Discussion in 'General Gallery' started by canonrebel, Jun 16, 2004.
When the pic started to load I first thought it was a black and white but obviously it isn\t. I am very intrigued by the colors...it makes the shot very eerie. Beautiful. Was this post-processed in any way?
These forums should have a dedicated section for these kinds of things, and leave the rest for actual photographs.
Ok, if anyone is not convinced the image is artificially composed, consider this:
1) That's not how real lightning looks like, real lightning lights up the clouds and the ground below.
2) The clouds are OBVIOUSLY fake, you can find repeating patterns in them if you look closely
3) The bush in the lower-right corner was obviously pasted there, you can see how it "fades" into the water
4) The author has not claimed it is an actual photograph (although I think he should have mentioned it isn't, as this is not a photoshop forum)
That should be enough, but you don't really need to analyze it, the overall look of the picture makes it obvious it's fake (it does for me anyway).
he's always stickin up photoshopped images... they used to be a lot worse but he's learning, bless 'im.
but yeah, seeing as this is a PHOTO forum, it should be photo's only IMO.
Try http://www.eatpoo.com for some real photoshopped creativity
Jheeez! photoshop really makes some enemies here. I'm really detecting some personal sarcasm here. Is this going to be a feeding frenzy?
I personally see no diff in a little use of PS from using it a lot. Some of us may use it only to boost saturation a little, change the exposure a little, blur the background a little, but that's still cheating if PS is cheating if you claim to be a camera purist. and your past submissions may find you out.
Woa, there big fella. It's only a picture. It's not a contest--no competition, No winning or no losing here; and nothing to get riled about. No need to go for the jugular, here. The pic isn't even in the critique section--so what gives. You're spilling blood all over the place.
The Critique section is generally for the camera purists. this submission isn't in the Critique Section so I've cheated no one. 90% of submissions here in this section are post processed to a degree. Even Vonnagy's submissions are admittedly processed to a degree and he's the best photographer here. He's the best not because he is in the best locality for photos, but because he has the most talent. Hes definitely not a wannabe who buys a camera, reads directions to learn where the shutter release is and then instantly thinks hes an expert because he can snap off a few shots.
here are a couple of submissions that I'm certain you'll like. They are unique, well planned and one-of-a-kind. couldn't even be duplicated if the camera was to be dropped and it's shutter triggered by accident- the 2nd one is post processed, BTW. I wont mention the author who submitted themthatll remain his and my secret.
and leave the rest for actual photographs
natural saturation, huh?
photos are translations, not reality. if they're interpretations, all the better to go into ps and make sure they interpret what you want them to
i saw your pic and immediately understood it as a digital creation (maybe the lack of shadows on the center trees, when the lightning is behind them). then i wasn't sure, and i really looked at it for a long time before deciding it was digitally made. like it.
canonrebel- Personally, I think there's a fine line between a digital photo and digital art. Where's that line? At what point in the post-processing work flow does one cross the line? Everyone will have a different take on that issue, but the line is there.
Saturation/color correction/sharpening/etc., the traditional darkroom arts (for lack of a better term) are accepted as part of photography. Placing things wholesale into a photo until it no longer resembles a photo, to my mind, crosses the line into digital art.
Now, there isn't a thing in the world wrong with digital art, but I feel it belongs in the proper forum. Should there be a "manipulated picture" forum here? Not for me to say. But since there isn't one, and you feel you need to show your "art" (my term), then at least identify it as such.
Then the purists won't have anything to quibble about, will they? Except the quality of the manipulation.
sorry. I didn't mean any offence CR.
T'was just a gentle 'pisstake but can i just say, you are getting a lot better at PS.
And just to clarify... I'm not totally against photoshop on here and perhaps i posted before i thought.. I'm certainly not saying i've never posted a photoshopped pic but i do think the less pshop the better...
Perhaps we could have a pshop section with hints, tips and examples or something?
oh, and what photobug said
canonrebel, it's unfortunate that you feel you have been personally attacked, since that was not my intention. It is true though that I've gradually become disappointed with this forum, as I realized that so many great looking photos have been more or less altered or processed. It's just a matter of taste. Some people like fake boobs, some like all natural, to make an analogy. When I came here I hoped to interact with people that love taking spectacular (or just plain beautiful) photos, just for the joy of capturing that moment of real life in a picture. That's why I say there should be a separate section for this, because I'm not interested in seeing any form of digital art, just great photos.
As for the 2 photos you say I've altered, you're wrong, I haven't touched them in ANY way, they are exactly how they've been downloaded from the camera, with the exception of having been resized and having had the JPEG quality factor lowered in order to meet Photobucket's 250KB limit. I don't even know what saturation is. I don't even have Photoshop, I use Microsoft Photo Editor, and I only use it to crop/resize, and once I used it to turn up the brightness and gama, that's all.
There is a huge difference between boosting contrast and adding elements to a photograph that were never there in the first place. Things like contrast, color balance, etc are things that were done in a traditional darkroom so using that as an argument holds no ground. When you add things like lightning bolts, cut and paste wolves, add clouds using the cloud filter in photoshop, etc... it ceases to be photography. The thing that gets me is you either post a photo saying no postwork was done (like anyone cares) or you post photos with deers pasted in and babies floating on the water then ***** when anyone says anything about photoshop.
We do not act like elite "purists" contrary to your claims. The only person that ever makes a big deal about photoshop is you. This is a forum for photography. There is no rule against photoshop here. Never has been. But people would prefer to look at an actual photograph.
Ugh. I had just woken up this morning and was staring at a very bright screen with sandpapery eyes in a dark room. I thought something was funny about the thing but didn't really want to wake up any more than I had to
Anyway, aside from the theoretical discussion, I will say that I still like it, specially the contrast between color and what seems like black and white. Which means, that for me, it is a successful picture, whether you regard it as digital photography or digital art.
When I first came on here, I had no idea what your ideas all were in regards to post-processing in photoshop. Since this IS a photoforum, I guessed that all would be against. I assumed wrong, and by now, I've gotten really nice tips on how to post-process photo's and make them look even better than some already did. I highly appreciate that.
As for the rest, I am going to keep my mouth shut cause I am way too much the newbie to just drop in my two cents.
Separate names with a comma.