Photo editing

[ricktas]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

The line gets drawn where each of us wants to draw it. But we also have to remember that where you draw your line, may not be where I draw mine. If we start saying the line is HERE, we are stopping creativity, when creativity is not our domain to rule over. To add to Kiwi's post about Picasso, I am not a fan of Picasso's work at all, but that doesn't mean everyone else should dislike it as well. Ausphotography is here for opinions and critiques and if we all liked the same stuff, processed the same way..it would be bluddy boring around here at times.

[jeffde]

I believe when you buy a DSLR (apposed to a compact ) and you shoot in RAW then PP is a must - whether Lightroom (which i use Photoshop of any other program). You have to do some enhancement whether to its just simple adjustments to exposure , highlight recovery, cropping etc

Where we (and others go wrong ) is when you process a shot for the sake of it. To try and make something that isn't - hence what fashion magazines do when they over process and over skin smooth. I clean up rashes , remove pimples etc and may smooth out a few wrinkles - but i won't remove the wrinkles, freckles, scars or moles, that make up the "character" of the portrait i've taken.

[davidd]

Bob how about showing us some of your SOOC images in the forums so we can have a look at what you are doing , Would be good to get an idea of what you consider good after all the work and help we've put into this thread - Bill

Of course, remember to set your contrast, sharpening and saturation to neutral before you take the shots, to avoid any 'enhancement' (processing) of the jpeg in the camera.

[Mark L]

A photo I took today Image #1). I buggered up my settings but by by doing nothing to outlandish, PPing allowed my to make a reasonable image (#2).
I'm using nothing flash, D.P.P., the software that came with the camera. Now why would they give me that with the camera?
Without PP, I'd throw this photo out, and I don't want to do that.

[zeroharm]

Photography is art.. Tis all

[ausbob]

Photography is art and I really do apologise if I offended anyone, especially Bill whose image by the way I think is great. I didn't mean to say a line MUST be drawn either as ricktas said the line is drawn where we want it drawn. With regards to photos I have taken, I don't pretend to be anything other than a father who loves taking photos of his kids. Here is one of my favourites I have recently taken. Feel free to give me any opinion. By the way I am new to this so hopefully the attachment works. (I have shrunk the image size, I don't know if I am supposed to.)
Cheers

[camerasnoop]

A little work required on the composition, but the exposure looks fine, as is the idea. Your son is smack in the centre of the frame though. That is not the best place to have him. Put him in the bottom-right corner when framing your shot, or crop it in PP. The shadows are a bit deep on him, but you'll find that most here would simply lighten those in PP.

[ameerat42]

(No offence, but robust discussion.)

I like the way the angles of the rocks interplay here, Bob. They are strong elements. The little human figure (your son?) looks like he's concentrating on the job. Nice contrast in red/blue to highlight figure of interest.
Am.

[Caring]

Digital imaging technology has moved so fast and quickly that you can no longer keep the view that a camera produces an image. When I say image, I mean your usual JPG, BMP, TIFF, etc etc, or otherwise a collection of pixels, each with a different shade or color.

Photography is "painting with light".

I may speak figuratively, but the most obvious way to 'paint with light' is to take a capture of light which is made by a digital camera and stored as a RAW file. RAW editing software is then used to 'paint' with the light. You could paint a certain exposure in specific parts of the light, and or paint deeper contrast and colour. In short, look to your RAW file not as the final image, but if you like a canvas upon which you paint the gorgeous creations of your art.

[Roo]

Bob that pic is crap, you need to PP it, change the kids top to pink, put some grass on the hill (who likes looking at rock anyway, when green is way more calming), the grass colour will contrast better against the new t-shirt colour. Edit in a spaceship in the top right corner using the 1/3 rule, put some flowers in the foreground this will save you cropping and balance the pic better and you should be good to go. After all PP is all about changing the pic, I mean art

Tongue firmly in place before people start emo'ing out thinking I was being serious.

[zeroharm]

I love the photo Bob, and I wouldn't change a thing! As soon as I looked at it, my feet started to itch (I am scared, just a bit, of heights)... I am also one who 1. lightens 2. brightens 3. saturates & 4. sharpens.. And that is the extent of my PP... I don't add a sky, bush or grass, but don't care if anyone else does.. I have just purchased Lightroom 3.2 and am loving it.. It makes my pics(well some of them) Look exactly how it is when I am there, and that is what I want to achieve. Embrace this sites sometimes brutal honesty, I am sure nobody here has taken offence to anything you have said, we all love the same thing which is taking pics of our favourite things. I am looking forward to more of your pics

[ricktas]

NOTE: The New to Photography forum is NOT for posting photos for critique. This thread is heading towards being a critique thread. Please post all photos for critique in the Member Photos forums.

[ameerat42]

Digital imaging technology has moved so fast and quickly that you can no longer keep the view that a camera produces an image. When I say image, I mean your usual JPG, BMP, TIFF, etc etc, or otherwise a collection of pixels, each with a different shade or color.

Photography is "painting with light".

I may speak figuratively, but the most obvious way to 'paint with light' is to take a capture of light which is made by a digital camera and stored as a RAW file. RAW editing software is then used to 'paint' with the light. You could paint a certain exposure in specific parts of the light, and or paint deeper contrast and colour. In short, look to your RAW file not as the final image, but if you like a canvas upon which you paint the gorgeous creations of your art.

Words, but. And not a thousand, so not an illustration.

[Dylan & Marianne]

bob, that's the kind of picture that really needs little done to it unless whatever turned out on your screen unedited looked different from
a. the way you envisioned the picture if creating an artistic image is your primary aim
b. the representation of reality if reality is your primary aim

where do you draw the line? I think wherever you choose!
if on a scale of 0-10 in terms where that line is, you might find that those who doggedly choose 0 all the time might find themselves missing out on turning good images into great ones. By the same token, those who doggedly insist on doing a 10 for every picture are probably the ones who earn 'photoshopping' its evil connotations. Personally, I probably think I sit somewhere about the 7-8 mark which is probably more than most would care to do. I recently posted an example of what 'can' be done to a bunch of images from iceland though it is very different to what 'should' be done to an image (which is pretty much subjective)

this is the link here: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...1080p-finished

[Caring]

Words, but. And not a thousand, so not an illustration.

The OP asked for an opinion, not an illustration.