Should we expect full disclosure of photographic and PP techniques?
Jun 24, 2021 11:32:58 #
David Martin wrote:
No one will think that images with splits, ovals, circles or black glove shooting depict actual scenes. They are obvious artistic alterations that require no disclosure to tell the viewer what was done.
Just ask all the brides and Grooms that paid thousands of dollars on their wedding albums and still do because they are still called PHOTOGRAPHS . I guess we need to get rid of all Nikon D850 cameras because of the focus stacking feature , because it is more than 1 image . Oh don't forget about the new FUJIFILM GFX 100S Medium Format Mirrorless Camera 1oo megapixel but with focus shifting shoots 400 megapixel ,and all cameras using focus shifting .NO its called advancement in technology .
Jun 24, 2021 11:36:26 #
Careful with this link to today's Photo Gallery as it may make your SOOC head explode: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-701844-1.html
No composites. No image libraries. Nothing 'added' except the Topaz Artificial Intelligence that 'invented' edges and details to the 2008 image that were not there in the original, creating an image worthy of any current 2021 camera.
No composites. No image libraries. Nothing 'added' except the Topaz Artificial Intelligence that 'invented' edges and details to the 2008 image that were not there in the original, creating an image worthy of any current 2021 camera.
Jun 24, 2021 11:37:33 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Careful with this link to today's Photo Gallery as it may make your SOOC head explode: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-701844-1.html
No composites. No image libraries. Nothing 'added' except the Topaz Artificial Intelligence that 'invented' edges and details to the image that were not there the original.
No composites. No image libraries. Nothing 'added' except the Topaz Artificial Intelligence that 'invented' edges and details to the image that were not there the original.
But it's not photoshopped right? Because Topaz was used and not PS?
Jun 24, 2021 11:38:51 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
A good photograph has the most pixels.
A good photographer has a mirrorless camera.
A great photographer masters PhotoShop.
A good photographer has a mirrorless camera.
A great photographer masters PhotoShop.
A good photographer might become a great photographer once he masters PhotoShop - and leaves his camera at home. In development - Scene Replacement.
Jun 24, 2021 11:39:13 #
BebuLamar wrote:
But it's not photoshopped right? Because Topaz was used and not PS?
It's not Polaroid, that's for sure.
Jun 24, 2021 11:41:38 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Careful with this link to today's Photo Gallery as it may make your SOOC head explode: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-701844-1.html
No composites. No image libraries. Nothing 'added' except the Topaz Artificial Intelligence that 'invented' edges and details to the 2008 image that were not there the original, creating an image worthy of any current 2021 camera.
No composites. No image libraries. Nothing 'added' except the Topaz Artificial Intelligence that 'invented' edges and details to the 2008 image that were not there the original, creating an image worthy of any current 2021 camera.
Jun 24, 2021 11:42:36 #
Delderby wrote:
A good photographer might become a great photographer once he masters PhotoShop - and leaves his camera at home. In development - Scene Replacement.
Jun 24, 2021 11:44:20 #
texasdigital wrote:
Because it would then not be your photograph and it would be unethical to claim it.
Amen.
And every once in a great long while ethics do matter ;-)
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then outright theft is truly the ultimate compliment !
Jun 24, 2021 11:47:23 #
The secret of getting ahead in photography is stealing someone else's image.
Jun 24, 2021 11:51:56 #
analogman wrote:
I know I am going to catch hell for this but I really don't care. I firmly believe in photography beginning and ending at the camera. This post processing is getting out of hand and as I see it the end results may eventually be nothing more than a composite of elements removed from software and no camera was ever used. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it!
And you are entitled to believe that and stick to only straight out of the camera images for your own work - as to the post processing getting “out of hand” I hope you don’t compromise your integrity by tweaking things like contrast, white balance, or highlight and shadow levels after the fact - or are those adjustments not part of “out of hand?”
Jun 24, 2021 11:58:58 #
BebuLamar wrote:
But it's not photoshopped right? Because Topaz was used and not PS?
Not necessarily it is also a plugin for lightroom and photoshop as well as a standalone for batch processing .
Jun 24, 2021 11:59:54 #
nikonbrain wrote:
Not necessarily it is also a plugin for lightroom and photoshop as well as a standalone for batch processing .
That proves I know nothing about this Topaz thingy. Reading that it has AI scares me. I think it's may be modern version of HAL.
Jun 24, 2021 13:05:52 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Yeah, that’s not exactly how it works. It uses millions of stock images for machine learning to determine how to sharpen your photo. It doesn’t actually use those bits and pieces in sharpening your photo.
Could be. That is just my interpretation of this one that I saw;
In the extreme blur test, it seems that the software is using stock images and not re-drawing the sharpness as it is actually inventing or inserting other elements, such as the eyeglass into the image.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8HFN4y1WVw
Jun 24, 2021 13:19:19 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
who said we have too much time on our hands
look at this thread
look at this thread
Jun 24, 2021 13:19:32 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
who said we have too much time on our hands
look at this thread
look at this thread
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.