PP to what you saw (Page 4): I know what you're saying, but the horizons in many of my mountain pictures are tilting.............LOL...

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

tdekany wrote:

Kuzano - I respect your opinion, we are free to li... (show quote)

I know what you're saying, but the horizons in many of my mountain pictures are tilting.............LOL

Brasspounder001 Loc: Erewhon

Kuzano wrote:

Just as a lot of post processing by people NOT suc... (show quote)

I have to agree with you on HDR images. Frequently it is completely over the top, resulting in a hideous remnant of the original image, and I cannot for the life of me begin to imagine what the photographer had in mind.

TheDman Loc: USA

Kuzano wrote:

If you can't get a realistic scene in one exposure, you simply don't know what you are doing with your capture device...

I don't want "realistic", I want great. People don't come in my booth at art shows and go "Wow, how realistic!". Realistic doesn't sell. Connection sells. Mood sells. Getting the viewer to feel something sells. And it doesn't matter how you do that.

TheDman Loc: USA

Kuzano wrote:

Absolutely, and in that regard it is not SOOC in t... (show quote)

There is no such thing as pre processing. You can't process an image that doesn't exist. You can only post process it, and as such the "post" part is redundant. There is only processing. Just because you camera comes with several presets that you can set up to run on an image once the image is captured doesn't mean you've "pre" processed anything.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

TheDman wrote:

I don't want "realistic", I want great. People don't come in my booth at art shows and go "Wow, how realistic!". Realistic doesn't sell. Connection sells. Mood sells. Getting the viewer to feel something sells. And it doesn't matter how you do that.

How many SOOC images do you see your fellow photographers sell at these shows? And are they best sellers?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Brasspounder001 wrote:

I have to agree with you on HDR images. Frequently it is completely over the top, resulting in a hideous remnant of the original image, and I cannot for the life of me begin to imagine what the photographer had in mind.

Who's pictures are these? A pro's or just some regular Joe butchering his on snaps? There are plenty of regular non hdr shots that are over saturated right here on UHH. And how about black and white? How realistic are those? Do you also have issues with non colored photos?

Batman Loc: South-Central Texas

Rongnongno wrote:

If you can do this, the rest is BS. You are good to go w/o any further need for 'instruction', 'advice' or 'criticism', constructive or not.

Now will other folks appreciate it or not is another can of worm. 100 folks, 100 visions so... Who cares what other folks think?

You really are a charmer, ain't you?

Batman

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

russelray wrote:

For my photography I ascribe to what Edgar Degas said over 100 years ago: "Art is not what you see but what you make others see." Just replace Art with Photography.

Love this!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Streets wrote:

You are wrong with your Ansel Adams photo example. What the camera recorded was a scene with many colors. The film in the camera did the initial PP. Color film was available at the time that image was made.

Oh give me a break . . .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

JCam wrote:

Gene51,

Regarding Ansel Adams, and not to disparage his work at all, but even with the amount of 'editing' he did on almost all of his images, I've read that only about 10% of them ever saw the light of publication. That means that just like the rest of us today the bulk of his work was unsatisfactory (at least to him) and he opted to keep it in his private files.

Totally agree - he was his own worst critic - and the results for the most part are nothing short of stunning - thanks to the high standard he set for himself.

TheDman Loc: USA

tdekany wrote:

How many SOOC images do you see your fellow photographers sell at these shows? And are they best sellers?

Heh, zip. In fact the guy that seems to win the most awards is a guy who modified his DSLR to shoot infrared. Has a booth full of infrared landscapes. How "realistic" is that?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Streets wrote:

When I shot with film, I was a much better photogr... (show quote)

I shot film until 2006 - 40 yrs - I still shoot like I shot with film. Old habits die hard. My D800 only does 4 fps, only 1 fps slower than my last 35mm film camera - a Contax RTS II with a W6 drive. I have used faster cameras, like a NIkon D3S, and most recently a D500 - but I don't take that many more pictures.

mr. u. n. owen

#1 Ansel Adams used his head and his hands, not some machine. #2 If you have to spend a fair amount of time with p.p. you might want to check your way of seeing. If you shot-gun shoot your way how can you remember the way it was shot at all.

TheDman Loc: USA

mr. u. n. owen wrote:

#1 Ansel Adams used his head and his hands, not some machine. #2 If you have to spend a fair amount of time with p.p. you might want to check your way of seeing. If you shot-gun shoot your way how can you remember the way it was shot at all.

Ansel P.P.d images for years.

F8 Forever Loc: Lng Island, NY

Opinions are like... (what was that?)

Anyway, very few photographers are required to make an exact copy of the subject. Actually, they can't because you are taking a 3 dimensional scene and squishing out a 2 dimensional representation of it. Even the initial composition is designed to emphasize just one tiny aspect of it. What you do in post processing is just more interpretation.

Since you are not being hired to create a specific image, you have the freedom to make your own art. Make the image your interpretation of the subject and let the critics make their own or suck wind.

(Was van Gogh a bum because no starry night ever looked like that?)