anything like Photoshop with them! But for one reason or another, many of them are less than perfect. In many cases, it's deterioration with age - dirt, and fading dyes. But sometimes it's less than perfect shots in the first place

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tkach In reply to coshipi [2005-07-11 21:31:22 +0000 UTC]

But there's alway an exception or possible even a variety of good shots that are still great to look at.
I did imagine that there might be something like this eventually but not in 1996 when I first tried a digital camera, it was a Kodak DC 2 I think, though not sure. Things change so fast these days.. But I like the results I get with film, they look so real and live.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0