I prefer "natural" or more "realistic" looking images...
Nov 16, 2014 23:01:49 #
I'm so tired of hearing this... Will someone please tell me what "natural" and/or "realistic" means in digital photography terms? Thanks.
Nov 16, 2014 23:14:38 #
Mdorn,
It is rather vague. Would make up make it un-natural? How about clothing? not natural? lol good luck.
It is rather vague. Would make up make it un-natural? How about clothing? not natural? lol good luck.
mdorn wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing this... Will someone please tell me what "natural" and/or "realistic" means in digital photography terms? Thanks.
Nov 16, 2014 23:14:55 #
I think it means either no PP or if PP is used very little is done to the image. Not overdone so it looks unnatural like a surreal painting etc. This is my interpetation anyway. Hate this type of PP.
Bob
Bob
Nov 16, 2014 23:18:21 #
mdorn wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing this... Will someone please tell me what "natural" and/or "realistic" means in digital photography terms? Thanks.
I saw pictures from 2 members today who are OOC shooters and I hope that they don't see this reply, but their "out of the camera" shots looked terrible. I mean everything about them was off, not just the quality. So I wouldn't really worry about those guys.
Nov 16, 2014 23:19:42 #
mdorn wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing this... Will someone please tell me what "natural" and/or "realistic" means in digital photography terms? Thanks.
To me it means it looks like scene actually looked and not processed. While a little touch up here and there doesn't hurt, some go overboard on the PP and the end result looks nothing like the original scene. I've seen some really beautiful images that were so obviously doctored that they really should be called graphic arts and not photography.
"Natural" and/or "realistic" means that even if it has been PP'd, you can't tell anything has been done.
Nov 16, 2014 23:22:16 #
I think too often PP is used to pump color and or contrast up enough to set off a little bell ringing in the back of your brain telling you that the scene just couldn't look that. And some people don't have that little bell and in others it is too sensitive. All if which is to say natural is in the eye of the
I agree with IsoBob.
Nov 16, 2014 23:23:52 #
If a photographed scene is transformed through post-processing into what looks like an abstract painting, then one can certainly say that it is no longer "natural" or "realistic".
Nov 16, 2014 23:28:34 #
tdekany wrote:
I saw pictures from 2 members today who are OOC shooters and I hope that they don't see this reply, but their "out of the camera" shots looked terrible. I mean everything about them was off, not just the quality. So I wouldn't really worry about those guys.
PS: Make that 3 - they have no business in PP threads. I mean they should really compare their pictures to anybody's to see their lack of understanding photography.
Nov 16, 2014 23:37:26 #
Nov 16, 2014 23:42:16 #
tdekany wrote:
Since most of those look fake, yes!
Perfect examples of excellent graphic arts...not photography.
Nov 16, 2014 23:43:25 #
mdorn wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing this... Will someone please tell me what "natural" and/or "realistic" means in digital photography terms? Thanks.
That is very much like being a pervert! The definition of what makes you a pervert is what you do that I don't.
What you do that I don't, to a photograph, is the reason mine are "natural" and "realistic.
Or maybe it's, "Everything I can't do right makes pictures unnatural and unrealistic..."
Kinda like Good Art, which is "everything I like", and since I don't like even one of the photographs that have auctioned off for more than a million dollars, they aren't even art.
Whatever, you're getting the idea?
Nov 16, 2014 23:46:05 #
cntry wrote:
Since most of those look fake, yes!
Perfect examples of excellent graphic arts...not photography.
Perfect examples of excellent graphic arts...not photography.
You call those graphic art?
Nov 16, 2014 23:59:52 #
tdekany wrote:
You call those graphic art?
Don't get me wrong, most of them are beautiful - some I don't particularly care for - but they are not what was shot.
To each his own...you like PP and I, as a general rule, don't. I can see it's uses and there are some on here who do it extremely well, and there are others that overdo it, IMHO.
And when I post images to show what my brand new camera can do...it's going to be what my brand new camera can do, I'm showing off the camera, not my PP skills.
If you don't like them, my avatar is distinctive, in the future simply skip my posts.
Nov 17, 2014 00:19:48 #
tdekany wrote:
Those images are, for the most part, extremely over processed in the computer and rather Garish looking. The bulk of them look like HDR, which I personally put at the top of the list of "overcooked" more often than not.
Yes, I will take SOOC over any image seen on that site, with the consideration that the shooter knows his/her camera and uses refined camera technique and knowledgeable.
I see nothing on that page that represents quality photography. If you do, I empathize for you. If that's what you strive for... well,
it sucks to be you in my eyes.
Nov 17, 2014 00:22:22 #
Kuzano wrote:
Those images are, for the most part, extremely ove... (show quote)
If those are not quality photos, care to share some that you consider quality?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.