May voting - Dereliction, Neglect, or Decay

Challenge winner??

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Iain Hesford's Bait Box said:
Clyde's shot wasn't it? it was processed in Lightroom, exactly like what the camera does internally when it generates the JPG. Except he took control, and processed the RAW file himself. PP is no different to darkroom manipulation. Digital has just made it accesible.
Click to expand...

You may be right, I can't find it though.

I disagree, in this particular picture he didn't process the RAW file himself, he changed it considerably, the colour in the original shot was say 5 parts in 100 he then boosted that colour to say, 50 parts in 100, I don't know the techincal terms but hope this analogy works.
IMO its a fine line between general slight PP and then just bullshit make believe PP in order to make a fake, almost deceitful picture, rather than a photo of an actual event/thing.
 


TiredEyes said:
You may be right, I can't find it though.

I disagree, in this particular picture he didn't process the RAW file himself, he changed it considerably, the colour in the original shot was say 5 parts in 100 he then boosted that colour to say, 50 parts in 100, I don't know the techincal terms but hope this analogy works.
IMO its a fine line between general slight PP and then just bullshit make believe PP in order to make a fake, almost deceitful picture, rather than a photo of an actual event/thing.
Click to expand...

The dynamic range of a digital camera rarely if ever captures light exactly as the photographer see's it. Especially the temperature of sunset/rise - the light is oftern white in camera but orange to the eye.

PP is a must unfortunately. In my chosen path in photography (portraits) you cannot get by at all without PP.
 
I really don't understand this dismissal of PP. In the film industry the equivalent is colour grading, which is a huge part of any film. With your reasoning, all films should be screened in cinemas the way it comes out of camera.
 
TiredEyes said:
You may be right, I can't find it though.

I disagree, in this particular picture he didn't process the RAW file himself, he changed it considerably, the colour in the original shot was say 5 parts in 100 he then boosted that colour to say, 50 parts in 100, I don't know the techincal terms but hope this analogy works.
IMO its a fine line between general slight PP and then just bullshit make believe PP in order to make a fake, almost deceitful picture, rather than a photo of an actual event/thing.
Click to expand...

it depends how you define change. I define it as moving things around in the composition. Putting things in that weren't there - or removing things (with the exception of dust spots) that are 'spoiling' your picture.

Altering the contrast, hue, colour balance is all acceptable, (necessary) as it could be done in the past with film choice, and darkroom processes. Deceipt? haway man ;)

A RAW file will always look radically different to a jpg and processed file. Its had bugger all done to it.

sketchy said:
I really don't understand this dismissal of PP. In the film industry the equivalent is colour grading, which is a huge part of any film. With your reasoning, all films should be screened in cinemas the way it comes out of camera.
Click to expand...

film editors? f***ing charlatans man ;)
 
MalmöMakem said:
whoever voted for me. give yer head a shake :lol:

been poor past two months so going to try and do something good this month
Click to expand...

I don't think yours have been poor, tbh they've stood out as noteworthy to me.
I only vote for three each month, if I voted for four, yours would've been my fourth vote this month.
 
sketchy said:
I really don't understand this dismissal of PP. In the film industry the equivalent is colour grading, which is a huge part of any film. With your reasoning, all films should be screened in cinemas the way it comes out of camera.
Click to expand...

The film industry !! the telling of make believe stories on film, what are you on about ?

:lol:


Iain Hesford's Bait Box said:
it depends how you define change. I define it as moving things around in the composition. Putting things in that weren't there - or removing things (with the exception of dust spots) that are 'spoiling' your picture.

Altering the contrast, hue, colour balance is all acceptable, (necessary) as it could be done in the past with film choice, and darkroom processes. Deceipt? haway man ;)

A RAW file will always look radically different to a jpg and processed file. Its had bugger all done to it.
Click to expand...

No, two jpegs, one shot as it was "out of camera" the other digitally enhanced and imo the use of over production to create something that wasn't visible to the naked eye at the time of the shot - think Playboy and airbrushing, beautiful images no doubt ;) but not a realistic representation of what's in front of the lens at the time of shooting.
 
Thank you all, much appreciated. Still maintain steeeeds is a much better shot mind but glad you enjoyed mine none the less
 
Steeeeed said:
Steeeeed, always the bridesmaid, never the bride (well, once, but feels like ages ago now!) :mad: :evil:
Click to expand...

:lol: your past couple months have been nothing short of outstanding like - shocked you didn't win at least one of them.
 
TiredEyes said:
The film industry !! the telling of make believe stories on film, what are you on about ?

:lol:




No, two jpegs, one shot as it was "out of camera" the other digitally enhanced and imo the use of over production to create something that wasn't visible to the naked eye at the time of the shot - think Playboy and airbrushing, beautiful images no doubt ;) but not a realistic representation of what's in front of the lens at the time of shooting.
Click to expand...

A similar practice that uses PP that I thought you may have got the link. Never mind.

Anyway, lets leave this till next month when their is loads of airbrushed lasses with flawless skin as entrys and we can pick up where we left off :lol:
 
sketchy said:
A similar practice that uses PP that I thought you may have got the link. Never mind.

Anyway, lets leave this till next month when their is loads of airbrushed lasses with flawless skin as entrys and we can pick up where we left off :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: 'One' will be entering, TiredEyes's laptop will explode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top