I post process therefore I can't take a good photo.

[Joves]

OOOOoo! I would love some primer caps with little hearts on them.

 

[mrodgers]

I was shooting film for a while, but when digital came out.....

You said you were 12 in that thread "how old are you?" I got my first digital camera in 1996. Were you shooting film before you were born? :lmao:

Yes, I know you weren't telling the truth in the other thread....

 

[Dubious Drewski]

That Casantablanca poster is supreme! Man, I never get tired of the internet.

 

[table1349]

did the principal keep hold of that photo 'as evidence'?

Nope, I got it back. Remember this was the 70's. Our high school had a student lounge when I was there. A couple of years after I graduated they did away with it.

 

[fwellers]

I would NEVER get on a ride like that ! It looks dangerous.
Is it real or is it ....... memorex ?

 

[Chiller]

You said you were 12 in that thread "how old are you?" I got my first digital camera in 1996. Were you shooting film before you were born? :lmao:

Yes, I know you weren't telling the truth in the other thread....

That was Chiller...just ignore him. Sometimes we let him out to have a say every now and then. :mrgreen:

 

[Garbz]

I hear ya! I love seeing pictures that amaze or thrill me, but you're right-you can't tell real from fake anymore, and that's why I don't like Photoshop.. I wish they'd make a law that photoshop has to put a visible PS or something somewhere on the picture or in the exif once a picture has been doctored.

See this is a problem where the best tool for processing photos is also the best tool for image doctoring. It always has been, just look at Gryph's story.

Actually this ties in with sabbath's thread quite well. Just like the mass production of DSLRs has reduced the quality of images, the mass availability of software manipulation tools has lead to a mass abuse of it's abilities to the extent that the very tool which is responsible for adding the finishing touches to fantastic images is now suddenly a unanimous with doctoring images, clouding reality, and not keeping it pure.

 

[Josh66]

I guess it all depends on whether you consider photography to be an art form, or merely a way to document events.

If it's art, how cares what's been done to it?

While you're out taking photos are you creating art, or are you recording events so that future generations will know what happened?

If it's the former - I don't care what you do to the image once you take it. But just because you "fixed" it in photoshop, doesn't mean you made it better.

If the later, I think major alterations (I'm talking outright 'lying' here; not WB adjustment or curves, or even cloning out dust spots or skin imperfections) are unethical and should be avoided. I think most people are ethical, but I realise that some are not... Not much that can be done about that. How do we know the pictures in our history books aren't 'photoshopped'? Altering photographs is not a new idea.

 

[keith204]

This topic keeps coming to mind. A family member asked me to edit wedding photos he took. I'll do it because it's for a family member and due to the situation (Sabbath, one of your posts comes to mind), but I am definitely in a "photo saving" mode rather than a "photo tweaking/finishing" mode.

So, that's what I'm up to - post-processing 900 photos - 850 of which I would have considered throw-aways from the start, had they been mine.

 

[PhilGarber]

Sorry but I have to vent. When did post processing become a synonym for correcting a mistake or polishing a turd? When did it change from what it really is which is finishing the damn picture. I am sure I am not alone in that I polish off my photos in a RAW processor when I finish shooting but every so often I see posts on this forum where the sheer naivety amazes me.

Currently there's a thread in the Digital forum where someone asked the common question of ''how much post processing...'' and as predictable there was a reply telling the OP to get it right in the camera.

I am sorry but did Sony or some other company release a camera which does customisable USM in camera? What about dodging and burning? Selective and adjustable tone control? My Nikon does none of this.

What gives.

I agree completely. Pp can turn a great photo into an uber pwnage photo:mrgreen:.

Seriously though, pp is just another step in the process.

 

[Lacey Anne]

I just have to chime in... Me and my big mouth...

I have a friend whom I admire very much as a photographer and he told me something I'll never forget about image manipulation. You begin to manipulate the image as soon as you choose your aperature, shutter speed, ISO... When you manipulate the light source and determine your exposure, you manipulate the image to be what you want it to be. Post-processing is no different. No image from a camera is exactly reality, even if you never touch it in photoshop. It's an image that has been CREATED by the photographer. Don't take the art out of photography. If you do, none of us are better than the soccer mom shooting in auto.

 

[JerryPH]

That pretty much echos my sentiments as well.

 

[Garbz]

I have a friend whom I admire very much as a photographer and he told me something I'll never forget about image manipulation. You begin to manipulate the image as soon as you choose your aperature, shutter speed, ISO....

This is the first time I have heard this, and I like it!

 

[stsinner]

This is the first time I have heard this, and I like it!

Why would you agree with that? When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no? Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it? That would be weird.

So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.

 

[saltface]

Why would you agree with that? When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no? Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it? That would be weird.

Hmmm....
I don't know about the rest of you, but my eyes lack an integrate function that let me see stellar dust too faint for a one minute view. I've also never seen star trails or the blur of tail lights. Nor do I have polarizing cornea. I only see through a cross screen filter when I squint or I'm really tired. I'd say the majority of my shots are perversions of reality.

As for my 2¢ on the main topic, I'd say we all prefer grape juice to wine.