Honestly. (EDIT: Added original)

[photong]

I took the picture, and my boyfriend put in the butterflies to show me how he does it. He also did the colour saturation thing, and a gradient to make the middle brown etc.

This is the type of stuff he likes in photographs. Lots of contrast and colour saturation.

I want to know your opinions on what you think about what he did with the butterflies and the gradient and the over all colours in general. I think this is all I needed comments on (I know she’s a bit small and her face isn’t showing much) but if you want to add you peeves, go ahead.

I honestly love the colours. It's better than all the green and shadows in the original. If you want me to upload it to show you, I will if I'm not too lazy about it.

I took these photos for a friend, for her website http://dragonshearth.com/ and for myself AND for this art show my friend and her sister is putting on and they want me and whoever else to join in (there's like 5ish of us).

I don't really care if anyone buys any at the show; I just want my name to go out there. I honestly would like to put in photos that look like this one, but I need opinions to see if that's a good idea.

One of the girls said I should put out both versions. I think I will. But money is tight and prints are a little expensive. If they're good enough, I need prints for my portfolio anyway so I may as well do it now right ? I don’t know if these photos are good for that.

Thank you!

EIDT: Original: I might have played with the colour in PS. Not sure at this point. Sorry it's not as large as the one above.

 

[Tyjax]

I like it Photong. The saturation may be a bit intense but it compensates for what might be a bit of underexposure in the shadow. I risk these critiques becuase we are all aware of the brilliance of your past work.

 

[terri]

Honestly, I dislike most images that have things that are obviously photoshopped into them....but that's just me. This kind of stuff might really sell, because many people like this style. I don't mind the high contrast in the image as much as the overall high-cheese effect with the faux butterflies, you know? (No offense, it's just a style preference.) But again, some people will see it and say, "Awwww...." and buy it. There's only one way to find out, so you're right to put it out there and see. These kinds of shows are lots of fun, so good luck!

 

[photong]

Honestly, I dislike most images that have things that are obviously photoshopped into them....but that's just me. This kind of stuff might really sell, because many people like this style. I don't mind the high contrast in the image as much as the overall high-cheese effect with the faux butterflies, you know? (No offense, it's just a style preference.) But again, some people will see it and say, "Awwww...." and buy it. There's only one way to find out, so you're right to put it out there and see. These kinds of shows are lots of fun, so good luck!

So, while it may be good for the show, it may not be good for a portfolio because an employer may think the same thing as you?

I agree abotu the obvious photoshopping...but this wouldn't be in my category. Things like filters are in my category (it's really annoying when people post images they obviously used a filter on and think it's the best thing since cheese)

 

[photong]

I like it Photong. The saturation may be a bit intense but it compensates for what might be a bit of underexposure in the shadow. I risk these critiques becuase we are all aware of the brilliance of your past work.

I couldn't control the background since I was in the shade etc. Stupid camera. But I love the thing.

And thank you

 

[terri]

Honestly, I dislike most images that have things that are obviously photoshopped into them....but that's just me. This kind of stuff might really sell, because many people like this style. I don't mind the high contrast in the image as much as the overall high-cheese effect with the faux butterflies, you know? (No offense, it's just a style preference.) But again, some people will see it and say, "Awwww...." and buy it. There's only one way to find out, so you're right to put it out there and see. These kinds of shows are lots of fun, so good luck!

So, while it may be good for the show, it may not be good for a portfolio because an employer may think the same thing as you?

I agree abotu the obvious photoshopping...but this wouldn't be in my category. Things like filters are in my category (it's really annoying when people post images they obviously used a filter on and think it's the best thing since cheese)

Gee, I wouldn't know about not putting images like this in your portfolio, if it's something YOU like, and are going to continue to make part of your work. If you like it, others will like it, too, so stick to your guns.

I appreciate your little jab about filters. I had fun recently with my circular polarizer, yes. I think they (filters) are more of an inherent part of film photography, in (either color or B&W) getting the image you're after "in-camera", rather than post-editing in PS. Again, just personal preference.

 

[canonrebel]

I took the picture, and my boyfriend put in the butterflies to show me how he does it. He also did the colour saturation thing, and a gradient to make the middle brown etc.

This is the type of stuff he likes in photographs. Lots of contrast and colour saturation.

I want to know your opinions on what you think about what he did with the butterflies and the gradient and the over all colours in general. I think this is all I needed comments on (I know she’s a bit small and her face isn’t showing much) but if you want to add you peeves, go ahead.

I like this photo. I like it a lot. It's a pleasure and joy to look at and that's what counts in my opinion. I doubt that people will buy something to hang on thier walls just because it is pure and unmanipulated. Most purist probably would not recognize one of Ansel Adams' photos before it had been manipulated 100 times. There's nothing in the picture above that couldn't have been done in a darkroom. Some of us who complain the most about PS manipulation are the same ones that use PS (or some other editor) to make enhancements that they themselves couldn't perform in a darkroom anyway.

I think the butterflies add to and help create the theme. They contribute to the aura of the vision but not as much as the other manipulations. I think this photo is a winner.

I share your boy friend' views on photography. But I don't want to be drawn into this I-don't-manipulate hyprocracy.

 

[Geronimo]

Honestly, I dislike most images that have things that are obviously photoshopped into them....but that's just me. This kind of stuff might really sell, because many people like this style. I don't mind the high contrast in the image as much as the overall high-cheese effect with the faux butterflies, you know? (No offense, it's just a style preference.) But again, some people will see it and say, "Awwww...." and buy it. There's only one way to find out, so you're right to put it out there and see. These kinds of shows are lots of fun, so good luck!

So, while it may be good for the show, it may not be good for a portfolio because an employer may think the same thing as you?

I agree abotu the obvious photoshopping...but this wouldn't be in my category. Things like filters are in my category (it's really annoying when people post images they obviously used a filter on and think it's the best thing since cheese)

Gee, I wouldn't know about not putting images like this in your portfolio, if it's something YOU like, and are going to continue to make part of your work. If you like it, others will like it, too, so stick to your guns.

I appreciate your little jab about filters. I had fun recently with my circular polarizer, yes. I think they (filters) are more of an inherent part of film photography, in (either color or B&W) getting the image you're after "in-camera", rather than post-editing in PS. Again, just personal preference.

I think she meant the fitlers in PS, but that is just how I read it. Not that I can read minds or anything.

 

[photong]

Honestly, I dislike most images that have things that are obviously photoshopped into them....but that's just me. This kind of stuff might really sell, because many people like this style. I don't mind the high contrast in the image as much as the overall high-cheese effect with the faux butterflies, you know? (No offense, it's just a style preference.) But again, some people will see it and say, "Awwww...." and buy it. There's only one way to find out, so you're right to put it out there and see. These kinds of shows are lots of fun, so good luck!

So, while it may be good for the show, it may not be good for a portfolio because an employer may think the same thing as you?

I agree abotu the obvious photoshopping...but this wouldn't be in my category. Things like filters are in my category (it's really annoying when people post images they obviously used a filter on and think it's the best thing since cheese)

Gee, I wouldn't know about not putting images like this in your portfolio, if it's something YOU like, and are going to continue to make part of your work. If you like it, others will like it, too, so stick to your guns.

I appreciate your little jab about filters. I had fun recently with my circular polarizer, yes. I think they (filters) are more of an inherent part of film photography, in (either color or B&W) getting the image you're after "in-camera", rather than post-editing in PS. Again, just personal preference.

Filters like a circular polarizer are fine! It's those stupid special effect ones (this one reminds me of Christmas http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43456&item=3823490230&rd=1) that you use like once in your whole career (I have a couple and I've used them once or twice)..lol especially those ones in photoshop. Ewwwww...

 

[photong]

I took the picture, and my boyfriend put in the butterflies to show me how he does it. He also did the colour saturation thing, and a gradient to make the middle brown etc.

This is the type of stuff he likes in photographs. Lots of contrast and colour saturation.

I want to know your opinions on what you think about what he did with the butterflies and the gradient and the over all colours in general. I think this is all I needed comments on (I know she’s a bit small and her face isn’t showing much) but if you want to add you peeves, go ahead.

I like this photo. I like it a lot. It's a pleasure and joy to look at and that's what counts in my opinion. I doubt that people will buy something to hang on thier walls just because it is pure and unmanipulated. Most purist probably would not recognize one of Ansel Adams' photos before it had been manipulated 100 times. There's nothing in the picture above that couldn't have been done in a darkroom. Some of us who complain the most about PS manipulation are the same ones that use PS (or some other editor) to make enhancements that they themselves couldn't perform in a darkroom anyway.

I think the butterflies add to and help create the theme. They contribute to the aura of the vision but not as much as the other manipulations. I think this photo is a winner.

I share your boy friend' views on photography. But I don't want to be drawn into this I-don't-manipulate hyprocracy.

Yeah, I don't have a colour darkroom, I couldn't do this on my own

Thank you. I agree about the butterflies. The theme for the show is stuff like fairytales, fantasy, sifi (I guess), rennassance (sp?) midaevil (sp?).

I like minpulating things, it helps, it adds...but it can break the image as well. It's sooo easy to do it in-camera as well. It can be difficult to get something pleasing to most people.

I'm going to post the original for everyone to help compare because if I were everyone here, I would want to see it.

 

[photong]

Honestly, I dislike most images that have things that are obviously photoshopped into them....but that's just me. This kind of stuff might really sell, because many people like this style. I don't mind the high contrast in the image as much as the overall high-cheese effect with the faux butterflies, you know? (No offense, it's just a style preference.) But again, some people will see it and say, "Awwww...." and buy it. There's only one way to find out, so you're right to put it out there and see. These kinds of shows are lots of fun, so good luck!

So, while it may be good for the show, it may not be good for a portfolio because an employer may think the same thing as you?

I agree abotu the obvious photoshopping...but this wouldn't be in my category. Things like filters are in my category (it's really annoying when people post images they obviously used a filter on and think it's the best thing since cheese)

Gee, I wouldn't know about not putting images like this in your portfolio, if it's something YOU like, and are going to continue to make part of your work. If you like it, others will like it, too, so stick to your guns.

I appreciate your little jab about filters. I had fun recently with my circular polarizer, yes. I think they (filters) are more of an inherent part of film photography, in (either color or B&W) getting the image you're after "in-camera", rather than post-editing in PS. Again, just personal preference.

I think she meant the fitlers in PS, but that is just how I read it. Not that I can read minds or anything.

I did but, I didn't realize at that time to mention the stupid special effect filters you can use on a camera. So it still works. Stupid me either way.

 

[photong]

Now for one of my own thoughts: I think the light around her seems to make her look megical almost...or..innocent and that's why the butterfly is coming to her. The butterfly sees the reason for the light...it's difficult for me to explain.

I don't want to say she's 'holy' because that's just cheese IMO.

 

[terri]

Filters like a circular polarizer are fine! It's those stupid special effect ones (this one reminds me of Christmas http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43456&item=3823490230&rd=1) that you use like once in your whole career (I have a couple and I've used them once or twice)..lol especially those ones in photoshop. Ewwwww...

Ohhhh, so that's what you meant!! Well, stupid me, I didn't even know PS had special effects filters like this. I use the program so sparingly, I freely admit I am ignorant of all the things it can do. This photography school I've gone to now has majorly in-depth "digital darkroom" classes that apparently go way beyond "Photoshop I and II", you know? There's no telling what kind of stuff you could come away with from a class like that.

And don't get me wrong, I am the manipulation queen, as far as doing stuff with Polaroid films, where you manipulate the emulsion itself (which is so much fun it ought to be illegal) and emulsion lifts and transfers....the list goes on. I'm just a hands-on girl, though I'd be willing to bet you can get similar effects in PS. I was just taught to get as perfect an image as possible "in-camera", so you start with that slide or negative and jump off into alt-world from there.

 

[photong]

And don't get me wrong, I am the manipulation queen, as far as doing stuff with Polaroid films, where you manipulate the emulsion itself (which is so much fun it ought to be illegal) and emulsion lifts and transfers....the list goes on. I'm just a hands-on girl, though I'd be willing to bet you can get similar effects in PS. I was just taught to get as perfect an image as possible "in-camera", so you start with that slide or negative and jump off into alt-world from there.

In school, we did the emulsion lift too. However, I couldn't participate because I had to shoot an assignment or I just didn't feel like it/or didn't feel well. I forget which. But I saw the results and it looks like a lot of fun. I sort of saw it done, but I barely remember anything.

All I know is there is no identical lift They're all different like snow flakes.