Photo I took of my wife...

On 10/18/2014 09:08 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:05:56 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

But I agree that some photographers habitually overedit their pictures. There
are two or three in this group who do it, and everybody knows who they are.

Keep in mind, though, that what you see here is a very tiny fraction
of the number of photographs taken by these people if I'm included in
the group...and I'm sure I am.

The less than half-dozen photographs I've shown here have been
photographs I've singled out for extra processing for some reason.
Mostly as project photos involving different processing techniques.

You don't see the hundreds of photos that I've taken and processed in
what you would probably consider to be in a "normal" way. There's no
reason to post them here, so I don't.






Your stuff I like. A different approach than I'd take but good stuff.


Though I have subscribed to this group for a long time and gotten
excellent advice here...the few posts that I'm now ignoring are /not/
the ones I disagree with ...simply those who do not know how to present
an argument and simply counter with hostilities.

On 2014-10-18 14:24:39 +0000, philoÂ* said:

On 10/18/2014 09:08 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:05:56 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

But I agree that some photographers habitually overedit their pictures. There
are two or three in this group who do it, and everybody knows who they are.

Keep in mind, though, that what you see here is a very tiny fraction
of the number of photographs taken by these people if I'm included in
the group...and I'm sure I am.

The less than half-dozen photographs I've shown here have been
photographs I've singled out for extra processing for some reason.
Mostly as project photos involving different processing techniques.

You don't see the hundreds of photos that I've taken and processed in
what you would probably consider to be in a "normal" way. There's no
reason to post them here, so I don't.

Your stuff I like. A different approach than I'd take but good stuff.

Though I have subscribed to this group for a long time and gotten
excellent advice here...the few posts that I'm now ignoring are /not/
the ones I disagree with ...simply those who do not know how to present
an argument and simply counter with hostilities.

The flame wars are what have led some of us in this zoo to try and
refocus this group on digital photography and a very important part of
that for those of us striving to reach beyond shooting snapshots, post
processing.

In the past for professionals and hobbyist photographers post
processing in a wet darkroom was an integral part of photography. Today
that wet darkroom is our computer and whatever software we choose to
use. All photographs, your shooting philosophy not withstanding, in
days past, and today would not exist without a degree of post
processing.
For example, beyond having an eye for capturing the scene at the right
time, Ansel Adams’ work was perfected in his print processes in the
darkroom.

Taste varies, and some of the work posted here varies with the the
skill & equipment of the photographer. Some of it can avoid post
processing, but most can’t. Post processing is as much a part of
photography as getting your exposure settings right, and as you have
discovered, it is not always possible to “get it right in the camera�.

So just because that is your particular photographic philosophy and
taste, does not mean that others of us share that.

So a shot such as this, beyond tripping the shutter after some thought
to exposure, is all post processing.
https://db.tt/zRhU3FQs


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/18/2014 10:38 AM, MC wrote:
philo wrote:


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...3/t31.0-8/1167
618_673959272631445_1040825681_o.jpg : :
: again 100% unedited other than reduction.
:
: sunset
:
: I think I'd bin that one.

Big mistake to do that! My wife loves it and I took it for her not
you.


Why then share it for viewing, knowing it may be critiqued?


Naa. With that one, Philo's just practicing for Halloween. His wife
will understand. :^)

Bob


Yep , her name is Colleen and I call this photo Colloween..

BTW none of these images are anything I'd put in a show,
just snapshots I did for my own fun


But you still show it here, why? You have every right to post whatever
you like on these ngs, of course you are, but I fail to see your motive
for posing when these photos were either only taken for fun and only
for your wifes benefit and yet you become defensive over the technical
quality of said images.

MC




The reason I posted them was simply to show anyone interested what odd
lighting effects can be obtained /without/ using Photoshop.

Though I did not post them with the intent of them being critiqued...
I fully realized that by posting them I would of course have to expect a
few comments.

On 2014-10-18 15:55:08 +0000, philoÂ* said:


The reason I posted them was simply to show anyone interested what odd
lighting effects can be obtained /without/ using Photoshop.

The issue here is not Photoshop, nor any other image processing software.
You claim to take care with preparation for your shots with regard to
composition, and exposure, and have a demeaning tone when it comes to
those of us who use post processing for whatever reason, yet none of
the examples you have shown us demonstrate that any care was taken in
preparation at all.
Your “odd lighting effect� was not a deliberate action on your part. It
was due to your lack of preparation in all aspects of taking those
shots. As a spontaneous snapshot of the moment they are OK, but good,
well thought out, and planned photographs they are not. They are a
demonstration of the failure of your photographic philosophy.

Trying to pass off the terrible lighting as some sort of deliberate in
camera effect that you somehow planned, is a bit of a stretch.

Though I did not post them with the intent of them being critiqued...
I fully realized that by posting them I would of course have to expect
a few comments.

Yup!

--
Regards,

Savageduck