lol...sorry...but lucky looked lonely in the one edit.. I think he's happier now with his family...LOL
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)... I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic? I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope. Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be. They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out. They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation. Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene. LOL... in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....
But I agree on your point.
not sure if someone posted this already... but take a look at some of the thoughts behind the new flickr....
Quoteyawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)
i agree completely with this notion, as i tried to state before. i understand people who have not considered this topic before trying to hash out their position on this but it has been a longstanding discussion in photography going back to the late 1800's.
the fact is that photography is incapable of depicting "truth". it can only depict a singular viewpoint and "manipulation" begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder and "chooses" what will be shown in the frame and what will not be shown in the frame. nevermind any post that occurs after the fact.
it brings to mind the images that came out of the aftermath of Katrina, in particular there was an instance where news outlets ran a photo of a white family "scavenging" for supplies while an almost identical photo of a black family doing the same thing had headlines attached stating they were "looting". truth in photography is a myth. it is simply a means of communicating an idea, story, or feeling and in the end it falls upon the viewer to determine what truths a photograph holds for them.
so if you want to subscribe to contrived notions of what makes a photograph real or true or whatever...you are welcome to it. i personally don't want to limit my own ability to tell a story how i want to tell it by applying a set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense considering that manipulation has been inherent throughout the history of photography since its inception.
oh, an National Geographic is far from being the standard bearer for for what "real" photography is. on the contrary, it is a very narrow slice of what photography is and can be.
What is "truth"? If you can answer that, then what is the meaning of life?
We've been here before Carl - The answer's 42
yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)
Disagree, I think both pixel peeping and photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum, even a rumors forum (since there are sections meant to discuss things other than rumors). 12 pages is nothing on here, some of the threads go to what, 30 or more pages?
I do agree that worrying about whether an image has been altered or not, can be more of a trivial waste of time, in this day and age.
However, I also agree with Don Haines, because pictures with an intent to deceive, could very likely be done by some of the same sort of people who would use the IRS to gain political power, or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap! "The end justifies the means..."
You have to look at the intent.
The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.
If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.
For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.
If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.
If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.
They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.
Dont believe me? Then give it a try.
so what your saying is its ok to have my raw settings, picture style/saturation/sharpness etc set in camera, but if i zero out everything and do it in my raw converter then its not ok?
that makes no sense to me whatsoever !
Bang on again.....
If I set up everything before the shot, then the out-of-camera jpg is acceptable.
If I take that RAW file and apply the exact same settings, it is evil.
And strangely enough, If I take that RAW file and make a B/W jpg out of it.... that's OK ?!?!?!?!?!
And all this from the magazine that publishes photos of "Bart the Bear" from Wasatch Rocky Mountain Animals as wildlife? That's like me heading of to the Papanac Zoo and shooting pictures of the wild animals.
As Spock would say.... "Highly illogical"
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
I so want to comment and discuss so many of the posts in this thread but currently struggling with time. Shooting a feature and it requires 15 hours of my time. The heat is killing. But I will do when I can.
Will quickly say now: Image manipulation is part of the game - done in camera or in post.
Am attaching a photo I took on vacation with my 12 year old. There is no post and it was done in-camera. When I showed it to my 12 it daughter on the lcd of the camera, she said "All photographers are LIARS."
Even a kid can see that. Yes, I am slowly but surely getting convinced that ALL photographs are MANIPULATION. Perhaps I am being too quick in thinking like that...?
If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood.
As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
If I were to buy a print to hang on my wall, I would have chosen #2. Whoop-de-do, he played with the sky, but the essence of the shot remains the same.... three big wild cats. If you want to carry the logic through, people should not sharpen images, or color balance, or crop.... Even the act of pointing the camera or zooming in/out is to modify what is being represented.
Put things in perspective, it's not like Godzilla is walking along the skyline...It's a nice image. I like it.
Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?
Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.
...He's doing landscapes. 7d with 24-105 might be too tight unless he wants to try panorama.
That's correct, that's why I bought what I've got now - 60d + the very reasonably priced 17-40L is ok for landscapes, and it's a full frame upgrade path unlike an ef-s lens.the 6d is a beast in low light so being limited to f4 shouldn't hurt too bad
... except if you're shooting high dynamic range scenes, because less iso noise on the 6d cannot repair the fact that dr takes a hit also on the 6d, though not as bad as the crop sensor: http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_6D.html
EDIT: i fotgot to mention, i will be doing lot of landscapes and low light photography