Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about "cheating"... As likely stated before, a lot of photos require post-production work much like what was done in darkrooms before the advent on digital photography. Photoshop is simply a tool that gives you such capability in the digital age. Additionally, Photoshop can be used to enhance or "fix" old photos that were taken on old crappy P&S film cameras. Take for example this photo:
This was taken on an old Canon film camera, processed at the local lab and scanned into the image you see above. It is not a bad image, but you can easily see the limitations of scanning a print image that was taken with a cheap film camera. Now, after 10 minutes with Photoshop, I made the image above into this:
I don't know if you consider this "cheating", but Photoshop allowed me to take a mediocre image of a good composition, and turn it into something much better.
I think the color balance is more accurate on the first one (though not perfect) - trees are green, not bluish purple. I understand if you were trying to give it a "cold" feeling but you may have gone too far. It also appears too dark - snow is not grey. PS can definitely improve the original but for my preferences, not in this particular way.
I think the color balance is more accurate on the first one (though not perfect) - trees are green, not bluish purple. I understand if you were trying to give it a "cold" feeling but you may have gone too far. It also appears too dark - snow is not grey.
On the other hand; trees and snow can be whatever color the photographer wants to present it to the viewer.
I like the faint greenish color in the trees of the original photo and I think the reflections looks slightly better, but some of the white areas look a little off, sort of yellow/tan. In the second version, the white areas are more blue or purple, but considering the subject that actually works better, IMO. Also a lot of the details look sharper in the second image. The first one looks a little dull in comparison. Not sure which I like better, to be honest.
Images on this page are paintings. Did he cheat because he painted digitally? After all he tells you exactly how his artwork is created. I saw this same image at the same trade show. He called my attention to two things.
1. Total depth of field with every pixel in perfect focus. No camera does that. He is basically saying here is proof I painted this.
2. He called my attention to the thought and then the detail and effort put into the painting. On this image on this page you can zoom in on different areas. Take a close look at the rug outside the doorway. See the little area that looks like it got kicked up by foot traffic?
I forget how long this project lasted. He might tell on his website. I don't know.
I've been listening to the arguments about using digital image edits for decades now. The first piece of fine art I saw was that of a running wild stallion that had been made to look surreal. The photo was featured in a popular photography mag maybe 15 years ago? At least ten.
Photojournalist should never be allowed to have Photoshop on their computers to my way of thinking. For those of us who shoot in the RAW format to capture every pixel the eye sees the Photoshop is no different than any wrench that an auto mechanic needs to fix a car. Just a couple more ¢ out of me.
I've browsed Bert Monroy's site thoroughly in the past. He really has a lot of skill and patience. I draw/paint extensively using Photoshop too, though I'm many rungs below Monroy's level (and still learning so much!)
I've browsed Bert Monroy's site thoroughly in the past. He really has a lot of skill and patience. I draw/paint extensively using Photoshop too, though I'm many rungs below Monroy's level (and still learning so much!)
I've had one workshop with Corel Painter. I'm not an artist but didn't do to bad. Shame the tech center closed up. I had this grandios idea of taking very large photos and using Corel to turn them into oil murals. Just another form of digital art. Don't think it will ever happen so I'm safe on that one.
You did very well. Like Eastwood said, "A man needs to know his limitations"... I'm no competition for you for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
