Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been, in 2007. I agree, the sky is perfect and has no clouds. The colors in those shots just look unnatural. The sky seems "too blue", and the same with the rest of the colors. It just seems that the saturation was changed. If it's true that nothing was edited, than it should be a compliment.
I think it's time you had your computer calibrated! It's very easily done and you can see colors the way they're supposed to be!
And yes, please post some of your work. Many of us are curious to see these magnificent photos!
I'm a photojournalist, and in my industry, using photoshop to "doctor" a photo will lead to your immediate termination. Publications can lose all credibility if their photos are seen as edited. Cropping is generally allowed, as long as dead space is the only thing cropped.
Just so you know, every single professional photographer uses Photoshop. Every single one of them. I know plenty and they all do it. They're not adding things that aren't there, they are simply re-creating what they saw but the camera didn't. If your pro tells you they don't do this, run far, far away. I personally don't have Photoshop since I have no need for it, but I see where they are coming from. When you pay $5k for wedding pictures, you want the best.
So having my curiosity piqued, I did a bit of looking into what news services allow as far as Photoshop goes. Here are some guidelines from Reuters News Service. Note that this is way more than simple cropping. In fact, I'd say it's all the standard-stuff that most of us do to our photos.
ALLOWED
Cropping
Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
Minor colour correction
Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
Careful use of lasso tool
Subtle use of burn tool
Adjustment of highlights and shadows
Eye dropper to check/set gray
Just so you know, every single professional photographer uses Photoshop. Every single one of them. I know plenty and they all do it. They're not adding things that aren't there, they are simply re-creating what they saw but the camera didn't. If your pro tells you they don't do this, run far, far away. I personally don't have Photoshop since I have no need for it, but I see where they are coming from. When you pay $5k for wedding pictures, you want the best.
I have it, but simply for the tool "Adobe Bridge". It allows the tagging and batch sorting of photos. Weddings are something totally different, those photos are meant to look beautiful. News photos are supposed to tell a story. If you edit the photo, you are editing the story. I've seen guys who didn't like that there was a tree or pole in the way, and they removed it in photoshop. They were quickly dismissed from the industry.
I've used photoshop a couple of times to censor disturbing or offensive material in a photo. This is clearly noted in the meta data and caption. But when a photo is highly edited, so much so that it looks unreal, almost to the point of being entirely created in photoshop...it's no longer a photo IMO.
As for reuters, they are quick to fire photoshoppers too. “There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image,” Tom Szlukovenyi, global photo editor of Reuters, said in a statement from London, where the company has its headquarters. “Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy.”
I have it, but simply for the tool "Adobe Bridge". It allows the tagging and batch sorting of photos. Weddings are something totally different, those photos are meant to look beautiful. News photos are supposed to tell a story. If you edit the photo, you are editing the story. I've seen guys who didn't like that there was a tree or pole in the way, and they removed it in photoshop. They were quickly dismissed from the industry.
I've used photoshop a couple of times to censor disturbing or offensive material in a photo. This is clearly noted in the meta data and caption. But when a photo is highly edited, so much so that it looks unreal, almost to the point of being entirely created in photoshop...it's no longer a photo IMO.
As for reuters, they are quick to fire photoshoppers too. “There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image,” Tom Szlukovenyi, global photo editor of Reuters, said in a statement from London, where the company has its headquarters. “Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy.”
Getting a bit far astray from your contention that (a) only bad photographers use photoshop, and (b) news services allow only cropping, aren't you?
BTW, I have several front page cover photos from our local newspaper, The Kingman Daily Miner. So I guess that qualifies me as a journalist too. So where are you published?
Wedding photography aside, are you familiar with the current trends in newborn photography? A baby that is no older than 2 weeks is propped to make it seem like it is holding up its head without support. Cocoons are used and baby looks like it's balancing without help. What you don't see is the before picture where the mom's hand is supporting baby. Her hand is later photoshopped out. Good photographers won't endanger the baby. They use tools like Photoshop to achieve the desired look. Nothing wrong with that!
I took this picture of my dog a couple of days ago, here in San Diego. It's SOOC, no processing. Look at that, the sky is just as blue as my Napa pictures! I'm curious, what does everyone set their white balance to? My is at a2 or a3, since I prefer warmer images. That makes a huge difference in color perception!
That's a crazy cool shot, MAK. That dog cracks me up. And yeah, looks like a sky, just like your other shots. WB looks excellent. Do you shoot RAW or JPG? Sorry, I forget.
That's a crazy cool shot, MAK. That dog cracks me up. And yeah, looks like a sky, just like your other shots. WB looks excellent. Do you shoot RAW or JPG? Sorry, I forget.
Thank you! I shoot jpg. I haven't gone raw because I don't do post-processing and my iPhoto wouldn't even recognize the raw files. I'd like to try raw, but for now jpg suits me fine! I get that color sky all the time, no matter where I am. I think it's the white balance because I reset things on my camera after reading Ken Rockwell's tutorial. My colors have been amazing since then!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
