File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hi /p/

i made this one on vacation and accidently got that blur or fog or whatever on it, caused by the sunlight i guess.

how do i get this effect on purpose? and i mean not by shooping but directly while taking the pic. is there any special angle?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK Z740 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERAMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1932Image Height2576Exposure Index80RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
If you want the effect, shoop...

But why would you want it?

also, polarizer is your friend!
>> Anonymous
What's so hard about photoshop?
>> Anonymous
i just like it. looks like some magic forest whatever thingy ^^
>> Anonymous
theres nothing hard about ps, i just asked if theres a chance by getting this done while taking the photo.

was more a question of interest
>> Anonymous
>>201340

Fair enough...

Just recreate the same environment.... When you walk about and see fog in beams of light, its going to come out on your pics.

Though just because you like it this time, i wouldn't try to get it... better to put it on later, than have it ruin a shot :P
>> Anonymous
>>201341
ok that makes sense. i would be pissed if this thing ruins a pic i made 2000km away from home
>> Anonymous
Could you get a cheap UV filter and put crap on the filter itself to recreate this effect?

Then whenever you wanted this effect, you just put your UV filter on with the crap on it, and voila, instant awesome fog!

Dunno if you could get anything transparent enough but at the same time solid enough (maybe glue?) to stick and dry and create this effect.

Only issue is you would need a camera that you can attach filters to. :(
I checked the web and it seems you may be able to do it, but not entirely sure - I'll leave that up to the other /p/rofessionals here to tell you if filters on the Kodak Z740 is possible.
>> Anonymous
>>201338
>What's so hard about photoshop?

Photoshop is like cheating.
Faking an effect < Creating that effect for real.
>> Anonymous
>>201399
This is the biggest bullshit lie that elitist photofags tell newbies. How is Photoshop cheating?

Usually the real effect looks better than the shooped version. However, a professional illustrator or photo retoucher can easily duplicate practically any effect you could get with film to an accuracy that 99% of the population can't see.
>> Anonymous
>>201402

The less post-processing you have to do, the easier it will be to do when you have to and the less fake it will end up looking. Sure, you can fake most shit in Photoshop, but unless you really know what you're going and you don't overdo anything it can be extremely easy to spot, and will make your entire image look "off".
>> Anonymous
vasceline on your filter does the trick

or a soft focus filter


and photoshop is cheating assholes. This is a photography tread, not a photoshop tread.
>> Anonymous
>>201402

>/p/ - Photography

NOT >/p/ - Photoshop

lrn2READ faggot
>> Anonymous
>>201432
ya know, there is a reason that they call it PHOTOshop. Because it's a program designed for photographers to edit their photos.

If you go to a working photographer and say "I think that photoshop cannot be a part of photography" they'll either laugh in your face or blow you off.
>> Anonymous
>>201434
>"I think that photoshop cannot be a part of photography"

Who said that you CANT use it?
It is like training wheels for beginners and shitty people.
It is fine to use if you suck but real pros do not use it or use it very little.
>> Anonymous
I believe this was caused by using a crappy lens while shooting a heavily back lit subject. The problem is that lens flare is unpredictable for how it will show up when it is this severe.

Just got out and shoot a dark scene with a very strong back light coming from the center and see if you get the effect.

>>201341
That's not fog, that lens flare.
>> Anonymous
>>201436
>It is fine to use if you suck but real pros do not use it or use it very little.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

*inhales*

...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>> Anonymous
>>201439

KEN ROCKWELL HAS NEVER OWNED A COPY OF PHOTOSHOP
>> Anonymous
>>201436
wow
>>201442
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>201402
>>201434
>>201443
>>201442
>>201439

itt: shitty n00bz who need training wheels
>> Anonymous
>>201445
>> itt: I'm a shitty n00b who needs training wheels
fixed
>> Anonymous
>>201464
>itt: I'm a shitty n00b who needs training wheels

yes you are what is your point?
being pro-level i have not used pshop (that is what pros call it) in years.
>> Anonymous
this thread is full of fail.
if photoshop is cheating than so is RAW.
>> Anonymous
>>201399
How is Photoshop cheating?
If you develop your own film, you can burn/dodge pieces of film and do other tricks too. Underdevelop/overdevelop (over/under-expose) bits, etc. Let it sit in the developer longer than necessary.
Find an enlarger/developer that has some imperfections that adds edges or marks to the final print. With digital photos, you don't have that option (or luxury). So your only choice IS Photoshop!
Cloning bits, C/P'ing, that may be going to far. And as I never did color developing/photo processing, unsure of how the hue/brightness/contrast could be done by yourself developing it, but I imagine that's not 'cheating' either. Hell, cropping is fair game too!
>> Anonymous
>>201470
> pshop (that is what pros call it)

LMAO
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>201480
>if photoshop is cheating than so is RAW.
That makes no logical sense.
RAW is a file format, not a fucking tool for over-processing shitty images to try to make them interesting.

>>201482
It depends on how much you use it and what for.
Lightroom is a much better tool for things like exposure adjustment and cropping/tilting.

Photoshop is mostly for airbrushing, WAY over-shooping, and faking shit you didn't do right the first time.

It's a crutch.
>> Anonymous
>>201489
Lightrooms shitty interface is a crutch for those who don't know how to use adjustment layers.
>> Anonymous
>>201489

How about scanning a negative and then adjusting the density so that it doesn't look like total shit? Is that using a crutch? What if I used photoshop to invert it and make a positive? How about dust removal? Is it somehow more "right" to spend an hour with a sable brush in a dust-free room trying to remove every speck than to just clone out dust spots?

Photoshop can be used wrong but it's just a joke when it is. When it's used right, it's an incredibly important and powerful tool. You're a moron if you think that it's not something a professional can or should use.
>> Anonymous
>>201490

Let's see you use potatoshop on 100+ shots, one at a time
>> Anonymous
>>201493

I *am* a professional, and I *dont* ever use it because my images are perfect out of the camera 90% of the time.
In the few instances when they aren't, Lightroom is more than enough to fix the problems.

But if you think the overuse of Photoshop is "just a joke" then I hope you're shitting all over Depressed Cheesecake every time he posts, because he's one of the worst violators on this board.
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
>>201502
sup rockwell
>> Anonymous
>>201502
The nice thing about the term "overuse" is that it's completely subjective.

I have met photographers who are so anal about being "true" and "Accurate" that they won't even pick up a piece of paper if it blows right in front of their subject. I think you are one of these blowhards.

I have also met photographers who use photoshop heavily, altering and distorting the image into a photographic illustration. Look at Andrzej Dragan. These people are still photographers.

Why is it acceptable to use a circular polarizer to make your sky more blue, but not to increase saturation in photoshop? Is it because one happens in the field and one happens after the data is recorded? Then what about using variable-contrast papers when you're printing in the darkroom?

I think the real reason that so many people get pissed off about photoshop is because they can't use it to save their life, can't tell when something has been photoshopped well (a prerequisite, really), and so can only make and see shit photoshops. That turns them off of it and their immature reaction is to reject it ("movies will never be shot on digital, it's just too harsh!") and rage against it.
>> Anonymous
if you ever watch the new ford harrison movie,you will realize the film is shot with the end in mind,the effects are used to give the film a quality of "cartoon book" illustrations.are you going to argue that the cameraman doesn't know how to "shoot" a perfect picture because the end result is processed?.
the end result is the important part and this thread started with this question in mind.*how do i get this effect on purpose?*
>> Anonymous
>>201507
>I have also met photographers who use photoshop heavily, altering and distorting the image into a photographic illustration. Look at Andrzej Dragan. These people are still photographers.


no those people are graphic designers sorry buddy
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>201520

No.You're a tool and have no idea what a graphic designer does. The people I refer to are photographers, and extend that into photoillustration.

Pic related. Anyone care to say that photography has nothing to do with this image?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:09 16:16:41Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width573Image Height588
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>201523
I'm thinking of how a lot of great painters actually painted over an image from a camera obscura.
In other words, this kind of image is a sort of digital painting, not photography, even if it started with a photograph. The photograph is just part of the process.
>> Anonymous
>>201523

Not a very good example of what you are talking about.
That just looks like weird saturation & contrast effects.
>> Anonymous
A photographer can take good pictures with a damn shitty pinhole. Either digital or film, his/her shots will always be interesting.

Because said person has eye, knows what scenes are woth capturing. Darkroom/digital imaginery only helps enhance, slightly, the overall quality of the image.

Taking a boring-ass pic and making it "interesting" due to abuse of digital imaginery isn't photography, period.

Look at all the HDR crap in flickr or dA, most of them are totally shitty photos, poorly captured, which would be totally boring without all the crapload of effects added later.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
     File :-(, x)
>>201540

What about this? Is this a better example?
>> Anonymous
>>201544
Hardly.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>201565

I mean an example of Andrzej Dragan's shitty commercial work that's basically graphic design, not an example of a good photo.
>> Anonymous
>>201505
Ken Rockwell is a hack - he relies on lenses and film (or -gasp- digital) as a crutch.

Real photographers chip a small hole in stone, or better yet, find a naturally-occuring pinhole, and then let the light gradually discolor a dried piece of birchbark so that the image emerges. None of this chemical or optics shit.

C'mon guys, be REAL photographers.