File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
How does this make you feel?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4368Image Height2912Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:06:11 16:36:56Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height1043
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
like aids
>> Anonymous
I liked it.
>> Anonymous
So is the bottom image from one of the frames used for the HDR in the top image?
>> Anonymous
Impressed to be honest. I liked it, and the change is enormous.
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
hdr people, FUCK YA
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
>>203512
to be honest you are an enormous faggot
>> Anonymous
>>203511

OP here, no, it's all post-processing.
The first picture is the shot as it came out of the camera, the rest is all done in layers in photoshop.

Here's the board where the OP posted the image and talks about it a little:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=296675

What I found especially enraging is that she faked a ring flash in his eyes, as though the image wasn't already incredibly overdone without that touch.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
Like throwing up.
>> Anonymous
Sigh-ish. The top one does definitely look better than the unprocessed bottom, but it could look so much better if it were processed in a less over-the-top style. It makes me sad that sort of baroque thing is the only sort of aesthetic lots of people today know how to create and appreciate.

>>203515
>>203513
Meese, stop; I've never seen a constructive or useful post from you.
>> Anonymous
>>203515
>>203513

Meese = DC

Swear to god. As soon as DC goes over the top, Meese pops up and starts doing his trolling for him.
>> Anonymous
>>203505
horny
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
>>203523
>>203525
i loled
>> Anonymous
>>203505
Lots of nice little touches, like turning on the lamp at the bottom of the stairs. I can see how this took so much time. Very nice job.
>> Anonymous
>>203525
No, I don't think so. Their prose styles are different, and IIRC they've bitched at each other in the past.

And DC is usually a good poster, though lately he's been problematic. Meese just does bullshit.
>> Meese !eoYNyD/IzM
>>203525
lolwut?
>> Anonymous
This isn't Photography any more, it's Graphic Design.
>> Anonymous
>>203534

DC has been utter shit for several weeks now.
How long has Meese been around? I didn't notice him until after DC had gone to shit, which is why I think they're the same person.
>> Anonymous
It makes me feel like true photography has left to be replaced by software
>> Depressed Cheesecake !iZn5BCIpug
>>203538
we are not the same person
>> Anonymous
>>203538
The last thread I saw him being sensible in was the one where he tried out the flash on the beach. Don't remember how long ago that was.

I think it's because he's usually posting at 3 A.M. now. Some people get bitchy when they're tired.

I'm 99% sure Meese and DC aren't the same person. They write completely differently, and I'm pretty sure I remember them bitching at each other. I don't think anyone would go to the lengths of altering their writing style and faking flame wars to hide a sock puppet.
>> Anonymous
>>203549

The bitch war that the mods finally deleted was re-started today around 7:30-8pm Florida time, not 3am.
>> Missing Time !!z33BanZ7xtU
>>203545
Regardless, 'tis a good shoop
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>203505
Would look nice if it was toned down about 50% and wasn't applied to the guy's face. Why the change in shirt color? That's just fucking dumb.
>> Anonymous
>>203545
>It makes me feel like true photography has left to be replaced by software

True photography died when digital prints became good enough to replace photographic prints, and digital cameras became widely affordable.

When there was still some level of craft required it remained an art form, but now? It's just as thoroughly fucked as any other design field is.
>> Anonymous
>>203558
What, you mean the thing about raw exposure? If I recall, it originally started in the early morning, and they picked it back up for who knows why.
>> Depressed Cheesecock !Ep8pui8Vw2
>>203572

Also it needs more vignetting, USM, and awkward posing of fat models.
>> Anonymous
>>203573
Knowing how to work Photoshop is just as much of a craft as knowing how to work a darkroom. Is someone less of a carpenter for using a power screwdriver over a manual one?
>> Anonymous
>>203577
Oh come on, his friend and girlfriend aren't fat, they weren't awkward, and the most of the photographs did not look posed. They looked like candid pictures he took of people he knew, not posed model pictures.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>203577
Oh hey again, Pentard!
>> Anonymous
>>203578
>Is someone less of a carpenter for using a power screwdriver over a manual one?

Not even close to the same.
A power screwdriver allows you do do EXACTLY THE SAME THING that a regular screwdriver would, but faster. In traditional photography that would be akin to using a machine to develop your film automatically instead of developing it by hand, which is a totally acceptable thing to do.

The difference between Photoshop and traditional darkroom photography isn't like the difference between a power screwdriver and a manual screwdriver, it's like the difference between a hand-made piece of furniture and something you picked up at IKEA.

Sure, technically they're the same type of item, but only a complete moron would ever think they were the same.
>> Anonymous
>>203578

shut up beethy go back to deviant art and your girlfriend's 2' long nipples
>> Anonymous
Good pp but it would have been nicer if the subject was more natural.
>> Anonymous
>>203582
Why is Photoshop different from the darkroom? Both have different special techniques one can use to either make an image better or mess it up. (Solarization, for instance, in the darkroom.) Both require knowledge and experience to get good results. They're both crafts. The only reason Photoshop gets a bad rap is because more idiots are willing to play with pixels than chemicals.
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
If you want to make ultra surreal pictures, draw it. Photoshop is for fuckers too talentless to draw.
>> Anonymous
>>203586

I'm not saying one is inherently superior, they're just two totally different disciplines.

What the OP pic is showing is graphic design, not photography.

Maybe photoshop stuff is a valid art form, maybe it isn't, but it isn't anywhere near the same thing as darkroom photography, and because it is so incredibly accessible it has flooded the market with innumerable talentless hacks who don't bother to learn the ropes first and just go out and start shooting and shooping absolutely horrible shit and then patting eachother on the back for it.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
>>203586
Do op in the dark room and I'll give you props. It'll still look awful though.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>203582
>it's like the difference between a hand-made piece of furniture and something you picked up at IKEA

What's the point? Some people will still prefer IKEA furniture because it's usually just as good at a fraction of the price.
>> Anonymous
>>203598
>Some people will still prefer IKEA furniture because it's usually just as good at a fraction of the price.
>just as good at a fraction of the price.
>just as good

All this does is prove that they don't know shit about furniture.

The difference between an IKEA lounger or an Eames chair, or between a fiberboard dresser held together with wood glue and a solid-wood cabinet made using dovetail joints is enormous.
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
>>203598
Because putting together your furniture is sooo much funner.
>> Anonymous
>>203593
They're different skill sets, but it's all still photography.

Post-processing an image is no different than choosing a particular film stock and running it through the darkroom in a certain way. Then the question of good and bad arises, in both. I've seen horribly processed film prints and beautiful digital files and prints.

Like I said, it's sad that this is what people are doing, that it's what they've been taught to like from exposure and that it's all they know how to do. But the solution to that isn't to rag on Photoshop; that's like people praising Leicas because Cartier-Bresson used them or Canons because Jim Nachtwey uses them. Same error. Tools are tools, some people use them well and others don't. If you taught these kids how to process film and gave them some Tri-X and a Leica or an EOS-1v, they still would fuck it all up.
>> Anonymous
>>203603
>Post-processing an image is no different than choosing a particular film stock and running it through the darkroom in a certain way.

This kind of statement makes it clear that you've never worked in a darkroom.
>> Anonymous
>>203605
How is it different? You're making choices in how the image turns out. How is dodging a part of a picture in Photoshop different than dodging it in the darkroom?
>> Anonymous
>>203603
QFT
>> Anonymous
hmmm...
my philosophy is that: you are aiming for the best end-product possible, no matter how you achieve it.

and people who say anything more than changing levels/curves/white balance is not photography are fucking retarded.

The whole point of digital is that it allows you to do more things to your photos than film ever could, and fast.
>> Anonymous
>>203578
>>203586
>>203603
>>203609
>>203611
>>203612
>>203612

Samefag.
LRN2DARKROOM before comparing the two.
>> Anonymous
>>203613
611 and 612 are not me, but the rest are.

We're discussing the results, the final print or file. You're right, I don't know how to work in a darkroom. But I have seen darkroom prints, and I've seen digital prints and files. That's the experience that count here. I can't play piano, but does that invalidate me from commenting on someone's performance at the piano?

Let's go with the above question: I dodge a part of the image in Photoshop. You dodge it in the darkroom. How is what we've done conceptually different?
>> Anonymous
>>203616
*counts
>> Anonymous
>>203616

I'm leaving the office now and don't plan on continuing this discussion when I get home. Sufficed to say, you're arguing from ignorance, and that's never a good idea.

Digital editing can be a great tool, but 90% of the time instead of being used as a tool to do simple things like dodging it's used to make things like what the OP posted, which is basically a digital painting.

Take a darkroom class sometime. There's probably one at your local Community College. It'll teach you a lot about photography.
>> Anonymous
The bottom one is far better. The top one is awful and completely ruined.
>> Anonymous
this is not a photo.


this is digital art.

(and I dont like it)
>> Anonymous
yuk

the original image was bland
the post processed is just nasty
go back to deviant art
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4368Image Height2912Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:03:29 01:46:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height566
>> Anonymous
>>203977

No just no! It's an abomination unto photography.

gtfo of /p/
>> Anonymous
>>203977

>photography and fine art

this looks more faggoty than a steampunk convention
>> Anonymous
>>203968
>>203968
>>203968
>>203968
>>203968
>>203968
>> Anonymous
i think these are very skillful and attractive albiet plasticy and unrealistic. they're somewhat stylistic and very pleasing to look at.
>> Anonymous
>>204130

4/10

I almost raged.
>> Anonymous
IKEA- furniture for the masses
>> Anonymous
>>204141

IKEA is fine for what it is (cheap, attractive furniture) but IKEA can never compare to true designer furniture.
>> Anonymous
ikea is highly designed,just not like good old fashioned furniture made to last for a lifetime or more.like OP's pics,designed to grab an audience but not in it for the long haul
>> Anonymous
high dynamic range or extreme photoshop??
>> Anonymous
Bat-fucking-insane shooping
>> Anonymous
>>203505
>>203977

ITT: jealous fags criticize something because it's beyond their skill level
>> Anonymous
>>204179
Photoshop doesn't require any skill at all. Just time to learn.

Photography, on the other hand, actually does require skill.
>> Anonymous
>>203505
Eh... if the intent was to make the real-life photo look like a screenshot of some action game...
>> Anonymous
>>204222
>Photography, on the other hand, actually does require skill.

Not any more than Photoshop.
And darkroom work doesn't require any skill either.

OP example had to start with a semi-decent photo before it could be shooped, and had to have the idea when she was staging the shot.

Face it, you could never do this.
>> Anonymous
>>204179
so you prefer some lucky bastard who was blessed with creativity over someone who works their ass off.
>> Anonymous
>>204228

no i am saying i like the OP pic.
he clearly worked his ass off on that image.
>> Anonymous
>>204222

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Photoshop done well does require skill. Photography done well requires skill. To acquire skill time is required no matter what the skill is.
>> Anonymous
>>204227
>>204246
You two obsiously know dick about fine arts. If you aren't born with a good eye to catch an image, there's no way you'll ever learn.

Photoshop, on the other hand just requires a tutorial and some practice. Everyone can do what's shown on OP's pic. This is what mediocre photographers do to try improving their shitty images. I guess you two fit in that cathegory since you sound so butthurt for my comment.

Also, OP's original pic is worth crap.
>> Anonymous
^^^^^^^^^^
butthurt art student who goes to art school off of daddy's money
>> Anonymous
>>204361
Yes I go to an art school. No, it's not daddy's money, it's the state's money. Besides, I do have a job, so no "daddy's money" for me.

Now, keep assuming things, idiot.
>> Anonymous
i'm not the idiot i'm getting a real degree
>> Anonymous
>>204359

Your getting skill and natural talent confused there, buddy.
>> Anonymous
>>204368
I'm studing arts just because I like it, not to get a stupid degree, asshole.
>>204369
This is what happens when english is not your mother tongue, buddy.
>> Anonymous
>>204369
Exactly. Composition, "eye," and relating to the subject are talents, which can be developed to an extent or can be innate. (The combination, obviously, is best.)

Knowing how to meter light to yield a certain tone, manually focus, or achieve certain results in Photoshop or the darkroom are skills.

And it comes back to talent for picking the right certain tone to use, the right point of focus, or what results to get.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
Ah, the wank.

I like most of it, although they should really have toned down the effect on his face. His nose has become fugly.