Photo Shop iltration: Waste of time?

To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily


--
Frank ess

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily


--
Frank ess


Like all image editing it is a personal thing. Some people will like it
others won't. If he is a pro then someone does because he is getting paid
for his images. If he isn't getting paid then he isn't a pro.

=(8)

Agreed,

Very few photos which have been altered to look sureal actually 'work'.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should!

As has been said on this group a thousand times before the best way to
photoshop you pictures is to get them right in the first place.






"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily


--
Frank ess

On May 14, 9:43 am, "Frank ess" wrote:

To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily

Totally agreed. And I like this quote after the final version:

"You don't recognize it as Photoshop manipulation."

Riiiight....

"John Ortt" wrote:
Agreed,

Very few photos which have been altered to look sureal actually 'work'.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should!

As has been said on this group a thousand times before the best way to
photoshop you pictures is to get them right in the first place.

Very few straight from the camera images cannot be improved with
PhotoShop. For example, consider sharpening, the correct amount
of which depends on the size of the print or display. It is
*impossible* to get it "right in the first place".

But editing does require a (very little) bit of artistic sense,
and a (good) bit of common sense. Most of all it requires a
"customer" who agrees with whatever is done.

Sometimes the customer is the camera operator to who exposed the
image...

If you like the results, you *should* do it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

=(8) wrote:

If he is a pro

He is a she. Which might or might not explain a few things... :-)

--
Garry Knight

"Frank ess" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily


--
Frank ess

Totaly not good, I second, and a lot ridiculous.
Some PhotoShop uneducated guru, I presume...

mb

On May 14, 9:43 am, "Frank ess" wrote:
To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily

My own guess is that they look, um, "less that terrible" on his/her
badly out-of-calibration moitor.

Austin

AustinMN wrote:
On May 14, 9:43 am, "Frank ess" wrote:
To me the finals by this "expert" look like, um, not good:http://www.creativepro.com/story/how...l?cprose=daily

My own guess is that they look, um, "less that terrible" on his/her
badly out-of-calibration moitor.

I guess it helps if they're viewed as an exposition on Sumi-E technique,
rather than of good wedding photography. The bride is lovely, and the
original photo is o.k.

--
john mcwilliams

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"John Ortt" wrote:

Very few photos which have been altered to look sureal actually 'work'.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should!

As has been said on this group a thousand times before the best way to
photoshop you pictures is to get them right in the first place.

Very few straight from the camera images cannot be improved with
PhotoShop. For example, consider sharpening, the correct amount
of which depends on the size of the print or display. It is
*impossible* to get it "right in the first place".

I was being somewhat flippant in my last remark but essentially what I am
trying to say is:
If you can get the initial exposure as close as possible to the end result
you desire there will be less photoshopping (and time) required later.
It will also be more likely to produce a convincing result.

In reality the effectiveness of all images is totally dependent on the media
used to produce and display them.

But editing does require a (very little) bit of artistic sense,
and a (good) bit of common sense. Most of all it requires a
"customer" who agrees with whatever is done.

Sometimes the customer is the camera operator to who exposed the
image...

Agreed

I have ammended your statement above to one I think we can both agree with.

If *the customer* (whoever that be) likes the results, you *should* do
it.


For my own part I am still firmly in the amateur realm and as a result
probrably one picture in every 100 comes out as I wanted it to and as a
result I do an awful lot of Photoshoping.

I have actually reached the point where I am better at photoshop than
photography but ce la vie. : )

I still dislike the final images in the original post though, they were far
better before they were edditted (IMHO).