Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Fake photos
Page <<first <prev 8 of 21 next> last>>
Apr 19, 2019 06:06:07   #
Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY
 
C’mon! It’s not what you see or what the camera sees.
IT’s how you respond to what you see and how you able to share that response, that experience.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 07:08:06   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

...
...
In photography, there is a place for fact and fantasy, strict photojournalism, and bizarre fakery, the literal and the abstract- it's up to the makers. "Consumers" can pick and choose and enjoy what they like. The critics can critique!
...
...



Reply
Apr 19, 2019 07:13:14   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
DAN Phillips wrote:
SOOC is always best! It's not fake or make believe!

Question:
Are all of your "in camera sliders" set to neutral or "best image tweaking"?

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2019 07:16:21   #
Trekker
 
Nice “distortion” Gene 51

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 07:33:55   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Trekker wrote:
Nice “distortion” Gene 51


It’s so easy to click “Quote Reply” when you’re responding so we know wgT you’re responding to.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 08:02:18   #
wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN
 
stanco wrote:
Why distort what the camera sees? .Why not look at what nature display.


I feel there are two views on photos. Those that are purist, I'm one, that believe the picture is taken when the shutter is clicked. I have my exposure and composition the way I want it before I click the shutter. Beyond dodging and burning, I'm done. Then there are those that the camera is just an artistic tool, and the manipulation of the image is part of the art. I've seen images from both schools that I've liked, but for me photography is capturing the moment and the art is God's.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 08:07:02   #
Feiertag Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
stanco wrote:
Why distort what the camera sees? .Why not look at what nature display.


Distorting the truth is my pet peeve. An example would be baiting raptors with pet shop mice, to get the shot.

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2019 09:09:43   #
mcm981 Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
SOCO is what that camera brands engineers decide what your picture should look like. Why not shoot RAW and processs the picture as your eye saw it? The nose in the air ‘no filter crowd’ are really saying they like the ‘filters’ their camera makers engineers chose as opposed to making their own choices.

A SOCO pic is most likely as different to what one’s eye truly saw at the time of exposure as a processed RAW or JPEG image.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 09:12:50   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Feiertag wrote:
Distorting the truth is my pet peeve. An example would be baiting raptors with pet shop mice, to get the shot.

Unless you were there, how would you know?

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 09:30:48   #
catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
 
stanco wrote:
Why distort what the camera sees? .Why not look at what nature display.


Stick with your cell phone, Art in general may be an overload.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 09:35:10   #
Feiertag Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
Longshadow wrote:
Unless you were there, how would you know?


Odd question! I don't have to be there, to know. I sometimes ask the photographers and they admit to cheating.

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2019 09:35:46   #
RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas
 
I can see why you feel the way you see every thing around you I’ve been too the UK 🇬🇧 A couple of times!

Delderby wrote:
It's not a case of what nature displays - it's what man has spoilt - for example, bins everywhere, fences everywhere, telegraph poles and cables everywhere, roads everywhere, litter everywhere, the destroying of our forests, the poaching of our animals, the poisoning of our atmosphere - shall I go on?
If you want to see nature in the raw, you should be thanking photographers who remove such wonderful displays of man's ingenuity at spoiling our world. Man's "advancement" is not on a linear scale - it is more on a logarithmic scale - which gives us about 60 years before armageddon.
It's not a case of what nature displays - it's wha... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 09:37:47   #
mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD
 
Delderby wrote:
It's not a case of what nature displays - it's what man has spoilt - for example, bins everywhere, fences everywhere, telegraph poles and cables everywhere, roads everywhere, litter everywhere, the destroying of our forests, the poaching of our animals, the poisoning of our atmosphere - shall I go on?
If you want to see nature in the raw, you should be thanking photographers who remove such wonderful displays of man's ingenuity at spoiling our world. Man's "advancement" is not on a linear scale - it is more on a logarithmic scale - which gives us about 60 years before armageddon.
It's not a case of what nature displays - it's wha... (show quote)


Wow, with such despair how to do manage to drag yourself out of bed in the morning to use the computer which depends on those very cables and telephone poles and eat your breakfast brought to you over those roads that are everywhere?

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 09:38:59   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Feiertag wrote:
Odd question! I don't have to be there, to know. I sometimes ask the photographers and they admit to cheating.

Not an odd question if you don't have the opportunity to ask the photographer.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:03:40   #
Feiertag Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
Longshadow wrote:
Not an odd question if you don't have the opportunity to ask the photographer.

I've been doing this long enough to make an educated guess, as to who is baiting.

Last summer, I started a topic regarding, baiting birds of prey. It generated mixed emotions.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-548510-5.html

Happy Easter.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 21 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.