Mt Spokane Photography said:
Exactly. To me, photography is about capturing what I see - not what I can imagine. If I wanted to make something fake and use my imagination, I'd pick up a paint brush - not a camera.
Upvote
0
How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
- Thread starter bran8
- Start date
Exactly. To me, photography is about capturing what I see - not what I can imagine. If I wanted to make something fake and use my imagination, I'd pick up a paint brush - not a camera.
I was not belittling any of the many serious posters or their creative vision of how they would edit it, just my own preference. I don't like to use the term fake, its just how they see it as looking best, and thats fine.jebrady03 said:
Keep the images coming, at least serious ones.
Upvote
0
jebrady03 said:
You missed the point of the thread, OP did not say here's a photo, recreate what I saw, but instead here's a photo, show me different techniques of interpretation through post processing.
And imo photography isn't all about capturing what you see either, example, if you think about people who use speedlights doing portraits, the lighting is manipulated to create an effect they envision.
But that's what forums are for, different opinions,
Upvote
0
Cropped a lot, rotated a bit, a lot of tonal contrast, some color burn and warming to try and get some textures out. Initially tried tilt shift effect I did not like but I see now that forgot to fully erase part of that effect at the bottom. Should have desaturated probably a bit too!
90% done with Nik Color Efex.
I see now the flicker jpg compresion brings some nasty halos at the top egde of the mountain range
untitled-1 par Fegarix, sur Flickr
90% done with Nik Color Efex.
I see now the flicker jpg compresion brings some nasty halos at the top egde of the mountain range
untitled-1 par Fegarix, sur Flickr
Upvote
0
LR3
Obviously this is all up to personal taste.
I really liked some of the very dramatic variants that seemed to mostly be done in LR4.
Is LR4 that much more powerful than LR3 or do I have a bunch more to learn? I don't believe I can pull off that much drama with LR3.
Maybe time to upgrade.
As for the comments about not being there to replicate the moment, well, that comes back to personal preference. Photography is an art and art is open to personal interpretation. It does not have to be a replica of the original. If everyone did that, it would be boring. I enjoyed everyone's variations, but it was because of the variations that it was interesting.
I should also mention that the B&W was a great idea. It really played well into this type of photo.
As much as I get wrapped into the technical side of this site, I always enjoy the creative side. So much talent here and so much to learn from everyone.
Obviously this is all up to personal taste.
I really liked some of the very dramatic variants that seemed to mostly be done in LR4.
Is LR4 that much more powerful than LR3 or do I have a bunch more to learn? I don't believe I can pull off that much drama with LR3.
Maybe time to upgrade.
As for the comments about not being there to replicate the moment, well, that comes back to personal preference. Photography is an art and art is open to personal interpretation. It does not have to be a replica of the original. If everyone did that, it would be boring. I enjoyed everyone's variations, but it was because of the variations that it was interesting.
I should also mention that the B&W was a great idea. It really played well into this type of photo.
As much as I get wrapped into the technical side of this site, I always enjoy the creative side. So much talent here and so much to learn from everyone.
Upvote
0
.
You make a good case, Attila. This whole thread seems an exercise in creativity, and it's been perhaps the most entertaining thread I've seen here in a long, long time. Too bad it's been squeezed into one person's perception of what is right.
Personally, I've always subscribed to the Gary Winogrand, "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs" philosophy. I've never taken a picture that looked like what I saw, for a hundred reasons. Like Winogrand, the thrill for me is to see what the camera has seen -- and to wonder why it's different from what I saw and/or remembered and/or thought I saw.
Our attempts at manipulation of a scene may be to bring it in line with what we saw. Just as valid is to alter it to make it the way we wanted to see it.
We're talking about pictures here -- pictures, not reality.
No accounting for taste, as they say. I'm sure there are people who don't see a faint smile on "Mona Lisa," but rather a faint scowl.
As for all the renditions of the image in this thread I am surprised no one really broke out of the conventional (except for ducks and bathing beauties that we now know are not allowed). I mean really squirrel it up in some abstract way. If I had the process skills I would have done that as I see a beach and waves up front and a larger sea looming in the background.
No matter, it's all fun.
You make a good case, Attila. This whole thread seems an exercise in creativity, and it's been perhaps the most entertaining thread I've seen here in a long, long time. Too bad it's been squeezed into one person's perception of what is right.
Personally, I've always subscribed to the Gary Winogrand, "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs" philosophy. I've never taken a picture that looked like what I saw, for a hundred reasons. Like Winogrand, the thrill for me is to see what the camera has seen -- and to wonder why it's different from what I saw and/or remembered and/or thought I saw.
Our attempts at manipulation of a scene may be to bring it in line with what we saw. Just as valid is to alter it to make it the way we wanted to see it.
We're talking about pictures here -- pictures, not reality.
No accounting for taste, as they say. I'm sure there are people who don't see a faint smile on "Mona Lisa," but rather a faint scowl.
As for all the renditions of the image in this thread I am surprised no one really broke out of the conventional (except for ducks and bathing beauties that we now know are not allowed). I mean really squirrel it up in some abstract way. If I had the process skills I would have done that as I see a beach and waves up front and a larger sea looming in the background.
No matter, it's all fun.
Upvote
0
Y
yogi
Guest
Eli said:
I didnt realize ducks could live in that part of the country. What species is it? The rubberitis duckyitis? It reminds me of an old b movie with overgrown creatures.
Upvote
0
picturesbyme said:
Perhaps that's a fair way to categorize my thoughts on photography - based more on journalism than creativity after the fact. To me, if I can't go and stand where you stood and see what you saw, it's not a photograph, it's something else. And there's nothing wrong with that - I'm not saying what people in this thread have is UGLY or undesirable, I'm just saying that they've crossed the line out of photography and into something else. Some rely so heavily on post processing to make something interesting that they should not call themselves photographers, but post processors. For me, photography is about capturing a moment. If you post process the bejeezus out of something, that moment is gone and something else has taken it's place. A fake moment, that never existed. And again, THAT'S OKAY - I'M NOT JUDGING THAT. I'm just saying that it's not really photography - it's a different form of art.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)