Well, #1 is a photograph, #2 is an ArtOgraph. an interpretation of the #1 photograph. I do this same thing in various forms with some of my Images.
Don
ricardo7 wrote:
Yes, but neither very good.
I don't know if that was necessary. I don't enjoy the first image, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not very good.
The second image I didn't enjoy at first, but as I continued to look at it, the more I liked it...especially considering that it came from an original image that wasn't all that inspiring, to begin with.
I've run into this problem when our local VA runs a photo contest once a year. I used to finish in the top 3, even won a "First" one year, but then Photoshop experts began to enter and I could no longer compete, not just because I was not very adept at PS, but also because I preferred not to "enhance" much of my stuff. Perhaps there should be a category for enhanced, but where do you draw the line? Some percent of enhancement perhaps? I don't know. It's too bad that a line cannot be drawn because those of us who choose photos that are closer to "natural" lose out. We can shoot, and work with a photo to a small degree, as in darken a sky, or bring up a color, and yet we are no competition to a judge who is blown away by complex elaborations.
Frankly, I finally gave up competing and just shoot and sell to those who are as simple-minded as I am. By the way, I HAVE done "elaborations" via Photomatix Pro and liked them, but I haven't made it a habit. ....
Linda From Maine wrote:
You could use the "realistic" benchmark, but if you've ever thought a sky pic was
too blue because you have only experienced washed out color due to haze and humidity, then you'll find out how quickly that argument devolves. Just ask us folks who live in dry climates what true blue looks like
How about if I clone out a piece of trash? What if I clone out a person so it appears a child is alone? How about if I add one more bird to two already sitting on a fence? Will you be able to tell they aren't real photos?
It's an impossible question with no answer. There are documentary photos, photos "slightly" enhanced, and "obvious" manipulations. Do what you enjoy and find others who appreciate and enjoy the same, such as in UHH's Post Processing forum:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html and For Your Consideration:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-119-1.html.
You could use the "realistic" benchmark,... (
show quote)
@LindaFromVermont Nice answer! Appreciated for sure!
k a i t o o/daniel
ricardo7 wrote:
Yes, but neither very good.
You mean they are very very good?
PS - they were intended for main discussion section.
Linda From Maine wrote:
You could use the "realistic" benchmark, but if you've ever thought a sky pic was
too blue because you have only experienced washed out color due to haze and humidity, then you'll find out how quickly that argument devolves. Just ask us folks who live in dry climates what true blue looks like
How about if I clone out a piece of trash? What if I clone out a person so it appears a child is alone? How about if I add one more bird to two already sitting on a fence? Will you be able to tell they aren't real photos?
It's an impossible question with no answer. There are documentary photos, photos "slightly" enhanced, and "obvious" manipulations. Do what you enjoy and find others who appreciate and enjoy the same, such as in UHH's Post Processing forum:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html and For Your Consideration:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-119-1.html.
You could use the "realistic" benchmark,... (
show quote)
Now that we have millions of camera phone photographs being generated on a daily basis, most without PP, perhaps a simple "P" to indicate a post processed photograph might be worth considering? eg "Pphoto"
I would call the second a graphic interpretation of the original. The only time it might be significant is if it violates the rules of some contest.
Hal81
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
I do think the Photographers blite got to #2.
#2 might be striking if printed on canvas. Just a thought.
Perhaps that would be a +
Kozan
Loc: Trenton Tennessee
orrie smith wrote:
Art is in the eyes of the beholder, no need to be rude.
I think ricardo7 is just being honest.
I get sick of the benign comments on here about peoples' terrible pictures. People say "Great job" "I like it", etc. When they are really talking about a terrible shot. It doesn't do anybody any good to give these good comments on crappy pictures. It just makes them think they are good photographers when they are really pathetic.
I think being honest is really what we need here, instead of stroking everyone's ego.
No. 1 is definitely a photograph ... as for no.2, I don't consider any image enhanced by Photoshop or other PP software to be photographs. PP is an insult to photography.
billbarcus wrote:
No. 1 is definitely a photograph ... as for no.2, I don't consider any image enhanced by Photoshop or other PP software to be photographs. PP is an insult to photography.
I understand your sentiments. But what about simple sharpening to correct minor sensor issues? or correcting lens aberrations? or correcting white balance? or cropping?
The camera first captures a RAW photograph. Then produces a JPG after that using default or operator settings or both - is this not PP using the cameras's internal computer?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.