Things change?

[Jed]

Just wondering. I've come back, and been greeted by a wealth of threads as expected. However, I've also come back to a mass of threads, photographs in particular, where there is no response at all to the pictures. Are we headed to the direction whereby we all post but there are no comments?

Just a thought.

 

[Shadus]

Hi Jed. :dunno:

 

[Darren]

I always stick to my trusted idiom "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

 

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Darren
I always stick to my trusted idiom "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

:thumbsup:

 

[Shadus]

Originally posted by Darren
I always stick to my trusted idiom "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Is tht why we hardly hear from you???

 

[Violett]

I realised it too.. Posting for the sake of posting.. No comments for further improvement too..

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Jed
Just wondering. I've come back, and been greeted by a wealth of threads as expected. However, I've also come back to a mass of threads, photographs in particular, where there is no response at all to the pictures. Are we headed to the direction whereby we all post but there are no comments?

Just a thought.

Wb mate.

Hmm, fair comment methinks on the state of play with photographs with no response. Part of the problem might be that it's murderously difficult to give an honest and extensive critique when much of the work has been photoshopped extensively and is not a real indication of the quality of the actual shot.

Add to that the fiendishly slow load times from some of the sites used to host images such as homex.coolconnect.com etc and it's a massive disencentive to critique.

 

[StreetShooter]

Well, if you want to pick a discussion, I could give you one on that. What's wrong with a picture being photoshopped? Isn't it the final image that counts? Why should the quality of the actual shot be that important? Is skillfulness at making an exposure or using an expensive film somehow superior to skillfulness in using photoshop? The critique can be aimed at how to further improve the shot in photoshop, whether by cropping or cloning or changing colour balance. I sometimes show my originals to demonstrate what has been done, so I have nothing to be ashamed of.

:rbounce: :rbounce: :rbounce:

Originally posted by Ian


Wb mate.

Hmm, fair comment methinks on the state of play with photographs with no response. Part of the problem might be that it's murderously difficult to give an honest and extensive critique when much of the work has been photoshopped extensively and is not a real indication of the quality of the actual shot.

Add to that the fiendishly slow load times from some of the sites used to host images such as homex.coolconnect.com etc and it's a massive disencentive to critique.

 

[YSLee]

That's because we're talking about photography, not photoshop.

 

[StreetShooter]

If Photoshop is not about Photography I wonder what it's about! :rbounce:

 

[YSLee]

How about badly manipulated, cheesy pieces of "art"?

 

[StreetShooter]

I think we've covered this ground before.
Unmanipulated "pure" photographs also masquerade as "art".

 

[erwinx]

I don't think theres anything wrong with cropping, levels and colour balance changing... I'm undecided about cloning (depends how much and for what purpose) and against wholesale replacements like 'putting in a new sky'.

Perhaps before discussing further, we should identify what 'amount' of photoshopping we are talking about first.

 

[eadwine]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
If Photoshop is not about Photography I wonder what it's about! :rbounce:

totally agree with the doc.

 

[YSLee]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
I think we've covered this ground before.
Unmanipulated "pure" photographs also masquerade as "art".

Hey, you were spoiling for a fight.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by erwinx
I don't think theres anything wrong with cropping, levels and colour balance changing... I'm undecided about cloning (depends how much and for what purpose) and against wholesale replacements like 'putting in a new sky'.

Perhaps before discussing further, we should identify what 'amount' of photoshopping we are talking about first.

For me, I am for things that cropping, colour balancing, contrast/tonal adjustments, etc, most of which is done in the traditional darkroom. But things like removing stuff, adding moons, etc is a no-no.

Regards
CK

 

[Bluestrike]

Originally posted by ckiang


For me, I am for things that cropping, colour balancing, contrast/tonal adjustments, etc, most of which is done in the traditional darkroom. But things like removing stuff, adding moons, etc is a no-no.

Regards
CK

Hmmm...
what abt things like these?http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=112038

Abstract?

 

[Darren]

Originally posted by ckiang
For me, I am for things that cropping, colour balancing, contrast/tonal adjustments, etc, most of which is done in the traditional darkroom. But things like removing stuff, adding moons, etc is a no-no.

But this would depend on the INTENT of the artist (photographer/painter etc) and what he/she wants to communicate. As long as the artist states how the end-result was achieved, we, the viewer, should applaud the skill of the artist.

How many times have we seen multiple exposures where the moon or sun was superimposed on?

Or how can we be certain that Mona Lisa was smiling (she could have been crying or scowling or grinning) when Leonardo painted her?

Anyway, this thing is getting OT - at least Jed can't say that there is no one posting replies anymore ... ;p

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by erwinx
I don't think theres anything wrong with cropping, levels and colour balance changing... I'm undecided about cloning (depends how much and for what purpose) and against wholesale replacements like 'putting in a new sky'.

Perhaps before discussing further, we should identify what 'amount' of photoshopping we are talking about first.

This is the whole problem, unless people declare what reworking they've done with a digital image there is no fair way to critique it. Leveling and cropping and an auto contrast adjustment and some USM are pretty much the norm, however wholesale tweeking and manipulation if done properly is almost impossible to detect if it's done well, and in these cases it comes down to a critique being offered that is really about the persons photoshop abilities rather than their abiity with a camera.

Streetshooter.

I think you know my views on this matter, I don't have a problem with digital manipulation at all as I'm well known for extensive reworking of shots in the darkroom (both digital and traditional) with astrophotography shots and in extremely rare cases with regular shots.

My point is that I'd rather see a dodgy shot where some valid critique can be made than a tarted up final product that is stunning and where one can't give a valid critique apart from a banal 'nice shot'.

When all is said and done, the object is to guide and help improve the person as a photographer, not as a photoshop expert.

IMHO far too much emphasis is often placed on correcting fundamental errors in photography via photoshop and other software packages rather than correcting errors at the time of shooting.

 

[Bluestrike]

Originally posted by Darren


Anyway, this thing is getting OT - at least Jed can't say that there is no one posting replies anymore ... ;p

oh no....
This is actually a plot set up by Jed to have us flaming each other!!!!!

We've fallen into his trap!!!!;p