Hello, Everyone and thanks for making Contributions to this worthwhile endeavor,
This weekly thread serves as a place for those DPRevived.com members who own Fuji gear to share recent work …… specifically, with their Fuji X APS-C cameras. It's just fine for owners to post images made with their “other” cameras, but the idea is to allow owners with Fuji X APS-C cameras to compare notes, tips, and any other helpful hints.
To contribute your image, please respond to the original thread. Please include at the top your message a title to reflect what you wish to convey. Consider making it somewhat entertaining… it may add some “spice.” In addition to uploading/embedding your image, please tell us a little about the image if you wish. It is helpful to some of us who are less traveled to talk about the location of your photo if possible. If you can provide details such as camera, settings, and processing, that would be great for people reviewing the images.
If you wish C&C (comments/critique) please indicate that in your post. In this thread it should not be assumed everyone wants C&C. However, if you want specific feedback (composition, exposure, subject, etc.), don’t hesitate to mention it. It may be helpful to respondents what your needs may be.
Hello, Again, and thanks for continuing to endure images from my holiday…
The reason for the title is the contribution to the thread this week were 2 subjects that were imaged through another piece of glass. The first image is one that is presented just as one exits the Sistine Chapel and begins the long walk back to the entrance. The image is of the vestment worn by Pope Clement VIII in the years 1592-1597. It depicts the Old Testament story of the binding of Isaac. It is in a display case. I had to move around a lot to determine the best position for the least amount of reflected light. Be sure to click and expand. It is a 6K wide image.
The last 2 images are of our diminutive yearly visitor nesting in “her” normal spot in the middle of an old light fixture in our yard. It is right in front of our kitchen window and I decided to try to take an image through the glass window. Why? I have never been able to shoot an image while outside. It won’t sit in its nest…. But I did get one through the window. Apologies for not getting the entire hummingbird but I got what I got. I really like the 70-300 for its light weight and IQ. And thanks to the little bird for laying its eggs. Maybe when the babies are born I’ll get up on a small ladder and give a try for an image. Won’t be easy.
Being shut inside due to smoke yesterday, and not being very good at doing nothing, I played around with setting-up and learning the new, beta version of Photoshop generative fill. I was stunned. Please note, these images are not being presented as anything artistic - they simply represent a few of my earliest experiments with this technology.
You can add objects just by designating the general area where you want them to appear and typing in what you want. Here, I started with a very recent pic of the Canadian wildfire smoke on the river that runs past "my" mountain just visible in the background.
I drew a little ellipse on the water and told the AI to add a "canoe with paddlers". This is what it generated, plus many other versions:
I added a horse to this pic of an old tenant house nearby:
Done just by outlining the general area and telling the AI to generate a "horse". Once again, I could have picked from many kinds of horses and many poses. Note that, just like the canoe, it got the lighting right. As with the canoe, I could have done this myself on Photoshop, but it would have taken me a good while.
One more rather goofy example just for fun. This was a pic of a sunset on Pamlico Bay as viewed from Ocracoke Island, where we just spent a month sailing.
Blackbeard the pirate hung out on Ocracoke in the early 1700's and I keep hoping to find one of his treasure chests full of gold doubloons when I am there. Well, thanks to the Photoshop AI, I found one! Now, I'm rich!! 😁 Note how the lighting and the preservation of the grasses in front of the chest are all perfect. I could have done this in Photoshop, too, but it would have required hours of work.
You can also change backgrounds in a very realistic manner with just a few clicks. This is a pic of a bear from the Phila zoo. By using normal photographic techniques, I tried very hard to make his background look natural (i.e. not showing the crowds, the walls of his enclosure etc). Thought I did pretty good.
But this new AI takes it to a whole 'nuther level with a few seconds effort I put him deep in a forest. It even turned the piece of cement he was laying on into a log! I don't think I could have done this well myself, no matter how much time I was willing to spend.
I've always enjoyed post-processing images and have expressed to critics my view that only the art of the image matters, not how it was created (an age-old philosophical argument among photographers). This takes image manipulation into a new universe. I have to think about the ethics of this technology.
It is a technique that can bring a plus when placed in the right hands.
Unfortunately, you'll have to be prepared to see multiple horrors, as it becomes accessible to all.
You won't need to use your camera anymore, just describe what you want.
In the end, what's the point for you?
Tip: sell your photographic equipment before it becomes obsolete
Well... most importantly, I think you are a very skilled photographer, posting some really beautiful work, both composition wise and post work.
Second, I have a bad feeling about this AI. I assume it is unavoidable. I would much rather prefer to look at pictures made by humans. I know they can be heavily edited as well using all kinds of software, but I think this AI trend is going a step too far for my liking. As with music, I like people playing instruments, whether it is guitars or goofing/tweaking synthesizer knobs to create the sound you want - not just dropping complete premade blocks of music in a song.
Eventually, I think it becomes very difficult to trust anything you see.
Edit: That's not to say that it isn't fun to use/play with this technology :)
I've played with it and find it fascinating. Rather than adding to a photo I've used it to remove unwanted "garbage" I didn't see while photographing in the first place. It is much more precise and effective than content-aware fill. I bet content aware fill will disappear or be used sparingly once generative fill is out of Beta.
One interesting application is to extend an image either in height or width. I demonstrated that in a thread on DPR that can be found here: www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67053373
I extended the canvas to the right of the photo and PS filled in the rest of the rainbow. Very impressed.
I agree completely. Cannot understand why anyone would use content aware fill anymore.
I took this shot of some PA Dutch kids playing in the mud of the crick with my cell phone (all I had with me).
I then used the new AI to generate background where I cut out two distracting elements that were wrecking the image - the tall kid on the far left and the drink cup at the little girl's feet. I could have done this myself in in ten minutes work in Photoshop by cloning, but this took only a couple seconds and the results were perfect - it even put in a reflection of the little girl's feet where the cup had been.
Nothing special as an image, but an interesting example of the technology. What's not to like about that?
It seems as if everyone has their own goals when doing photography/creating images. My daughter, for example, takes a zillion pics (with her phone) to preserve memories and share her daily life with her friends on Facebook and the like. Her pics are pure snapshots and of utterly no interest to anyone who doesn't know her and her family. They work for her.
My goals are different. I try to create images that people find interesting and that people actually want to spend some time viewing. I also try to make images that allow the viewer, to the extent that this is possible in a two-dimensional photo, "feel" what I was feeling or experiencing when I took the photo - and in that way "share" the experience of upland hunting in remote wilderness, sailing, exploring interesting places and so on. To me, that's the definition of art. Nearly all of my images are post-processed to one level or another, but I never try to make them into something completely different than what they were.
I've always taken the position that (except for purely documentary photography), ALL that matters is the final image, not how it was made - what brand of camera, what kind of software, etc. So, in the case of the bear in the forest pic above, I wouldn't have an ethical issue if someone showed it to me and told me that it was a photo of an Andean bear. BUT, if they told me that they climbed the Andes to get that photo of an Andean bear in his natural habitat, I would have a problem because that IS documentary photography.
Even in the case of pure documentary photography, where there is no post-processing at all, there is still, by definition, image manipulation going on. By choosing what to include in a photo, what not to include; what focal length to use; whether to have only the subject in focus, or whether to have everything from foreground to infinity in sharp focus; etc., etc., etc, EVERY photographic image has some level of manipulation. Again, look at the first bear pic - I chose to not have the background in focus and choose an angle that did not show the crowds at the zoo, etc. Post-processing just did minor things like bring up his eyes and the texture of his fur because I could really see those things when I was looking at him, but they didn't show up all that well in the base photo. The goal was to make the image worthy of people's viewing - not to make it something it wasn't.
Lots to think about here, but I guess the bottom line is that this new AI technology will eventually be just another photographic tool that will make the creation of images easier for less skilled people. That's been the case since the beginning of photography in 1826. Back then, it took great effort, great skill and lots of big, heavy equipment to create a very crude image and photography was only even possible under very limited circumstances. When I first began to learn photography in the Army in the late 1960's, things had advanced greatly, but it still took some skill just to get a technically decent image, let alone to create any kind of art. Cameras were 100% manual; you needed to use a separate light meter; film had defined and limited ISO and you were stuck with what you had in your camera; darkroom manipulation was very limited, etc.
This is an example of one of my very early efforts to create photographic art. It was done with an ancient Rollie 6x6cm camera on 125 ASA roll film (the nude is very tasteful and hopefully won't violate DPRevived standards).
Now, folks can capture technically excellent images by just clicking their smartphone - and even manipulate images on them. What once took skill possessed by only a few is now carried in everyone's pocket. I don't see that trend changing. Even though it is tough for us old pharts to accept sometimes, the world keeps moving on and changing and we must learn to accept (and maybe even embrace) that change.
I don't know where I stand when it comes to AI. If it's for the general betterment of all, then fine. If it's to use it with bad intent, then it can go back where it came from. However, nobody can tell which way we are heading, but humans doesn't exactly have a great track record for playing fair lol. Time will tell.
That's how I will be using it but that's not how some scheming others may use it. Just a couple of weeks ago a "doctored" image of what appeared to be an aftermath of an explosion at the Pentagon was circulated and had an effect on the Stock Exchange. It was debunked fairly quickly but is a small example of the potential misuse of imagery.
At this point very realistic videos of political figures can be fabricated that, if left unchecked, could have a dramatic effect anywhere in the world. Again, for us, it is a very nice touch to "upgrade" a photo to art, something everyone will like. Let's hope that's all it is used for. But I have my doubts. BTW.... good use to eliminate the tall kid and the cup.
Both of these images were taken the day the owlets fledged, a little over a month ago. I saw the young red tailed hawk before finding the owlet which was very hard to spot as it was mostly blocked by leaves. I had to stand within 3 feet of where I took the photo of the great horned owlet to see it.
1) Fuji X-H2S NIKON AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens 500mm f/5.6 1/1600s 400 ISO +1.7 EV
2) Fuji X-H2S NIKON AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens 500mm f/5.6 1/1000s 400 ISO +1.0 EV
Comments and suggestions welcome,
Morris
Ps. I'm improving slowly, I have to be very carful not to over do things to stay conferrable.
