Excessive use of post processing
Mar 27, 2018 16:25:48 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
rehess wrote:
When I see something by you or rmalarz or uuglypher, I think "Those are very nice, but they don't fit into my goals", so I just keep moving because there's nothing there for me.
and that's perfect. Different strokes for different folks.
Mar 27, 2018 16:26:07 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
davidstinson wrote:
Or try this one on - I take a good photograph. One of you expert PP'ers turns it into a great, award-winning photograph. Whose photograph is it?
Yours.
Mar 27, 2018 16:26:38 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
CHG_CANON wrote:
Illustrate an absurdity!! That's not ethical in his portion of Oregon. The absurdity must be exactly as the camera captured it or properly labeled otherwise ...
Illustrations don't cut it, not absurd enough ...
Illustrations don't cut it, not absurd enough ...
as I cannot go back and edit that post now, I will make sure to footnote all future posts with the exact percentage of sarcasm used.*
*22% sarcasm
Mar 27, 2018 16:32:35 #
davidstinson wrote:
Or try this one on - I take a good photograph. One of you expert PP'ers turns it into a great, award-winning photograph. Whose photograph is it?
Yours, or did you give her permission to work on your photo and publish as his?
Mar 27, 2018 16:40:05 #
BobHartung wrote:
I am in your camp. br br You might want to look... (show quote)
Good links; thanks for posting!
Mar 27, 2018 16:45:57 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
BobHartung wrote:
I am in your camp. br br You might want to look... (show quote)
Guy Tal uses Photoshop extensively. He's even hawking a book called "The Landscape Photographer's Guide to Photoshop" right on that link!
Mar 27, 2018 16:52:58 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
I was talking to a pro in Northern Italy and was telling me he sold pictures with exclusive rights to Air Lines. In on case retook the picture moved few feet to the side and took another exclusive picture. We all have to understand this is a big world that we play in. Is it beating the system or is it what it is. We all have our own ideas of PICTURE TAKING and Processing.
I'm happy with my idea of it and will accept yours.
I'm happy with my idea of it and will accept yours.
Mar 27, 2018 16:53:06 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
I'm the fellow that started this thread. I didn't really think I would stir up such a hornet's nest. But, there have been a *LOT* of perceptive comments in here and it has given me much to think about and definitely some additional perspectives. Most of the comments to date have been civil and constructive and many are from people trying to search out their own path. I thank you all. I suspicion the thread will go and that is fine. Again, my personal thanks for participating.
Mar 27, 2018 17:12:57 #
LWW wrote:
There really does seem to be two distinct classes now:
PHOTOGRAPHERS: Who try to get everything correct in camera and then minimally use digital editing for cropping, shadow detail and the like. More of a true digital darkroom process.
PHOTSHOPOGRAPHERS: Who shoot everything in full auto and then try to make it into more of a painting than a photo.
Neither is inherently right, wrong, better or worse ... but they are distinctly different.
PHOTOGRAPHERS: Who try to get everything correct in camera and then minimally use digital editing for cropping, shadow detail and the like. More of a true digital darkroom process.
PHOTSHOPOGRAPHERS: Who shoot everything in full auto and then try to make it into more of a painting than a photo.
Neither is inherently right, wrong, better or worse ... but they are distinctly different.
Do you think he got this "right in the camera", or do you think he went "full auto" and overcook.
https://petapixel.com/2016/06/24/making-ansel-adams-famous-image/
http://www.haroldhallphotography.com/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/
Would you have judged his contact print (second link) as only worthy of the trash heap, because it wasn't perfect or even close, by what I believe are your standards? How do you define "getting it right" and do you believe he "got it right" in his canera?
Consider your response carefully - you will be criticising an iconic work from a master photographer, and you don't want to appear foolish . . . Just sayin'
Mar 27, 2018 17:28:38 #
Mar 27, 2018 17:40:34 #
Mar 27, 2018 17:43:52 #
davidstinson wrote:
Or try this one on - I take a good photograph. One of you expert PP'ers turns it into a great, award-winning photograph. Whose photograph is it?
You own the copyright. You own the photo. Unless you give permission, or knew or should have known people can edit to illustrate something for the sole purpose to help you.
They cannot use the work as their own or even keep it. Just to help you out in a helpful way. Nothing else.
Otherwise, Theyve violated copyright law and you have recourse.
Ive edited photos for folks online to help but always deleted anything on my computer. It’s not mine. That’s ethics applied properly.
As for this thread, each of you own your own photos and you can do with them as you please. Liking and not liking one for any reason is simply for comment and discourse.
Helpful comments good or constructive should be the goal. If you hate someone’s work, well... use some discretion & diplomacy. Or just cheerfully move on.
Mar 27, 2018 17:46:22 #
I prefer to shoot and pp to suit myself, and for everyone else to do likewise. No judgements. Eye is in the beauty of the beholder! 😎
Mar 27, 2018 17:54:17 #
Batman wrote:
Post Processing is seldom called ARTISTIC EXPRESSION...it's almost always called what it actually IS: "Attempt to defraud."
Batman
Batman
You forget your own words, Batman ...
Sometimes the truth isn’t good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.
Mar 27, 2018 17:55:14 #
photodoc16 wrote:
CHG,
Don't fret. It is just you.
Photodoc16
Don't fret. It is just you.
Photodoc16
Whad ya say? Sorry, the music is too loud.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.