Photoshopping what's stunning to begin with (Page 2): I think they are wonderful. Why judge these images unless it is to decide on which one is the most stunning? If the artists are...

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I think they are wonderful. Why judge these images unless it is to decide on which one is the most stunning? If the artists are happy, I'm happy.

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

Frequently, a discussion begins with a person claiming that Photoshop (generic) ruins photos and only SOOC is a pure photo. Wrong on both counts.First of all, if a photographer shoots in JPG, then the camera "PROCESSES" the photo using an algorithm selected by the photographer that they think complements the subject. IF the photographer shoots raw, then the photo must have post processing before it can be printed or displayed. SOOC is akin to neutral, positive transparency film (slide Film) (if this medium is to be printed then there will be processing performed) A Polaroid is SOOC. For those that remember the joys of BW wet photography. SOOC is the equivalent of a contact print on medium contrast paper and an average time in the develop tray. Only if you are a crime scene photographer or a news photographer then you do not post process.

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

I likes 'em. A lot.

Unless shooting for a client who demands a certain effect, photographers should shoot to please themselves.

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

magicray wrote:

I likes 'em. A lot.

Unless shooting for a client who demands a certain effect, photographers should shoot to please themselves.

Thats exactly what i was thinking as i read this post. If the shooter is happy thats all that matters. Each person on this site has an individual style. We all like to produce something different as our work. We also respect the work of others too.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

If you read their 'blurb' "Demilked is a design, art, and photography magazine. We milk the world's most creative minds and serve you a tasty inspirational milkshake made of art, photography and design with a dash of magic and a dollop of creativity. Go on and take a sip the drinks are on us! " they seem to be entirely honest unto themselves.

It is good work, maybe not to everybody's taste, but well executed. To me it appears to be "enhanced reality" which is something that photographers do in many ways, with lenses or selective framing or many other tricks. It's all about creating an image, unless you are trying to create an archival record, and even then it is usually a moment in time captured from a single viewpoint.

These appear to be HDR images to me, and probably a few other techniques, but I see nothing wrong with the end results. I also remember some visits to northern Scotland with amazing light and intensity of colour, without any enhancement from creative effects, just stunning to the naked eye. It wouldn't surprise me that Iceland could offer even more.

I don't like Rap much, nor classic opera, but it doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with either.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

Peterff wrote:

If you read their 'blurb' "Demilked is a des... (show quote)

I tend to agree with you.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Darkroom317 wrote:

Students from Lone Pine High School put LP in big letters on a mountainside. In his photograph Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada from Lone Pine, 1944, Adams retouched the print and possibly the negative to remove the letters. I will have to check negative or print. I have a book where he wrote about it.

That is done a lot of places. The freshmen class gets to climb up and repaint the logo yearly.

And, BTW, I lived in Lone Pine, CA for 4 years in my younger life.
I slept in the shadow of Mount Whitney. Literally.
I loved seeing the sun hit the top of the mountain before it hit any other of the High Sierra's.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

Is it live?
Or is it Memorex?

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

Peterff wrote:

If you read their 'blurb' "Demilked is a des... (show quote)

:thumbup:

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

SharpShooter wrote:

There is not a shot taken that can not benefit from at least some PP, no matter HOW good they are.
Sure, there are lots of great shots that can stand entirely on their own and do, but that does not mean they won't benefit from at least small tweaks in PP
Those are very nice shots, with or w/o PP. Some may even be HDR. But what or why would it matter, unless it's just some sort of personal baggage? ;-)
SS

Spot-on! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

Photoshop or not, that is one hell of an artist! :thumbup:

ted45 Loc: Delaware

Dr.db wrote:

Sure, why not? I'll guess about 1/2-hour before somebody invokes the name of Ansel Adams... oops, too late, I already did! :)

If you actually study Ansel Adams you will find that he manipulated all of his famous photos to produce his vision of the scene. He was Photoshopping before Photoshop was invented.

His famous "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM" is a prime example.

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

I think the Iceland photos are incredible.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

magicray wrote:

I likes 'em. A lot.

Unless shooting for a client who demands a certain effect, photographers should shoot to please themselves.

:thumbup: :thumbup: Painters paint what they see inside their heads. Why can't photographers do the same? Well, they can now! Just use Topaz! :mrgreen:

Funny how we moan and groan about presenting reality when we primp and dress to make our own selves look way better than the original. Well, we ladies do, anyhow. Some of you men............... :mrgreen:

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Manipulation of photographs/ "photoshopping" has been happening nearly since photography's invention. Henry Peach Robinson and Oscar Gustav Rejlander combined negatives to create scenes. Gustave Le Grey combined negatives as with blue sensitive emulsions it is nearly impossible to get clouds along with foreground. By the time the exposure is enough to get the foreground the sky is solid white. He made a negative for the sky and another for the ground. Sound familiar, HDR?

The pictorialists manipulated with all sorts of techniques to get images to look more like paintings or etchings. Look at Soviet propaganda photos, Trotsky was standing with Lenin during a speech and was later removed. Man Rays photos were manipulated using solarization. If you want to look at some really crazy stuff, look at Jerry Uelsmann.

Yooper 2 Loc: Ironwood, MI

These images are outstanding. I would have to see the originals to determine if they were overdone. Unless they were there no one should judge who or what should appear in the photos.