Let's chat about DSLR vs Point and Shoot - looking for some wisdom / experience

[nanohawk]

To get precise focus I use the little green square that will pop up when you press the shutter button. All the photos I am posting were taken before I had my eye lenses replaced so I could not really see if they were in focus or not I used the TG6 focus square then took the shoot. I am using video lights because I like to shoot video as well so I not using strobes.

What video lights do you use?

 

[Blackcrusader]

What video lights do you use?

Posted here... Let's chat about DSLR vs Point and Shoot - looking for some wisdom / experience

Big Blue VL4200P they are power adjustable and also have a red light and emergency light setting. Tray is DIY
Ikelite swivel parts and go pro sticky mounts which have never come off. Just edited this orf file

 

[tarponchik]

That's great thanks. I have been pretty lazy and not post edited lots of shots. Thanks for those tips. Luckily by that day I had setup my TG6 to shoot in both jpeg and RAW. There is a big difference you see in the jpeg to the ORF file. I am using Olympus Workspace

Thanks for your tips I went a little further in getting the colour of the eye. I have a lot of learning to do with post editing. As I wrote the camera itself is better than a lot of users. Post production will also make a huge difference.

Yes, you can even use LR's Radial Filter tool in "Iris Enhance" mode to make eyes look brighter, and I do this sometimes. However, I also do not like the images to look over-edited, like glamor shots in Vogue magazine. On the other hand, non-edited images most often look lousy. For example, I have a contact in Flickr who often posts pictures of dolphins, and his dolphins always look flat, like they were cut out of blue paper with scissors. So It is probably the question of balance between "good" and "artificial" looks.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Yes, you can even use LR's Radial Filter tool in "Iris Enhance" mode to make eyes look brighter, and I do this sometimes. However, I also do not like the images to look over-edited, like glamor shots in Vogue magazine. On the other hand, non-edited images most often look lousy. For example, I have a contact in Flickr who often posts pictures of dolphins, and his dolphins always look flat, like they were cut out of blue paper with scissors. So It is probably the question of balance between "good" and "artificial" looks.

I want to have my photos look natural as much as possible I do not like the over saturated ones you often see. I have hundreds of orf files to go through lol Of course it's also difficult to remember what I really saw .

 

[tarponchik]

I want to have my photos look natural as much as possible I do not like the over saturated ones you often see. I have hundreds of orf files to go through lol Of course it's also difficult to remember what I really saw .

View attachment 708414

I understand the appeal of "natural", but the problem is, cameras do not take images that look natural, especially, at night. So you have to correct into something more attractive anyway.

 

[nanohawk]

I understand the appeal of "natural", but the problem is, cameras do not take images that look natural, especially, at night. So you have to correct into something more attractive anyway.

I had a finger in Real Estate photography for a while. I refer to the over-edited photos as tweaked.... and illustrated. Tweaked is when they warp the colors to the point where it looks like the picture got in a fight with a flourescent dye. Illustrated is where they draw in "virtual" furniture....

 

[tarponchik]

I had a finger in Real Estate photography for a while. I refer to the over-edited photos as tweaked.... and illustrated. Tweaked is when they warp the colors to the point where it looks like the picture got in a fight with a flourescent dye. Illustrated is where they draw in "virtual" furniture....

Even in real estate raw images do not look natural, because our eye has greater dynamic range than camera sensors and colors are lost in the shades. But in underwater photography we hardly have any choice. If our goal was for everything to look natural, we won't spend money on strobes. And in the powerful artificial light they provide nothing looks natural anymore.

But natural look is not necessary photographer's goal. Bokeh, for example, is completely unnatural phenomenon, yet it is highly valued among portrait photographers. Or take BW photography which is an art in itself. Is our world BW? Hell, no, but lots of folks love it. So it all boils down to this simple question, "Do I like this enough to hang it on the wall?"

 

[nanohawk]

Even in real estate raw images do not look natural, because our eye has greater dynamic range than camera sensors and colors are lost in the shades. But in underwater photography we hardly have any choice. If our goal was for everything to look natural, we won't spend money on strobes. And in the powerful artificial light they provide nothing looks natural anymore.

But natural look is not necessary photographer's goal. Bokeh, for example, is completely unnatural phenomenon, yet it is highly valued among portrait photographers. Or take BW photography which is an art in itself. Is our world BW? Hell, no, but lots of folks love it. So it all boils down to this simple question, "Do I like this enough to hang it on the wall?"

Raw is about being able to edit later and not have thrown away information. JPG is lossy, so every time you compress it you lose data.

At any rate, edits make the photos. Cameras make pictures.

 

[tarponchik]

Raw is about being able to edit later and not have thrown away information. JPG is lossy, so every time you compress it you lose data.

At any rate, edits make the photos. Cameras make pictures.

I meant raw as in non-edited, not as in raw files.

 

[nanohawk]

@BLACKCRUSADER are you running a tray with your TG-6 to handle the light? or do you have it on the cold shoe?