Started by eagleyepro, March 13, 2013, 12:07:29 pm
Quote from: mshi2008 on March 14, 2013, 03:03:19 pmfor my own workflow, PhotoMechanic is the best editing software.
Quote from: Rob C on March 14, 2013, 10:01:12 amPatience comes with age; trust me.
Quote from: Rob C on March 14, 2013, 04:58:42 amApparently, the meaning of editing has been subverted.
Quote from: kikashi on March 15, 2013, 04:37:00 amI don't agree. Editing has always meant more than simply culling. If I edit a book, or a scientific publication, or a newspaper, do I merely delete parts of it?Jeremy
Quote from: Schewe on March 15, 2013, 12:32:20 amSlowness comes with age...Patience comes with wisdom (which is different).
Quote from: louoates on March 14, 2013, 10:27:30 pmGreat topic. Editing is simply getting to where you want an image to be. I have zero reservations about using all the tools possible. Many of my best sellers are drastically manipulated, often with several features added, landscapes stretched or compressed, sky swapped, time of day altered, etc. No, nothing is "sacred" to arriving at the final image.I tend to keep nearly all my images, rather than cull them because I often go back through the crap pile and see what images can go together. I do lots of composites and find the old moldy stuff valuable.
Quote from: Isaac on March 15, 2013, 01:17:47 pm...I'm interested in doing a promo for my website :-)
Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 15, 2013, 02:50:07 pmLet me put it this way: the best (photographic) edit is the one that the viewer does not perceive as such, especially non-photographers.By that I do not have in mind non-distinquishable before/after, but non-perceivable when viewed alone. For that reason I agree with previous posters who thought it is not such a good idea to push before/after comparisons.
Quote from: RSL on March 15, 2013, 09:13:27 amAny digital photograph needs sharpening, and often, especially if it was shot in mixed light, minor color adjustment. But in the vast majority of cases, if it needs more "editing" than that to be good, then it's never going to be good. Yes, I know all about AA and "Moonrise over Hernandez," but Ansel nailed the guts of that shot in the beginning. It's one of the few pictures that falls outside "the vast majority." Same thing with Gene Smith's Haitian mental patient and Tomoko in her bath. But if you need to do extensive "editing" (other than culling) on your run-of-the-mill photographs you need to check both your equipment and your vision.
Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2013, 02:44:28 pmThat the sun, hitting the right side of the pillars, could be that orange is actually believable. Anything else, given that it is in the shade, isn't - shades are typically cooler, bluish.
Quote from: DennisWilliams on March 16, 2013, 02:00:03 am If it wasn't in the viewfinder, and it's in the finished photo, it's probably too much. I'll remove a blemish if it would have been gone on a different day, but I leave a scar. I might even remove an out of focus bird that looks like a blob from an out of focus sky in a worse case scenario, but if there is any semblance of reinvention afterwards, it is too much. My original transparencies and negs on a light box are immediately recognizable as the digital versions on the computer screen. My adjustments are minimal. What would be the point of designing, directing and executing the shots right to begin with? If I want a red leather chair, I just take a red leather chair to shoot, I don't take a blue vinyl one and fix it after. I want to be out having fun shooting, not sitting alone at a computer fiddling.
Quote from: stamper on March 16, 2013, 05:36:37 amAt the end of the day all that counts is the final print/internet image. If you don't show someone what the original was then all they have to look at and judge is the final output. What you do to get there is up to the photographer and his conscience. Try your best to get a good image out of a camera and then try to edit it to match your vision. It is a simple concept but difficult to achieve.
Page created in 0.031 seconds with 15 queries.