Topaz "If your a poor photographer - edit it!"
Jan 1, 2021 06:34:03 #
This morning I received an email from Topaz Labs - the subject, word for word was:
"Become a better photographer with our editing apps"
Simply another way of saying what the title of this post says!
That is therefore what Topaz thinks of it's customers!
"Become a better photographer with our editing apps"
Simply another way of saying what the title of this post says!
That is therefore what Topaz thinks of it's customers!
Jan 1, 2021 06:38:06 #
Probably true though. Look how many shoot in raw because they can't get it right in camera.
Jan 1, 2021 06:50:17 #
It could also be read as: we have tools that can improve your images if you have the intelligence, commitment, willingness and vision to learn how to use them.
Jan 1, 2021 06:51:19 #
The whole photo editing world tries to play on the fact that some people think they can become good photographers with the help of the appropriate software (or phone app or editing AI or in-camera AI etc).
Jan 1, 2021 06:59:56 #
kymarto wrote:
It could also be read as: we have tools that can improve your images if you have the intelligence, commitment, willingness and vision to learn how to use them.
That would be a smaller market for them though.
Jan 1, 2021 07:05:33 #
kymarto wrote:
It could also be read as: we have tools that can improve your images if you have the intelligence, commitment, willingness and vision to learn how to use them.
What it should have said is "Produce better photos with our editing apps". Unfortunately they're all too willing to play on the common belief that the right software (or a better camera) will make you a better photographer.
Jan 1, 2021 07:22:02 #
David Martin
Loc: Cary, NC
Because great photographers, like Ansel Adams, always presented their images SOOC without any editing during development.[/sarc]
Jan 1, 2021 07:43:45 #
David Martin wrote:
Because great photographers, like Ansel Adams, always presented their images SOOC without any editing during development.[/sarc]
It was common practice to make at least one contact sheet to evaluate what direction to go in with post processing. what is your point? Where did you read that he and others ALWAYS presented their work unedited?
Jan 1, 2021 07:45:57 #
R.G. wrote:
What it should have said is "Produce better photos with our editing apps". Unfortunately they're all too willing to play on the common belief that the right software (or a better camera) will make you a better photographer.
Both better gear and better software can help make a good photographer better. Neither can turn a mediocre photographer into a good one. If there is any talent, constant shooting and solid critique might help - software or not.
Jan 1, 2021 07:47:21 #
Gene51 wrote:
It was common practice to make at least one contact sheet to evaluate what direction to go in with post processing. what is your point? Where did you read that he and others ALWAYS presented their work unedited?
He was being sarcastic. Hence the /sarc tag at the end.
Jan 1, 2021 07:50:32 #
Gene51 wrote:
Both better gear and better software can help make a good photographer better. Neither can turn a mediocre photographer into a good one. If there is any talent, constant shooting and solid critique might help - software or not.
Having to faff around in software reduces time available for shooting.
Jan 1, 2021 08:00:51 #
David Taylor wrote:
Probably true though. Look how many shoot in raw because they can't get it right in camera.
And how many are fully invested in the notion that raw has no value, and really have no clue what "getting it right" in the camera really means, and that SOOC is the only way to shoot and truly reflects a photographer's talent. However, you seem to have a leg up on this. Can you explain what "getting it right in the camera" means? Can you provide an example or two?
I spend a lot of time shooting "impossible" scenes with difficult lighting. Here is an example of how SOOC often doesn't cut it. This just an illustration on exposure and SOOC limitations, taken outside my front door, so I'll save you the time making comments about composition - the composition sucks. Anyway, you have a choice of several images to look at where you can explain exactly which one is the best example of what "getting it right in the camera" is. One has ok sky but awful foreground. The last has a blown out sky and better, but not good foreground. Then there is the last image where I used a raw capture and a little adjustment to make the image.
Jan 1, 2021 08:02:53 #
David Taylor wrote:
He was being sarcastic. Hence the /sarc tag at the end.
Missed that.
Jan 1, 2021 08:03:36 #
Gene51 wrote:
Both better gear and better software can help make a good photographer better......
I was suggesting that what they produce could be improved, but there isn't any software in existence that can improve your basic photography skills. As you say, practice and critique can help.
Jan 1, 2021 08:29:23 #
David Martin
Loc: Cary, NC
kymarto wrote:
It could also be read as: we have tools that can improve your images if you have the intelligence, commitment, willingness and vision to learn how to use them.
Or you might say that:
since the combination of human eye + human brain is capable of producing much better images than your camera in terms of focus, iris, dynamic range, color balance, noise at "high ISO" - that post-processing allows you to create a final product that more resembles what you saw, rather than what the camera was able to record. As a result, if you as the photographer can capture a good composition, then post-processing enables you to restore what you saw but is missing from the SOOC image.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.