I got the point though it resonated with me. It was a monument, which apparently they went to look at. some images apparently are okay to tweak, others, not so okay to some especially if people see them as historical reference or something else. Now if it was a photo of something else they probably wouldn't have cared enough.All true.yeah but how you do it doesn't phase me. You don't seem to hide behind the pp you seem fairly adept shooting. You also don't pretend it is a accurate portrayal of whatever you are shooting but clearly explain it is your interpretation or vision of it.It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed. Thoroughly.
some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.
I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
I have had someone before come back and say to me "i saw that and it didn't look like that in real life" with only my mild processing which gave me kind of a wake up call. They felt cheated.
If someone felt "cheated" because your image didn't look just as the scene did, I feel sorry for them. Life's gonna be tough. Wait till they see a "SOOC" shot done with a thick stack of ND and RGND and GND filters.Of course, it also makes you wonder if everything looks like a silhouette to them at sunset.
well. All in your point of view this might be. I worked for a printing company printing everything from national geographic to weekly sales flyers in the early nineties. It was just starting the pp kick then. course we had a printing press area, masking area, and a friend of mine worked in the scanner and imaging room. When this kicked off it made life much easier for those departments (not so much mine I ran a press printing the crap). It has always been two sides to this though. I gave him a photo once to frig with and he changed our heads around in it and changed our clothes. He got a kick out of it something to do in between manipulating magazine images. I of course, wasn't all that amazed by it. And as it progressed it seemed the more and more **** that came off the end of those presses were fake (but great for sales) as it was much easier to toss the **** in front of a buyer and show them how great their images will look with less costs associated with the manual labor aspect. so maybe some get photo shop and go "wow. look at that" I kind of just remember running all that fake chit off the end of a press and the sales meetings.
just life. you know you see a billion copies of doctored crap it kind of adds up. some look at things and look for fantasy. some look at things and try to find something real and tangible. I look at things and even if I like it my mind still says "look more fake chit".
I try to keep an open mind but maintain keeping my own at the same time. And probably jump in on threads like this about post processing, not because I am dead set against it but rather I am not dead set for it either and don't quite find the glitter or glamour in it as some might. Hey, we all do what we want it is our photography it isn't a team sport.. LMAO .
i liked your post because in some cases (use of photo) i believe you have a valid point. However in this one since i don't have any dreams of my dog being published in a magazine i consider it done upon hitting the shutter release.
