RonFrank
Contributor
Doc Harry:
I'd like to see that, crappy before, image of beauty after!
Ok, which is more difficult?
- Thread starter mikerault
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'd like to see that, crappy before, image of beauty after!
Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to offend you - I'm just being totally honest and that I'm sorry if this comes off as harshing on you, but I'm not... 
It looks like that "mandrake process" for photoshop. It's definitely an improvement, but the subject (the person in the background) is far away, and has no lighting on them at all.
IMHO, it's a little over processed, and I'm not sure if that's really wide angle... What kind of lens what that using?
The point of this thread is which is harder, WA or Macro, and your image illustrates why wide angle IS in fact harder to shoot. You tried to take a photo of the subject behind an object, and you didn't have any strobes. Thus, your image is washed out, and not properly lit. If you did have strobes, it is possible that you could have gotten a better image to start with, and you could have ended up with a better image without the over processing on photoshop.
So like others have said, "In terms of pure camera technique" it can be seen that Wide Angle is harder to shoot in general.
It looks like that "mandrake process" for photoshop. It's definitely an improvement, but the subject (the person in the background) is far away, and has no lighting on them at all.
IMHO, it's a little over processed, and I'm not sure if that's really wide angle... What kind of lens what that using?
The point of this thread is which is harder, WA or Macro, and your image illustrates why wide angle IS in fact harder to shoot. You tried to take a photo of the subject behind an object, and you didn't have any strobes. Thus, your image is washed out, and not properly lit. If you did have strobes, it is possible that you could have gotten a better image to start with, and you could have ended up with a better image without the over processing on photoshop.
So like others have said, "In terms of pure camera technique" it can be seen that Wide Angle is harder to shoot in general.
sorry, got to agree with Howarde.
That is a great example of how difficult WA is compared to macro. The key is to get it right out of the camera, which is what the OP was asking, not to rely on post
Lighting WA is def more difficult than macro...
sorry, no contest, i do it for a living....
That is a great example of how difficult WA is compared to macro. The key is to get it right out of the camera, which is what the OP was asking, not to rely on post
Lighting WA is def more difficult than macro...
sorry, no contest, i do it for a living....
pakman
Contributor
getting paid much lately Mike? 
:joke:!!!
:joke:!!!
To me, diving in murky or low viz/low light lakes most of the time, wide angle is often impossible, especially with my limited equipement. So I end up shooting only macros which sometimes turn out great to my non professionnal eyes.
So I voted WA are more difficult... and I wouldn't dare disagree with Mike on that
So I voted WA are more difficult... and I wouldn't dare disagree with Mike on that
I agree that you've really got to get the shot real close in camera as pp may make something more pleasing (as above), but by the time you end up with a beautiful image - it's no longer going to be a single photo...it'll be multiple layers and tons of pp. But that's not my point...
The above example is not imho (and I don't do this for a living) a great example of why WA is harder. This is a great example of a shot taken without the right tools to even give it a chance of being a fabulous shot. For the tools used, this is a nice shot and the pp did help it.
The above example is not imho (and I don't do this for a living) a great example of why WA is harder. This is a great example of a shot taken without the right tools to even give it a chance of being a fabulous shot. For the tools used, this is a nice shot and the pp did help it.
I'm with Mike and Howie on this one.
IMO, the shot would be more compelling if you tightened up on the person - use the poorly lit sponge to just frame them up. The person should be the thing, not the pale sponge with the bright fishies.
It reminds me of all of the shots of the Golden Gate bridge... that big orange thing in the picture with the ants that resemble something like your family.
Take out the angel wing / devil horn bubbles, pull in tight with just a little sponge to frame them up, and you got a nice shot (if you really REALLY like yellow!!!) The murky horizon is in a good place, I like the shift from blue, to gray to yellowish bottom. It could be a better shot with some improved composition - not improved photoshop.
WA is tougher because a lot more can go wrong. (or better: a lot more has to go right...)
But what do I know...
---
Ken
IMO, the shot would be more compelling if you tightened up on the person - use the poorly lit sponge to just frame them up. The person should be the thing, not the pale sponge with the bright fishies.
It reminds me of all of the shots of the Golden Gate bridge... that big orange thing in the picture with the ants that resemble something like your family.
Take out the angel wing / devil horn bubbles, pull in tight with just a little sponge to frame them up, and you got a nice shot (if you really REALLY like yellow!!!) The murky horizon is in a good place, I like the shift from blue, to gray to yellowish bottom. It could be a better shot with some improved composition - not improved photoshop.
WA is tougher because a lot more can go wrong. (or better: a lot more has to go right...)
But what do I know...
---
Ken
howarde:Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to offend you - I'm just being totally honest and that I'm sorry if this comes off as harshing on you, but I'm not...
It looks like that "mandrake process" for photoshop. It's definitely an improvement, but the subject (the person in the background) is far away, and has no lighting on them at all.
IMHO, it's a little over processed, and I'm not sure if that's really wide angle... What kind of lens what that using?
The point of this thread is which is harder, WA or Macro, and your image illustrates why wide angle IS in fact harder to shoot. You tried to take a photo of the subject behind an object, and you didn't have any strobes. Thus, your image is washed out, and not properly lit. If you did have strobes, it is possible that you could have gotten a better image to start with, and you could have ended up with a better image without the over processing on photoshop.
So like others have said, "In terms of pure camera technique" it can be seen that Wide Angle is harder to shoot in general.
Okay, I see what you're talking about now.
Similar threads
