andspran From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 56 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5558 times:
I would like to discuss "photoshopping" in the digital age. Does it seem as though we must process our pictures to death? The technology has advanced to the point where the photograph is no longer a representation of what the eye was seeing when the pictures were taken. We must manipulate the photo until it looks like what someone wants it to look like. A good example would be a photo I have of a B-25 bomber parked on a ramp at night. The lighting is terrible. Basically very yellow looking parking lot light from a light pole. It made the plane look very old, weathered and gave the photo a nice vintage flavor. The photo looks exactly like what my eye was seeing when I took the shot. However, there I was later sitting at the computer messing with white balance, tone, sharpness, blur, Historgram.....etc, etc, making the photo look like something else. What are we doing? It makes me wonder if I posted the photo on the site for a critique, how many comments I would get about how the photo is too yellow, the shadows don't have enough contrast, the grass isn't green enough, there isn't enough sharpness on the tail, but too much sharpness on the canopy covers, you need to correct for saturation etc. The list would go on and on. It's a photo.
There are many examples of this. Another would be a very late evening shot of the same bomber with the sun at a very low angle. it was illuminating everything around and the plane was practically glowing. The photo looks as though I really jacked up the color and contrast. However, it is exactly what my eye was seeing. So what do we do? Process the photo to make it look what what we think it should look like, or what someone else wants it to look like?
Just something to think about and discuss. I love the digital age of photography. I love the new cameras, lenses, and the convenience of sitting at the computer doing photo work. No film, chemicals, or dark room. However, I don't love Photoshop.
That is a very interesting debate and something that has been touched upon several times on the forum, particularly in the context of the acceptance criteria for here. I think many will agree that while this site offers a great place to share photos and is a database of aircraft movements and liveries, it isn't often the really of photography or natural lighting. There is a set criteria for photos on this site that rightly or wrongly, is applied harshly at times. Personally, I do very little to photos to present them for here. One of the things that really gets me is when photos are rejected for a yellow or orange colour cast when it's pretty obvious it's natural autumnal or winter lighting. While some photos are accepted, many are rejected as an incorrect colour balance. I have some in the queue now that will quite possibly fall foul to this. I can understand the strong sodium light cast not being something that is wanted on the site as it isn't the most aesthetic lighting and in the modern age of digital cameras where light balance can easily be changed at the photographic stage through calibration or in post via RAW, I think it sometimes goes too far. Dawn or dusk lighting is often cited as having an unnatural cast and removing it takes away what is the reality of the scene. Photoshop or digital manipulation software has it's place, but for me, I prefer what nature intended and see Photoshop as a presentation tool to present a photo in the way I'd like rather than process the data minutely to create a finalised image. There's a subtle difference between the two. What you see on this site is different to what you'll see on many others due to the strict criteria that is applied.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5510 times:
Photoshop has unfortunately become a necessary evil for most. I came from slide/film kicking and screaming and actually let my first DSLR languish in the box for nearly a year before I took a single shot with it! It's great that you can now 'tweak' images to get rid of small imprefections - I really am a fan of digital photography - but it does seem that today's digital photographer has become far too reliant upon such software, while at the same time forgetting or dismissing the very principles of photography and what makes a good photo.
I have found Photoshop very useful to correct minor mistakes, and have used it to 'rescue' images that on slide would have otherwise been fit only for the bin. But it has made people lazy in their composition and hammering the crop tool has become a particularly favourite 'vice'.
Despite what's often said here, you don't have to put quality in to get quality out, because Photoshop can mask almost every 'sin' except for blur. Therefore, as long as you have a camera with sufficient megapixels, and you're not ridiculously far away from your subject, you only need to get the aircraft sharp and in focus to succeed here - providing of course your editing skills are up-to-scratch.
Personally I hate cropping and try and compose my subject as best I can (a lot of people still forget that an average of 5% of their actual frame is missing in the viewfinder) but I do have some real stinkers accepted here that, thankfully, Photoshop has been able to rescue. I don't believe you can ever judge how good an original file is by a version resized to ~1200 pixels.
In summary, Photoshop is generally a good thing, so long as one doesn't become too reliant upon it. It can however make crap shots look pretty decent.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9010 posts, RR: 28 Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5502 times:
The "A.net problem" if you will (editing a photo for acceptance here) isn't really a problem for me. Oftentimes I'll do some minor editing, then upload the photo to my Smugmug or Flickr or wherever else. Then I may decide I want to upload it here, in which case I'll do a bit more editing (usually sharpen a bit more, remove a color cast, add a bit of contrast, whatever), and save that as a separate edit.
Overall, I try not to screw with my photos too much. If I get a color rejection here, a contrast rejection there, no big deal. Sometimes I'll re-edit them, other times I won't.
Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that your camera does not pick up exactly what your eyes see. There's no reason to think it should, though of course it should be close.
Oftentimes I'll take a photo knowing I'll have to crop it, usually due to limited reach. If I'm using my 300mm prime, I know I'll have to crop a bit for a 737, but not for a 747.
Then there's my consistent mistake, which is forgetting to set the white balance. Very glad to be able to change that in post. Also, my shots tend to have quite a bit more red than what my eyes saw, so I'll usually remove a bit (that goes back to your camera not picking up exactly what your eyes see).
For the most part, I usually edit to try and replicate what my eyes were seeing, especially in terms of color.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4655 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5490 times:
Do you want to have a discussion about Photoshop and the digital age? Or a discussion about Anet acceptance criteria? They are two very different discussions. And are we speaking from a traditional, photojournalist point of view, or a more artistic view?
There is no one answer. Photographers have been altering photos to suit their needs since beginning. The difference is instead of a dark room, now we use a computer.
As for Airliners.net, this site has defined a set of criteria and if you want to play, you must play according to the rules.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
CaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 186 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5467 times:
Photoshop like other image manipulation software is simply another tool in the photographers tool kit.
Of course you will have the purists who will say that a photographer should place all the emphasis on technique, knowledge and expertise at the moment the picture is taken, which has all to do with timing and position in relation to the light, what focal length you use, and what settings you choose on the camera. This approach results in stunning images.
Then there are those who do all the above and in addition embrace the power of the software as well, and turn aviation photo's into something approaching a work of art, which is equally valid, helping add to the varied aesthetic that is out there.
The one thing I don't understand, and I'm sure this will start a whole new debate, is why Digital Still Photography has not entered the 3rd Dimension like Cinema and T.V.
3D Still Photography, personally I can't wait, but my bank balance might have other idea's.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5452 times:
Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 6): Then there are those who do all the above and in addition embrace the power of the software as well, and turn aviation photo's into something approaching a work of art, which is equally valid, helping add to the varied aesthetic that is out there.
But is this photography? Or art? I always consider 'photography' capturing something using nothing but the accuracy of your eye and the camera. If you alter the image afterwards to improve it, surely this is something else?
There is in my opinion no right or wrong way to 'arrive' at an image - but how you get there can be defined in a couple of different ways. I look at it like this: what comes directly out of the camera is the photo; if this photo goes through processing, it becomes an image.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4655 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5433 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): But is this photography? Or art? I always consider 'photography' capturing something using nothing but the accuracy of your eye and the camera. If you alter the image afterwards to improve it, surely this is something else?
I'm curious where this idea that photography and art are mutually exclusive came from. Look up Photography in any dictionary and you'll find the word "art" in the definition.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5433 times:
Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 6): why Digital Still Photography has not entered the 3rd Dimension like Cinema and T.V.
Don't worry, its coming ... though many of us will ignore it I'm sure!
For me photography is a creative process - part of that is translating 3 dimensions into 2.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): I always consider 'photography' capturing something using nothing but the accuracy of your eye and the camera. If you alter the image afterwards to improve it, surely this is something else?
I think the darkroom has been part of the photographic process from the get go. As far as I'm concerned, they are inseparable and I see no difference between a darkroom and PS. In fact, I can't think of any process I use in PS that I haven't done in the darkroom - it just took a lot longer and was more difficult. All PS has really done is make some pretty arcane darkroom magic accessible to all. Yes, it is abused, but I can assure you, as a one-time teacher of photography, I've seen some pretty bizarre stuff produced the old fashioned way!
The big difference is that then these horrors were generally only seen by a handful of friends - today they're posted all over the net.
And then of course there was the whole filter thing through the 70s and 80s, - most enthusiasts had sets of special effects filters - many of the pics that resulted look pretty heavy handed even compared to some of today's PS manipulations.
If you want to restrict your photography to what happens in the camera, that's perfectly fine. But its no better or worse than an image that's post processed. But I would suggest that the best processed images are those taken with post processing in mind ... ie. the photographer has the final image in mind when pressing the shutter. Less successful are those images in which post processing is applied as an afterthought to try and rescue an uninteresting or flawed original.
Anyway, in comment to the OP, my view is shoot and process the way you are happy with. At the end of the day, they're your photos and personally I will no longer shoot to anyone else's style unless they're paying me. If uploading to A.net is important to you, then you will perhaps have to make compromises. Having said that, it is no bad thing to learn how to shoot to meet different requirements.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5427 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 8): I'm curious where this idea that photography and art are mutually exclusive came from. Look up Photography in any dictionary and you'll find the word "art" in the definition
I'd call photography 'an' art rather then art itself, but I take your point. For me the circumstances create the art, and I just capture it.
As I said, there's no 'right or wrong' way of looking at this - I simply said that I believe a 'photograph' to be somehting that comes straight from the camera. The photo for me is the art, and anything done thereafter nothing more than a 'tweak'. After all, you won't get far at all without first having a photo to work with.
Quoting ckw (Reply 10): All PS has really done is make some pretty arcane darkroom magic accessible to all
But herein may lie the point. Most casual photographers in the slide days couldn't readily get access to a darkroom, let alone afford a personal one. Therefore we had little choice but to concentrate mostly on getting it right in the camera, lest we were left at the mercy of those responsible for processing our negatives.
Plus you couldn't realistically just highlight an area of an image and alter that area exclusively. I only have very limited darkroom experience but I'm pretty sure that, in the main, whatever you did to one area of the photo you had to pretty much do to the lot. I also find digital photography much more forgiving with exposure; if I messed up with film I was rarely able to correct my mistake, however with a RAW file I simply wobble a slider a bit and.... hey, presto!
The biggest advantage I've found with digital/Photoshop is the level of creativity you can achieve without busting the bank and wasting costly film. When I was forking out for Fuji rolls it really wasn't worth wasting shutter-presses trying to nail that ultimate shot; the only people doing that tended to be pro's who were getting paid handsome sums. These days you can afford to be much more daring, and concentrate more on nailing the circumstances than getting the composition perfect.
There will always be those who couldn't survive without editing software, just as there'll always be those who use it only as a safety net when things go wrong. I don't really know how to use Photoshop properly but I seem to do alright without it, so it's obviously not an absolutely essential tool for the job.
Whichever methods you use, it's likely that we'll all arrive at a very similar 1200 pixel image, is it not?
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4655 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5428 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 10): But I would suggest that the best processed images are those taken with post processing in mind ... ie. the photographer has the final image in mind when pressing the shutter. Less successful are those images in which post processing is applied as an afterthought to try and rescue an uninteresting or flawed original.
THIS. Sums up my thoughts perfectly, and when I'm shooting a lot of my creative work, I always have the post-process in mind and I shoot accordingly.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Again, you have to bear in mind that an awful lot of photographers here don't tend to do creative photography. I don't generally (although if I spot an opportunity for something different I take it) because the purpose of me going to the airport is to photograph as many different aircraft as I can, side-on in the sunshine. With this in mind, it's rare that I get into a position that presents something different.
All I concentrate on is filling the frame with the subject, getting it as central as possible and nailing the exposure as accurately as I can. If I do that, I'm done, and no amount of post-processing will in my mind make my photo any better.
One unwelcome effect digital photography has had is to create an impression that so-called 'fence-hugger' photographers are less skilled and imaginative than those who see themselves as predominantly creative. I'm certainly not suggesting any contributors to this thread have such a perception but it does unfortunately exist. Any photo - whether it be a side-on or a creative - takes thought and a certain amount of creativity. The problem I find is that Photoshop and her tools are often guilty of either masking the true beauty of an original photograph, or making an original look far better than it is.
On a final note, this is just my opinion, which I'm of course entitled too. I don't claim this to be fact and far from expect every photographer to see things in a similar way. Enjoy what you do. As long as you are happy with the end result - whether it's a 'slightly imperfect' original or a 'faultless' edit - that's all that matters.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13): Of course, to the viewer of the photo, it's not necessarily obvious whether it was planned, lucky, or rescued-in-processing. Nor should it matter
A good point Vik. If it's aesthetically pleasing, who gives a **** about how and why it was captured.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5378 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11): Plus you couldn't realistically just highlight an area of an image and alter that area exclusively. I only have very limited darkroom experience but I'm pretty sure that, in the main, whatever you did to one area of the photo you had to pretty much do to the lot.
Just FYI you would be amazed what could be done - given time and ingenuity. We were masking in the darkroom long before Photoshop - we just used cardboard. A given print could be subject to a number of separate exposures, using different filtration. In addition, the airbrush was a perfectly acceptable - and indeed necessary - tool for commercial photographers. Pretty much all of those classic Hollywood movie star stills had a fair bit of airbrushing applied.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14): an awful lot of photographers here don't tend to do creative photography
Exactly - for some photography is an accessory to support a completely different hobby, and that can lead to differences of opinion. Some simply do not have any desire to master the craft, and just want the minimum knowledge to meet their needs (or A.nets). It's just a means to an end. For others, photography is an end in itself.
A,net seems to sit on the fence between the two - it likes quality photos, but it's perceived restrictions on creativity may discourage those who are really into the photography side of things.
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2280 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5377 times:
Quoting andspran (Thread starter): Does it seem as though we must process our pictures to death? The technology has advanced to the point where the photograph is no longer a representation of what the eye was seeing when the pictures were taken.
I agree to a certain extent. While I believe that photos should be corrected for artificial light, when doing so, the image can sometimes look "wrong". Take this photo of a TNT 767 at Liege. One was taken at night under artificial light and the other was take during the day under natural light.
Taken just 4 days apart, the whites and blacks look great in the night photo. But what happened to that signature TNT red in the night photo? I'm willing to put money down that the image from the camera looked more unnatural than this processed image, but does this image need more help? Many of the TNT aircraft taken at night at Liege share this same, very orange fate.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9010 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5363 times:
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 16): One was taken at night under artificial light and the other was take during the day under natural light.
Damn! Looks so different....
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 16): While I believe that photos should be corrected for artificial light, when doing so, the image can sometimes look "wrong".
I'm happy to add a certain amount of color correction, but I really feel it goes way overboard sometimes. This is NOT a dig at these photographers (hell, I picked these photos from one of my photo albums!), because I understand the site has color requirements. But I personally don't like overcorrection of the orange sodium lights to the point that white lights look blue or green:
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5349 times:
I take your point Colin in that photo manipulation has always existed. But it was way out of my reach back then and I imagine it was for many others too. It wasn't anywhere near like having Photoshop installed on your PC. But perhaps in a twist of irony software does help you to understand the whole photographic process more.
Would I agree with much of what I'm saying if I were to talk about my photography outside aviation? Perhaps not - but then again with that I seek different results. My aviation photography is reflective of the aspects of aviation in which I am interested. My other photography puts me in touch with my more creative side. And every once in a while the two paths cross.
andspran From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5316 times:
This has been an excellent discussion. All viewpoints based on knowledge and experience of each photographer. My fundamental dislike for Photoshopping comes from my 1. Lack of experience with the software. And 2. the amount of time it takes to fiddle with each and every photo for some perceived level of perfection. That being said, I'm learning every day. I do love the digital age. Running film through a camera, developing the negatives, messing with the chemicals. Getting a print.....which someone won't like, and doing it again.......happy goodbye to all of that. The day I got my first digital camera, I lovingly took my Nikon film camera, took the batteries out of it, cleaned it all up, packed it in a box, and never touched it again. Motor drive and a bulk can of film? I think not! A bigger memory card for the new digital camera? You bet! I am also willing to admit that for action photography, especially with aircraft in flight, there's nothing like the thrill of holding that shutter release down and listening to the camera merrily slamming away frame after frame, and not thinking about how much film this is going to take. Of course, when you're done, there you are back at the computer, making that one great shot look perfect. It can take the fun out of actually being a photographer. Shoot for fun, shoot for art, shoot for a living? Just shoot.
Thank you all for joining in the discussion. I hope to be able to process my photos in a matter acceptable to this site. I'll keep at it as long as it's fun.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9010 posts, RR: 28 Reply 20, posted (9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5304 times:
Quoting andspran (Reply 19): My fundamental dislike for Photoshopping comes from my 1. Lack of experience with the software. And 2. the amount of time it takes to fiddle with each and every photo for some perceived level of perfection.
Those both get a lot faster and easier as you edit more. Some people say they only spend ~30 seconds on each photo, and while I don't have it down to that, for easy shots it's no more than a couple minutes. Mostly just a matter of how long it takes to click through the steps, and do things like select only the airplane for sharpening.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5176 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 18): But it was way out of my reach back then and I imagine it was for many others too. It wasn't anywhere near like having Photoshop installed on your PC. But perhaps in a twist of irony software does help you to understand the whole photographic process more.
I think that's a common perception - but my personal darkroom equipment cost less than my PS licence (never mind the PC!) and for a while my 'darkroom' consisted of a modified cupboard .
If someone is into photography, and has never used a darkroom, it's an interesting experience - stick to B&W and 2nd hand equipment. It won't cost you much, can be very satisfying (when it's not incredibly frustrating) and you'll learn a lot.
Funny thing about PS - while originally designed with photographers in mind, who understood the darkroom process, I have heard that many more recent photographers find PS darkroom derived terminology confusing and perhaps has led to some thinking PS is difficult.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9010 posts, RR: 28 Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5151 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 22): Funny thing about PS - while originally designed with photographers in mind, who understood the darkroom process, I have heard that many more recent photographers find PS darkroom derived terminology confusing and perhaps has led to some thinking PS is difficult.
Do you mean PS functions like Dodge and Burn, which were darkroom techniques?
I never use them anyway.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
CaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 186 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5106 times:
Interesting points have been made by all. The real question is how far is everyone willing to drive home the point.
The purist photographer takes the position that a photo should only reproduce what the human eye has observed in reality, does that preclude the use of zoom lenses, (another tool) that artificially enlarges the subject in the frame, making an aircraft that is physically far away, loom virtually large in the frame. A Human Eye is wide angle, through and through.
The reality is that when you pick up a Still Camera and you point it at a subject, be it a plane, or a person, or landscape you are placing a frame around it, and from this point the photographer is already distorting reality to a certain extent (which if you ask any physicist is purely subjective!), by excluding other elements of what is present in reality, so as to focus the eye towards your chosen subject, be it a plane, person, landscape, etc, etc.
The moment you accept this position, then it really is a question of how far do you want to distort that subjective reality that you have captured on the sensor.
This depends on many factors, how many of which you bring into play depends on the photographer, his or her philosophy regarding what constitiutes a photo or image, their imagination and penchant for creativity, what type of camera and lenses they use, and finally the type of editing software they own and how well they know it's capabilities.
All I know is that, in all my days of looking at photographs or images, has my first impression been "That's photo was over edited." I can guarantee it was more likely "Wow, what a stunning photo." Because it has caught my eye and stood out from all the other photo's around it.
25 ckw: Not sure I understand what is meant by "purist" - or in fact "reality" Consider B&W photography - it is patently not what the eye perceived, and
26 Silver1SWA: This is a problem I see today, especially on photo sites like Flickr. It's very easy to over-process a photo and turn it into a mess yet still get a
27 vikkyvik: Then the purist photographer should be editing all his/her photos, because a camera sensor does not duplicate what the human eye sees. The HDR images
28 ckw: OK, well here's another way of thinking about it. Photography, like any other art form, changes over time - think of photos, films, music from the 70
29 Silver1SWA: Perhaps I've been spending too much time on this site, but would you rather see a shot, perhaps HDR, with OBVIOUS halos in the sky? Or black/gray blo
30 andspran: I am enjoying this discussion very much. Let's add another angle to the talk of photoshopping the crap out of photos to reach a perceived perfection..
31 ckw: I don't think there's any question about what you or I would rather see ... but I'm suggesting we may be in the minority. Tastes change. In a world w
32 Psych: This certainly is a stimulating discussion - thanks to all participants. Of particular interest to me is when the opportunities digital editing presen
33 ckw: Basically I think you have a choice of all or (nearly) nothing when it comes to post-processing. Either anything goes and the image is judged purely o
34 andspran: I agree with this....oh and just why is it that DSLR files are unsharp by design? I've always wondered about that. I think you're right about the scr
35 ckw: I could have worded that better! What I mean is that the design of (most) DSLRs creates unsharp images. Primarily this is due to the use of an anti a
36 JakTrax: I suppose it depends on what type of 'purist' you are. I ONLY edit photos to upload here, preferring to use my full-sized, original images for all ot
37 vikkyvik: The camera does see all the same surroundings, yes, and certainly could be more accurate. But the camera has less dynamic range that the human eye. A
38 andspran: Speaking of photoshopping. I use "photoshop" as a generic reference here....not specifically for the Product itself. Was wondering what all different
39 megatop412: It's funny how many times I read in these threads 'In the end, I only need to satisfy myself- if I'm happy with my images, then that's good enough for
40 megatop412: Andspran- I use DxO for RAW conversion(just upgraded to version 8) and Paint Shop Pro X2 for other edits. Works for me. I only know of one other perso
41 ckw: Yes a bit off the wall I agree - and yes, I am to a certain extent playing devil's advocate - but quite seriously the complaints about "subjectivity"
42 JakTrax: Why not? Like anyone else I moan about inconsistencies here (not about the acceptance criteria as a whole I might add) but if I'M not satisfied with
43 mjgbtv: I use GIMP. It works just fine and fits my budget Right now it seems to be 11 days. This page shows you the queue status: http://www.airliners.net/my
44 Silver1SWA: Karl, I was speaking in the context of more creative, artistic shooting and processing styles. For example, HDR. While certainly not everyone's motiv
45 vikkyvik: Should not? That doesn't make any sense. I shoot photos that I want to shoot. If I then do some editing to get a photo onto A.net, or if I ask in the
46 megatop412: Because as soon as one submits a photo to this site, they are no longer looking to just satisfy themselves. Inherent in that submission is the motiva
47 vikkyvik: Read my reply# 45. "The scrutiny of the screening process" is not a validation of my photo. It's a judgment of whether my edit meets A.net acceptance
48 CaptainKramer: I just want to clarify that I am not a purist, because I believe it is impossible to be one, and I was hoping my two previous posts reflected that pos
49 vikkyvik: Don't worry, I didn't get that impression at all; I assumed you were speaking hypothetically.
50 ckw: Ansel Adams said twelve good photographs in a year was good production. Makes you think. Cheers, Colin
51 JakTrax: But you're missing the point. We've already satisfied ourselves, so we can move on to doing other things with our images - like uploading them here.
52 Braniff747SP: It has. It's not used widely, but it has started to gain ground. I know, for example, that Lumix has several 3D lenses that can be affixed to certain
53 andspran: Gallery of images vs database. This, I will admit, has me vexed. When I found this site I thought it was very cool. I decided to get involved and see
54 Chukcha: Simple - to keep the number of photos on this site manageable. Editing skills are more important on Airliners.net than photography skills. There are
55 vikkyvik: Insane? The editing required for here is pretty simple, and I doubt if it uses 1% of what Photoshop is capable of in terms of editing photos. If you
56 JakTrax: A good photo will always be just that, however many times it's messed with in Photoshop. I personally much prefer to look at the 'raw' photo - straig
57 andspran: Yeah, I apologize for my poor choice of words. A bit dramatic and all, too passionate about my particular point of view I guess. I'm just having to l
58 CaptainKramer: I took photo's of an American Airlines B767-300ER lining up on runway 027R among others at London Heathrow, using my Canon 60D with a Canon 70-200mm f
59 Silver1SWA: I'd be interested in seeing both your shot and the other photographers shot, if that's possible. A lot of times, simple color correction is all it ta
60 Chukcha: With all due respect, Karl, the kind of photos you upload here - mostly side shots in perfect weather - don't normally require either particularly hi
61 Silver1SWA: This is an excellent point. It became burned into my mind that a "keeper" was only something that would hold up to this website in terms of sharpness
62 vikkyvik: True, the guidelines are pretty simple. And yes, it can be disconcerting for newbies. But my experience, from spending a lot of time in the feedback
63 Chukcha: My point is that the "strength" as an editor on this site is much more beneficial than the strength as a photographer. An average photographer with e
64 stealthz: With all due respect to those that manage the Post Processing of their images to get them accepted here, the requirements of this site do not put the
65 andspran: This is a well made observation. Aircraft in flight, especially at something like an airshow, where the aircraft are usually moving fast, and are ver
66 JakTrax: I tend to upload such images almost exclusively here, but I don't solely do 'side-ons-in-sun'. Having seen the struggles of many great creative photo
67 Silver1SWA: If you can't tell from the edit, then it probably doesn't matter to the viewer. How you get there is simply how you get there. I'm of the opinion tha
68 JakTrax: I fully agree. But there's a stigma attached to side-on shots that's very undeserved. That MD-11 capture took far more preparation and skill than the
69 CaptainKramer: Sorry Silver1SWA, I left Anet after my last post and only just returned to read your request, re comparing my photo of the American Airlines B767-300E
70 Silver1SWA: If you talk to him again, find out what settings he used. Honestly, it could be as simple as a difference in apertures used. Focal length, another fa
71 mjgbtv: Layers alone will not do anything, they are a means and not an end. An example of using layers would be to sharpen on a duplicate layer and then eras
72 vikkyvik: There are a lot of shots on A.net that are duplicates - same aircraft, same day and time, different photographer. And generally they do look a bit di
73 Silver1SWA: Yeah, I get that. But reading his posts, I immediately think of that moment when I see a photo taken with say a 300 f/2.8 prime versus a standard 70-
74 CaptainKramer: Thanks Silver1SWA, I will definitely ask him for the settings he used for the photo, if I bump into him again. What you described when searching out s
75 ckw: It is of course possible that post edit had a lot to do with it, but I think the initial exposure has a more important impact than many people realis
76 MfgitintheUSA: I am interested in opinions on the various photo editing software that is being used...I currently use the software that came with my Pentax K-r....Si
77 ckw: I've not used SilkyPix, but I have seen it slated as one of the least easy to use editors, so pretty much anything else would make your life easier. P
78 andspran: I have Photoshop Elements, Lightroom 3, and Ulead Photo Impact. Also an older full version of Photoshop. I just can't get used to the workflow system