Non-edited, SOC image examples that are PERFECT (Page 12): ...

christofras Loc: Gold Coast Australia

lighthouse wrote:

A couple of strawmen creeping into the discussion ... (show quote)

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

kalena wrote:

Your artsy photo is FABULOUS. The only thing I'd do to it, were that lovely thing mine, is crop the bottom just above the far treeline near the barn/house and remove the cell tower (or whatever vertical that is) on the right. I know that removes the best purple, but it would place the trees and birds in a space of their own, ungrounded by the ordinary world. Then I'd enlarge it to, say, 30" wide, mat it in dark purple black core, frame it in silver, and put it on my wall.

Thanks, Kalena! It was taken at dusk out the window at a stop light in downstate Delaware. Thanks for the suggestions.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I'm glad I started this thread. I love you guys/gals here.

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

OK.....I'll bite. First of all, I was in the other thread. I never said I don't PP. I said, I don't do a lot of PP. I have no aversion to PP, but I take pictures for my enjoyment and a lot of what I take is "good enough" for me. I'm not looking for anyone to make either of these un-PP'd pictures better to show me I should PP more, though if you feel it's your "calling" to do so, knock yourself out. I'm not foolish enough to say my pictures couldn't benefit from PP. They're just often good enough for my needs. As an FYI, these were both shot with my Nikon D7100 and AFS-DX 35mm F1.8.

(Download)

mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Cdouthitt wrote:

Currently, there is another discussion on this sit... (show quote)

So who gets to decide what "perfect" is! Good grief! I won't say whose pp photos I looked at but I noticed a couple of issues. One photo had a bit of noise in it and the pp sharpening only enhanced it. Might think of that as artistic or just distractingly grainy. Another one had a somewhat blurred background but the post processing put a harder edge to the softened pattern and made the pattern stand out.....did'nt look artistic to me....just like someone was focusing on the major subject and not realizing what was happening to the background. Post processing is one of those things that can turn into an addiction to the point that one looses their perspective. If plant life were as sharp as I see in some of those photos you wouldn't want to run your skin against them in real life for fear of slashing yourself! Keeping things "real" in my opinion is important unless you are pretending that you are photographing on another planet or making some type of emotional statement. I don't usually get this carried away with my opinions, but I see too much post processing anymore and in my opinion it seems to deny the actual essence of what was being photo'd.

JimGuy

Anne-Marie wrote:

Ansel Adams never did straight out of the camera. He kept reworking his images in the darkroom for decades.

were on the same page :)

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Rbrylawski wrote:

OK.....I'll bite. First of all, I was in the othe... (show quote)

You are 100% right. I have to agree with you all the way. You are the artist and you are the one that has to like it first after that it doesn't make much difference. Some will and some won't like it but it's you that counts. all artist are different. That's what art is all about, being yourself...Rich

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Wahawk wrote:

I "rarely" do post on my pictures, as they tend to come out of camera just the way I saw them. ......

If you are going to make a statement like that, you really do have to know what you are talking about.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-115527-1.html
I am going to guess that you could see more detail with your naked eye than you have captured with the camera here.
These photos are a perfect example of shots that could be improved, and made more like your naked eye saw them, with a bit of post work.
But if you choose not to admit that then so be it.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-142800-1.html
Two shots of the same thing with different light levels so only one of these can be "as you saw it".
And I am assuming that you could see that chromatic aberration evident in the first photo with your naked eye??

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-120042-1.html
All of these could obviously be improved with post work.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-114545-1.html
Being as how you capture your images out of the camera just the way you saw them, I am assuming you saw these ones out of focus?

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

bigwolf40 wrote:

You are 100% right. I have to agree with you all the way. You are the artist and you are the one that has to like it first after that it doesn't make much difference. Some will and some won't like it but it's you that counts. all artist are different. That's what art is all about, being yourself...Rich

Thanks Rich. I'm sure some in this thread likely don't like either of these pictures. But I do and that's good enough for me. Here's another shot I took with my D7100 and my AFS-DX 18-200. I like this shot as well and again, I didn't do anything with it after taking the shot.

(Download)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Rbrylawski wrote:

....... I'm not foolish enough to say my pictures couldn't benefit from PP. ........

Thats great.
You agree 100% with the OP then.

So why do you appear to be trying to disagree?????

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

lighthouse wrote:

Thats great.
You agree 100% with the OP then.

So why do you appear to be trying to disagree?????

I'm not trying to appear to disagree. I don't think you got the just of what I'm saying. While my pictures might benefit from some degree of PP, I don't do it very much as they're often good enough for me. I've never said my shots out of the camera are exactly what my eye saw. They're just often close enough.

Dogman Loc: Michigan

Rbrylawski wrote:

Thanks Rich. I'm sure some in this thread likely don't like either of these pictures. But I do and that's good enough for me. Here's another shot I took with my D7100 and my AFS-DX 18-200. I like this shot as well and again, I didn't do anything with it after taking the shot.

I'm not sure why lighthouse has a burr under his saddle with your work, but if you are happy with your photography, the rest of us don't count.

Dogman

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

Here is an example of a picture I felt needed some cropping:

(Download)

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

Dogman wrote:

I'm not sure why lighthouse has a burr under his saddle with your work, but if you are happy with your photography, the rest of us don't count.

Dogman

Thanks and it's OK if lighthouse has any issue with any of my pictures. I'm sure he wouldn't buy one, but then I'm not selling anyway. ;-)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Rbrylawski wrote:

I'm not trying to appear to disagree. I don't think you got the just of what I'm saying. While my pictures might benefit from some degree of PP, I don't do it very much as they're often good enough for me. I've never said my shots out of the camera are exactly what my eye saw. They're just often close enough.

Well in that case you are hijacking the thread by not addressing the original post and going off on a different tangent.
Here is the original post.

Cdouthitt wrote:

i Currently, there is another discussion on this ... (show quote)

I have no issue with any of your pictures. I quite like them even aside from the fact that they could be improved in PP.
I have not said I have any issue with your photos.
One of you guys invented that strawman.