Luxury4Play.com banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just curious? I know I have said this before but I think the pics with the heavy saturation look like crap with the moon looking backgrounds and non crisp angles. Just curious if anyone likes "reality" of photos as well?
I don't wanna address any photos in particular so I don't offend but some of the photos I have seen look horrendous.

I was at a private showing of some Rolling stones photos the other night and even though they were grainy, they were "real" and showed some great emotion. Just wondering if anyone on here still shoots photos like a photographer rather than a computer programmer???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Computer programs by themselves are not evil. doing nasty stuff to pictures can be construed that way. I shoot both film and digital and while film gives me that "real" look, I only use it to shoot balck and white. I have seen great photographers use a point and shoot and get great shots out of the camera but they had the eye to see the right shot. My glasses prescription did not come with an "artistic" option so I tend to massage my photos slightly. Photography, like art, is subjective so I try not to criticize too much of anothers style or editing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
In over 25 years in professional photography I've never seen either a C-type, R-type or black and white print from film that didn't benefit from some kind of post manipulation in the darkroom.

Colour shift.
Contrast.
Local exposure - shadow/highlight control.
Vignette.
Cropping.
etc etc etc

Even the Rolling Stone images the OP refers to were almost certainly manipulated heavily under an enlarger before anyone saw them.

Digital is no different at all. A camera shooting RAW data is pretty much the same as film recording the scene as it "sees" it - not how we see it. Those discrepancies can, and should, be taken into account in post.

Add to that the artistic possibilities to enhance, add to or simply alter perception and I think you'd be very hard pushed to find a reason not to touch an image at all.

It's like all the "noise" argumants about digital cameras. People moaning that their camera produces noise at 1600iso. It makes me laugh and want to tell them to go shoot colour film at 1600asa. I think that would shut down the majority of complaints.

In any event, we now have the tools to produce what we see in our mind's eye. I for one think that freedom is both fantastic and beneficial.

At the end of the day, if it's done well it is successful. If it's done badly it screams at you.

A bad shot is a bad shot - heavily edited or not!

Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
^^ yes but how many people actuall shoot raw?

I guess is most people just add a filter to a Jpeg and call it p-shopped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Come to think of it, I don't think jpeg makes any difference other than the camera decides on the "film type" for you ahead of any post work.

Also I know very few serious photogs who ever shoot anything other than RAW. With apps like Lightroom there is no reason not to. It treats RAW exactly the same as jpeg. Brilliant software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Thats my point. If your serious you shoot raw, because as long as you are in focus you can TRUELY fix everything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
I do both...

Event photography I leave it mostly untouched but probably will do some fine adjustments.


Commercial/Advertising ... well You gotta make it look REAL good. So photoshop is a most.



either way... you need a good photo to start with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Yep, focus helps - along with content, timing, excellent exposure and appropriate depth of field. PP can help save an average shot to an extent, but if any of those things are too far off there's nothing that can make a bad shot good.

The trick, for me at least, is to be always learning.

Jonathan. Some great imagery on your website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,976 Posts
^^ yes but how many people actuall shoot raw?

I guess is most people just add a filter to a Jpeg and call it p-shopped.
Anyone getting paid or anyone who actually cares about their shots is shooting RAW I would hope. I dont even know when the last time I shot a JPEG was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Just curious? I know I have said this before but I think the pics with the heavy saturation look like crap with the moon looking backgrounds and non crisp angles. Just curious if anyone likes "reality" of photos as well?
I don't wanna address any photos in particular so I don't offend but some of the photos I have seen look horrendous.

I was at a private showing of some Rolling stones photos the other night and even though they were grainy, they were "real" and showed some great emotion. Just wondering if anyone on here still shoots photos like a photographer rather than a computer programmer???
A bad shot is a bad shot - heavily edited or not!

Cheers.
^ Agreed
I actually do photo Retouching for a living for a studio in manhattan.
The problem I always see is photographers that shoot and automatically think "Ahhh we can fix it in photoshop". Im no photographer but I remember the days of film where there wasn't a "we'll fix it in PS" You had to get it right the first time.

Its oxymoron because the whole reason to shoot digital is because it's like a instant Polaroid. So if you can see the problem right there in the camera, why wait till you get back for someone else to fix it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
With modern DSLRs you really need to do at least a little bit of PP, especially if you're shooting in RAW. RAW is what it means - raw data, straight off the sensor. I definitely believe in the adage that "less is more", but there is always some tweaking that needs to be done.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top