*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread
- Thread starter computerhakk
- Start date
Kornowski
VIP Member
Very interesting combination of flash and a storm:
Dude, that's an awesome shot!
TFT
VIP Member
lol, It was half dead anyway Danny, I think it just crawled out the wasp trap to pose for me
aviation_man
New Member
Ya.. That's my opinion too.. But I'm sure that he HAS to edit a least a few of his pictures cause it isn't humanly possible to be that good
lolI think he spent about a grand on his lens (or a little less) I know him personally.
vroom_skies
VIP Member
Ben hasn't thrown any money into glass if I'm not mistaken.
Which is great. If he's able to get results like he does with stock glass then that shows a lot more about the talent behind the camera, which is what really matters.
Which is great. If he's able to get results like he does with stock glass then that shows a lot more about the talent behind the camera, which is what really matters.
Geoff
VIP Member
Let me rephrase it, you can tell that they have been heavily edited and it isn't "natural". I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it looks amazing, I'm just saying that it would be nice to see a few shots that aren't so heavily edited.
And If I'm not mistaking, he has a D90, and using the kit lens he wouldn't have any vignetting from the lens.
Irishwhistle
New Member
Here's some new ones:
Geoff
VIP Member
Vignetting at the telephoto end? Do you mean when it's at 18mm? I have a 10-20mm lens and that has very little vignetting at 10mm on my crop camera.
The vignetting in his photos is added after the fact. I messed with it in a few photos and it does make certain photos look more interesting.
Last edited:
Ramodkk
VIP Member
[-0MEGA-];1330956 said:
I don't think any lens has a telephone end.. lol
The telephoto end in this particular lens is at 105mm not 18mm, I would've thought you knew that Geoff. Besides, different lenses work completely different, just because you have a wide-end lens and a telephoto zoom lens at the same focal length, does not mean you'll get the same results on both (in this case vignetting)
Last edited:
Ben
VIP Member
[-0MEGA-];1330345 said:
[The following reply isn't only for Geoff but for others to ponder as well]
I could respond in two ways here:
I could try and prove that I don't do as much post-processing as you assume I do, and post straightouttathecam as well as "less edited" shots--OR...
In all honesty, my goal isn't to create realistic pictures that everyone will enjoy. I take pictures for my own enjoyment[unless its specifically for a client]. If someone else happens to like it, great! If not, great!
For me, photography isn't about seeing the world as it is and trying to create an exact replica of "natural"[If I wanted that, I wouldn't edit my photos]--It's about making what the world is, appear as it should be in my own eyes.
Personally I'd be pleased to see a heavily post-processed photo that already looks good naturally over a photo that has no editing at all and looks good naturally.
You may question why in the world...? Because a photographer who took a photo that looked great naturally and made it 10x better with PP just took it one step further to amazing--Meaning not only that they have talent with the camera but also talent with their imagination to make it look even better.
Does this mean I object to natural looking straightouttathecam pictures? No--not at all. I like natural pictures that look great. But my own artist preference is beautifully post-processed photo's over natural ones[Even if its just a hint of contrast that made the difference].
Though, I don't like photo's that look ridiculous because of the post-processing[Even still, that's an opinion].
Am I intentionally being harsh/defensive? Not a bit[though I am defending my own opinion]--However I am trying to reveal my point of view for clarity on the subject.
-------------------
Now then--It would only be fair of me to ask you to show some of your photo's WITH post-processing assuming you do none whatsoever
They look too real and not unrealistic enough [jokes]
Last edited:
