Modified pictures ?

**Please support PoE by donating today - thank you**

< Prev 1 2 3 4 Next >

	Forums > Photography Chat > Modified pictures ?
Ron Brind Posts: 19041 Joined: 26th Oct 2003 Location: England	quotePosted at 15:03 on 28th January 2014 Rod says>>>I could not really fully understand the reasoning for rejecting monochrome images Answer: It was an attempt to keep the hosting down, that's all. My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Rod Burkey Posts: 554 Joined: 2nd Sep 2008 Location: UK	quotePosted at 15:47 on 28th January 2014 Thanks for the clarification Ron. My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Dave John Posts: 22335 Joined: 27th Feb 2011 Location: England	quotePosted at 20:11 on 28th January 2014 On 28th January 2014 13:39, Rod Burkey wrote: Photo editing is now, like it was in the days when we had dark rooms, a way of ending up with a decent result. I used to use my hands and various simple shaped items to hold back areas of an image during the exposure of a negative onto the paper. I also used multi grade papers and a cocktail of chemicals which suited me. I did have the inclination, and made time to produce an end result I could show to others, or even get published the odd time. Photoshop is a replacement for all the aids we used to use. For me it is not cheating. Couldn't have put better Rod. Editing programmes are just the modern day equivalent of the darkroom. I cannot remember ever making a straight print other than maybe a 5 x 4 to evaluate what work needed to be done to produce a good image. Even with colour prints if you wanted one enlarging to frame or similar you would have to send it off to a lab with instructions on how you wanted it processing. Once you have pressed the button that is the be all and end all. There is so much that can done to enhance images. If only people would give it they will soon realise what they are missing My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
rustyruth Posts: 18773 Joined: 23rd Oct 2012 Location: England	quotePosted at 20:15 on 28th January 2014 Vince has an excellent point, if the person behind the lens hasn't an eye for the shot it's doomed no matter what camera or image editing equipment you have. My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Dave John Posts: 22335 Joined: 27th Feb 2011 Location: England	quotePosted at 20:18 on 28th January 2014 Definitely. That is the prime requirement, a good eye to SEE a picture before pressing the button. My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Dave John Posts: 22335 Joined: 27th Feb 2011 Location: England	quotePosted at 22:56 on 28th January 2014 Good for you John. Again this is what the site is all about. In this instance just before you press the button, run your eye round the edges of the frame to see if there is anything there that shouldn't be. My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Patrick Hogan Posts: 68 Joined: 12th Jun 2010 Location: UK	quotePosted at 23:06 on 28th January 2014 Mofification taken to another level here.......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCecGuj_4Jc Edited for you Patrick Edited by: james prescott at:29th January 2014 10:31 My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Edward Lever Posts: 734 Joined: 22nd Dec 2005 Location: UK	quotePosted at 10:01 on 29th January 2014 On 28th January 2014 22:43, John Lawrence wrote: I agree with the statement about having an eye for a shot, And i notice that I am at last thinking of composition more. After a while, your 'eye' will get so good at evaluating the scene, it will give you much pleasure even if you haven't brought your camera with you ! Edited by: Edward Lever at:29th January 2014 14:51 My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Rod Burkey Posts: 554 Joined: 2nd Sep 2008 Location: UK	quotePosted at 13:08 on 30th January 2014 A camera is a tool, just like the lenses and editing aids. The human eye is of course the key to creating an image. The next best tool to the eye is a desire to just look at what is around you, and prepare to be surprised by the beauty of the mundane, when looked at more critically. I remain convinced that the means justify the ends in photography, and the finished image should satisfy the photographer first, especially at my level, in that I do it for fun. If I were a pro, I would have to be constrained by the needs and demands of the client. The weddings I have done ar a case in point, and thank goodness for Photoshop in helping tidy up function rooms where unsightly switchgear blights potential backgrounds plus many other uses of the software. Of course, we all want to "get it right" at the split second of exposure, but my exiguous skills leave a lot of room for post production improvements. These are my opinions only, and as this thread has clearly shown, the diversity of views makes POE the fine site it is. My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions
Dave John Posts: 22335 Joined: 27th Feb 2011 Location: England	quotePosted at 13:19 on 30th January 2014 Agreed Rod. I, like you, believe that although 'get it right in camera' is ideal, we do not live in an ideal world with lighting that understands what WE want (unless you are in a studio) and as such editing tools are there to be used. As has been said many times before they are nothing more than the modern day darkroom. In those darkroom days we use to change skies, add moons and just about every time dodge and burn to some extent. But this is a debate that has been going on for years and will continue I am sure My favourite: Pictures \| Towns \| Attractions