Hi all, I've uploaded a few pics to pbase, if you have time to look at them I would appreciate some feedback (you should be able to do this on pbase below the pic or gallery) to help improve and/or encourage my photography.
Some of them are scanned from prints, some direct from digital. This is a test site and I am aware that the resolution of the uploaded pics isn't great, the originals are obviously far better. None of the images have anything added or removed, obviously some of the saturation and contrast levels have been altered but apart from that there are no other alterations. I'm not sure if I'll stick with this site or not yet, like I say it's a trial run. I did look at sites recommended in other posts (flikr etc) but I'm not so keen on the "free" sites.
Some Photographs of Mine
Thanks for your time and input.
A staged photo by a journalist could be considered bogus even if it did not need editing.
I don't see how underwater guys could get their pics without all kinds of light manipulation but most would not consider that to be "cheating".
<blockquote>Quote
<hr> When does editing become "cheating"?<hr></blockquote>
When you show footage claiming to shw that the Queen is leaving a meeting in a huff - when she didn't and the footage actually show her arriving at the meeting, not leaving.
David
Dutch and Drdavid's comments remind me the blatant unethical act of one photographer. The photog was fired for submitting images of a high school soccer match as "in action" pictures of the goal keeper. Problem was that the images were made during pre-game warmup. I don't know how the paper caught it, but I'm glad that they did. Actually if I remember, I heard that he left before the game started! There's no room in the industry for these people.
hmmm,
-
what i would call "right" in the edition of a photo is:
changing brightness + contrast
changing colour to b&w
inversing colors (black = white, white = black)
also removing little objects in the background or vincinity of the picture (max 1-2% of the total pictures surface) that do not fit in such as power-wiring from a lamp, some things on the wall that do not fit in or other objects like leaves hanging from the side or sunflares from the lens. never more that 1-2% of the total image. never the main character, objects on the main chacracter or things that would disturb the context.
if i would have to do so i normally do not use the picture anymore (or simply try to re-shoot it).
using filters from time to time.
using a tripod.
using a, what we call in german, dimmer, to control the amount of light inside a room.
-
what i would call "wrong" in the edition of a photo is:
delete or remove tatoos or rings or other objects on the main character
put in new objects that change character/language of the picture (light up parts that have been dark before, EXCEPT the work is about exactly that and i can tell everyone)
try to display, as someone said before, things in an objectively seen "wrong context", a person eating ... a computer (persons do not eat computers), a tree standing in the middle of a street on the asphalt (trees do not grow on asphalt) and similar things (again: EXCEPT the work is about exactly that and i can tell everyone)
show negative media, such as some german magazines (ill people, people in a war, dead or ill animals) or benetton (using negative images for pr purposes) like to do sometimes.
using filters to brighten/enhance the image at every time.
using camera built in pre-enhancers.
don't worry about formats, they do only matter if you need a very specific (or pre-discussed) output in your work (more than 15mb size of picture, enlargements to more than 5 times the size of a normal photograph)
-
most important: DO NOT LISTEN TO SO CALLED "PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS"! (sorry for screaming) they will tell you everything and nothing about yourself and your littleness in life. ask people that dedicate time to the process of taking a good picture.
gut mein lieber?
grüße
'super
guck hier! watch!
There is nothing "wrong" with any of your "wrongs".
Unless the photographer makes those edits and reports the resulting image to be "accurate".
If you declare those edits wrong then you are declaring photographic art wrong. Photography is not only photojournalism.
I too tend to lean toward photojournalistic photos, so even when I admire other photographers' perfectly beautiful travel shots, I value "the moment" more. So I don't remove anything other than by cropping...no cloning out of facial lines, debris, no brightening of spot colors because it would be more pleasing, changing an otherwise ordinary peachy sunset to a brilliant deep red. I'm not a pro, and if I wasn't in the right place during the perfect golden lighting, but in fact had my one chance to shoot something at bright noon...well, what I gots it what I gots.
Things I do not consider cheating:
Saturation/contrast (I agree it's like switching film--just afterwards)
Cropping
Sharpening (unsharp mask)
Dodge & burn (using lasso)
Changing to b/w (I rarely do this, but don't mind it)
Something I consider semi-cheating but feel justified in anyway:
Creating shallow depth of field. I have a film SLR and a little digicam. With the SLR I get the depth of field I want. But even with full manual settings, the little digicam is usually not capable of throwing the background out of focus, unless the foreground is about 2 feet away from me. I don't have QUITE the shot I want without that DOF control. But since I certainly have the knowledge to do that, and just didn't because perhaps the digital was right for the shot I wanted, I feel OK with modifying the photo a bit to get the result I would have achieved with my film SLR.
These days I've started playing around with
digital infrared, which perhaps makes the concept of "cheating" moot...
trusted partner
