Mark Metternich wrote: Dustin Gent wrote:
I USED to be one of the people who tried to keep it as close to the RAW file as possible, but that is because i knew nothing about photoshop (still don\'t know that much ).
If you feel inclined to do so, maybe see my above comment on RAWs and manipulation. This is a popular misunderstanding/fallacy. To keep it \"as close to the RAW as possible\" means you would have a black photo w almost no detail whatsoever and no color! What you probably mean is you kept it as close to the generically massively manipulated file that your camera automatically photoshopped the heck out of to produce a JPEG which is a very bad standard as anything \"real\" or \"untouched\" or \"accurate\". Everyone manipulates the heck out of raw files (we have to). It really comes down to what we want to manipulate/alter/render them into (something more or less like what we saw).
Mark, good point. There are still folks here who think the question is about whether or not it is OK to post-process or even to \"manipulate\" photographs. That isn\'t the question.
As you point out, and in many ways beyond what you mention in your post here, it is literally impossible for a photograph to be \"real\" in the objective sense, and every photograph is subjective.
There is nothing \"wrong\" with pasting a giant moon, or a kangaroo, or mother goose, or fairies and unicorns into a photograph of your back yard, the Utah mountains, the streets of New York, etc. But should one present the claim that he/she was able to capture the extraordinary photograph of the giant moon, kangaroo, goose, fairies, and unicorns in a photograph because only he/she was able to endure the tremendous difficulties of locating this special place and finding this unusual conjunction of elements in the field and only he/she was able to envision such an image and that he/she was struck dumb with awe while observing the monumental scene unfold...
... we have something entirely different to think about, don\'t we? :-)
Mark Metternich wrote: Dustin Gent wrote:
I USED to be one of the people who tried to keep it as close to the RAW file as possible, but that is because i knew nothing about photoshop (still don\'t know that much ).
If you feel inclined to do so, maybe see my above comment on RAWs and manipulation. This is a popular misunderstanding/fallacy. To keep it \"as close to the RAW as possible\" means you would have a black photo w almost no detail whatsoever and no color! What you probably mean is you kept it as close to the generically massively manipulated file that your camera automatically photoshopped the heck out of to produce a JPEG which is a very bad standard as anything \"real\" or \"untouched\" or \"accurate\". Everyone manipulates the heck out of raw files (we have to). It really comes down to what we want to manipulate/alter/render them into (something more or less like what we saw).
Mark, good point. There are still folks here who think the question is about whether or not it is OK to post-process or even to \"manipulate\" photographs. That isn\'t the question.
As you point out, and in many ways beyond what you mention in your post here, it is literally impossible for a photograph to be \"real\" in the objective sense, and every photograph is subjective.
There is nothing \"wrong\" with pasting a giant moon, or a kangaroo, or mother goose, or fairies and unicorns into a photograph of your back yard, the Utah mountains, the streets of New York, etc. But should one present the claim that he/she was able to capture the extraordinary photograph of the giant moon, kangaroo, goose, fairies, and unicorns in a photograph because only he/she was able to endure the tremendous difficulties of locating this special place and finding this unusual conjunction of elements in the field and only he/she was able to envision such an image and that he/she was struck dumb with awe while observing the monumental scene unfold...
... we have something entirely different to think about, don\'t we? :-)
Feb 09, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #10327950 « Peter Lik Comedy image »
).