Use of photo shop

SNAKEDOC

Ive had my DSLR for a while now and although i first bought it for work not as a photographer i have recently began using it in conjunction with my love of the outdoors to capture shots of the wilderness. I dont own a laptop or computer so therefore i dont have photshop and i have never altered any of my shots. Is there anyone else here that would flat out refuse to edit their photos for any reason. I like the challenge of getting my photo perfect without asistance from a computer.
Heres one i took over christmas

.Longshanks.

SNAKEDOC

If you dont have anything useful to add to my thread can you please troll somewhere else. Posts such as these are nither funny or clever but the complete opposite.

Leftyflip

I shoot RAW all the time, shooting gigs, promo shoots and that kinda stuff. So the use of Lightroom is a necessity for me. Not to mention it's fantastic for cataloguing images, resizing, getting them ready for print, etc, etc.
Photoshop is slightly less used, but I still use it on a regular basis for cutting out parts of images, etc for posters!

kjt

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

I like the challenge of getting my photo perfect without asistance from a computer.
Heres one i took over christmas

Fair play to you, a lot of people take the easy way out and take average photos and make them good in post. I've learnt that you should always get it as close to perfect in camera but would disagree that you shouldn't have the 'assistance from a computer'. Post processing in itself is a huge part of taking a photograph in my opinion. I want the scene/person/landscape that I see to look exactly how I envisaged when I took the photograph. 99% of the time a camera can't do everything. Most of the time it will get me 80/90% there but it needs a little tinkering to get it how I want.

I think some people have this hangup about da-photooshop/post processing and some feel they are better than others if they don't have to use it. If you've ever shot film you would know that you don't just take a photo as close to perfect in camera and you're done. You get it as close to perfect, develop your roll/plate (if you want to have more/less contrast you push/pull your film), then you have to print your shot, decide how long to exposure your photo, what paper to use, if you want to dodge or burn anywhere, give it a vignette, how long to develop the print. So in my opinion, photoshop is like the developing of your roll of film(raw/jpg) and then printing, but instead of printing in the darkroom, you're printing for the screen and web. Boom!

I think you have the right way of thinking regards getting it correct in camera but that's not the "challenge", that's photography.

.Longshanks.

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

If you dont have anything useful to add to my thread can you please troll somewhere else. Posts such as these are nither funny or clever but the complete opposite.

1. This topic comes up one a month
2. Your camera has already processed your image to a degree when producing the Jpeg
3. Photoshop - the apparent layman term for ANY post processing - might help your image by reducing the exposure a little. Looks a little hot to me

My 2c

SNAKEDOC

.Longshanks. wrote: »

1. This topic comes up one a month
2. Your camera has already processed your image to a degree when producing the Jpeg
3. Photoshop - the apparent layman term for ANY post processing - might help your image by reducing the exposure a little. Looks a little hot to me

My 2c

Thats a bit better than a pic of micheal jackson. Thanks for your replys. Im new to the photography fourm and relatively new to anything but automatic photography so my photo may not be perfect but in the grand sceme of things i dont see it as a bad starting point. Thanks for your 2c anyway. Ill try not to start threads that are old to you in the future.

SNAKEDOC

kjt wrote: »

Fair play to you, a lot of people take the easy way out and take average photos and make them good in post. I've learnt that you should always get it as close to perfect in camera but would disagree that you shouldn't have the 'assistance from a computer'. Post processing in itself is a huge part of taking a photograph in my opinion. I want the scene/person/landscape that I see to look exactly how I envisaged when I took the photograph. 99% of the time a camera can't do everything. Most of the time it will get me 80/90% there but it needs a little tinkering to get it how I want.

I think some people have this hangup about da-photooshop/post processing and some feel they are better than others if they don't have to use it. If you've ever shot film you would know that you don't just take a photo as close to perfect in camera and you're done. You get it as close to perfect, develop your roll/plate (if you want to have more/less contrast you push/pull your film), then you have to print your shot, decide how long to exposure your photo, what paper to use, if you want to dodge or burn anywhere, give it a vignette, how long to develop the print. So in my opinion, photoshop is like the developing of your roll of film(raw/jpg) and then printing, but instead of printing in the darkroom, you're printing for the screen and web. Boom!

I think you have the right way of thinking regards getting it correct in camera but that's not the "challenge", that's photography.

Thanks for your post another side of post editing i didnt really think of. Cheers.

JrdanB

I for one, am firmly in the anti photoshop camp. I feel it's very often overused and can ruin photos - it also has the potential to make the photographer lazy. It's too easy to take an average photo and make it better in post - that's not photography, that's editing!

I also don't really buy the excuse of "photoshop is a digital darkroom" I'll be the first to confess that I haven't actually been in a darkroom yet, but I'm planning to develop my own film soon. I can imagine it's a whole lot different than clicking a few buttons on a mouse!

kjt

JrdanB wrote: »

I also don't really buy the excuse of "photoshop is a digital darkroom"

Who said it was an 'excuse'? It's not an excuse, post processing is an integral part of photography. I think at this point if you're arguing the point of not using Photoshop because you get the shot perfect in camera, if you're still using some form of automatic settings, your basis is a load of baloney & you have nothing to add to this. (I'm not pointing this comment in your direction JrdanB, or anybody in particular) You may as well give your camera to a robot as you're not making any decisions to get the photo correct, the camera is doing everything bar pointing and pressing the button.

JrdanB wrote: »

I can imagine it's a whole lot different than clicking a few buttons on a mouse!

Yup, you are right it is a whole lot different than clicking buttons but it's the direct comparison for the different technologies. The physical actions are different but what you're doing to the photograph is identical. Words like dodge/burn weren't made up by Adobe, they've been used in photography for nearly 200 years.

People have been taking crap photos on films and making them good in the darkroom for decades, it's no different than people taking crap photos on digital and Photoshopping them into something half decent.

SNAKEDOC

I can see both sides of the arguement. Maybe im biast because i havent the foggest idea how to use adobe or any editing software. I only shot film a few times starting off and i never developed my own photos i imagine its an art more than anything. Not editing works for me and i suppose each to his own. Is editing allowed for photo compitetions, id imagine not. Again probably asked here before but im new.

magicbastarder

again, this debate comes down to what people mean by 'photoshopping' - for a lot of people, it's exposure control, white balance, cropping, etc.; for others, it's blasting the photo into hyperreallity with scenes which look irradiated.

SNAKEDOC

magicbastarder wrote: »

again, this debate comes down to what people mean by 'photoshopping' - for a lot of people, it's exposure control, white balance, cropping, etc.; for others, it's blasting the photo into hyperreallity with scenes which look irradiated.

The only thing i have ever done is crop images. Even then i do try and get my composition right with the camera and print what i get.

JrdanB

I apologise for my use of the word "excuse" it was a poor choice. I totally agree with you on the automatic settings, I like to shoot fully manual as much as possible, which is about 95% of the time. Anyways, I've seen this kind of topic countless times, I don't know why I decided to join in now - it can get more passionate than religious talk! So whatever works best for them is the best approach

kjt

magicbastarder wrote: »

again, this debate comes down to what people mean by 'photoshopping' - for a lot of people, it's exposure control, white balance, cropping, etc.; for others, it's blasting the photo into hyperreallity with scenes which look irradiated.

Couldn't have said it better Magic!

SNAKEDOC I hope you don't mind.

SNAKEDOC

No not at all. I was quite proud of the original shot. I had looked at an online course of videos about shooting manual and i said id give it a go this was my first time ever not using the automatic settings and i didnt use a tripod for the long shutter speed just got into a good steady position
The editing does bring out the contrast of the grass and the water better.

Red Nissan

TBH, once one says DSLR one is not in pure photography as the DSLR is in fact a very advanced computer which does manipulate the image whether the operator understands this or not.

BTW, IMO, the image posted is over exposed.

To get a real feel for the art one must make their own plates and load them and shoot a scene with a light box that they made themselves and a lens scrounged from some other device.

It's almost impossible to do today with the bans on the chemicals and the disposal of waste and so, I was near myself in having to use a thing called film, I graduated to using a 5x4" field camera to satisfy my cravings and hand developed each slide in a tank, that was the nearest I got.

Tiriel

kjt wrote: »

Couldn't have said it better Magic!

SNAKEDOC I hope you don't mind.

No swan?!

That series of images sums up exactly what I think - improvements to the image, where required are part of photography for me. I don't like excessive processing - which to me is putting things in that weren't there, or dramatically altering a scene with cloning etc. Depends on the image though.

kjt's work on your image (the middle one!) shows the strengths of what 'photoshop' can do.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

A lot of my images are as shot, but that was due mainly to my lack of knowledge in post processing. Some of them I really like and I am happy with the results. I find that post processing is almost essential if you want to present what you seen on the day. A lot of images come out over/under exposed or lack color.

Good capture without tripod

kjt

Red Nissan wrote: »

BTW, IMO, the image posted is over exposed.

Yup the water is fairly blown but not a bad go for first time using manual

Red Nissan wrote: »

I graduated to using a 5x4" field camera to satisfy my cravings and hand developed each slide in a tank, that was the nearest I got.

5x4 is a beauty to work with, I'm dying to get out more with the large format. It really slows you down and makes you think a whole lot more about each shot. I've shot wet plate collodions on and off the past year and it's absolutely amazing. I'd say if you like 5x4 you'd enjoy wet plates, ever thought of giving it a go?

(just looked for a quick vid, this give a quick insight)

D.S.

kjt wrote: »

Who said it was an 'excuse'? It's not an excuse, post processing is an integral part of photography. I think at this point if you're arguing the point of not using Photoshop because you get the shot perfect in camera, if you're still using some form of automatic settings, your basis is a load of baloney & you have nothing to add to this. (I'm not pointing this comment in your direction JrdanB, or anybody in particular) You may as well give your camera to a robot as you're not making any decisions to get the photo correct, the camera is doing everything bar pointing and pressing the button.




Yup, you are right it is a whole lot different than clicking buttons but it's the direct comparison for the different technologies. The physical actions are different but what you're doing to the photograph is identical. Words like dodge/burn weren't made up by Adobe, they've been used in photography for nearly 200 years.

People have been taking crap photos on films and making them good in the darkroom for decades, it's no different than people taking crap photos on digital and Photoshopping them into something half decent.

+1 to this.

Case in point - Ansel Adams is one of the most famous black and white photographers ever, and one of the foremost thinkers on the the craft. He wrote three books - the camera, the print, the negative. He speaks extensively about how he took his images from camera to darkroom to print. Each part of the workflow was integral to the final output.

It's only since digital cameras and LCD screens and the advanced of ultra-photoshopped images that people have convinced themselves that there is a higher integrity in getting things right in camera. But for me, it doesn't ring true.

Even the best professional digital cameras cannot capture the full range of light that your eye captures. Secondly, if you study how eyes scan and assimilate information, the eye does things v uniquely depending on the purpose (e.g. scatter reading when there is a purpose behind the object being observed, such as when reading). Therefore, the whole process behind what the eyes focus on, how the eyes capture and view light, and then what the brain perceives (and imagines) is extremely complex, and beyond the capability of any camera for the foreseeable future. For me, post processing (when the photograph is artistic in nature, rather than reportage) is integral to focus the viewer on what the artist originally envisaged. You put two people in front of a waterfall, and one person will focus on the detail of the rocks, and the other on the colour of the backlit water from the sun. No two people perceive the same thing. And additionally, after all that, we end up putting the image into an articial rectangular frame, which again is an abstract of reality, which is 2d in nature, and where we use compositional and post processing techniques to make the image feel like a 3d experience all over again. At all stages in the process across the camera/print/negative workflow we are coercing the image to do what we want to make the end viewer react a certain way - it seems crazy to me anyway to single out post processing on it's own.

I personally love all styles of photography, from bending light / tones / colours in the digital / physical darkroom, to people creating crazy composites and mind bending images from the depths of their brains/subconscious. The problem i have though is when people do the latter and pretend it's the former. it's simply unethical and unfair to create an image (e.g. landscape photo) that wasn't actually possible, and win competitions etc against people who never had a chance to do the same (and where rules forbid the practice).

BrensBenz

In the old days, photographers would try to "enhance" shots in the darkroom - dodging, burning, over / under cooking, etc., etc. I see photoshopping merely as a modern and more reliable method of enhancement.

Many shots are only great because the lighting conditions were perfect and the photographer was "lucky" to be there and smart enough to spot the opportunity. If the subject matter in your viewfinder is good but the lighting isn't, why not enhance it later?

My only problem with PhotoShop is its built-in and horrendous level of user hostile lack of intuitiveness (sic?) and the money-making industry of third parties, promising (and failing) to de-mystify PhotoShop for you.

I use a freebie Ulead Photoimpact (all of the icons do what you think they might) and, with some difficulty, Nikon Capture. My Photoshop discs are now my most expensive ashtrays.

Red Nissan

BrensBenz wrote: »

My only problem with PhotoShop is its built-in and horrendous level of user hostile lack of intuitiveness (sic?) and the money-making industry of third parties, promising (and failing) to de-mystify PhotoShop for you.

Photoshop was part of the digital process but today it is not even necessary to use at all for photographs.

Photoshop is still the most powerful tool IMO and absolutely no one knows PS, it's such a huge program and has three or four specialties, catering for the photographer, the designer, the engineer, the artist, the digital creationist, game maker, film maker, video maker and I'm sure a few more.

Myksyk

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Ive had my DSLR for a while now and although i first bought it for work not as a photographer i have recently began using it in conjunction with my love of the outdoors to capture shots of the wilderness. I dont own a laptop or computer so therefore i dont have photshop and i have never altered any of my shots. Is there anyone else here that would flat out refuse to edit their photos for any reason. I like the challenge of getting my photo perfect without asistance from a computer.
Heres one i took over christmas

I think this rather misses the real nature of digital photography imho. Here are the two scenarios you're referring to as I see it:

1. I compose a shot, decide on camera settings etc and ... I allow the very sophisticated computer in my camera run its algorithms etc to alter and edit the information received on the sensor it a fairly generic way to produce a digital image.

2. I compose a shot, decide on camera settings and ... I take the raw information received by my camera and using a different computer make artistic decisions myself about the way the information is interpreted and the digital image produced.

I much prefer the latter which by default involves me much more in the whole artistic process from beginning to end and which relies on my perception, decisions, preferences, artistic leanings, etc etc to produce the final image.

I guess it does come down to individual preferences but if you're getting your shots perfect then you're doing it with computers, either in-camera or in post processing. They're both processed but at least in post-processing I'M making the decisions.

ScumLord

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

I like the challenge of getting my photo perfect without asistance from a computer.

the perfect photo is completely subjective and there's really no such thing. A photo can be technically perfect but look like crap and visa versa.

I don't see myself as a photographer (even as an amatuer hobbiest), I was always good at art and could draw/paint anything as a young nip. Then I got into digital arts and while I had used cameras I eventually bought a camera for photoshop use. Photoshop is an integral part of my photo taking and I while I practice taking a good photos in camera my main aim is to have good data for photoshop.

Once photoshop is involved you don't have to restrict yourself to the notion of being just a photographer, it becomes one tool in your arsenal as an artist. I know that sounds arty farty but it's essentially true. You can make whatever picture your heart desires rather than capturing what you see in front of you.

I love experimenting in photoshop though, it's where I get my enjoyment and of course you're going to enjoy a completely different aspect of the process.

Unless you're trying to achieve something specific there is no right and wrong.

Myksyk

To further explain my point and echo kjt's post...

This is your original (hope you don't mind my reproducing)



The following version of your image has been (sorry, hope you don't mind):
Cropped, sharpened, had its white balance and exposure altered slightly, had adjustments made to address clipping in whites and blacks, reduced highlights, slightly adjusted to increase clarity and vibrance ... and had a slight vignette introduced. That may seem a lot but they are largely the same types of adjustments your camera probably made but didn't get quite right because of settings perhaps.

I may be wrong but I doubt the 'post-edited' version is grossly less representative of the actual scene than the 'in-camera edited' original. There is even the possibility that it may be closer to what you saw (or not).



Obviously as we all get better at operating our cameras we may have to do less post-processing but most professionals I've read seem to indicate that they will still do post work on 99% of their picks.

spookwoman

Myksyk the edit you did there I would see as acceptable and would do that myself. Me I dont like over processed images, put them on a website promoting an area and it is not what the eye sees. I would also have to ask why do you need to shop a picture in the first place, does it make photography something that anyone can do as long as they have a computer. The other issue with photoshop is people are now questioning or just saying your pictures are fake. It's happened to me and its insulting to say the least when doubt is raised on a photographs authenticity.

Myksyk

spookwoman wrote: »

Me I dont like over processed images

Knowing what you like and don't like is important but it's an individual thing. No right or wrong.

spookwoman wrote: »

put them on a website promoting an area and it is not what the eye sees.

That's only a negative if you value what the eye sees more than what the mind sees!! Photorealism is not the only possible end product of photography. Its back to your point above ... what do you like?

spookwoman wrote: »

I would also have to ask why do you need to shop a picture in the first place

Lots of reasons ... from the basic correction of exposure, colour etc etc as in my example above to the creation of a broader canvas of evocative images.

spookwoman wrote: »

does it make photography something that anyone can do as long as they have a computer.

You can't fake artistic vision or creative ability. A computer ... either in a camera or outside of it ... won't create an evocative or beautiful or stunning or awe-inspiring or shocking or funny or nostalgic image. The photographer does that. What does it matter what tools he/she used to create?

SNAKEDOC

I think the point of photography for the masses as long as you have a computer does say a lot about the industry as a whole. Most will edit their images and as two people have already done so altered my image which says in their mind my image needed to be altered due to my inexperience or inability or lack of post editing. In my opinion i went looking for this shot i composed my image and altered settings on my camera to get the results I Wanted. I suppose i dont mind tht someone altered my work but it is kinda the same thing as someome telling you that your image is fake. ReDing all the comments ill still continue not using any post editing as for me taking tne photo is what i enjoy.

D.S.

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

I think the point of photography for the masses as long as you have a computer does say a lot about the industry as a whole. Most will edit their images and as two people have already done so altered my image which says in their mind my image needed to be altered due to my inexperience or inability or lack of post editing. In my opinion i went looking for this shot i composed my image and altered settings on my camera to get the results I Wanted. I suppose i dont mind tht someone altered my work but it is kinda the same thing as someome telling you that your image is fake. ReDing all the comments ill still continue not using any post editing as for me taking tne photo is what i enjoy.

SNAKEDOC - as long as you are happy with your shots, that's all that matters, and it's great that you get what you need straight out of the camera. However, I personally disagree with your statement that 'photography for the masses as long you have a computer does say a lot about the industry as a whole'. This doesn't make sense to me. 20 years ago, would somebody have said that 'the point that you need a darkroom does say a lot about the industry'?? Lightroom / aperture / photoshop are just digital versions of the physical darkroom.

The steps required to produce photographs hasn't changed substantially really in the last 20 years - it's simply that the tools have - from chemical to digital. There's nothing 'better' about getting your shot right in camera, other than it's quicker. All that matters is that we get the shots we all have in our heads on to screen / paper, using whatever tools we choose along the way.

Esel

This comment is not not about 'shopping or after-image processing.

If you want to take a proper shot of moving water, then you need to adjust something - probably aperture speed.

Your photo shows a blurred, white mass, whereas it should show bubbles, some white water, lots or still(ish) water etc. - unless your shot is exactly as you intended it to be.

The main advantage of digital photography is that one can afford to take many, many shots of such a subject.

So, switch to manual and go from there!

SNAKEDOC

Esel wrote: »

This comment is not not about 'shopping or after-image processing.

If you want to take a proper shot of moving water, then you need to adjust something - probably aperture speed.

Your photo shows a blurred, white mass, whereas it should show bubbles, some white water, lots or still(ish) water etc. - unless your shot is exactly as you intended it to be.

The main advantage of digital photography is that one can afford to take many, many shots of such a subject.

So, switch to manual and go from there!

There are loads of photos out there just like my shot with the water as you describe it a white mass. I intended to photograph this. The water flowing through the shot yet the surrounding area in focus. I dont know what you mean by bubbles in a shot like this. My aperature was 2.8 and a shutter speed of 1 second.
Just google picture of flowing water for more like the effect in my shot

Red Nissan

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Is editing allowed for photo compitetions, id imagine not. Again probably asked here before but im new.

Photoshop is allowed of course as photo finishing is part of the coverall development process.

However, Photoshop can create features and that is usually not allowed in conventional photo competitions, PS leaves a forensic trail so any examiner [judge] can undo changes to check if too much PS has been applied.

BTW, you cannot get away with no editing, every time you change a setting on your capture device you are instructing the processing engine to change a parameter.

Red Nissan

My workflow, pictures captured in RAW and developed in DPP [Canon's software] mostly taken in M mode via a separate hand held meter [but not exclusively, I do use all the modes].

Flash is sometimes metered too and fixed.

I select all my files with Fastone 4.9 and move them to a holding folder, I view with Fastone and select copying the selecting to another holding folder. I run DPP and if all are the same I'l make an onthefly recipe and apply to all ~ save, name, number, convert and re size all in one go to the same folder and then delete the originals from that folder. Open FotoStation, caption and open Email and send files.

No PS used at all in my day to day workload. Occasionally in a series of pictures of a group and I don't have all open eyes in one frame, then PS does come up and I swap heads around.

I do PR work too and this is creative and all rules are out the window, we WILL turn a Hurricane into a beautiful sunny day and PS is the creator.

Any photos going to newspapers as News Stories cannot be Photoshopped at all, baring a little levels and contrast ~ some still don't even want them sharpened, sharpening is destructive and irreversible.

magicbastarder

one thing worth commenting on is the equivalence people draw between post-processing, and the algorithms applied to the photo in-camera as it's written to memory, be it sharpening, white balance, or what have you.
the obvious distinction to make here is that in terms of photographer input, that is pre-processing; the decision on settings is made *before* the exposure is made, and getting them right would therefore count as skill in image capture, much as being able to frame right or read tricky exposure conditions.

there's nothing wrong (and quite a few things right) in aiming to get things right in-camera; it's *much* more rewarding (for me, certainly) than sitting in front of a computer, revisiting a photo weeks or years after you took the shot, still trying to nail the best treatment of the shot.

Myksyk

In-camera processing (which happens after you take a shot) is not the same thing as making decisions on camera settings before you take the shot. Those settings decisions are made whether you're shooting jpeg and letting the camera do the processing or shooting raw and doing it yourself.

You compose the shot ... you make the decisions regarding the camera settings (good or bad, skilled or not). Then you have a decision about your preference to:

1. have your camera produce the final JPEG without you, including all the information 'it' decides to use our dump (this is in-camera processing)
2. use your computer to process the raw data you instructed your camera to collect and you make the decisions about which information is used or dumped.

magicbastarder

obviously, if you're exporting RAW, there is no in-camera processing of the likes people are talking about.

squareballoon

ah the issue of what constitutes a photograph or a photographer comes up again. Is this a photograph?

No, it's 3. Did I get it right in camera? No because what's possible in camera isn't what I wanted. The camera is a means to an end, as is photoshop, LR, gimp and whatever else you want to use. Could you have saved the blown areas shown here in your image in camera?

sure you could but you chose not to because as you said that's not the image you wanted. Post processing isn't always about fixing mistakes, it's also about creating an image that is pleasing to you.

SNAKEDOC

Thanks for all the replies. I suppose im just a simple guy when it comes to photography. I like to photograph nature and on occasion sporting events. I tend to enjoy photographs that are how i see them and not i suppose picture perfect with every detail covered. I just like having a nice clean crisp image of what i was looking at through the view finder. Theres probably a lot of folks thinking what is he like but hey it works for me, and i think of it as my take on an art form not an exact science.

.Longshanks.

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Ive had my DSLR for a while now and although i first bought it for work not as a photographer i have recently began using it in conjunction with my love of the outdoors to capture shots of the wilderness. I dont own a laptop or computer so therefore i dont have photshop and i have never altered any of my shots. Is there anyone else here that would flat out refuse to edit their photos for any reason. I like the challenge of getting my photo perfect without asistance from a computer.
Heres one i took over christmas

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I suppose im just a simple guy when it comes to photography. I like to photograph nature and on occasion sporting events. I tend to enjoy photographs that are how i see them and not i suppose picture perfect with every detail covered. I just like having a nice clean crisp image of what i was looking at through the view finder. Theres probably a lot of folks thinking what is he like but hey it works for me, and i think of it as my take on an art form not an exact science.

Changed your tune
:pac:

SNAKEDOC

Well i look at it like this in my minds eye my photos are the way i want them and what i meant by picture perfect is what some might do to it in post editing changing exposore and such. I see something i like i take a picture and i print it i sometimes take a lot of shots but only print and keep the ones i like.

Rew

magicbastarder wrote: »

obviously, if you're exporting RAW, there is no in-camera processing of the likes people are talking about.

Worth remembering that RAW converters generally apply basic processing

SNAKEDOC

squareballoon wrote: »

ah the issue of what constitutes a photograph or a photographer comes up again. Is this a photograph?

No, it's 3. Did I get it right in camera? No because what's possible in camera isn't what I wanted. The camera is a means to an end, as is photoshop, LR, gimp and whatever else you want to use. Could you have saved the blown areas shown here in your image in camera?

sure you could but you chose not to because as you said that's not the image you wanted. Post processing isn't always about fixing mistakes, it's also about creating an image that is pleasing to you.

Just a thought here and dont take me wrong but you said here that what you wanted to achieve was not possible in camera so in essence a camera could not do the job so can it be classed as photography? From the meaning of photography drawing with light, does making an image on a computer using a photo as a template not really fall under CGI computer aided imagery.