File :-(, x, )
slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
how much is it acceptable to fuck with a photo in photoshop? how closely do you want to stick to what the camera sees and leave out what you think the shot should have looked like? pic was altered using only 'curves', whatever that means.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.Camera ModelEX-S2Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:09 19:21:09Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length7.50 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height1600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> jesse
     File :-(, x)
>>37391
do whatever you can do to make the end result as awesome as possible.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeHewlett-PackardCamera ModelPhotosmart M417Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.9Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:06 03:44:43Exposure Time1/59 secF-Numberf/2.9Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.9Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance100.00 mMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.25 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2436Image Height1686Scene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlUnknownContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoftSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
If you touch a photo in an image editing program at all, you're not just a failure as a photographer, you're a failure as a *person*.

All my friends here agree with me.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
     File :-(, x)
>>37396

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.Camera ModelEX-S2Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:09 20:13:13Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length7.50 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> ac
>>37400
(In case you didn't get the joke, my actual feelings are "Do whatever you can do to make the end result as awesome as possible")
>> ac
>>37401
Was the original of this taken with your EX-S2?
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37400
see this is how i felt initially too until my camera shat all over the rich color of the building in the OP. it came out all pasty. so is there a school of thought out there that altering photographs makes them illegitimate as art, or what?
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37403
yes. it is now awesome and will be accompanied by metal guitar.
>> ac
>>37405
There's a school of thought for any damn fool thought. Try not to worry about them. I tend to prefer things closer to reality than not, but I won't hesitate to play with the curves or stamp-tool out something I don't like if necessary. Your version in 37401 isn't really what I'd call photography, but it's certainly its own sort of art, so if you like how it looks, run with it.

(Incidentally, I like that version of it too. And see? You can get good shots out of your crappy camera. :) )

Incidentally, the Canon digicam you're getting has a "Vivid" mode that will make the colors look nicer right out of the camera. So you've got that to look forward to. It's like Digital Velvia.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37407
i worry about a lot lol. i'm a purist/minimalist in an extreme way. i'll go as far as excluding products containing ingredients i can't draw a picture of in my grocery shopping.
i'm doing what i can with the exilim -- it's so horrible at macros and there are so many things i'm dying to take closeups of. pic related--bamboo onthe counter at a piss-test center i went to today for some job.
also lastly i was being sarcastic about 37401. the glowing edges filter is so tasteless. awesome, sure. but tasteless.
>> Anonymous
I was just having this discussion with some friends of mine the other day. I think the final conclusion was, unless it's something that you feasibly couldn't have done in a darkroom, or with tools commonly available, edit away. Adjusting color, contrast, dodging, burning, and saturation are all things that, with the proper amount of knowledge and equipment, are done all the time in darkrooms. Even solarization is a darkroom technique. Nine times out of ten, even National Geographic photogs crop and rotate. If the results are like what you get in>>37401then yeah, that might be taking it a little far. But as far a being a purist and only taking photos that your camera can make, you are selling your eye short and not being true to your intent, which was to capture as realistically as possible what your eyes saw. To limit yourself to what your equipment can produce is disingenuous as you are not really limited by the technology, only what of that technology you can afford.

Long story short, edit away. So long as you are being true to your eye and to the image.