Is "punching up photos," cheating?

On 22/05/2016 5:33 @wiz, RichA wrote:
Super-saturated aurora shots are a good example. Colours not seen by the human eye created in photoshop. Also, this lighting stuff. Some of them are legitimate, one-shot takes of lightning flashes. But some are time exposures of multiple shots, giving the reader (who wasn't aware) the impression that multiple strikes are happening at that location.

http://www.dpreview.com/photography/...t-in-venezuela


There are nowadays so few legitimate lightning shots I simply dismiss
all of them as fake. It's virtually impossible to determine which are
authentic, which are simply shopped, at the usual net image sizes.
That's the great contribution of Adobe to digital photography: fake
imagery...

In Noons:
There are nowadays so few legitimate lightning shots I simply dismiss
all of them as fake. It's virtually impossible to determine which are
authentic, which are simply shopped, at the usual net image sizes.
That's the great contribution of Adobe to digital photography: fake
imagery...

What nonsense. I suppose you consider all arts other than out-of-the
camera photographs to be "fake?" After all, many great paintings and
sculptures are of mythical scenes. And all are impressionistic.

That was a rhetorical question.

Anyway, here is 75 seconds of real lightning for you. GoPro, Final Cut
Pro, no Adobe software involved.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Noons
wrote:

There are nowadays so few legitimate lightning shots I simply dismiss
all of them as fake. It's virtually impossible to determine which are
authentic, which are simply shopped, at the usual net image sizes.
That's the great contribution of Adobe to digital photography: fake
imagery...

fake imagery is nothing new. it just got a bit easier, as did most
everything else with photography.

In article , Davoud
wrote:

In Noons:
There are nowadays so few legitimate lightning shots I simply dismiss
all of them as fake. It's virtually impossible to determine which are
authentic, which are simply shopped, at the usual net image sizes.
That's the great contribution of Adobe to digital photography: fake
imagery...

What nonsense. I suppose you consider all arts other than out-of-the
camera photographs to be "fake?" After all, many great paintings and
sculptures are of mythical scenes. And all are impressionistic.

That was a rhetorical question.

Anyway, here is 75 seconds of real lightning for you. GoPro, Final Cut
Pro, no Adobe software involved.

Oops. https://vimeo.com/131324849

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 23/05/2016 3:11 @wiz, Davoud wrote:


What nonsense.

Really? And you are the obvious holder of sense?

I suppose you consider all arts other than out-of-the
camera photographs to be "fake?"

No. Completely, utterly wrong.

After all, many great paintings and
sculptures are of mythical scenes. And all are impressionistic.

But they are not photographs.
Remarkable on their own. As paintings and sculptures.
Period.


That was a rhetorical question.

Really? Then why make it?


Anyway, here is 75 seconds of real lightning for you. GoPro, Final Cut
Pro, no Adobe software involved.

Ah OK: virtual lightning. Perfect!...

On 23/05/2016 4:56 @wiz, Davoud wrote:


Oops. https://vimeo.com/131324849

Wow! Very impressive!
I used to be into video a few years ago, not anymore.
Other than little bits of surfing action I do with the m4/3 cameras.

This was taken with my "old" OlyEM5.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/_A141013.jpg
Middle of the night during some of the fierce Sydney electrical storms
last Spring.
Had no idea the two bolts were visible until I looked at the RAW file.
Gave it a push and a little bit of highlights recovery.

Could have done more with it but quite happy as is: only for FB
consumption so it doesn't need to be Ansel Adams material!

Had I been an Adobe fanatic, I'm quite sure it'd now be full of bolts
and other fake enhancements...
Which would relate to nothing of the original.

That's the problem I see with that sort of thing.
The adding of fake material to a photo.

Enhance it all we want. With the original contents.
Add fake content? That's a no-no with me.

Unless of course it's obvious and with comic or political intent, like
added text and such. EG:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...0look%2001.jpg

In article , Noons
wrote:

Had I been an Adobe fanatic, I'm quite sure it'd now be full of bolts
and other fake enhancements...
Which would relate to nothing of the original.

That's the problem I see with that sort of thing.
The adding of fake material to a photo.

Enhance it all we want. With the original contents.
Add fake content? That's a no-no with me.

then don't do it.

nobody is forcing anyone to add fake content, certainly not adobe.

and adding fake content was going on well before there was an adobe or
digital cameras. it's nothing new.

On 5/23/2016 5:01 AM, Noons wrote:
On 23/05/2016 3:11 @wiz, Davoud wrote:


What nonsense.

Really? And you are the obvious holder of sense?

I suppose you consider all arts other than out-of-the
camera photographs to be "fake?"

No. Completely, utterly wrong.

After all, many great paintings and
sculptures are of mythical scenes. And all are impressionistic.

But they are not photographs.
Remarkable on their own. As paintings and sculptures.
Period.


Why would they have to be?


--
PeterN

On 23/05/2016 11:04 @wiz, nospam wrote:


Enhance it all we want. With the original contents.
Add fake content? That's a no-no with me.

then don't do it.

er....
Isn't that what I just said?


nobody is forcing anyone to add fake content, certainly not adobe.

Of course not. But they make it exceedingly intrusive and even
"desirable" for "perfect photography".


and adding fake content was going on well before there was an adobe or
digital cameras. it's nothing new.


Sure. But a LOT easier now, in this day and age of a zillion pirated
copies of Photoshop...

In article , Noons
wrote:

Enhance it all we want. With the original contents.
Add fake content? That's a no-no with me.

then don't do it.

er....
Isn't that what I just said?

not really.

nobody is forcing anyone to add fake content, certainly not adobe.

Of course not. But they make it exceedingly intrusive and even
"desirable" for "perfect photography".

no they don't.

and adding fake content was going on well before there was an adobe or
digital cameras. it's nothing new.

Sure. But a LOT easier now, in this day and age of a zillion pirated
copies of Photoshop...

lots of things are easier now. it's called progress.