User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/8/2020 9:53:43 AM EDT
[#1]
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2020 11:23:23 AM EDT
[#2]
I was kind of wondering this in the past, why people go on vacation to take pictures of the sights, when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of pictures (probably better quality) of the same views on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2020 1:59:42 PM EDT
[#3]
I gave up photography once the digital age hit.
I was a professional that did all the lab work, processed and printed B&W, Color and Slides along with Picture to Picture duplications when the original negatives weren’t available. Also did forensic stuff, aerial photography and more... It was fun and could be challenging to get colors correct, etc. spent lots of hours in darkrooms. No machines at the time, all film and prints were hand processed. I Was a master at “Burn-n-dodge” <——-old skool techniques |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2020 4:27:14 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By die-tryin: I gave up photography once the digital age hit. I was a professional that did all the lab work, processed and printed B&W, Color and Slides along with Picture to Picture duplications when the original negatives weren’t available. Also did forensic stuff, aerial photography and more... It was fun and could be challenging to get colors correct, etc. spent lots of hours in darkrooms. No machines at the time, all film and prints were hand processed. I Was a master at “Burn-n-dodge” <——-old skool techniques If you were interviewing wedding photographers and asked 100 of them what "burn-n-dodge" means, I suspect well under half would have a clue! I started back in the day of dark rooms and smelly chemicals and loved every minute of it. But man, doing photography for money became a joke when everybody willing to do it for free to "get their name out there" picked up a digital camera. -shooter |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2020 6:29:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Yea, just like auto tunes for singers, digital cameras and edit programs make average person decent at photography.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2020 6:20:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Photoshop can change everything in a photo. It won’t magically make someone a better photographer. Hell, looking back at my first photos when I went from film to digital, I’d say it made me a worse one for a few years.
 There has always been trickery in photography and video. Tech just makes it easier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2020 4:53:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Here are two images that I photoshopped. I'm not going to say what I did. I'll leave that to you for the time being.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2020 8:37:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea, just like auto tunes for singers, digital cameras and edit programs make average person decent at photography.  What do you call a person who takes a blank piece of canvas, then adds paint to it? Much like shooting stances and techniques, one solution does not meet all needs or expectations. Photoshop is a tool for photographers and artists alike and not all imagery captured by a camera is intended to be documentary/editorial in nature. I try to interpret an image in what I think is the intended genre. If a photojournalist admits to significant Photoshop changes, they're out. On the other hand, constraints are greatly relaxed for an image presented as artistic expression. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 12:01:19 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: Here are two images that I photoshopped. I'm not going to say what I did. I'll leave that to you for the time being. https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20200121-New-England/i-rcXc5ms/2/0a20a5ce/X3/_DSC6733B-6919D1%20-%202160-X3.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/Climbing-Outings/20190902-Longs-Peak/i-dfjdwWF/1/fe51f219/X3/_DSC3884B2%20-%201920-X3.jpg Could be anything, ill guess, it was really at a kids birthday party and you added a mountain and stars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 3:45:54 AM EDT
[#10]
It all depends on the purpose of the "photo". Photography exists on a sliding scale:
photo as documentation ---- photo as art ---- art that started off as a photo There is no wrong location on the scale. The only wrong is when the location on the scale is misrepresented. The most common misrepresentation is when a "photo as art" is claimed to be "photo as documentation". This usually results in a big apology from a media outlet and the firing of the photographer. The pro photographers have been in the dark rooms manipulating the images for ages. We amateurs were left to working with the labs through written instructions on what we wanted changed. Mom and Dad usually settled for whatever the default lab processing was and left it at that. With the digital age, pixel editing software allows everyone the same level of access for photo manipulation that was previously restricted to the pros. There is nothing wrong with restricting your edits to the limits of the documentation category. There is also nothing wrong with moving your edits into the art ranges, assuming the goal was not restricted to "documentation" in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 5:25:49 AM EDT
[#11]
I use photoshop to bring out details in pictures for assembly manuals that I write. Other than that, I won't touch it. I hate it when someone says, "Look at this cool photo I took!" and it's obviously shopped.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 1:03:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Could be anything, ill guess, it was really at a kids birthday party and you added a mountain and stars. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Originally Posted By L_JE: Here are two images that I photoshopped. I'm not going to say what I did. I'll leave that to you for the time being. Could be anything, ill guess, it was really at a kids birthday party and you added a mountain and stars. The first photo is from the Rhode Island coast, and almost straight from the camera raw file, with some burning to add density to the upper right of the frame, and then overlaying the incoming tide from a subsequent brighter frame in the time lapse, with a shorter shutter speed to better freeze the motion of the water. Here's the base photo. It's a remarkable amount of dynamic range to be able to capture in one image, but the shutter in the base photo was too slow to render the water to what it looked like to the eye ...  The photo of Longs Peak was a crescent moon setting in a notch, but the dynamic range far exceeded what I could capture in one frame. To the eye, I could see both the faint Milky Way, and the detail in the cresent moon. I started with manual camera adjustments to try to properly expose the moon before it set from view, and then immediately transitioned to a set timelapse exposure for the Milky Way, based on the previous night's exposures. I have been unsuccessful in trying to blend in both the properly exposed moon and the Milky Way, so I ultimately chose an overly exposed moon, one that looks nothing like the crescent I saw, but does bring out the broader twilight that the eye was able to see, but the moonlight washes out the Milky Way. I then added a frame from the timelapse series taken about 5 minutes later. You can see the movement in time in the position of the climbers descending the face, and in the position of the stars. Ultimately, it's cumulative movement of the climbers that make it into the final image. The two seperate parties are each in two different locations on the face, one having a significantly tougher time with their descent than the other.   And that photo is from a birthday party. Unfortunately, the birthday girl was late in getting there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 1:29:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Taking money from gullible people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 8:50:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JosephK: It all depends on the purpose of the "photo". Photography exists on a sliding scale: photo as documentation ---- photo as art ---- art that started off as a photo There is no wrong location on the scale. The only wrong is when the location on the scale is misrepresented. The most common misrepresentation is when a "photo as art" is claimed to be "photo as documentation". This usually results in a big apology from a media outlet and the firing of the photographer. The pro photographers have been in the dark rooms manipulating the images for ages. We amateurs were left to working with the labs through written instructions on what we wanted changed. Mom and Dad usually settled for whatever the default lab processing was and left it at that. With the digital age, pixel editing software allows everyone the same level of access for photo manipulation that was previously restricted to the pros. There is nothing wrong with restricting your edits to the limits of the documentation category. There is also nothing wrong with moving your edits into the art ranges, assuming the goal was not restricted to "documentation" in the first place. Exactly. Nothing wrong with Photochopz, so long as it's not represented as documentary. For me, I lean heavily to the documentation side. My editing is pretty much limited to LR, adjusting tone, color, sharpness, etc. to more accurately reflect my own observation of the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2020 10:41:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: The first photo is from the Rhode Island coast, and almost straight from the camera raw file, with some burning to add density to the upper right of the frame, and then overlaying the incoming tide from a subsequent brighter frame in the time lapse, with a shorter shutter speed to better freeze the motion of the water. Here's the base photo. It's a remarkable amount of dynamic range to be able to capture in one image, but the shutter in the base photo was too slow to render the water to what it looked like to the eye ... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203937/_DSC6733_0_-_1200-1416749.jpg The photo of Longs Peak was a crescent moon setting in a notch, but the dynamic range far exceeded what I could capture in one frame. To the eye, I could see both the faint Milky Way, and the detail in the cresent moon. I started with manual camera adjustments to try to properly expose the moon before it set from view, and then immediately transitioned to a set timelapse exposure for the Milky Way, based on the previous night's exposures. I have been unsuccessful in trying to blend in both the properly exposed moon and the Milky Way, so I ultimately chose an overly exposed moon, one that looks nothing like the crescent I saw, but does bring out the broader twilight that the eye was able to see, but the moonlight washes out the Milky Way. I then added a frame from the timelapse series taken about 5 minutes later. You can see the movement in time in the position of the climbers descending the face, and in the position of the stars. Ultimately, it's cumulative movement of the climbers that make it into the final image. The two seperate parties are each in two different locations on the face, one having a significantly tougher time with their descent than the other. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203937/_DSC388x_0_-_1200-1416758.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203937/_DSC3884_0_-_1200-1416757.jpg And that photo is from a birthday party. Unfortunately, the birthday girl was late in getting there. I mean thats cool, and im sure it takes skill, but I dont see the difference between that and a video game world someone created. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2020 11:41:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: I mean thats cool, and im sure it takes skill, but I dont see the difference between that and a video game world someone created. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Originally Posted By L_JE: The first photo is from the Rhode Island coast, and almost straight from the camera raw file, with some burning to add density to the upper right of the frame, and then overlaying the incoming tide from a subsequent brighter frame in the time lapse, with a shorter shutter speed to better freeze the motion of the water. Here's the base photo. It's a remarkable amount of dynamic range to be able to capture in one image, but the shutter in the base photo was too slow to render the water to what it looked like to the eye ... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203937/_DSC6733_0_-_1200-1416749.jpg The photo of Longs Peak was a crescent moon setting in a notch, but the dynamic range far exceeded what I could capture in one frame. To the eye, I could see both the faint Milky Way, and the detail in the cresent moon. I started with manual camera adjustments to try to properly expose the moon before it set from view, and then immediately transitioned to a set timelapse exposure for the Milky Way, based on the previous night's exposures. I have been unsuccessful in trying to blend in both the properly exposed moon and the Milky Way, so I ultimately chose an overly exposed moon, one that looks nothing like the crescent I saw, but does bring out the broader twilight that the eye was able to see, but the moonlight washes out the Milky Way. I then added a frame from the timelapse series taken about 5 minutes later. You can see the movement in time in the position of the climbers descending the face, and in the position of the stars. Ultimately, it's cumulative movement of the climbers that make it into the final image. The two seperate parties are each in two different locations on the face, one having a significantly tougher time with their descent than the other. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203937/_DSC388x_0_-_1200-1416758.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203937/_DSC3884_0_-_1200-1416757.jpg And that photo is from a birthday party. Unfortunately, the birthday girl was late in getting there. I mean thats cool, and im sure it takes skill, but I dont see the difference between that and a video game world someone created. When you see a crescent moon, can you discern the crater details in that crescent moon, while at the same time, being able to see other stars in the sky? The camera cannot capture the dynamic range that you can see with your own eyes, so it takes multiple frames to fully bound that range of light, shadow and visual perception rate. What about this? Is this what you see coming out of a lunar eclipse? No, you see a reddish shadow sweeping across and can discern the crater detail, even in the shadow.  And, is this what you see near totality of a lunar eclipse?  Or does it look more like this?  The last photo is a composite of two photos from that spot, about 7 f-stops apart. It's the only way to attempt to bring the scene into the dynamic range of the eye. The overall exposure is set to make the Milky Way discernable to the viewer, because that's what was visible to the eye during the eclipse, and it's something that others who were there commented on after they saw the photo. If I really wanted to get it closer to what the eye sees, I'd have to go in and enlarge the apparent size of Sirius and the major stars in Orion - again, more photoshop, but greater fidelity to what they eye sees. It's just a shortcoming of how the image sensor deals with the very-bright. To this end, Alyn Wallace came up with a lens filter set that flares highlights beyond a certain magnitude to bring the constellations captured in camera to better fidelity to what the eye sees in person. But a filter set like that would only exacerbate the brightness problem of an eclipsed moon. And eclipsed moon overwhelms the camera, you see it in the earlier images. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2020 12:14:10 PM EDT
[#17]
What i see in photoshopped pictures never looks like real life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2020 3:51:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Photoshop?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2020 4:12:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Photoshop?
(A)  (B)  (C)  (D)  (E) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2020 11:50:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Taking long shutter photos that take in more light than the human eye can see.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 2:34:38 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Taking long shutter photos that take in more light than the human eye can see. That's entirely subjective on what is going on. Then again, I'm fairly certain you're just stirring the pot and trolling. Note that it can and will get you booted from this subforum. The goalposts keep moving and all. The subject controls what you see in a long exposure photo. Aurora photos on slow nights show more detail than people can see even while dark adapted, yet (minus one or two cameras out there) are incapable of capturing what the human eye can see on an active night. The human eye can see much better than a camera, barring very specific conditions. My camera is top of the line and I'd still have to take and merge several photos at different exposures to match the dynamic range of the human eye. (The mk 1 eyeball is around 24 stops of dynamic range. The best cameras are hitting 14 stops give or take.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 11:04:33 AM EDT
[#22]
I have used Photoshop since its earliest days.
But seldom to add things, even though that is doable. Usually it's to edit out "bad" stuff for print production. Photoshop used judiciously in the hands of a trained person can do wonders. In the hands of someone untrained, you get things like this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 11:40:33 AM EDT
[#23]
(A) and (B*) were so straight-out-of-the-camera that the first time I posted them was via a cellphone snapshot of the camera LCD screen.
  It wasn't until later in the trip that I finally installed the SnapBridge app to my phone, and even later that I finally installed CC to my laptop. (C) and (D) are also straight from the camera. (C) looks better, with more realistic shadow depth using Photoshop. (D) is straight out of the camera, and was posted from the field, that night, at 13,000 feet. Also keep in mind that those are just .jpg files, and a .jpeg highlight/shadow/sharpening algorithm isn't going to make the best decisions in scenes like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 12:02:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Taking long shutter photos that take in more light than the human eye can see. Or, it's the result of lugging an additional 18 pounds of photography equipment almost 30 miles into the backcountry, or up to 4000m. That guy standing on the rock with the headlamp beaming out into the talus had just stumbled in that evening from a 30+ mile hike, and we were setting out for the summit at 3:30 am (camera time is probably EDT). He had every reason to just crash for the night. But, when going back to his bivy, he looked out at what he saw, and asked me if there was any way to get a photo of it. I don't think he would have done that if he wasn't looking at something that was pretty awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 4:58:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Well it looks fake to me, which is my opinion. Im not saying its fake, it just looks fake, and maybe just to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2020 7:37:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well it looks fake to me, which is my opinion. Im not saying its fake, it just looks fake, and maybe just to me.  Attached FileWe get it. Any style of imagery that isn't like yours is either fake or otherwise "wrong" and you feel compelled to let us all know. Are you also one of those guys on the range pointing out how anybody using a different stance is "doing it wrong"? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2020 10:27:56 AM EDT
[#27]
I enjoy creating art from photography. A lot of what I envision would be impossible to photograph. I guess you could call it digital art, that started off as a photo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 7:25:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Laughs in Ansel Adams.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 7:30:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhatsGnu: I have used Photoshop since its earliest days. But seldom to add things, even though that is doable. Usually it's to edit out "bad" stuff for print production. Photoshop used judiciously in the hands of a trained person can do wonders. In the hands of someone untrained, you get things like this: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/464777/worst_photoshop_disasters_25_jpg_jpeg-1330144.JPG I guess someone made her an offer she couldn't refuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 8:21:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: I guess someone made her an offer she couldn't refuse. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By WhatsGnu: I have used Photoshop since its earliest days. But seldom to add things, even though that is doable. Usually it's to edit out "bad" stuff for print production. Photoshop used judiciously in the hands of a trained person can do wonders. In the hands of someone untrained, you get things like this: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/464777/worst_photoshop_disasters_25_jpg_jpeg-1330144.JPG I guess someone made her an offer she couldn't refuse. I thought that as well. Actually not the worst disaster I've seen. Playboy Europe (print) edition hit the stands about 15 years ago with a lovely topless model on the cover. Unfortunately the designer had accidentally (or just stupidly) masked off one of her boobs. It wasn't immediately obvious, but once it dawned on you... well, it was a disaster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2020 9:52:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bulldog1967: Laughs in Ansel Adams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2020 7:38:34 PM EDT
[#32]
This thread pretty much sums up my use of editing software.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 7:22:08 AM EDT
[#33]
I like working on photos to improve what's straight from the camera. Taking a photo and cutting down the bright areas from harsh light, lightening areas that can benefit from a little more detail shown, and other improvements that will enhance the overall impression of the image, yet still look realistic. I'll put in cloudy skies on plain blue birds in flight shots because it's easy to do and it looks better. There's some satisfaction in doing all the little things that cumulatively make an image as good as it can be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 1:43:20 AM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2020 1:41:38 AM EDT
[#35]
I do not believe in adding things that were not there or otherwise overtly manipulating an image.
I run every shot I get through lightroom and get it looking the way I want. This is mainly due to my strict following of ETTR, meaning any shot straight out of the camera is an overexposed mess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2020 7:34:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do not believe in adding things that were not there or otherwise overtly manipulating an image. I run every shot I get through lightroom and get it looking the way I want. This is mainly due to my strict following of ETTR, meaning any shot straight out of the camera is an overexposed mess. Preach it, Brother!!  PAT15002 N420AT Spraying Before by FredMan, on Flickr PAT15002 N420AT Spraying by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2020 8:16:19 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2020 1:13:34 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: I was watching a youtube video of a photographer I like, James popyes or something, and he was talking about photoshop. In the video he took a photo of a cityscape on a lake and said how boring it was, so he went into photoshop and added a duck from a later picture, and a different sky from an earlier picture. I was like wtf. That just seems wrong to me. I mean if you are going to just make your own image, why even use the camera? You could download free images, and add all kinds of things, lightening in the background, maybe a couple wolfs howling. I mean if you are going to add things, make it really amazing. Why not? oh those will look fake? So your trying to make it look real even though it isn't? I get adjusting shadow, darkness, color, etc. But I think actually adding objects, clouds, skys, DUCKS, you might as well just do computer generated graphics and skip the camera. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2020 11:24:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea, just like auto tunes for singers, digital cameras and edit programs make average person decent at photography. Yeah, its the camera, lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2020 11:37:31 PM EDT
[#40]
But seriously, I think the definition of photography should be images captured with a camera. Changing the WB, saturation, contrast and other global settings is fine. It's essentially digital darkroom work.
But when you add a moon into a shot, or a cloudy sky to replace overcast, etc. That's something totally different. And the art isn't happening in camera. It's happening in the computer. Though I have been itching to go back to Arches NP and set up a tripod in front of some arches and take a bunch of frames over several minutes and as people move around, get enough frames to fill in all the spots and erase them from the image completely. Seems like the best way to get pictures without people in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2020 9:44:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But seriously, I think the definition of photography should be images captured with a camera. Changing the WB, saturation, contrast and other global settings is fine. It's essentially digital darkroom work. But when you add a moon into a shot, or a cloudy sky to replace overcast, etc. That's something totally different. And the art isn't happening in camera. It's happening in the computer. Though I have been itching to go back to Arches NP and set up a tripod in front of some arches and take a bunch of frames over several minutes and as people move around, get enough frames to fill in all the spots and erase them from the image completely. Seems like the best way to get pictures without people in them. I set up my camera and walked uptown for dinner a couple of beers during the course of this image. Scores of cadets walked right through the gardens. I even walked right on through, knowing I wouldn't show up unless I stopped and took a nap.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2020 9:51:47 PM EDT
[#42]
In this photo, I could either expose for the Moon and Mars, and lose the clouds, or expose for the clouds and blow out the Moon. However, neither of those two options are what the unaided human eye saw that night.
So, I combined two nearly consecutive frames to create a composite image that has the dynamic range that is far more close to what was in front of me. This was the best I could do, because I forgot to change my camera settings back from .jpg/S from a B roll timelapse stuff I was shooting a bit earlier. If I had shot in full resolution .nef files, I would have had double the resolution, and far, far more bit depth with which to bring out better detail in the clouds and possibly Mars. Opportunity lost. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2020 9:57:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, its the camera, lol! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yea, just like auto tunes for singers, digital cameras and edit programs make average person decent at photography. Yeah, its the camera, lol! Thank you, Nikon, for including such a thoughtful menu option. Suck it, Canon. CARRY YOU UP MTN [ON/OFF] Wish I had noticed this buried menu setting much earlier. Pays to read the manual, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2020 10:01:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Photography kills portrait painting
Photoshop kills photography happy little trees keep on blooming |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2020 11:40:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Asking what the point of Photoshop is kind of like asking what the point of Protools is for audio editing.
It's a tool that lets you manipulate, enhance, and create something new out of a static medium. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2020 6:49:15 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asking what the point of Photoshop is kind of like asking what the point of Protools is for audio editing. It's a tool that lets you manipulate, enhance, and create something new out of a static medium. Audio is a whole 'nother ballgame. You can push some sliders around and think, "yeah, that's good," until you stop for a minute an listen to something that was done well. At that point, you move your benchmark for your own hobby stuff to "something that doesn't suck too badly". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2020 12:15:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asking what the point of Photoshop is kind of like asking what the point of Protools is for audio editing. It's a tool that lets you manipulate, enhance, and create something new out of a static medium. He's not asking what the point of Photoshop is. He's asking what the point of PHOTOGRAPHY is (and who can tell truth from fakery anymore). I wonder the same shit. I was running around a nature park in the rain and snow yesterday... working on shots of interesting subjects (to me) with good bokeh to make them pop... and I was thinking the whole time "What's the point, when I can just blur the background in Photoshop?" Ultimately, I'm getting back into photography for my own enjoyment, and sitting in front of a PC for hours in post-processing is NOT what I'm looking for at all. I just retired from a 30-year IT career in July, so F#CK sitting at a computer for hours again. I want to hone my craft and be out in nature, not reliving my endless monotonous IT nightmare. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
