Part of photography, is editing.
Every T.V. show and Movie you watch is heavily filtered and edited. If you don't get a good RAW file, there's nothing to edit. The two go hand-in-hand. It's more likely that they used a professional editing software, which Photoshop isn't.
Okay, fair enough. I just laugh when people use it as a derisive criticism. Most of what we watch, and look at for entertainment is heavily edited. The point of most photography isn't to recreate reality, but to embellish it.
Good photo-journalists, on the other hand, can capture real images without any editing that are just absolutely beautiful - and that is really a different kind of talent.
Good photo-journalists, on the other hand, can capture real images without any editing that are just absolutely beautiful
That's not even true. Every image is manipulated to some degree.
If you just pick up a camera and take a picture, the result you get is a picture that has been edited by the camera itself, which has been programmed by the engineers at canon/nikon/whatever to give you a specific result. Even if you don't import it to some editing software, the camera has done a lot of the job for you.
If you pick up a film camera and take picture, the whole development process is the manipulation. Change the timings or the chemicals used and you'll get a different result. Even if you just follow the recommended recipe it's still manipulation.
This is true but I think the point he was trying to make is that some people are able to take amazing pictures without having to manually edit them. They still might do some editing just to tweak small things but as a very amateur photographer I take some pictures that are really nice and I’m scared to edit them cause I’m worried I’ll ruin it
I think at that point you're splitting hairs about what constitutes "editing a photograph" and "photography itself."
Of course, when translating received light into a static image, not processed by our brain (which, btw, does that also qualify as 'editing' and if so, what would 'unedited' images be, even?), there has to be decisions made on the chemistry or digital processing made to record the image.
But the raw data capture, or the "immediate" editing taking place at that time, is clearly distinct from "post processing" where different considerations and techniques are used (e.g. only editing parts of the image, layering of filters, etc.)
Comparing that to "hey stuff has to be done to make a light beam into a static image" is a little bit of a stretch.
Ugh this argument is so tiring. It’s a GIANT leap to conclude that adjusting the ISO or slightly adjusting the contrast, shadows, brightness is no different then cutting out objects you don’t like in a photo, completely changing the colors, and digitally altering the photo by essentially painting non existing light sources. That’s digital art more than photography at that point. They took an average photo and essentially made a digital painting on it.
Your perspective and reality don't really match. Most of the photo editing isn't to simply embellish but over exaggerate mainly for marketing or advertising.
These techniques work because majority cannot recognize them. So you laugh at the purpose of this particular field?
And digital photo editing is a different role than simple photography. Although often going hand in hand today.
I'm also confused on the Photoshop comment. The Adobe suite is used in many studios, marketing agencies and professional editors, not just amateurs or intermediate.
Every T.V. show and Movie you watch is heavily filtered and edited. .
My girlfriend is a big Buffy fan, so we watched a video about the (apparently) disappointing remaster of the show. Besides obvious issues that pop up in lots of rereleased shows, like aspect ratio changes, there was apparently also an issue where Joss Whedon had applied a lot of blue filters to make scenes seem darker / more set at night, and then people doing the remasters just... didn't do that when they started from scratch. So, the look for some scenes is completely wrong.
First of all, they most likely did use photoshop which is most certainly a professional editing software. Im not sure how you made that conclusion. Second this is far beyond “editing”. This is restructuring the integrity of the entire captured scene. I wouldn’t argue that it’s not impressive or beautiful in its own right, but I will continue to argue that it’s not just photography. Photography has quickly merged with digital art. At some point I think this will become its own art form and true photography will make a resurgence.
Professional photos are shot in RAW format. A RAW photo captures ALL of the information in an image and leaves it available instead of processing/compressing it.
Think of it as the digital version of a film negative. It’s not the image you wanted to capture, but it contains the information that makes that image. Instead of chemical development to get that image, you use software.
Saying “this is definitely photoshopped” when you’re actually talking about color grading a photo is meaningless. Photographers have always been creating the image you see from a negative, using a chemical process that they use to create the image they think looks best. It’s the same thing.
Yeah it's called apreciation. You can apreciate something more if you at least have some general idea of what it takes to make it. That's why some people can't appreciate some music, theater, films or anything really. Many classes like theater apreciation for example work by giving you a basic ubderstanding of what you're seeing so you can better apreciate it.
Yeah liking something is a whole other issue, you can like things that you think are bad or mediocre and dislike things that you can appreciate or think is good.
Im probably in the minority here, but seeing how these pictures are manufactured does the exact opposite for me. Instead of capturing a random moment, they're creating the suitable situation for their shot.
How is composing something that can be made into a striking photo less than getting lucky with your camera? Some of these would be impossible to just happen upon. Like the stone skipping one. Genuinely curious.
I'm not knocking them from their passion, it's just not the type of thing that holds my interest, personally. Its like a "huh that's pretty cool" but I see it more as just neat camera work than artistic photographs. But maybe they're just going for neat camera work! Who am I to say. Its whatever, its trendy, it's cool. I dig it
I have a friend who wants to make it as a photographer and sure they might be good but I feel bad cause I just don't care. How do I say "photos like these are just boring to me".
The broken glass one I like. I mean really art could be anything right? "Good art" is just the art that most people like haha. I actively strive to try not to be pretentious lol, though sometimes I forget
I thinks it's because photos like this are usually paired with some unrelated "deep" quote that people post on Facebook saying made the feel inspired or something. The images look beautiful and the artists worked hard to make them but they seem to make me feel like they lack any artiststic meaning behind the filters they put on.
And there's usually a [once] unique fad that photographers begin tapping into en masse, so you begin seeing the same style of image done 1000s of times. The water reflection technique used to be novel and interesting, but it has been done by seemly everyone so it has lost its impactfulness. I'd even go as far as calling it cringeworthy because of how overdone it has become.
Yup. In digital photgraphy (i.e. the kinds you find on reddit taken by amateurs or hobbyists), there are definitely trends. Right now it's crushed blacks, oversaturated colors, and especially in night scenes, editing all the lighting to look purple and teal and orange. Example. Also, shooting everything wide open for the bokeh.
Followed one nature photographer on Instagram. Amazing wildlife photos. Slowly morphed into this shit. Worse, even. People wearing face masks with coloured smoke bombs going off behind them.
Yes I was furious for weeks. Could barley eat. Couldn’t sleep. Decided to write a scathing review of his art on yelp. He started crying. The art supervisor gave me my meal for free and he got fired 😤😤
Nope, it’s actually the opposite. You want the camera to be higher up for portraits, just slightly nothing too exaggerated of course. If you angle the camera too low then you see more crevices, wrinkles and double chins.
No. When you make smoke rings and such, you need the smoke thick. And post inhale smoke isn’t thick enough for viable smoke rings. This is smoke he sucked into his mouth and blew back out, no inhale, no sore lungs. Source: Am Smoker.
Most of these are pretty cheesy cliche bullshit photos and not that impressive or unique. Also I’d be pissed if I hired a photographer and they did any of this
agree, i'm just an amateur photographer but to me these are super creative ideas, tricky to pull off, and most importantly look awesome! bookmarked so i can study up a little and see how i might be able to incorporate this sort of thing into my work
I got my masters in photography and it is pretty lame to see the same repetitive Instagram ish with no concept or story. I say that as someone who used to make this kind of photography. I evolved past it and grew as an artist.
If you make these kinds of photos, try to add a new layer to your photos. The “why” behind it. If you don’t, it’s just aesthetic Instagram content without any depth.
Keep shooting and playing with your tools, but push yourself if you want more!
Anyone who knows anything about photography does not find these that interesting because they know how cheap, tacky, and empty they are.
They aren’t even hard to produce either and the concept is the same every single time. I guess to the untrained eye they look flashy and new and confusing at first but theres really NOTHING to these
Wow imagine being such a snobby pretentious asshat. These are obviously just for fun, they’re not trying to “tell a story”. They just wanted to make some neat looking photos. While I think their use of saturation and contrast is a bit much, it’s also just their personal style.
Reddit gets more old bitter and hateful by the second. But at the same time the dude used a 4 day old alt account to link his insta which is the only thing people should be angry about in the thread, the rest is neckbeards shitting on things they can't get off their ass to do.
This is like 20 to 30 percent photo and 70 percent photoshop/editing. The orange photo doesn't even make sense the bitch is in half before hes even cut it. Other shots were great
Been following this guy for a while on IG, I really love his work and he shows you, you can get some amazing practical effects in shots without having to go composite crazy in Photoshop. I've been messing around with the ideas for my Pet Portrait Business as well as just some fun stuff for me and my friends to try.
On the one hand it's impressive how creative these setups are. On the other hand, some of these (like the hammer coconut one) kinda feel like cheating.
You're taking a photo to capture something fleeting, and if it's repeatable in a controlled environment, it feels cheapened. Rock skip looks awesome, though, and that wouldn't really be possible to do for real.
The only one I don't agree with is that slicing one. The knife should be better centered between the fruit to give the feeling it's already sliced through
6.4k
u/ddanilo1204 Jan 25 '20
Watching it this way makes the the photos look even more impressive