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.
Well if I am ever in that area, I will let you know via a post and it would be a pleasure, to experience the endless joys photography provides.
Secrets ? Nah I gotta disagree with you on that one. There are no 'secrets' about photography.
I mean the whole concept is point an item at something you 'see' and record a moment in time. What you can do with that moment is where a lot of controversy and opinions come into play. OPINIONS!
There are 100's of thousands of books written on this simple principle. Point & Shoot. Ah yes there are lots of different variables available for sure. but secrets ? The boundaries of photography are only limited by (any) person's imagination. They are endless - that's what so great about this 'art-form'.
I look forward to viewing more of your work - so post more!!
Forgive me if the question's been asked but is it "cheating" if one takes photos and ends up photoshopping them later? I've always taken photos and my pictures are 'as is' taken straight out of the camera; it gives me pride and accomplishment to know that I nailed the shot when sharing with buddies.
I understand that the camera 'processes' the picture when taken--think of it as an automatic built-in camera photoshop depending on your settings--but knowing that you didn't edit it later still shows that you nailed it. The rush of euphoria and excitement when you view the picture in the playback mode... ahhh, gotta love it!
What I'm trying to say is that when I use photoshop, the feeling of "Oh...I-didn't-take-that-shot-correctly-and-now-I'm-going-to-fix-it" guilt comes over me and I don't know whether doing so is acceptable, especially when you're sharing your work with the community.
I'm aware that minor adjustments like white balance, levels, etc. are usually acceptable but how do you guys go your way? Do you try to nail the shot or just snap snap only to edit it later?
Thanks for your opinions!
Here's a sample of some of my unedited work (aside from the copyrighted texts!):
I don't care if my opinion is popular but I completely agree with you. I have always felt jipped in some way when I find out later that a photo was photoshopped.
TO ME, a true artist behind the camera will not have to photoshop.
To those who use it, don't take it all personal and get defensive...these are opinions. You'll never change mine on this subject.
The comparison to a car hitting a pedestrian or not hitting a pedestrian is ridiculous. A more apt comparison would be comparing someone who actually sings very well to one who is auto tuned. How many feel about the auto turned performer is how I feel about photos that are photoshopped.
I don't care if my opinion is popular but I completely agree with you. I have always felt jipped in some way when I find out later that a photo was photoshopped.
TO ME, a true artist behind the camera will not have to photoshop.
To those who use it, don't take it all personal and get defensive...these are opinions. You'll never change mine on this subject.
The comparison to a car hitting a pedestrian or not hitting a pedestrian is ridiculous. A more apt comparison would be comparing someone who actually sings very well to one who is auto tuned. How many feel about the auto turned performer is how I feel about photos that are photoshopped.
So what about shooting raw mode rather than jpg? Is that allowed in your world?
I don't care if my opinion is popular but I completely agree with you. I have always felt jipped in some way when I find out later that a photo was photoshopped.
TO ME, a true artist behind the camera will not have to photoshop.
To those who use it, don't take it all personal and get defensive...these are opinions. You'll never change mine on this subject.
The comparison to a car hitting a pedestrian or not hitting a pedestrian is ridiculous. A more apt comparison would be comparing someone who actually sings very well to one who is auto tuned. How many feel about the auto turned performer is how I feel about photos that are photoshopped.
No need to feel cheated. Using Photoshop itself is a learned skill as well.
I use photoshop to edit in the digital darkroom the same way I edited B&W photos in the chemical dark room. Artists dodged and burned to get the image right. Out door photographs aren't always what the eye really sees and can be corrected in photoshop. On other final thought is that using the functions on the digital cameras should be considered cheating if photoshop is considered cheating. I've followed this argument for decades now. Cheating to me is to remove something or add something to tell a false story. For example it is easier than ever now to remove a junk car on blocks out of the background of a house that a realtor is trying to sell. That is cheating. Removing objects from any photojournalism photo is cheating. Spending two or more years to learn how to use photoshop as a tool is developing a skill mastered by few. Coloring up food before the photo with now post processing is still cheating. Photography as art is a field of its own. If it could be done in the darkroom then post processing in the digital darkroom for quality is fair game. You can shoot Velvia, set a digital camera to imitate it, or use photoshop to imitate it. None of those are the same as shooting plain C-41. Just my 2¢
I don't care if my opinion is popular but I completely agree with you. I have always felt jipped in some way when I find out later that a photo was photoshopped.
TO ME, a true artist behind the camera will not have to photoshop.
To those who use it, don't take it all personal and get defensive...these are opinions. You'll never change mine on this subject.
The comparison to a car hitting a pedestrian or not hitting a pedestrian is ridiculous. A more apt comparison would be comparing someone who actually sings very well to one who is auto tuned. How many feel about the auto turned performer is how I feel about photos that are photoshopped.
It's foolish to think that no image ever needs any kind of post processing, even if it's just a little bit of contrast and sharpening. If you shoot in RAW, images are often flat and need a bit of tweaking to make them punch. If you shoot in JPG, the camera adds it's own post processing anyway. Processing that you would do better to have control of yourself. But if you'd rather stubbornly refuse to try something you don't even understand... that's your choice...
ever notice its always those with the least amount of knowledge and skills that have the biggest mis-understanding about just what some of the the steps are to digital photography.
they dont understand good photography skills dont end in the camera. your software completes what your camera starts. you can always tell when they use the word photoshopped as a catchall that more than likely they have little understanding of digital photography beyond beginner.
.. they use terms like i only want to shoot what my eye sees at the scene not even realizing how foolish and impossible that goal really is and what they think there photo is giving them bears little resemblence to the scene except for the shape of the objects..
good photography usually requires editing after the fact because certain exposure theories leave a well exposed photo to bright and a little bit washed out if not seasoned back to taste later on.
if you read the histogram tutorial i posted here you will see why shooting raw has an advantage and raw has to be edited..
trying to explain why you cant capture the scene as is or why you need to edit your photos to those with not enough of an understanding to grasp why is alot like trying to describe the color orange to a blind person.
there is a difference between photo editing vs photo mamipulation.
Last edited by mathjak107; 05-14-2012 at 03:55 AM..
ill bet anything you could post a photo with turquoise skies from blow out and featureless red tomato skin flowers and to the same beginners who claim photoshopping isnt needed those photos will look just fine.
we all see it here all the time so why should anyone be surprised when the same folks call editing cheating.
all the more skilled photographers here have been at that level at one time. heck i look at my early postings and go what the heck was i thinking when i thought that was a good photo. next year ill look at todays photos and say the same thing.
but the difference is those photographers didnt stop themselves from advancing and learning by believing their own bull-sh*t that what they were producing was an accurate resemblance to the scene.
those beginners who claim they want to be purists will always stay beginners in my opinion because what they are really saying is i dont want to learn the other 1/2 of what constitutes digital photography and that is the process of what goes on after the shot.
while once in a while they get lucky and spit out a good looking photo right out of camera its more luck than anything else and there is never a consistant flow of quality looking stuff. in fact there cant be a flow of consistant stuff because most if not all leave their cameras on auto and dont even control things at the scene.
turning the exposure compensation wheel is not controlling the lighting situations by itself most of the time. it takes skills that are as foreign to most of these self proclaimed purist beginners as editing is. but their war cry is we want to capture the scene as it looked to our eye.
not picking on anyone in particular here, just sayin.
Last edited by mathjak107; 05-14-2012 at 04:42 AM..
Last week I got a compliment from one of my friends who's a very, very successful art & commercial photographer (Nikon/Rolling Stone/etc) for the last 30+ years.
He said to me; "...your stuff is getting more ethereal and you are composing more with feel and less with brain. That is the key...to trust your stomach...and not use your brain."
He uses Photoshop, just as he used the darkroom and gels and other techniques with film to produce an image he wanted the viewer to see.
Me? I'm an iphone snapshot taker, who's not interested in taking a super realistic photograph of an image everyone can see. No, my quest is to present a picture to the viewer of what I want them to feel when they view it.
The difference between raw processing and photoshop editing lies primarily in how one wants to present the photograph: as an image, or as an art. We're getting to a point where the qualities of the glass used, and attributes of sensor (film back in the day) are becoming a moot point. In many cases, even waiting for the right light, engaging with the environment is also unnecessary.
I might be in the minority, but the retouched portraits seem to render subjects out of a wax museum at times. Landscapes are often over-saturated for impact rather than realism. I personally believe that selecting the right glass, the right camera, the right settings and the right lighting conditions should be primary to photography, and any re-touching, either during RAW processing or Photoshop editing should be to address an effect that couldn't be achieved.
For example, I just posted a sea-side image in another thread. It was taken using my travel zoom lens, Sigma 18-250 HSM OS. Based on my experience with Sigma lenses, I expect somewhat colder rendering of image than the reality. This can be an issue with skin tones, requiring a fix in post processing. However, I could use a Minolta 50mm/1.7 instead, which seemed to have a neutral skin tone with good contrast. So, if I were going for a portrait session, my choice of lens will be determined by its character. Post processed image would be the last thing in my mind and only addressed when I'd fail to capture an image, the glory of the sights that led me to photographing it.
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.
