Jump to content
kriptap

More than one to one

Recommended Posts

Triple fin blenny, 105MM + teleconverter + 2 closeup lens and a steady hand!

 

CAY5092.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy s**t

 

nice patrick ... nice .... what awesome colours ...

 

i've never seen one looking so vibrant .. is it on a purple vase sponge ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was on a red tube sponge, this one was on a vase sponge:

 

CAY_4335.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that overcooked in PS? That does not look natural, but I suppose it could be real due to the deception of the negative space color tricking the eye. Very nice shot.

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great colors very luminescent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that overcooked in PS?  That does not look natural, but I suppose it could be real due to the deception of the negative space color tricking the eye.  Very nice shot.

 

I agree. It is beautiful, but the colors do look unnaturally bright. In my more philosophical moments I wonder what "real" color underwater really is. Do we mean what it would look like if brought to the surface (ie 5500K lighting), or do we mean what we remember we say when we were at 60 feet and the colors were all blue shifted and our eyes compensated, or do we mean something else? Any time we bring artificial light, or use filters, or even capture an image we have "changed" the color. The very fact that the camera apply a white balance is just an attempt to mimic the compensation that happens in our eyes. I don't think there an answer. I wil just appreciate the art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two great shots Patrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both pics are straight from the camera, my cooking skills are far below par! I have the contast and color set to medium for both shots and just cropped a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that one on your website the other day, and thought it was a cracker then. Great stuff.

 

I don't know why more people down head to Cayman for the macro shooting. If you live in the States it is a lot closer than Sulawesi!

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's simply amazing color and detail! Great shot Patrick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-over cooking.

The D2X does have a tendency to be very saturated. It certainly is the Velvia of digital cameras.

 

I little while ago we discussed this image:

bs_11_05.jpg

 

and that also got quite a few comments about looking a bit over saturated.

 

I have to say that when I go back to look at old Velvia slides now, they are incredibly saturated. Maybe in the 1990s when Velvia was king everyone loved saturation, but these days on digital perhaps the fashion is more towards more muted hues? Sounds like a good topic for an editorial...

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex brings up an excellent point. Especially after Kathy Mendes' comments that photos in the Ncups competition were judged to be "Oversaturated" in some cases. We need more information on this subject.

 

I know when I first posted D2x images, and I believe Alex as well, there were many comments about the colors looking oversaturated. Based on what, I've no idea. As was mentioned earlier, no one can claim to see the correct colors underwater. Too many variables can effect final appearence.

 

As I get into some of my super macro shots, I'm seeing details of colors that are quite incredible, not only in intensity but the way the eyes of some subjects seem to sparkle with what I can best describe as individual pixels of color. Does the camera capture more than the eye can see?

 

Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this multiple times and I'll suggest it once more. Digital images get more scrutiny from judges because it is easy to oversaturate or sharpen with PS. I have seen many images from Alex and others that look, well, over corrected. If it's the camera, judges really don't look at it that way. The first line of elimination is "too much manipulation." Even though you may not have done a thing to the image, it gets looked at in many case as if you have done far more than needs to be done with a photo correction software. If the picture simply looks unnatural (over saturated) right out of the camera, it should probably be corrected (desaturated). Just because it is right out of the camera does not make it realistic looking and, therefore, ready to show your peers.

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, I understand what you're saying. And the reality is, of course, if it's perceived to be oversaturated, then, it is. I've started toning down my entries because of those comments. Kinda counter productive to be editing your photos based on some one else's perceptions vs reality. But that's a no win argument.

 

Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been using film photography for many years and the images we get from film have been the standard. Now we are in the digital age, whether we like it or not film is coming to an end. We've all seen the announcements made by Nikon and Canon and I'm sure others will follow. Never in the history of photography has the average user been able to do so much with an image. Digital photography is not just "photography" any more it's becoming digital/art photography. With the extremely high quality cameras we have today and the long and sharp lens we use it's not surprising that we are seeing things we have never seen before. I don't believe that anyone should lessen the quality of the images they have just to please the few who think the images are "over done" that's old school people who one day will catch up with the rest of us. Just look how many images Alex has had printed for various project, this is the future and it's here to stay! I love the images posted, new and fresh stuff coming from the digital world, this is what it's all about. I also look at the images posted by members who criticize and it's plain to see that your jealous and that is not what digital photography is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are dead wrong. Why would you want to share an image with anyone that is not natural? That looks fake? That looks like an LSD trip? Why would National Geo want to use an oversaturated, unrealistic image in their magazine? I totally disagree with you on that count. One is trying to present a real world through their images, not an imaginary one. What you are saying is that rather than present a truly representative image of a subject, landscape etc, don't change a thing. Show them (whoever them is) the out of the camera version that doesn't represent reality. Hang all the oversaturated images you want around your house, but if I were a judge and an image looked totally unnatural due to oversaturation, I'd eliminate it. I wouldn't even show them to other pros as my own in a simple show and tewll without making them naturally representative of the situation.

 

This is just my opinion, of course, but digital images as they are sometimes represented today is getting way out of hand. Just my 2 cents.

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of camera or not, OP shots look WAY oversaturated. They are simply not believable. I love extreme macro, and I also shoot the D2x which can dial in saturation and contrast to taste, but when the vase sponge glows in the dark I think we are beyond what our eyes will believe.

 

I think it is an interesting point - what is real? I don't feel that the image needs to look "real," just believable. Very nice images nonetheless, but I would definitely desat before presentation - and perhaps rethink camera settings. It is better to capture a dull image in camera then saturate to taste than vice/versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know? where are your photos of these exact fish? your wrong and you have double standards, some might say your images are over saturated?? These are from your own web sight????:

 

post-6099-1140565374_thumb.jpg

post-6099-1140565402_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is supposed to be a board where we share our images not fight about them, if you don't like them say nothing, it you have to say something then say it in the forum that asks for critical comments, also keepitdry take it easy no need to be so "loud" this is supposed to be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all of the images are beautiful on this forum. I am an old timer by most standards and I will admit that I am still finding it hard to go from film to digi when I view MY OWN images. Crap, I can make them look any way I want. I am the first one to admit that I correct my images and two years ago when I switched to digi, I'da said no way am I going to manipulate anything. Guess what? I was wrong and not truthful with myself. I do manipulate somewhat (I am no PS pro for certain) but I have been diving so long that I know better when I correct my images. Kasey brings a very valid point...what is real? I have my opinion, he his, you yours etc. But when you start selling and entering competitions, you need to enter what is, as Kasey states, believable. Prior to digital, I have NEVER seen as many clean, colorful, sharp, black background photos in my life, well 30 years of diving life anyhow. That's not a bad thing because it steps up the competition or talent base for which more and more excellent images come from. You still have to shoot the image and that remains where one's real talent lies.

 

There are other dynamics as well. Camera capture method (film vs. digi), RAW, PS, sharpness of lenses, etc. All of this is different when compared to a film system. So I am coming from old schoiol to new school. Those of us who are all new school simply have not lived what used to be, and only know what is. I can say that my comments are not meant to suggest in any way that people are intentionally oversaturating their images and actually believe they look realistic, but that if a camera delivers out of the chip saturation like the D2X, it may need a flick of the right nut to get it believable.

 

What is real? I haven't a flippin clue :)

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry your thread has been hijacked, Patrick. That said I do think that this is a very important discussion, particularly so when people have strong opinions.

 

I certainly think that these few years of digital transition will be very important in determining the rules of engagement for digital images for many years to come. So it is a debate well worth having.

 

But please keep arguments objective, and not personal.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

 

I apologize if I hijacked this thread. I will wait for another more appropriate one before posting more opinions. As Alex said, it is a debate that can go on for some time and there is a more appropriate venue. Sorry, Patrick.

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty ballsy to pull images and post them from my site. Yes - these are out of camera images, but I'd be the 1st to state that they are oversaturated by my in camera curve and they were desaturated before submitted for publication. Keepitdry - you might want to hit 5 posts before you stir things up here. This is a very harmonious site of individuals looking to learn/teach/share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...