Precisely. They turn a photo into an image. Mike, that would just be cleaning up a photo, not turning it into something that looks nothing like what could be seen with the naked eye. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Like Vito said, they turned a photo into an image here.....
I understand that it takes skill to turn a photo into an image, and do it correctly. Balancing color, contrast, hue is all above my head. But make no mistake, its computer art, not photography.
Yes, and I enjoy images like this. It appeals to my imagination. I don't look at that and think "awesome photo!". I think "cool image".
Correction. Some dude knew how to bracket exposures to create a wider dynamic range (all done on camera). To do this effectively (i.e. the correct way), you need to know about exposure values, exposure locking, etc. HDR (again, not HDR TONING which is what most amateurs do) is also a lot of in camera work. The fact that the example photo...er...image above (which I actually like) was pushed too far in post processing is what makes this image deviate from what HDR truly. You do realize that HDR is an attempt to recreate the actual dynamic range WE SEE with our eyes? No digital device can capture the same range of tones from shadows to highlights that our own rods and cones can...hence the need for HDR. Partially true...RAW editing is editing the information stored in camera (the analog light signals recently converted to digital, but not yet processed). Adjusting highlights, shadows, and and even some tonal shifting is no different than what was done in traditional darkrooms for decades. Now, if you hold the belief that even darkroom editing (even a simple dodge and burn) is imagery and no longer photography, there are very few true photographers that have ever held a camera by your definition.
Exactly, it was done with a computer.....and pushed too far. Hence, "Yay." Like I said before, there's a huge difference between editing a picture to enhance it and editing a picture to completely change it. The biggest problem I have with it is, to me, 99% of these images I see look amateurish. Some dude decided to buy a fancy program, sat down with it for 3 days and proceeded to destroy photos. That's my beef.
No, I love you. Lots. Your images are great, but I would rather see the original photo or scene. Obviously, this is not what any of these scenes look like in real life. I was informed by someone that I'm getting old because I like to see things for what they are, not what a computer made them to be.
Here's a completely unedited picture... taken from my bedroom window... crookedly. I took it as proof that sometimes, just sometimes, I wake up before sunrise.
If you woke up before sunrise, wouldn't the image be black? I'm with Dan on this one. Lots of kids with DSLRs and Lightroom running around pretending to be photographers these days. Some have potential, some are just plain bad. Yet every one of them gets a lot of "Great photo!" comments when they post stuff on Facebook. I'm certainly not great with a camera, and never claimed to be, which is why I try to limit my photo postings. Nobody likes a poser.
Hey, we're not hunting in the dark during that legal "1/2 before sunrise" . So there. Neener... neener.
I'm with you dan to keep it original except in low light conditions where I do try and brighten up a picture.
I dont see why you guys bash on people that like to have fun and edit some photos... Now i dont edit photos myself but I dont see whats wrong with doing so? Its the same thing with movies and other created films. Editors alway adjust the aperture and looks to a film, its essentially the same thing with a photo...
Yeah, we're basing people hard here. I look at it like this. These photo editing programs have created multitudes of "expert photographers" like hunting forums have created multitudes of "expert hunters."
I always try and get all my camera settings right for the shot in field. I do shoot in RAW and I do use Photoshop CS4, mostly just for exposure correction, contrast and I always use noise reduction. I post process all of my photos. I have a simple workflow that I use and I can honestly say that 100% of them look better after post processing, even if all your settings were correct in the camera.I try to adjust the photo just enough to make the subject pop and that's it. Just these few little things can make a good photo and great photo. I learned all my photography on my own, trail and error. - I guess I came to the realization that post processing was another part of being a good photographer. But like you say Dan - just don't overdo it..
