Lusiana - portrait taken in Fiji

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the link Grahame - Unmesh Dinda and his Piximperfect YouTube videos are usually some of the best free information on advanced Photoshop tricks and techniques available anywhere. This video was definitely an interesting watch.

The one thing I don't necessarily like about his videos is that he usually tells the watcher what can be done with the technique he is demonstrating but tends to not mention the limitations of the technique. The image he is working on is probably close to the limit of the technique and Jim's image looks to be outside of that bound.

He is also right about the Photoshop Shake Reduction Filter; it is slow (although in reality, not when compared to the time and effort of Unmesh's technique). The Topaz tool is absolutely glacially slow.

I suspect that if I had a very important image that needed some work and I was willing to dedicate hours of time rebuilding it, then I might be tempted to do this. For most images, the advice I will continue to give is that missed focus and camera / subject movement mean deleting the shot.

One of my photographic instructors was a former air force photographer. He mentioned an incident in his early career (likely in the 1960s) when he blew a shot on assignment where he was covering the arrival of a VIP (member of the Royal Family). The resultant image was not sharp as a result of camera movement and focus issues.

At the time, press cameras were Speed Graphics cameras and the smallest one took 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" sheet film. I remember him saying that he spent about 2 weeks in the darkroom, using the physical unsharp mask technique to build up the image(s) that he messed up. This is a little along the lines of what Unmesh was suggesting of building up the refined image a bit at a time using masks and layers.

[rpcrowe]

I have been terribly spoiled using lenses with Image Stabilization (IS from Canon) and Optical Steady Shot (OSS from Sony) or even better, the combination of OSS and In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) on selected Sony cameras to assist in shake free shooting That I am probably getting a bit cavalier about the shutter speeds that I use (unless I am shooting with very long focal lengths). The only thing to be concerned with is subject movement.

My Sony cameras (A6400 and A7iiii) have such good high ISO capability, that lately, I have been shooting in manual mode and letting Auto-ISO take care of the exposure...

The full-time Eye-AF combined with continuous auto focus also helps take care (focus-wise) of any subject movement or any movement of the camera to or from the subject. Pro models are good at striking and holding a pose but subjects with little experience in front of the lens often exhibit some movement despite attempting to hold still.

And no, I don't feel that these features are crutches for lazy of inept photographers any more that I felt that integrated rangefinders or in camera exposure meters were crutches... Rather, they were the use of new technology that can help a photographer concentrate on capturing the shot...

[Manfred M]

Richard - all I can say is that "it depends". These technologies work, but they do have their limitations and poor technique can still ruin an image, regardless of the technology we use. Part of the problem is that we tend to run "closer to the edge" with the technology. I remember having a discussion with an executive in the insurance industry who mentioned that people with Anti-Lock braking or traction control will sometimes drive more aggressively because of the technology but still have accidents when they exceed the limits of what the technology can do. ABS on glare ice is not going to replace careful driving in winter conditions...

As a printer, I often find that images that are "sharp enough" when downsized for viewing on a screen are not good enough to make a large print with. Image stabilization, auto focus and eye detect do fail. Had I and other photographers used good camera technique, I am convinced the failure rate would have been even lower. A strong, stable shooting stance and rolling the finger on the shutter release, versus a stabbing motion will get you a technically acceptable image without the technological aides; the image should be even stronger with them.

[rpcrowe]

Technology will not replace skill in most instances. But technology combined with skill can give the person with skill a jump ahead.

While the concept that careful and skilled driving habits are more important than technology such as ABS in safe driving is totally true. But, the insurance executive, in making his point about ABS, failed to mention that given two drivers of equal skill and carefulness, ABS will improve the safety of the driver who has that technology...

Given the same level of care and skill in shooting, many of the more modern technologies will assist the photographer.

IMO, features like Eye-AF which is not available from with all manufacturers yet (although they are valiantly trying to catch up with Sony) are going to be, in a few years, accepted features like auto focusing is now. I don't think that any camera could be introduced into the DSLR or mirrorless market today without auto focusing capability although when AF was first introduced many (if not most) photographers looked down their noses at it, thinking that it was a crutch to support photographers who didn't know how to focus their cameras.

Doubtlessly, auto focus has improved by leaps and bounds since the Pentax ME-F was introduced as the first SLR with auto focus capability in 1981. That was only 38-years ago. My, my; times are a-changing but, sometimes technology will let us down and will then disappear of the face of the earth. This was the case of the first Canon Eye Auto Focus with SLR cameras. Instead of focusing on the subject's eyes, the camera had a sensor in the viewfinder that was supposed to register where the shooter's eye was looking and focus on that part of the image. I don't think that is was supplied with more than one or two cameras before it was deleted.

If we had technology that was hard wired into our brain and would produce exactly the image that we imagine with a press of the shutter button and nothing more, the good photographer without that technology would still surpass the inept photographer who had the benefit of the brain-wire technology...

We just need to know when we can rely on technology to give us a boost ahead and when that technology is not going to work as well as we want it to

[Jim A]

Jim,

Thanks for responding to post #4, regarding flash, I find that shooting in TTL mode tends to minimize the output and probably would've given you good fill light. As you were with your wife you could've worked out the exposure issues using her as a model and then taken the photo of the waitress.

Grateful thanks, John - very useful info!

[Manfred M]

I find that shooting in TTL mode tends to minimize the output and probably would've given you good fill light.

I suspect that you might be correct here, but frankly I have never had an issue with a flash providing too much light output; rather my issue has been that it doesn't always provide enough power.

Both of my Speedlights run from full power to a minimum of 1/128 power; i.e. 8 ev (stops), but then I have also found it very difficult to generalize when it comes to small flash. There seems to be little consistency between how different manufacturers implement feature and how third party flash (Yongnuo, Godox, Metz, Nissin, etc) integrate with through the lens metering (pre-flash) on different camera bodies.

There are even differences in how certain functions are implemented in different brands. Nikon and Canon had used a different approach in how their exposure compensation and flash exposure compensation integrated.

There is always High Speed Synch (Auto FP for Nikon users) if one needs flash power cut down even more.