| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2008 01:43:01 PM · #201 |
edit: i think i've gone way off topic and feel very self-conscious about having done that. so...errr... i like using photoshop. i have a lot to learn, though.
Message edited by author 2008-01-20 13:57:41. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 02:41:43 PM · #202 |
If you were going to sell a car, and it was dirty, would you wash it first? Photography is about expressing a vision. The artist is trying to portray to the world how he/she sees a particular piece of it. If, the photographer feels he needs to improve on the image, why should he be condemned for using any means nesasary to portray what he would like the world to see.
Open your mind to all things the world has to offer.
Travis
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 03:12:26 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I have had 5 of my shots in national magazines and 1 international, Hot Rod, Skin and Ink, MG International, Rat Rod and lastly Red. Obviously they are not some crapola mags, these are very well known established mags. |
Not to rain on your parade, but I've never heard of these magazines.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 03:58:50 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I have had 5 of my shots in national magazines and 1 international, Hot Rod, Skin and Ink, MG International, Rat Rod and lastly Red. Obviously they are not some crapola mags, these are very well known established mags. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not to rain on your parade, but I've never heard of these magazines. |
You've never heard of Hot Rod??????
Hot Rod Magazine
It was founded in 1948 by Bob Peterson......perhaps you've heard of Peterson Publications, probably the single largest umbrella of motorsports publishing in the world?
Motor Trend was another of his publications, and that, along with Car & Driver and Road & Track is probably the short list of the most famous and long0lived automobile magazines on the planet.
Anyway, having been in an automotive related thread before, I'm surprised you hadn't heard of Hot Rod at least.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 04:10:56 PM · #205 |
| A lot of the techniques done in photoshop can be duplicated in the dark room...are film photographs not real photography because they have been manipulated? |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 04:20:53 PM · #206 |
| Photographs would be sooooo boring without Photoshop or the dark room. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 04:45:32 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I have had 5 of my shots in national magazines and 1 international, Hot Rod, Skin and Ink, MG International, Rat Rod and lastly Red. Obviously they are not some crapola mags, these are very well known established mags. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not to rain on your parade, but I've never heard of these magazines. |
You've never heard of Hot Rod??????
Hot Rod Magazine
|
Not til now.
I have very little interest in Hot Rods.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:01:55 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Photographs would be sooooo boring without Photoshop or the dark room. |
that's absurd. some of the most memorable photographs ever have very little 'post processing' (analog or digital) done to them.
you can make things as pretty as you want but without content or meaning they're worth a lot less.
I'd challenge anyone who thinks this to go through the past years of Pulitzer winning images and tell me that most of those are boring. I can guarantee you there is little post processing work that goes into many of those, and with some images, there is pretty much no post work.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:13:09 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Photographs would be sooooo boring without Photoshop or the dark room. |
that's absurd. some of the most memorable photographs ever have very little 'post processing' (analog or digital) done to them.
you can make things as pretty as you want but without content or meaning they're worth a lot less.
I'd challenge anyone who thinks this to go through the past years of Pulitzer winning images and tell me that most of those are boring. I can guarantee you there is little post processing work that goes into many of those, and with some images, there is pretty much no post work. |
I guess that is ones opinion. I also don't care for ansel adams work either. I was at the hospital for 2 weeks the beginning of the month and they had his work all over the walls. I started to really critique them. I noticed that some were tilted and others contrast was way off. I liked his work somewhat until I started to grow with photography and now just see his work as amature work. Nothing really sticks out as a wow for me. Pretty sad to feel that way but it is true.
I do very little photoshopping to my work, but the work I do do I like 100% better than the original.
hmmm pretty much no post work?? So there is some post work? How much can you do to a photo to consider it Photoshopping? |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:13:49 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Photographs would be sooooo boring without Photoshop or the dark room. |
that's absurd. some of the most memorable photographs ever have very little 'post processing' (analog or digital) done to them.
you can make things as pretty as you want but without content or meaning they're worth a lot less.
I'd challenge anyone who thinks this to go through the past years of Pulitzer winning images and tell me that most of those are boring. I can guarantee you there is little post processing work that goes into many of those, and with some images, there is pretty much no post work. |
Even with film, they were printed, contrast manipulated, development time manipulated, print exposure time manipulated, cropped etc.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:17:41 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Photographs would be sooooo boring without Photoshop or the dark room. |
that's absurd. some of the most memorable photographs ever have very little 'post processing' (analog or digital) done to them.
you can make things as pretty as you want but without content or meaning they're worth a lot less.
I'd challenge anyone who thinks this to go through the past years of Pulitzer winning images and tell me that most of those are boring. I can guarantee you there is little post processing work that goes into many of those, and with some images, there is pretty much no post work. |
Even with film, they were printed, contrast manipulated, development time manipulated, print exposure time manipulated, cropped etc. |
That's what I thought to, but maybe there is a limit to editing to what is photoshop and what is not..hmmm.. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:28:52 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even with film, they were printed, contrast manipulated, development time manipulated, print exposure time manipulated, cropped etc. |
Not to mention that if you saw it printed in a magazine in the past 40 years or so, it had probably been run through a $300,000 drum scanner and digitized, using many of the same adjustments and controls which later became Photoshop. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:30:22 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not to mention that if you saw it printed in a magazine in the past 40 years or so, it had probably been run through a $300,000 drum scanner and digitized, using many of the same adjustments and controls which later became Photoshop. |
i didn't know that. but is that just to keep it looking like it did originally? |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:35:21 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even with film, they were printed, contrast manipulated, development time manipulated, print exposure time manipulated, cropped etc. |
Not to mention that if you saw it printed in a magazine in the past 40 years or so, it had probably been run through a $300,000 drum scanner and digitized, using many of the same adjustments and controls which later became Photoshop. |
a lot of people never realize just how much editing and processing has been done to a photo in order to make it look as if there has been no editing or processing.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:38:37 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not to mention that if you saw it printed in a magazine in the past 40 years or so, it had probably been run through a $300,000 drum scanner and digitized, using many of the same adjustments and controls which later became Photoshop. |
i didn't know that. but is that just to keep it looking like it did originally? |
Usually, but not necessarily -- most magazines operate within photojournalism editing contraints, but "art" magazines needn't ... part of the trick for the scanner operator is trying to make an original capable of containing several millions of colors look essentially the same, using the 7000-or-so color gamut available in the CMYK color space used by offset printing presses, and inkjet, and color "digital presses" and laser printers. Photoshop is still used for that purpose. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 06:20:58 PM · #216 |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 04:59:19 PM · #217 |
| Bump for Art...10 days is just too long... |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 05:46:43 PM · #218 |
Editing photos is wrong. All post production dilutes the inherent beauty of a frozen moment in time. All photoshop does is shine sh!t.
GIDDY UP CHAPS...yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw o/
N
Message edited by author 2008-01-30 17:47:00. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 02:37:48 AM · #219 |
| Is this topic seriously still going on? Is there anyway to delete this forum post because this is getting ridiculous. |
|
|
|
02/03/2008 03:14:30 AM · #220 |
You started it!!! ;P
ADMIN NOTE: We've hidden the last few posts in this thread due to personal attacks. Since this is the second flare up, this thread will now be locked.
Message edited by L2 - To lock thread without bumping it. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 01:21:33 PM EDT.
