Photo Of The Day

he gets to punch you in the arm now

the further up this photo you get the more it looks like a painting the top 25% just looks unreal ( probably because it is ) ( Photoshopped )

Looks hideous!

yup

The problem is that a lot of people tend to use photoshop like cretins, this ruin the picture and the photoshop reputation.

It's just painting, and that's ok.

The problem is that a lot of people tend to use photoshop

ftfy

Post production is what you do to fix the stuff you either fucked up or couldn't afford in production.

Well, the digital doesn't deliver pictures like the c41, unless you go through photoshop, then once you get used to what it is a fantastic tool, you may not bother to waste your time and the time of the client since you can adjust it later; you still need a certain knowledge of lights for deliver a good picture.

Plus don't forget that the art of printing at the top level and also fixing up the various fucked up from c41 were and are only for a few people, considering how expensive it is.

ftfy

Post production is what you do to fix the stuff you either fucked up or couldn't afford in production.

is it now

ftfy

Post production is what you do to fix the stuff you either fucked up or couldn't afford in production.

You be trollin'.

Nah, if I'd been trying to wind people up I'd have added that the errors in production which are fixed in post are usually down to gross incompetence in pre

More info:
http://aphelis.net/avedons-instructions/

The fact is, there are things that you can do in post pro that you can't achieve otherwise. You may shoot things knowing what you'll have to do later. Neither of these constitute a fuck up.

I think the point about what you can and can't afford is also pretty fickle. Even guys shooting on digital 'blads will do post production, in fact I can't imagine any professional photographers who don't do post pro.

It comes down to a philosophical difference over what photography is. I'm all about the art of fixing a shadow, but I know that most people now consider a photographic image to be no more than a template on which to start painting. To me, that makes any image which has been manipulated something other than a photograph.

It's a blurry line, and an interesting discussion.

For me, it's all about what's in the image when it's taken. I see no wrong in exaggerating parts of an already good photo in post. But to take a shit photo and try ro rescue it by cranking up colours, airbrushing things out etc, that's defies the whole thing with photography –*to capture a moment. If the moment isn't there at first, you can't add it in post.

I'm not a big fan of his work... but...:))

Great set of 'lost' Marilyn Monroe photos from her last ever on set shoot. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/marilyn-monroe-nudes-outtakes-last-on-set-shoot-revealed-larry-schiller_n_1467561.html?ref=arts&ir=Arts#s409807

It comes down to a philosophical difference over what photography is. I'm all about the art of fixing a shadow, but I know that most people now consider a photographic image to be no more than a template on which to start painting. To me, that makes any image which has been manipulated something other than a photograph.

jesus, do you ever eat/sleep/relax in between trying to master any skill possible?

also, can we move away from the photoshop regurgitations and have some interesting shots again please.

It comes down to a philosophical difference over what photography is. I'm all about the art of fixing a shadow, but I know that most people now consider a photographic image to be no more than a template on which to start painting. To me, that makes any image which has been manipulated something other than a photograph.

It's a blurry line, and an interesting discussion.

For me, it's all about what's in the image when it's taken. I see no wrong in exaggerating parts of an already good photo in post. But to take a shit photo and try ro rescue it by cranking up colours, airbrushing things out etc, that's defies the whole thing with photography –*to capture a moment. If the moment isn't there at first, you can't add it in post.

I used to photograph my paintings, with a £50 second hand nikon. The quality of the reproduction depended on how much I spent on the film. The reproductions weren't always accurate, but they had a luminosity and a depth of colour, were always in sharp focus. It also took great landscape photos and portraits.

I now use a £200 digital camera, my second one. It is SHIT. No depth of colour, the images are flat and lifeless, it simply does not have the capacity to record the nuances of sunlight. It has nothing to do with dpi. A digital camera will always be fatally limited compared to film. Unless you spend stupid amounts of money. The digital camera has been a big step backwards for photography.

I also really miss having the prints, a print is an object, an image created by a chemical effect of light. So much more magical than a sterile, glowing screen.

jesus, do you ever eat/sleep/relax in between trying to master any skill possible?

I gave up trying to take good photographs many years ago, stopped using film and now use digital as a method of recording or displaying images, not as a way of transporting beauty. As such, my pictures just have to pass the Rolf Harris "Can you tell what it is yet?" test :-)