BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4075 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
Persoanlly, I think that th editting process is almost as important to the art of aviation photography as taking the picture. You cna't be a good digital photogrpaher of planes if you don't have the editting skills to back it up.
How many raw digital pics actulaly look good, you know?
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
How many raw digital pics actulaly look good, you know?
It's not that bad Phil, some of my 2.1MP camera uploads have no editing except for resize to 1000pix wide and a quick unsharp mask. While it's best to shoot RAW to take full advantage of DSLR's you should have no problem getting photos accepted with any decent 2MP+ camera with very little editing using .jpgs straight from the cam.
Here's a shot that I took with the 2.1MP camera. All I did was resize it to 900 pix high and did USM..thats it. Not sure if it'll be accepted but don't believe the quality is that bad.
Now back to the topic, I don't believe it's a problem if someone else does your editing. As long as that person has no problem with it. The name under the picture once accepted should be the copyright holder (photographer), doesn't matter who did the editing.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
You cna't be a good digital photogrpaher of planes if you don't have the editting skills to back it up
I think that's a bit harsh ... there are plenty of photographers with a good eye, but little interest in the technical processes associated with producing a finished image. I see no problem with partnerships - indeed, this is a tradition as old as photography ... many of the greats had someone else do their darkroom work for them.
Any of the screeners will be able to tell you about great pics ruined by poor post-processing - while the skills are not difficult to aquire, if you don't enjoy messing about with computers, its unlikely you'll ever do your work full justice.
IMHO, a number of photographers would do well to team up with a good digital darkroom expert.
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4075 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
Ok, let me revise.
You cant be RECOGNIXZEd as a good photographer without the PS skills.
I dont have a camera. Not to be cocky, but if I had one a year ago, I think I'd be pretty popular on anet with my work. I have little doubt in my photography ability. I know I have the eye. Luckily, I do have decent Photoshop skills. My wall is the moeny to invest in a camera.
Some people are just dealt a poopy hand and can't be recognized even if they are actually good. Some have no PS skills, some have no money.
Here's where you all hate me:
On the other end, there are "photographers" who dont have the eye, ok PS skills, but are only "good" because they had the money to invest in an expensive camera. Not to many, but there are quite a few around here.
SKYMASTER From Denmark, joined Apr 2001, 228 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1194 times:
It is to no avail if you have the skills and money for good photos and cameras if you are a clown at the PS editing. If two guys can combine their skills in photographing and Photo Shop then it will be for the benefit for all! The uploader name should be named to the photographer with a credit in the remaks field to the PS-man.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1174 times:
I know I have the eye. Luckily, I do have decent Photoshop skills. My wall is the moeny to invest in a camera
While agree with your premise that current cameras can allow a mediocre photographer to produce quite acceptable results (after all, isn't that really the underlying marketing strategy behind all the bells and whistles), I can't agree with your "money barrier" arguement.
There are a number of photographers here producing quality results with equipment well over 20 years old, and could be picked up for a song in any 2nd hand shop. If you have the eye and the PS skills, the camera should not be an obstacle.
Easy for me to talk, now I have Canon's latest, but can I submit this shot for your consideration -
Taken on a Canon AT1 using a bargain basement Osawa 300mm (no, I've never seen that brand since either ) and scanned from slide on the original HP SmartScan. Yes, it is a bit soft, though I think I could improve that with my current sharpening techniques.
EricBelgium From Belgium, joined Mar 2003, 77 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1170 times:
Ooooh I like to enter the discussion again
I might not be a well known photographer here, but I have now around 270 shots in the database...with an average of 635 hits, that's not too bad I think.
Almost ALL of them were taken with absolute obsolete equipment; a full manual camera ( praktica MT5 for the freaks..) meaning manual focus, manual speed, manual diafragma, even manual filmtransport...those were the days.
Al lenses were second hand or cheap ones...and yet I had several pictures published and even a few printed on airshowposters.
Most of the times I used Fuji colourslide films in a promotion pack; i could not afford it to make 3 shots of the same aeroplane....
I have limited PS skills, that's why Wietse took care of my An225 landingshot
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4075 posts, RR: 55 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1175 times:
"There are a number of photographers here producing quality results with equipment well over 20 years old, and could be picked up for a song in any 2nd hand shop. If you have the eye and the PS skills, the camera should not be an obstacle."
Yes, I can completely agree with that as well. There are guys who do amazing thigns with less expensive cameras, and those guys TRULY show amazing skill when they produce such quality shots form a camera under $1000 especially.
Guys like Ryan Spencer Morgheim is a perfect example of the kind of skill you cna achieve without having $3,000 with of camera. Unfortunatley for A.net, he doesn't put up as many pics of his as he could.
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3086 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1153 times:
I've helped Jose Carreno with Photoshop work on a few of his old photos, mostly involving removal of dust spots, sharpening, etc, since I have access to more recent versions of photoshop. It's been a real pleasure to work on these shots and I get my name on airliners.net without having to submit my lousy rejection-worthy photos.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Colin - Sweet shot!! You could sharpen that up to todays standards with your sharpening Action, doesn't look like many jaggies will appear..
What really annoys me is people who just buy expensive equipment without any photographic knowledge, use it as a point and shoot camera and then upload it straight from the card to the website. Its like buying love... You can't take great pictures just by buying great equipment...