Anyone's a photographer, if they can photoshop

[Raj_55555]

Okay, I hope this doesn't sound too bad, but...that kid on the bottom 'bunk' in the second picture? His head is sorta freaking me out. I'm sure there's a weird thing going on with the perspective that is creating a strange optical illusion, but his head and forehead just look GINORMOUS compared to his facial features, which look very small. Plus, the angle of the arm under his head makes the arm look shorter than normal - like there's no elbow or even wrist. Just goes straight into the hand. And it looks like he's got make-up on or something like that - very smooth skin. It almost looks like a doll head on a real body.

This one was severely underexposed, and I had to bump up the exposure by +1.8 resulting in too much noise. I reduced the sharpness a bit and softened the skin as well. And he does have a very big head, but eek! the hand looks real freaky, I didn't even notice until you pointed it out. I wonder what was going on.

 

[annamaria]

It has been rumored that once, while speaking at an art exhibition, Ansel Adams overhead a man say "I guess anyone can be a photographer if they have a darkroom"; to which Adams responded by making an imprint of an 8x10 sheet film holder on the back of the mans head. He then told the man to go lie in a dark room for a while and see how that developed.

Oh this is way to funny. I laughed so much when I read this.

 

[annamaria]

My goal: get the shot right in camera with minimal post processing. May take a while, but in the meantime having fun.

 

[hamlet]

Like the arms of Vishnu every one of the tools a photographer uses is a hand to achieve his goal. Now whether you achieve it in the field or on your computer is up to how good you are in those specific examples and both take time and effort to learn, there are no shortcuts.

 

[Raj_55555]

Like the arms of Vishnu every one of the tools a photographer uses is a hand to achieve his goal. Now whether you achieve it in the field or on your computer is up to how good you are in those specific examples and both take time and effort to learn, there are no shortcuts.

or lord Ganesha, Kali, Brahma, Shiva, Durga and so on.. :lmao:. Seriously, we've got so many of them that none of remembers all their names, and some of them have multiple heads too, I guess you can compare that to a backup camera

 

[limr]

Okay, I hope this doesn't sound too bad, but...that kid on the bottom 'bunk' in the second picture? His head is sorta freaking me out. I'm sure there's a weird thing going on with the perspective that is creating a strange optical illusion, but his head and forehead just look GINORMOUS compared to his facial features, which look very small. Plus, the angle of the arm under his head makes the arm look shorter than normal - like there's no elbow or even wrist. Just goes straight into the hand. And it looks like he's got make-up on or something like that - very smooth skin. It almost looks like a doll head on a real body.

This one was severely underexposed, and I had to bump up the exposure by +1.8 resulting in too much noise. I reduced the sharpness a bit and softened the skin as well. And he does have a very big head, but eek! the hand looks real freaky, I didn't even notice until you pointed it out. I wonder what was going on.

I think just one of the things alone would have been fine, but the combination of skin+head+hand gave me a sort of "What the---??" moment

I have to say, though, for a shot that was so underexposed, you did a wonderful job rescuing it!

 

[Raj_55555]

I think just one of the things alone would have been fine, but the combination of skin+head+hand gave me a sort of "What the---??" moment

I have to say, though, for a shot that was so underexposed, you did a wonderful job rescuing it!

Thank you, thank you:smileys:!!

 

[Dikkie]

But they used to shoot a lot of positive film instead of negative film. Dia slides, to put in frames in a slide projector.
As you shoot these slides, you aren't going to do postprocessing (like negatives in a dark room), it's immediately your final product.

I do some judging at local camera clubs and a few still have a slide section.
There is an enormous difference between the quality of the submitted slides and the digital images.
The average slide generally looks amateurish compared to the average digital image and even the winning slide is rarely an exceptional image.

Maybe these few people shooting slides aren't that good photographers then.

The quality of slides, does it only involve the resolution compared to MegaPixels, or do you mean aswel composition or other stuff?