Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
Does it make it fake?
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jan 27, 2016 06:57:28   #
PAB20 Loc: From Louisiana, but now live in Florida
 
That's the beauty of digital photography and post processing, which is so very popular now. With that being said, you did a fantastic job, and NO they do not look fake. Great job, and keep enjoying your photography as after all, it's what pleases YOU!!

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 08:16:04   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
jim quist wrote:
At first glance I thought these were nice photographs. But as I studied them I noticed that the Depth of field seems off on the first one, and the lighting doesn't seem to match on the second one. And the different camera angles. Still a couple of nice composites, but fake photographs.

Having reexamine the composites on a much larger screen than my Samsung 9 inch tablet, I'd say the DOF of the orchid in the Bunting combo is fine. The orchid was shot with Tamron SP 70-200 at minimum focus at f/2.8 zoomed to 200 thus not allowing much DOF. The purple orchid is out of focus because it is an entirely different plant several inches from the subject orchid. As I can see great detail
In the Bunting from the top of his head to his tail I'd say the DOF is fine there also.
The Thrasher is slightly over exposed 'cause I was trying to eliminate or minimize as much shadow as possible.

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 08:17:09   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
#2 is a little busy for me, so of these, I prefer #1. Nicely done!

For me, photography is art. Unless you are trying to pass off a "fake" photo as documentary, you should do whatever processing you wish, and make any composite you wish, and be proud to call it your own artistic vision.

I personally like to know if an image is a composite, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy it less - I'll just look at it from a different perspective.

There have been many discussions about post-processing on UHH (several in For Your Consideration), and a wide range of opinions about everything from tiny touch-ups to complicated composites.

My opinion follows the quoted article in my tag line, "It's your photo; do what you want to it!" :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Jan 27, 2016 08:19:44   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
PAB20 wrote:
That's the beauty of digital photography and post processing, which is so very popular now. With that being said, you did a fantastic job, and NO they do not look fake. Great job, and keep enjoying your photography as after all, it's what pleases YOU!!


You are so correct, it is about what pleases me. Thank you. I think I'll try the orchid again, next time without the support stake in the image.

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 08:28:25   #
Pixelpusher Loc: S W Florida & N.H.
 
I agree it's not fake it's a composite
This is exactly what I do with well over half my captures.

At first I thought the question was. Is the technical execution good enough to pass for real ? A separate issue from is it photography or digital art ?

Anyway Depth of field and lighting aside I think the whole composition is way too busy. Sure is a lot of stuff to look at.

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 08:43:43   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Pixelpusher wrote:
I agree it's not fake it's a composite
This is exactly what I do with well over half my captures.

At first I thought the question was. Is the technical execution good enough to pass for real ? A separate issue from is it photography or digital art ?

Anyway Depth of field and lighting aside I think the whole composition is way too busy. Sure is a lot of stuff to look at.


I did the Bunting for the colors and I thought it turned out fairly well. The Thrasher was more of an impulse playing around thing. They don't really go together, I just wanted to see what it would look like. As I said, just playing, but I thing I'll work on improving my composite skills, it's kinda fun...

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 10:14:36   #
Pixelpusher Loc: S W Florida & N.H.
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
. They don't really go together, I just wanted to see what it would look like. As I said, just playing, it's kinda fun...


Understood You are describing my work flow and most of my results.
Just keep playing and serindipedy will reward you with a winner

Reply
 
 
Jan 27, 2016 10:53:59   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
As long as you let the veiwer know he can not just go out and get the shot as veiwed

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 12:17:44   #
Tazzy Loc: Tampa area
 
Really like the 1st one. Have fun.

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 16:03:29   #
Jim Soholt Loc: California Central Coast
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and I said to myself, self, that would look pretty cool if there was a bird in the picture. So playing around I combined a couple of my bird photo's with the orchid to see what I'd come up with. They're real birds, it's a real orchid. It is digital photography, but some folks I've shown them to say, no, its fake. I look at them as digital art, not fake photo's, as I never said, the orchid was present when the birds were photographed. Just playing around...
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and ... (show quote)


I used to thrash around with this concern a lot. When I first started shooting digital, I couldn't help but wonder when post processing was just enhancing the image, and when it became "cheating"? I wandered through a lot of analysis: does it look real; is it a "faithful" capture of what was really there; am I putting too much "me" into "it"; is it too "artificial"? Well, the manufacturer of the film or sensor determines how the image will be captured; how that info is processed and printed determines how the image will look; I think nobody has ever looked at my work and thought, e.g., "That's Half Dome in Yosemite," rather than, "That's a picture of Half Dome in Yosemite." If you've ever seen an original self-portrait by Rembrandt, you probably didn't think was Rembrandt van Rinj, but a picture of him. In other words it's a fake. I wouldn't throw it in the rubbish, though. Long story short, I finally decided that as soon as I drop the shutter, it's cheating. I don't worry about it.

Repectfully,

Reply
Jan 27, 2016 18:54:24   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
Jim Soholt wrote:
I used to thrash around with this concern a lot. When I first started shooting digital, I couldn't help but wonder when post processing was just enhancing the image, and when it became "cheating"? ...

Repectfully,


My third post on UHH was a question regarding this topic. Got it all sorted out and never looked back. Sure had a lot of enjoyment "making" some photos since then. :)

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.