Project 365/366 2012 - Ben S.

B

Ben

New member
Here is my first post, this one will be for yesterday, 1/1/12. CSC_0024.jpg
 
B

Ben

New member
And here is today, 1/2/12. I like the detail of the cat's face, the background is out of focus, and there is a slight fish-eye effect from the wide angle of the lens (18-55mm on 18mm).
DSC_0038.jpg
 
M

Mike150

Senior Member
I like both shots.
I like the reds in the first one
Second one is my favorite though, no matter where I look, my eyes come back to the Cat's face
 
B

Ben

New member
Thanks for the feedback! In the first one I deepened the reds using a post-processing program. I'm new to that type of thing, and I'm still struggling with the "ethics" of doing that. I didn't use the camera to get those colors, so is that really photography?
 
K

Kim20

Senior Member
I love all the colours of the guitar pics, and as far as the "Ethics" go, IMO it is our world in our photography, if we want to enhance things, and there are programs for it, I say "lets have some fun with it"! lol :)
 
M

Mike150

Senior Member
I agree with Kim but I have to add. Once you start editing, it goes beyond simple photography and enters the realm of Art.
 
B

Ben

New member
Thanks for clearing it up a bit for me, Kim and Mike. I won't hold back with my post-processing! But I do believe that it should be stated as such, since to me it's much more impressive to get a result using just the camera than having to edit it later.
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but it's come up here so I'll address it here. We've had this discussion some time earlier on a different thread about post processing, and the whole thing about "purist". Unless you're a legitimate photojournalist, photography is art. What do you think Ansel Adams was doing in the darkroom? Nobody questioned his "processing" or demanded that he state how he processed his photos in the darkroom. The only difference today is that the darkroom is digital.

If you want to be a purist, get a pinhole camera. I'm really tired of hearing that someone is a better photographer, or the photo is more impressive because there was no or little post processing. If you're shooting jpeg, your camera does the "processing" for you. So how impressive is that?
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
ohkphoto said:
This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but it's come up here so I'll address it here. We've had this discussion some time earlier on a different thread about post processing, and the whole thing about "purist". Unless you're a legitimate photojournalist, photography is art. What do you think Ansel Adams was doing in the darkroom? Nobody questioned his "processing" or demanded that he state how he processed his photos in the darkroom. The only difference today is that the darkroom is digital.

If you want to be a purist, get a pinhole camera. I'm really tired of hearing that someone is a better photographer, or the photo is more impressive because there was no or little post processing. If you're shooting jpeg, your camera does the "processing" for you. So how impressive is that?
Click to expand...

Ansel Adams was an adult, so what he was doing in his darkroom is none of my business!

Consider this...
Are houses better constructed now, or should all the purists get together and live in caves? After all, that was the first way to live.

If you think about it EVERY image ever shot on film was processed in one way or another. And each person that processed that film put his or her stamp on that image.
Back in the chemical days, if you used too much time processing, the image was washed out. Where do you think the phrase came from? At first, it was improper processing. Then, after the advent of aperture control, if an image was over-exposed it was known as "washed out".

I wish that every one would get over this non-processed vrs processed crap. Just make the best shot you can with whatever means you have available.

BWTHDIK? :)
 
Last edited:
Top