*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread

WRXGuy1 said:
Here's an example.

Here is a macro shot I took, this is straight out of the camera without any editing:



Now I decided to edit it, adjust the contrast, exposure, saturation, add some effects, etc. Can you honestly say the original photo is better?

Click to expand...

Dude chill out! I said some people feel that way, I never said I do. I only said I can't stand selective colors or that kind of unatural editing. And you know I do edit.
 
The edited photo is obviously superior. I actually find the editing more fun than the shooting - taking the photograph does not finish after I've pressed the shutter button. ;)
 
Magreenery said:
I don't get why people get so protective with their photos. It's art, I would be pleased if people shared my photos (credit or not). And even if they claimed them as theirs, does it really matter in the end? In the end you know it's not their art, and they have no way of doing something similar or proving that it's theirs, no that it matters, you KNOW it's your art.

That's how I see it. That's not to say I don't have a watermark. I think, like Geoff said, a nice, elegant watermark adds to the picture if done right.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's different when you're making a living out of it. I watermark my images so that if they're used elsewhere other than my website, people know who's they are. If you have a good piece of work, you want to be recognised for it, as there's potential to get work from it. If there's no watermark, people won't know who to contact.

Punk said:
I don't agree with this. I do edit a little bit but to some people editing is cheating, and it has nothing to do with knowing how to do it properly.
Click to expand...

I think I'll probably spend half an hour editing each photograph at the very least, start with basic WB corrections, crops, rotation and colours and then move into Photoshop and remove distracting objects/features, clean things up a little, move something if it's really in the wrong place etc.
 
Punk said:
Not all of them, but a lot of them.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, a considerable amount of them.

Here's an example I did last year, here's the RAW photograph and then the final item -

1KMSiqM.jpg
 
You expect that kind of editing with commercial photography though. You did a good job, Danny. :good:

I think you all know my views on editing and the kind of stuff I do by now. ;)
 
spirit said:
You expect that kind of editing with commercial photography though. You did a good job, Danny. :good:

I think you all know my views on editing and the kind of stuff I do by now. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it has to look perfect and there's no way you can nail it in camera alone. I think editing is fine for any photograph, it's not cheating - it's taking something, and making it better. So if you have a great photo, sometimes a bit of editing can turn it into an amazing photo.
 
Kornowski said:
Yeah, it has to look perfect and there's no way you can nail it in camera alone. I think editing is fine for any photograph, it's not cheating - it's taking something, and making it better. So if you have a great photo, sometimes a bit of editing can turn it into an amazing photo.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's how I see it too.
 
You have to be naive to think that the majority of good photos haven't been edited in one way or another. How is removing objects and moving things cheating? Sometimes you take a photo and the only location includes some light pole, some distracting mark on a wall, a cruise ship in the distance, etc. Removing those objects make the photo look a lot better, and it actually reflects more appropriately what the location is really like.
 
WRXGuy1 said:
You have to be naive to think that the majority of good photos haven't been edited in one way or another. How is removing objects and moving things cheating? Sometimes you take a photo and the only location includes some light pole, some distracting mark on a wall, a cruise ship in the distance, etc. Removing those objects make the photo look a lot better, and it actually reflects more appropriately what the location is really like.
Click to expand...

Dude seriously, read my posts, I said it, most pictures are heavily edited, not all of them, but most of them.
Secondly, it's my point of view on the subject, I don't expect you guys to agree with me, it's just my opinion. Adjusting exposure and saturation is ok for me. Removing things is turning a photograph into a digital image/art. I make the difference, you don't have to ;)
 
WRXGuy1 said:
You have to be naive to think that the majority of good photos haven't been edited in one way or another. How is removing objects and moving things cheating? Sometimes you take a photo and the only location includes some light pole, some distracting mark on a wall, a cruise ship in the distance, etc. Removing those objects make the photo look a lot better, and it actually reflects more appropriately what the location is really like.
Click to expand...

Ummm. How do you remove a cruise ship and a light pole from a picture in a way that no one will notice :confused:

Perhaps Im just not that good at editing haha.

On the topic of photo editing.....



This one I combined 2 pictures and did some major color changes. This is what I do when Im bored.
 
Last edited:
G80FTW said:
Ummm. How do you remove a cruise ship and a light pole from a picture in a way that no one will notice :confused:

Perhaps Im just not that good at editing haha.


This one I combined 2 pictures and did some major color changes. This is what I do when Im bored.
Click to expand...
I mean from a distant photo, such as if you are only there for a short while and want a picture of the ocean without a giant cruise ship in the background.






Granted if this was my photo it would be much higher resolution so easier to work with, and I'd spend more time editing it.
 
Still on the topic of edited pictures I made this:



The picture of the new car obviously isnt mine, but the 1997 one is. And my car :) Personally, I like the look of my car better. It doesnt look sporty, it looks like what it was designed to be....a luxury car. The new S600 Coupe just looks like a mess.

I would almost guess that Mercedes has hired an Italian car designer. They seem to be trying to be all radical and menacing, which is not what a Mercedes is at all unless its an AMG or other tuned version. Mercedes is a name of a luxury car, not a supercar. Next thing they will do is drop all their letter classes and rename all their cars with names like "Snort-thruster 3000" (taken from Jeremy Clarkson).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top