momma deb Loc: Northeast, Ohio

I have been looking at a lot of photographs trying to study what people think are good photos, and why they like them. I have seen some (not necessarily on here), that people seem to like and leave favorable comments on, that to me look so over PP'd that they look unnatural and kind of fake for lack of a better definition. I can see doing some work to brighten and add contrast to make the photo look more like the actual scene. What do you think, is it better to take a photo of what you see, or take a photo for what you can turn it into? Should it look like a photo, or a processed image.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Oh boy... (can of worms open)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Can?? Just a can? Not a barrel?

infocus Loc: Australia

What ever the person taking it wants to do with it. No one else counts.

Treepusher Loc: Kingston, Massachusetts

Eye of the beholder. There are no rules when it comes to post processing. If you want real, keep it real. If you want to enhance your photo, either to fix an error or to have some fun, it's up to you.

Only place you should not process is if entering a contest where rules forbid it, or photojournalism such as news or Nat. Geographic.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Let's be honest here. We live in a society that does not like the truth so folks will like something because they think they have to conform. This is certainly the case in this site. I see garbage posted all the time and folks go oooh and aaaah over it.

I know it is supposedly in the eyes of the beholder but come on!!!

Not sure what you mean by 'taking a picture of what you see'.

For starter what you see is far from what the camera sees so there is your first problem. Not only our eyes are more sensitive to light than any camera but also our brain allows us to discard the surrounding just like that. A sail boat that looks great when you look at it will look small and unappetizing when you take the picture (unless you know what you are doing).

When you take a picture you need to forget your eye and use your 'vision'. THAT will allow you to shoot for PP (if this is what you do) or shoot for a good 'keeper' (unadulterated)...

Now this my opinion and I think I am not known to be 'gentle'.

faygo Loc: Tucson, AZ

I kind of agree with your thought process. I ordered "Pro Photography" magazine because I liked the articles and enjoyed looking at some of the amazing pictures that were taken with various cameras. When I realized almost every picture had been PP to one degree or another it took some of the AW out of awesome. Which tells me that no matter how great a camera you own, the pictures are only as good as you are at PP. Kinda disappointing if you know what I mean.

Haydon

Everyone's concept of artistic is subjective I suppose :)

PaulG Loc: Western Australia

Endless subject. It's all a matter of personal preferences and interpretation. All of us (thankfully) perceive things differently and have different tastes. Everyone will have a favourite song, favourite meal; same with this. What is too much, too little... too many variables to give a simple answer.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Deb, you should just do what makes YOU happy! If you like it well enough to frame and hang on your wall, then that's all that really matters in the end.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Why is this disappointing? Did you have a chance to read Rongnongno's response above? You say you saw some "amazing pictures". Why isn't this good enough? Why do photographers have to produce amazing photos, and then do it all without altering the image your camera gives you before you are impressed or awe-inspired? This is asking a lot in my opinion.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

PP or lab work has always been part of photography, there is nothing new there.

What is new is that everyone has access to professional equipment and software and THAT is bad. Too much garbage is accepted as 'good photography'.

Now, PP from a bad photography can create a good artwork but that (Again?) is another story. Usually one takes a picture to show something or tell a story. As an example, my wife is away at the moment so I send her pictures of the work I started around the house or of the flowers that are coming out right now. Nothing is intended to be an art work or claim anything and nothing is PPed.

I did take a couple of shots this afternoon in order to use them later for PP as background for something else (I have no idea what yet).

Anyway, PP is here to stay and to learn it is a good thing. It does not have to cost anything either. I use the WEB to learn in specific fields. You quickly identify the jesters from the real pros.

If you click on my signature link you will see that I share what I learn in PP. I do not post in a thread as these are often messed up. Everything in there is a compilation of information I gathered over a few months.

So is PP a bummer? Of course not. Once you really get into it, it gets intoxicating and you do not see the time pass as you try new things. Plus the result can be odd.

I made a weird composition of my wife and a flower, she is the center of it. She found it corny and so it is. I learned the process doing it was worth it!!! :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol:

TNmike Loc: NW TN

All of the above posts are correct. The only 'but' is the human 'eye/brain' can capture and refine about twice the dynamic range of even the best camera sensors of today. The range is somewhat debatable. Our cameras just cannot capture all things as we see and process them with our eye and brain. TNmike

TheDman Loc: USA

Do photos look like what you actually saw?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The eye/brain association is the same as the ear/brain, touch/brain and other things.

The brain allows us to concentrate onto something being a sound or an image, a taste. It will isolate everything around. That is why when in a crowded noisy place we can hear the person we concentrate on. This is also why objects are bigger than (they are in the mirror - joking) they really are, hence the need to learn how to look and change the 'vision'.

The dynamic range of the eye varies from person to person. Cameras are far from either the true range an eye has not only because of its inability to capture the true luminosity (Dynamic range) and adapt to it but also because of the number of color shades it can pick from (color space and color depth) so...

Where is the possible debate? I do not see it.