Excellent, thoughtful review. Thanks.
(Sorry, reply to E.L Shapiro)
Part 2? There's a "Part 2?" I thought that part 1 was long-winded enough.
cameraf4 wrote:
Part 2? There's a "Part 2?" I thought that part 1 was long-winded enough.
Better than several pages of people childishly trashing each other.
Nice article, enjoyed it, and I agree with much of what you said ... but! I have a nit to pick. I noticed several typos, not surprising in a long article, but one repeated one that needs comment. The use of the word "allot" to mean many. Allot means to distribute officially, or to share portions of something, etc. To mean many of something should be "a lot of" something or other.
JohnSwanda wrote:
Better than several pages of people childishly trashing each other.
Thank you for your comment, JohnSwanda.
UHH-ers are mostly knowledgeable and polite and I learn much from them.
But there are a few pricklies who exist mainly to post negative unhelpful comments. They must have had awful childhoods. Those people represent the "U" in UHH.
Very nice article. I'm looking forward to reading part 2.
--Bob
Yes, post processing is a big part of photography. However, today's software now allows much greater abilities and artistic freedoms. The rub generally comes in where one draws the line and a photo becomes "overprocessed." This too is a personal evaluation and choice, make what you want, but realize that others don't always see your vision as you do and each has an opinion as to where they draw their own line. There will always be this judgement call and this is the root of the criticism from both ends of this controversy. There will always be those that push the limits and those that take a minimal approach and each has merit. We all just need to be a bit more tolerant of others vision and efforts wherever they decide to draw their own line.
Excellent synopsis! Thank you for taking the time. I await part 2.
MLAnderson wrote:
Post production is OK until it starts to look unnatural. You have all seen them, photographs that look like paintings or modern art.
Unless that is what you are going for. If the artistic vision is unreal or "unnatural", that is what it is.
cthahn wrote:
Where did you copy this from. Are we all supposed to be impressed.
Well we are clearly NOT impressed by your contribution.
Bison Bud wrote:
However, today's software now allows much greater abilities and artistic freedoms. The rub generally comes in where one draws the line and a photo becomes "overprocessed." This too is a personal evaluation and choice, make what you want, but realize that others don't always see your vision as you do and each has an opinion as to where they draw their own line. There will always be this judgement call and this is the root of the criticism from both ends of this controversy. There will always be those that push the limits and those that take a minimal approach and each has merit. We all just need to be a bit more tolerant of others vision and efforts wherever they decide to draw their own line.
However, today's software now allows much greater ... (
show quote)
That has always been the case since the beginning of photography. It isn't new with digital/software.
cthahn wrote:
Where did you copy this from. Are we all supposed to be impressed.
Somehow I gather from reading his article, he does not give a rats a@@ what you think. if you have an alternate view, feel free to let us know. To simply throw a dart is immature, childish - boorish!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.