On the front page of photoradar it pledges to help you take better pictures and then directs you to a host of tutorials on how to improve your taken pictures with photoshop - which is not quite the same thing. But, without going into a debate about post processing [which is now simply done on screen rather than in the darkroom and which most of us do to a greater or lesser degree]....when would you think it's a good idea to 'create clouds with photoshop' and why?
Probably a wise choice not to open up the whole pp issue again Sue. I've not seen the article - were they suggesting creating a whole cloudscape to pop into a photo? Bit odd if you ask me. Much better to snick one out of one of your other photos and use that instead. I can see the thinking behind wanting to use a replacement sky. I've done this on a few occasions when the conditions were a bit bland; the rest of the scene was ok but it was let down by a flat or grey sky.
As I said, not really a post processing thing [curves and levels and dodging and burning that all you clever lot do!] but rather a case of when and where do you use all these ideas that fundamentally change the scene you recorded. And how can that be seen as a way to 'take' better photos? The clouds thing was just a for instance.
Strikes me that these people are more into Photoshopping than Photographing. ::)
Quote from: greypoint on August 24, 2009, 12:34:30 PM
And how can that be seen as a way to 'take' better photos?
Sue not that I would defend them but if they said 'make' better photos would that be better? Maybe they are trying to extend their readership now they realise that they've lost half the contributors from dcm ;D
Quote from: greypoint on August 24, 2009, 08:23:04 AM
On the front page of photoradar it pledges to help you take better pictures and then directs you to a host of tutorials on how to improve your taken pictures with photoshop - which is not quite the same thing. But, without going into a debate about post processing [which is now simply done on screen rather than in the darkroom and which most of us do to a greater or lesser degree]....when would you think it's a good idea to 'create clouds with photoshop' and why?
You may think me as old school but I believe in capturing the moment in the shot ( not reinventing it at home ) which is why I plan certain shots with the weather in mind, time of day and various filters. To me if I see a picture but the conditions are not right then I go back to it at a later date and try again, which may or not work but when it does you feel you have crafted something as a PHOTOGRAPHER !................... I hate false pictures......... :legit:
The thing is, I find them rather pointless. If I take a picture of some stunning view when the weather is dull and then try to make it look as if the day was blue skied and sunny then what does it achieve - much better photographers than me will have already have taken a much better sunny day photo there and if I'm not recording what I actually saw then I might as well buy a postcard.
Quote from: greypoint on August 24, 2009, 08:23:04 AM
On the front page of photoradar it pledges to help you take better pictures and then directs you to a host of tutorials on how to improve your taken pictures with photoshop - which is not quite the same thing. But, without going into a debate about post processing [which is now simply done on screen rather than in the darkroom and which most of us do to a greater or lesser degree]....when would you think it's a good idea to 'create clouds with photoshop' and why?
I always have the feeling when I read Pradar's blurb on this that anyone reading it is being sold false promises, bit like the old Snake Oil saleman. O.K manipulating images in whatever way your programme allows you is now the norm, but by following PR's advice you are told you will become a better photographer. I think that's nonsense and perhaps contravenes the Trades Descriptions Act. A better technician yes, a better photographer no.
When you look at the list of techniques there are some 350 telling you how to do this and that, the one I find offensive is "Improve drab landscapes by converting to mono". Who in their right mind would take a drab landscape in the first place? Mind you looking at their galleries perhaps they've found a hole in the market with this one. ::), and it's a little dismissive of mono.
I might take notice of all these people telling me how to become the reincarnation of Bailey or McCullin if they took half decent pictures themselves.
Quote from: ABERS on August 25, 2009, 08:13:43 AM
When you look at the list of techniques there are some 350 telling you how to do this and that, the one I find offensive is "Improve drab landscapes by converting to mono". Who in their right mind would take a drab landscape in the first place?
I take drab landscapes at time with the rain falling and the light been bad, as it reflects the real world. ;D
Quote from: Oldboy on August 25, 2009, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: ABERS on August 25, 2009, 08:13:43 AM
When you look at the list of techniques there are some 350 telling you how to do this and that, the one I find offensive is "Improve drab landscapes by converting to mono". Who in their right mind would take a drab landscape in the first place?
I take drab landscapes at time with the rain falling and the light been bad, as it reflects the real world. ;D
I think PRadar means the 'drab' ones are due to lack of imagination within the photographer, not those taken specifically to illustrate weather conditions. Mind you with the 'Team' on there who knows?
I'm open to heavily post processed images as long people don't try and claim it is straight out of the camera.
That would not be the camera lying (i know, i've asked it several times and it refuses to answer) but the person who has created the image.
A montage is a collection of processed images. HDR and Photo Stitching are also a collection of processed images.
I think the problem is that in days of film, most people either did not have the time, money or space to develop and print their own films. Had they done so, they would have realised that what is now called "airbrushing" and "photoshopping" are just new takes on an old skill without the need for all that space, all those nasty chemicals and so much wasted paper.
Dodging and Burning - where do people think these terms come from? Certainly not some one at Adobe who accidently burned the edge of a photo and thought "cool! I'll create an effect to do that", or printed out a photo when the printer ink was running low and created some lighter washed out areas - "dodged the ink at that point bud - lets' create an effect for the new version of photoshop. What shall we call this effect?"
Post processing is not how to take a better picture, it is how to present your pitcure in a more favourable light or correct the errors that were created during the picture taking process.
Heavily processed images for me tend to come under the category of art - which oddly enough is still something you create in photography. Nothing like an abstract picture to prove that one.
Well, that's my 2 penneth worth - now for some one to come along and shoot me down!
Quote from: picsfor on September 01, 2009, 10:47:35 AMcome under the category of art - which oddly enough is still something you create in photography.
I agree and thats the nub of the matter, photography has many uses for business, science, art and pleasure.
How someone pigeonholes theirself differently to someone else will always cause this subject to be a bone of contention, and that is why this subject will always produce different reactions and points of view which will never be agreed on. Now Adobe highlight recovery..didn't we used to call that flashing the paper years ago :)