Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Photo editing: do you prefer to keep it subtle or embrace bold transformations?
Page <<first <prev 5 of 11 next> last>>
Feb 16, 2024 19:04:43   #
User ID
 
bwana wrote:
Depends... Do you want a photography, an image or an art piece?

bwa

If its not all three together then its not worth sharing. What you never share is your bidnez.

Reply
Feb 16, 2024 19:13:01   #
PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place
 
Depends on what I am trying to accomplish.

Don

Reply
Feb 16, 2024 19:13:23   #
National Park
 
Just Fred wrote:
Most of the time I simply "enhance" a photo, adjusting shadows and contrast give it the memory I saw when I shot it. There are some exceptions, of course. I really like viewing well done real estate photography, because even though you know the image has been staged, lighted, and shot in the most favorable way, the final image still does not shout out, "EDITED" in the most obvious way.


I try to edit photos so they look they I remember the subject of the photo looking. I don't like overly-edited photos with false colors or cartoonish looks.

Reply
 
 
Feb 16, 2024 22:15:53   #
pecohen Loc: Central Maine
 
JZA B1 wrote:
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural".... (show quote)


I try to keep my photos at least looking natural. But if people like the results of extreme processing and consider it great art, why should I complain about that. I just stick to making a photo look as good to me as I can. One photo hanging on my office wall looks to me like abstract art bit I really like it. Still, it looks, to the degree I could muster, like what I saw in nature.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 06:22:03   #
John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK
 
I use the sharpening options but minimally (I think) and clarity can do a lot for cloudscapes. Maybe a little deepening of shadows, rarely contrast, possibly vibrance.

But what I mostly like these days is to use the perspective options to restore perpendiculars and height when the lens has had to be directed up or down to get the desired view. I'm in U.K. and if I come across a chocolate box cottage or scene I use it to take out anything out of keeping with the scene, such as overhead utilities & signage etc.
Sometimes dabble with a few other things but I don't find learning them easy.

HDR can be useful but I keep it to one side either side normally, the glut of overdone HDR some years back didn't do the tool any favours.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 06:23:38   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Beauty is everywhere when you have PhotoShop.


Beauty or Ugly - depending on the person doing the editing. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 06:27:20   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
JZA B1 wrote:
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural".... (show quote)


It depends on what I am trying to convey to the viewer. I use Photoshop until I reach the result I want.
Rarely is it no adjustments, most times it is some, and sometimes quite a bit. Again, depends on a lot of factors. My likes and dislikes, experience, mood, and knowledge.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2024 07:46:49   #
bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY
 
JZA B1 wrote:
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural".... (show quote)


I try to replicate what I saw.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 08:00:30   #
Maxpixel
 
My goal in processing is “optimized reality,” which is my term. Of course “optimized” is subjective, but I want images to be perceived as believeable and worthy of display.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 09:10:32   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
I like realism, but I know that's my personal taste. I want people who see one of my scenes for themselves to not be disappointed in what they see. So I rarely hit the saturation slider except to take some reds down a bit. I see pictures that would be very nice, but they're crunchy from over sharpening and unreal in the colours. I remember when "laser prints" first came out and I would see them for sale at Walmart. They had brilliant colours and were WAY over saturated. To me they looked cheap. And oversaturation still does to me.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 10:34:51   #
StanMac Loc: Tennessee
 
JZA B1 wrote:
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural".... (show quote)


Depends on the subject and my intended use of the image.

Stan

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2024 10:42:23   #
Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana
 
JZA B1 wrote:
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural".... (show quote)


I’m with you!

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 10:49:55   #
srg
 
DanF wrote:
I hate to see over processed photos. Years back, I subscribed to outdoor photography magazine until they had their landscape photography contest. The winners were the most garish, fake looking photos I’ve seen. Couldn’t believe it. Cancelled my subscription. Some people just can’t lay off the vibrancy and saturation sliders. These kinds of photos become the norm and people are sensitized to only appreciate a photo if it knocks your eyeballs out. It’s enough to make you stay with minimalist black and white!
I hate to see over processed photos. Years back, I... (show quote)


Processing will become unnecessary when the sensors of the cameras become equal to human eyesight.
Even then, it will still be an aesthetic consideration. We embellish stories we tell also.

Reply
Feb 17, 2024 10:55:20   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
JZA B1 wrote:
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?
I prefer to keep mine looking "natural".... (show quote)


Depends on the subject how much post I use.



Reply
Feb 17, 2024 11:52:26   #
JZA B1
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Same question differet title. Post-processing- more or less? Realistic or exaggerated? SOOTH or Not?


Not exactly.

The question is are there many photographers that go the "natural" route because they aren't good at post processing?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.