Author | Thread |
|
08/03/2006 05:42:52 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer: Nice processing Rebecca.
Before: After: |
don't see any different (just kidding!) |
|
|
08/03/2006 06:37:55 AM · #27 |
to
to
to
I always love these type of threads. Great inspiration. |
|
|
08/03/2006 07:41:23 AM · #28 |
Here's mine :P
  |
|
|
08/03/2006 08:03:08 AM · #29 |
my ribbon winners...
Dave
|
|
|
08/03/2006 08:05:38 AM · #30 |
Personally, while I find this thread interesting, I am also finding it quite discouraging and disappointing. I can't believe how naive I was about how much post-processing was going into the top images.
For example, and I'm not taking anything away from your ribbon, as you had a vision that worked out well with the voters, but for some reason (silly me) I thought that to do well in the 'Low Key' challenge required taking an interesting shot in a low light environment.
=>
The thought of taking a fairly well lit image and processing it to appear low key never occurred to me (as I mentioned - how naive of me).
Kudos to those that can pull it off I guess.
I'll never look at the top images on this site in quite the same way ever again.
|
|
|
08/03/2006 08:17:00 AM · #31 |
My top scoring shot before:
and after:
BTW - this image was on a corrupted disc and recovered with the 3rd program. It was in a basic challenge.
Becky
|
|
|
08/03/2006 08:26:05 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Personally, while I find this thread interesting, I am also finding it quite discouraging and disappointing. I can't believe how naive I was about how much post-processing was going into the top images.
|
I've always thought it would be interesting to REQUIRE ribbon winners to post up originals not just for SC's viewing, but also for the rest of the site to see.
I often see notes on top images stating that "processing was minimal," which in me sparks two responses, unfair as they might be:
a) Yeah, bull...I'd like to see what that guy's definition of "minimal" really is
b) It gets me to think that it's a bit arrogant of the photographer to say that, as if s/he was trying to point out just how excellent a photographer s/he is that s/he doesn't need much processing
While it's true that various kinds of processing that can be done in PS or other editing software could also be done in a real-life darkroom, this simple statement is also misleading.
Dodge and Burn in a darkroom can be a painstaking effort that might require a long time to perform. And you don't really get to go backward on a step if you don't like the end result. There's something organic in darkroom processing, and yes, I'll repeat that one wrong step might mean starting over from scratch. PS processing takes a lot less time (yes, it can take a long time but I'd think I'm safe in saying that for a particular step in a darkroom, the corresponding step in PS takes less time), requires the operator to manipulate buttons, and the ability to dump a "messed up" layer or to "go back to a previous state" takes away a bit of the chancy-ness of darkroom processing. |
|
|
08/03/2006 08:34:23 AM · #33 |
|
|
08/03/2006 08:35:24 AM · #34 |
oops it was the next photo, uploaded a better one, less crop, apart from that looked just like this.

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 08:36:15. |
|
|
08/03/2006 08:35:51 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I never like to show my before and after shots as mentioned in this thread, to me it is all about the end result I don't like to show what I started with just what I finished up with.
I remember seeing the original or this image
and since then I have decided no one see's what I started with. |
I thought a part of this site is also about learning? How are we shite photographers/processors supposed to learn if those who've mastered the art don't share?
;-)
EDIT to add: I really have no problems with processing. I think it is a part of the photography process. But I do think there should be "honesty" about how much processing goes on. And as this thread might be showing, a lot of people don't have a solid clue about how much processing goes into some celebrated images from the site.
Message edited by author 2006-08-03 08:49:48. |
|
|
08/03/2006 08:47:20 AM · #36 |
Ok holy f'in shnikey! I knew people here were good with photoshop, but i always thought it was the lenses that really make these photos so qualative. Ok of course they do partially, but whered yall learn to photoshop so well? I have a lotta respect for it, and I keep trying to start somewhere, but i get overwhelmed and just do the basics. Any suggestions? Where/how did u start and build your skills? |
|
|
08/03/2006 08:55:46 AM · #37 |
I would start taking the originals here and try making them the final, that's a good starting point. I did that to learn and got a lot out of it. Also you might want to read tutorials on the net, there are tons on retouching... |
|
|
08/03/2006 09:01:45 AM · #38 |
I have to agree with Ergo here. This site is about learning. I learn alot about composition from the final pics here, but if it werent for seeing some of the before and afters I would have no clue what was possible. Jemisons "Flight", Heidas work, Goodmans work and others who have showed before and afters of some of their amazing work along with some of the steps and techniques that they used to achieve their end product have been amazingly helpful and greatly apprecaited by me and othes for sure.
For me the processing can be just as inspirational as the photo itself. I look at my raw shots differently and because of that I have ended up with pictures that I am extremely proud of where if I had not known what was possible previous, that shot would have just been tossed in the recycle bin never to be seen again. |
|
|
08/03/2006 09:07:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Personally, while I find this thread interesting, I am also finding it quite discouraging and disappointing. I can't believe how naive I was about how much post-processing was going into the top images.
For example, and I'm not taking anything away from your ribbon, as you had a vision that worked out well with the voters, but for some reason (silly me) I thought that to do well in the 'Low Key' challenge required taking an interesting shot in a low light environment.
=>
The thought of taking a fairly well lit image and processing it to appear low key never occurred to me (as I mentioned - how naive of me).
Kudos to those that can pull it off I guess.
I'll never look at the top images on this site in quite the same way ever again. |
I'm sorry you are disappointed..if it's any consolation the editing was mainly to change the lighting...it was a basic challenge which meant I couldn't do anything much else. The shimmer really annoyed me and since I couldn't get rid of it decided to bring it to everyone attention.
Although I'm delighted it did so well...it was very unexpected |
|
|
08/03/2006 09:11:17 AM · #40 |
Here are my 3 ribboners.
None of them had any special editing steps outside of cropping and levels etc.
So I won't bother going into anymore detail.

|
|
|
08/03/2006 09:18:54 AM · #41 |
It was a basic editing challenge, so not much editing. My sole ribbon at 7.696.

|
|
|
08/03/2006 09:56:11 AM · #42 |
I don't know much about post processing. For advanced entries I usually only do basic editing: cropping, rotating, sharpening, adjusting curves, contrast, etc.
1st: Original:
3rd: Original: (the only one with advanced editing)
4th: Original:
5th: Original:
5th: Original: 
|
|
|
08/03/2006 09:57:59 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by ergo: [quote=keegbow]
I thought a part of this site is also about learning? How are we shite photographers/processors supposed to learn if those who've mastered the art don't share?
;-)
|
Learning is a two Way Street, some people like to be shown how to do things and some people prefer to get in and have a go for themselves.
If you want to learn, read and try things for yourself don't just rely on people showing you how to do things.
My reasons for not showing before and after has nothing to with not sharing in fact I will share any information I have gained, my reasons are more to do with the fact I see my photographs as an image or a story and to view the original shot can spoil or reduce the impact that the end product gives. That impact can come about from simple cropping or color shift or even desaturation I particularly hate seeing the color version of desats but that is just my view, hey what can I say I̢۪m different.
To me the original and the photographer share a common beginning but then they separate with the creativity of the photographer taking over in the processing stage and then they converge together with the end product to produce the image.
|
|
|
08/03/2006 09:59:05 AM · #44 |
From here to
You can find the editing details in here.
|
|
|
08/03/2006 10:34:41 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by keegbow: Originally posted by ergo: [quote=keegbow]
I thought a part of this site is also about learning? How are we shite photographers/processors supposed to learn if those who've mastered the art don't share?
;-)
|
Learning is a two Way Street, some people like to be shown how to do things and some people prefer to get in and have a go for themselves.
If you want to learn, read and try things for yourself don't just rely on people showing you how to do things.
My reasons for not showing before and after has nothing to with not sharing in fact I will share any information I have gained, my reasons are more to do with the fact I see my photographs as an image or a story and to view the original shot can spoil or reduce the impact that the end product gives. That impact can come about from simple cropping or color shift or even desaturation I particularly hate seeing the color version of desats but that is just my view, hey what can I say I̢۪m different.
To me the original and the photographer share a common beginning but then they separate with the creativity of the photographer taking over in the processing stage and then they converge together with the end product to produce the image. |
It definitely is a "two way street" as you called it.
And your reasons for not wanting to see the originals are perfectly valid.
I do think though, that it does more good than harm.
I think it can give people "hope" or belief in themselves that they too can take "decent" pictures.
Take this picture for example
I showed it to a friend, and I told them that I wasn't that happy with the color.
They said "I'd fall over if I took a picture like that"
Which I thought was a weird saying, but anyway, take a look at the original
I really don't see anything special with that picture.
Anyone with a point and shoot, an umbrella and some patience would be able to take that.
But, with the cropping, it stands out so much more.
(even though it could have been cropped a lot better, as was pointed out to me in the comments :-))
So, my point is......actually, I don't really know what it is.
|
|
|
08/03/2006 10:39:39 AM · #46 |
Here's my highest score - but it was DQ'd because I couldn't find the @#$! original file in time.
this one also generated the most hate email by far!

|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:08:24 AM · #47 |
There have been plenty of debates in the forums about whether or not post-editing is Good or Bad or even Real Photography/Art. I'm certain there will be plenty more, spurred in part by threads like this one.
In the end, no matter how much a photo has or has not been edited, there are a few standards that will always make a photo stand out (even if it doesn't ribbon): good composition, an interesting subject, perhaps a story to tell, and so on.
I don't want to say "Who cares if it's real or fake?" but when we're voting or shopping or wandering through a gallery, all we see is the finished product. Who knows if it's real or fake? In my mind, a "saved" shot (like charliebaker's trees) is worth just as much as a purposely edited one (naomik's low key portrait) or a meticulously composed one (strikeslip's lightbulb).
Judging by the ribbon winners on this site, most folks here can't tell the difference anyway. I'd like to learn how to do all three, and threads like this can help me do that. All I need now is the timeâ€Â¦.
|
|
|
08/03/2006 09:07:41 PM · #48 |
Not my highest scores, all 6.4 or higher. These were the ones that had a decent amount of PP. |
|
|
08/03/2006 09:29:56 PM · #49 |
|
|
08/03/2006 09:40:38 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by eyewave: 2 of my highest scoring pics (w/o ribbon...)
 |
Wasnt sure till now if things like your little banana stand were considered a major element or not... opens up worlds of possiblilites! :-P
Message edited by author 2006-08-03 21:41:33.
|
|
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: 07/30/2025 02:28:37 AM EDT.