Should we expect full disclosure of photographic and PP techniques?
Jun 23, 2021 08:00:52 #
I'm in favor of full disclosure so that the viewer knows what he/she is looking at. Some are obvious composites done for fun but others are for enhancements to an otherwise good image. I'm fine with sky replacements and straightening leaning buildings, etc. I done those (not too often) and have disclosed my pp when more than just cropping and typical adjustments to raw images.
Jun 23, 2021 08:03:24 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.
Now you're just stirring the pot to make the thread longer.
Jun 23, 2021 08:05:07 #
sb wrote:
But isn't sky replacement (without disclosure) claiming the image is something it isn't?
Only if you are a photo journalist. If you are an artist, the image is whatever I perceive it to be.
Jun 23, 2021 08:06:54 #
mikeroetex wrote:
Now you're just stirring the pot to make the thread longer.
Paul does not stir the pot. He does provide the ingredients that we are free to mix any way we like. Many of us just smile (or laugh) and wait for his next 'pearl of wisdom'.
---
Jun 23, 2021 08:10:46 #
pjeffers51
Loc: Richmond texas
I took a course on photography back in the film days. And yes we dodged and burned. But the funniest thing was when one of my classmates "burned" a sun into her photo....instructor was not impressed🙂
Jun 23, 2021 08:12:20 #
pjeffers51
Loc: Richmond texas
I took a course on photography back in the film days. And yes we dodged and burned. But the funniest thing was when I e of my classmates "burned" a sun into her photo....instructor was not impressed🙂
Jun 23, 2021 08:39:32 #
joehel2 wrote:
We are heading toward having a SOOC section on the UHH forum.
A place where these people can post mediocre photos and slap each other on the back with congratulations? So just like the photo gallery.
Jun 23, 2021 08:44:17 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
A place where these people can post mediocre photos and slap each other on the back with congratulations? So just like the photo gallery.
If they'd take them out of the Photo Gallery to this new specialized section, so much the better.
Jun 23, 2021 08:44:37 #
sb wrote:
So - taking sky replacement specifically. Many Hoggers argue that there is nothing wrong or deceptive about sky replacement. Does that not only include replacing a dull sky with a canned sky from the software that you are using? Would you still consider and claim it as YOUR photograph? What if you also do "tree replacement on a few trees - not just using software to remove an unwanted tree silhouette but to add a few software-generated trees?
Sounds like the losing side unleashing one last weak salvo when the battle is all but over.
Jun 23, 2021 08:47:28 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If they'd take them out of the Photo Gallery to this new specialized section, so much the better.
That would leave the photo gallery rather sparse.
Jun 23, 2021 08:51:44 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
That would leave the photo gallery rather sparse.
Actually not. I find that people now mostly post their best, including the processing, and the thumb over the corner of the out of focus frame is now the rather infrequent event verses my memories of years past.
Jun 23, 2021 08:56:50 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
A place where these people can post mediocre photos and slap each other on the back with congratulations? So just like the photo gallery.
Ouch!
Jun 23, 2021 09:14:55 #
sb wrote:
Creating great photographs used to require an unde... (show quote)
When you use a phrase such as "deceptive skills", it sound derogatory. But art is whatever you make it. Using technology to improve or change a photo isn't deceptive, it's creative.
Jun 23, 2021 09:24:49 #
sb wrote:
Very true - and certainly we see real art created with Photoshop. But generally those artists are not telling us: "look what I did with just my camera".
As this is a photograph forum devoted to helping photographers become better then where else is it more appropriate or some of our members who do such things you describe to let us know how they accomplished a, to them, better photograph.
You mention focus aids on eyes etc. but surely you also know that not every person who buys a camera that has that capability is a good enough photographer to make the best use of every feature the camera offers. Many of our members have spent money on the very best professional cameras and lenses in the field and yet their photographs are, well let's just say, not so good. Whereas other members with lesser cameras submit close to prize winning photographs on a daily basis. In other words, it is MOSTLY the photographer who accomplishes/makes a great photo while using the camera and its features in my opinion.
Dennis
Jun 23, 2021 09:25:37 #
Bill_de wrote:
A picture, IMHO, stands on its own. I don't care how the maker got there.
The only exception I make is if someone claims the image to be something it isn't.
When I look at a picture I can pretty quickly decide if I like it or not. If I like it I may look a little long thinking about why I like it. I don't care about post processing, unless it was done poorly.
---
The only exception I make is if someone claims the image to be something it isn't.
When I look at a picture I can pretty quickly decide if I like it or not. If I like it I may look a little long thinking about why I like it. I don't care about post processing, unless it was done poorly.
---
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.