Calling all Photography nerds!

Wow, sorry to offend! But, knowing if something is shopped says something about the techniques an "artist" uses to obtain their "art".

Obviously I won't bother with this thread again.

 

lol, you didn't offend me. But processing a shot into what you visualized for that shot is art, whether you want to admit it or not. I use filters too, and try to get things as close as what I want in the camera as well. I still have to process the shot from RAW. You can't just take the default and go with it. RAW doesn't work like that.

But don't be dismissive of how other people create.

 

Dood, c'mon...dont do that. You started a discussion about photography that is spirited. It's actually welcome (to Me) because I will learn from it. We know what your getting at, it's a valid point. But this is what @OdiN1701 is saying (I don't mean to speak for ya brother), its art. Boil it down, it's art. Everyone has their own opinion right...

When I say "don't do that"... I mean don't abandon thread. No one will get offended, they will offer an opinion...

Show some of your shots...RAW is nice

Or anyone else jump in and say, who the fvck is this teeco guy...he can gtfo lol

 

Photoshopped is a derogatory term to a photographer in my opinion. We edit photographs to produce a more presentable product. Shopped is what you find in the Enquirer Magazine. DLSR has enabled the photographer to shoot quickly, get the shot and do the editing at home and not fiddle fuck with aperture and shutter speeds while the sun goes down. It's got a lot better if you spend the money. No one uses a Hasselblad medium format camera any more, outside. My 22 cents.
Zim
Zim

 

You guys ever take a shot with your cell phone and wonder why oh why didn’t I take the time to set up with my real camera?

Happened to me this past Sunday.

 

The best camera is the one you have with you

Speaking of...I got a shiny new a7R IV sitting here. Excited to take it out for some testing.

 

But these phones take pretty good pics now...lmao. I've got a Samsung that acts like a brownie camera.
Zim

 

(taken with Xpro2)
The image is of Codori farm house in Gettysburg PA (Picketts charge). When the image was captured the sky's were about to be a down pour very dark thought the image was useless but I processes it or as some say, Photoshoped it.
Processing digital images is no different than working with film of yesteryear,just a different technique. I love cameras in general always have. I have many but went full frame because I love to crop images. If using APSC Sensor camera when I cropped I'd have nothing but a few K left of image with a full frame I have mucho Meg. Also I shoot raw and jpeg and enjoy whatever jpeg engine or algorythem the manufacture has that I like.
Images of bees are Crops and were taken with a Pentax K1 /70-200mm 2.8

 

The one shot I posted was done with a Canon EOS 70. The shot in JPG if I remember correctly. The Canon has several different options as to what format you want to capture the image in. As I said I'm not opposed to shopping. I just like to know if the were or not. On another forum folks will post things like camera, lens, F-Stop, shutter speed, format, filters etc. And usually mention if they shopped it or not.

For instance all three of these were shot in color. The duplicate in B&W was shopped. The silhouette is color no filters just waiting for the right light.




The only thing done was to convert them to JPG knowing full well some of the detail would be lost.

 

JEEPNIK, its called post processing not shopped. Like your image of the house, Its leaning to the left, or that could be barrel, or pincushion effect from your lens. In post processing you can correct that. Now if you think that is Photoshoped you would be in for a big big surprise if you saw what people really do to images.

 

Actually it's a almost 200 year old light house and it does lean. One of the tricks the docents use is to put a marble on the floor and you get to watch it roll.

 

Recent trip with ferry ride (still plenty of good seats. Lol)

 

Not of or with the truck but places in Colorado that require a 4-wheel drive to take the shots. These were all taken with either a Sony a-700 or an a-900 with various Zeiss lenses.

 

"Not of or with the truck but places in Colorado the require a 4-wheel drive to take the shots. These were all taken with either a Sony a-700 or an a-900 with various Zeiss lenses."

Nice, very crisp, love the sun popping through the clouds lighting up the mountainside.

 

Okay I think I misunderstood you, but as mentioned the "shopping" term is kinda negative the way you used it. That and you put "artist" and "art" in quotes, as if to indicate it's not really art or by an artist and the only way for it to be art is straight out of camera, etc.

So sorry about that but the wording made it seem different from what you mean.

 

@JEEPNIK what you’re really saying is “I’m perfectly happy using my camera’s built in jpeg processing” vs doing it yourself after the shot in Lightroom or Photoshop or some other editing program. In the film days, it would be the same as saying “I’m perfectly happy with what prints I get from the lab that developed my film” instead of printing them yourself. Nothing wrong with either approach, as the quality of the final image still depends on how well it’s processed and more importantly how the photographer works around that processing. Many great photographers didn’t print their own photos, and I consider printmaking a separate art from image creation using a camera.

With film, you had two initial choices: positive film (aka slides aka chromes) or negative film. Many of your color, white balance, sharpness, contrast, etc choices were made with your choice of film, and to an extent camera and lens. With chromes, as long as it was developed correctly, what you shot is what you got unless you tried printing them. With negatives, you get to revisit many of your choices again in the darkroom based on developing the film and creating the print... even if you worked off the defaults it was still a choice. RAW files are more like “digital negatives” (hence adobes name for universal raw format of DNG) and jpeg are digital slides, without much of the quality and beauty.

I personally find the quality of in-camera JPEGs limiting and prefer to work with Pentax’s flat (and very flexible) raw files in Lightroom to create images.

Here is a great article on darkroom work:
https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

The ethics of using image manipulation on an image boils down to use and intent of course. A journalist would be treading into murky ethical (and legal) waters by editing for anything other than making sure they have a clear useable photo, whereas the majority of us making photos for art or to make us happy are more free in how we process them.

 

Saying “I only use SOOC jpegs” also says something about the abilities and technique of the “artist”.

Art isn’t obtained; it’s not laying around out there in the world like a pebble to be picked up. It is created.

 

Might as well post here too, we caught a random ass snow storm this last weekend/Monday. Made the most of it

 

I thought shooting in RAW and then post-processing was the norm? I shoot RAW and JPEG and then Sync my phone with the JPEGs for the quick sharing of a cool jpeg.

 

Same, here.