Photo editing

[ausbob]

I may be wrong, and I am only very new to photography, however it seems to me that most photos taken are adjusted using photoshop or an equivilent type of software. Now, again I may be wrong however I don't understand how a photo can be considered good if it has been altered using software. Surely this just means the software user is good at using a computer program.
Again, I am new to these forums and photography and simply do not understand how a photo that has been computer enhanced could win a competition. If someone has an opinion on this I would be happy to here it.

[flame70]

This is a huge question but suffice to say that you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. However if you start with something good then using software allows you to create something incredible. I would doubt that any professional thesedays does not at the minimum adjust either contrast, colour balance, exposure, saturation or vibrancy at least. Prior to digital this would have been done in the dark room. Its not cheating and there are categories within competitions that allow for more complex manipulations of digital imaging.
I just read a new photographers resume that states they have a degree in IT which makes them therefore good at photography. I had to laugh because it all starts with the camera hence my initial statement.

[ameerat42]

Well, Ausbob. There have been a few discussions on this very topic. Firstly, you're not "wrong" in having that point of view, as there's no real right/wrong. However, most people recognise that most photos taken with any means whatever require "some work". In fact, when you take a digital photo the camera already does do some work on it, a lot if you just take them as Jpegs. When you otake them as Raw images, the raw converter has to eventually turn them into Jpegs or some other format, like Tiff. This requires some working of the original info.

Now to an old film days analogy: even here your photo got "worked some" for printing, usually to get the negative to produce an averaged toned print. If the neg was too badly exposed you couldn't do much.

The foregoing is a bit rough, but you'll get a heap of replies/references to earlier ones with this thread.

[William W]

Taking the image using:
the light;
the chosen lens at a particular aperture
the positioning of camera
the chosen film (or sensor)
the particular timing and duration of the Shutter Release

. . . has always ONLY been a PORTION of the process of making a Photograph for presentation, critique or award.

The Film is then developed (and that process can be manipulated)
The Negative is then printed in the Darkroom (and that process also can be manipulated).

There is no difference with digital only the processes and options are different.

WW

[kiwi]

If you shoot jpeg the camera computer is of course already doing image processing for you.

[camerasnoop]

And of course, using filters like ND's, polarisers, and all sorts of coloured filters would be a form of manipulation, but done in a different order. This is really just a spurious argument by people who prefer their manipulation process to the process of others. I mean, straight out of the camera might be mandatory for passport photos, but who wants to shoot them all day?

[Analog6]

Taking the image using:
the light;
the chosen lens at a particular aperture
the positioning of camera
the chosen film (or sensor)
the particular timing and duration of the Shutter Release

. . . has always ONLY been a PORTION of the process of making a Photograph for presentation, critique or award.

The Film is then developed (and that process can be manipulated)
The Negative is then printed in the Darkroom (and that process also can be manipulated).

There is no difference with digital only the processes and options are different.

WW

I have seen online some of Ansel Adams darkroom worksheets for his famous prints - one has 27 steps and took him 4 days to get just how he had envisaged it when he shot the negative. Photoshop and other programs are the 'digital darkroom' where we exercise our judgement on the initial RAW image we have captured. Do you think it would be better to let the camera manufacturer set the parameters - which is exactly what you do if you shoot jpeg? I prefer to control it myself.

And then there are photo montages / layers, which have always been about. There was a famous fuss at the Australian War archives (before the days of the memorial) when historian Bean objected to the fact that some of Hurley's WWI trenches images were darkroom 'sandwiches' of 3 or 4 negatives. Hurley maintained he only did this to create scenes he had seen but that were impossible to photograph in one 'go'.

There is nothing new in photo manipulation and processes such as retouching, hiding blemishes etc. It is just easire for us all to do it with our digital darkroom.

[William W]

There is nothing new in photo manipulation and processes such as retouching, hiding blemishes etc. It is just easier for us all to do it with our digital darkroom.

HAHA!
I forgot to list the retouching of the print - I still have a full set of retouching inks and various scalpels and brushes.

And certainly using Perspective Control in Digital Post Production is far easier than laying the cropping board below the enlarger at three skewed angles and also curling the paper whilst keeping it all perfectly still for 30 seconds and dodging and burning it also.

WW

Addendum:

The filters and similar I thought of as part of the lens, but Yes, they should be listed separately I think, good point.

[ricktas]

Here you go : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77740

[ausbob]

Thanks for that, I will keep an open mind

[Roo]

Digital software changes the pics heaps more than the dark room methods I would have thought. The ability with photoshop does for my thinking make pics look like 'how the hell did they get that nice pic' when it was a good photoshopper. I appreciate the ability of software but I do think it cheapens the shot even though some pics that have been touched up look breathtaking. I understand its part of the magicians bag of tricks but still, thats me anyway. Oh and I will early next year take the jump into learning a software package to manipulate the pics but still think a wow pic can be the difference in your photoshop skills and that's a shame.

[William]

Quote Roo : 'how the hell did they get that nice pic' when it was a good photoshopper

If you shoot jpeg, The little processor in the Camera does some automatic processing for you on the image you took

I choose to shoot RAW and I use a bigger processor (My Computor) to do the same thing with an image editing program , IMO thats not Photoshopping :confused013

Took this yesterday, So this is Photoshopped, Shot in RAW and processed in both Lightroom and Photoshop

[Mark L]

William, maybe you could also post the OOC raw to sure that you don't need to go overboard with processing, but some is worthwhile. (I'm assuming that's what it would show :))

[kiwi]

The brutal reality is that as you get more experienced and better behind the camera you will realise how important post processing is to making a piece of art

It's a bit if a right of passage in the photography world I think

[camerasnoop]

In reality, the only people who give a damn about how an images is produced, are other photographers. The general public and customers generally do not give a damn.

[William]

William, maybe you could also post the OOC raw to sure that you don't need to go overboard with processing, but some is worthwhile. (I'm assuming that's what it would show :))

As per request Mark. Untouched RAW, Not even sharpened , Just put the frame around it

[ricktas]

People seem to assume that the camera and lenses are perfect, and capture the shot with exact and precise reproduction of the scene the lens is pointed at. Guess what, lenses are far from perfect, glass has imperfections, sensors cannot capture the full range of brightness that the human eye can see. sRGB and AdobeRGB are often used colourspaces that digital cameras use as the basis for the colours that the sensor can capture, yet they are are only part of the full range of colours that nature can produce and that the human eye can see.

As the light fades at the end of the day, humans see lovely dark rich blue skies, and reds and oranges in the sunset, and we can also see into the shadows. Yet our cameras end up giving us a grainy finish as the sensor cannot deal with longer exposures and or higher ISO's. Yet the human eye doesn't see this scene with graininess.

Our cameras and lenses are imperfect tools, why should we be accepting their imperfections if they are producing a result that is not what the human eye saw at the time. Photoshop allows us to correct those faults in our capture technique and gear quality.

So if you have a perfect camera and perfect lens, go ahead and stop using editing, but if your gear is not perfect..well there is a solution, so why not use it?

[Roo]

The brutal reality is that as you get more experienced and better behind the camera you will realise how important post processing is to making a piece of art

It's a bit if a right of passage in the photography world I think I read what you said in the other thread that Ricktas linked here and I agree with mostly what you said and strongly agree with your quote of "I think this has a lot to do with negativity surrounding the often ridiculous plasticisation of magazine covers". When a person can turn a large person with warts on there face into a super model from the original pic is morphed into something completed different and unattainable to a non savvy photoshop person, more so, that was not able to be done old school lets say in the dark room. That's not art that's just manipulation of pixels imho. Yes that could be the "purist" view of mine that you referred to but like I said I am embarking on Photoshop early next year and look forward to the journey that comes with it.

[Analog6]

Digital software changes the pics heaps more than the dark room methods I would have thought. The ability with photoshop does for my thinking make pics look like 'how the hell did they get that nice pic' when it was a good photoshopper. I appreciate the ability of software but I do think it cheapens the shot even though some pics that have been touched up look breathtaking. I understand its part of the magicians bag of tricks but still, thats me anyway. Oh and I will early next year take the jump into learning a software package to manipulate the pics but still think a wow pic can be the difference in your photoshop skills and that's a shame.

Everything you can do in PS could be done in the print darkroom. As I said, it is easier and faster, but not new. WW's point about perspective correction in the old wet darkroom is a good one, it used to be a nightmare! Transparencies were a different kettle of fish, but even there by pushing and pulling film speed and development time you could manipulate 'reality'.


William, maybe you could also post the OOC raw to sure that you don't need to go overboard with processing, but some is worthwhile. (I'm assuming that's what it would show :))

Mark, RAW files are not suitable for use straight out of the camera, and to post it here it would have to be converted to a jpeg, so straight off you lose the sense of how it really looked 'straight out of the camera'.

[camerasnoop]

Mark, RAW files are not suitable for use straight out of the camera, and to post it here it would have to be converted to a jpeg, so straight off you lose the sense of how it really looked 'straight out of the camera'.

You can't view the RAW file, even on your camera. What you see is the embedded JPG created as a preview file. Some RAW files have two or three embedded JPG files. CR2 files when put into Zoombrowser (Canon Software) allow you to "extract" the embedded JPG, or to "convert" to JPG. The extracted JPG would probably be the closest you'll get to seeing what the RAW really contains.

There seems to be a fixation with some about wanting to see the original versus the finished article. As I mentioned earlier, this seems to only worry other photographers.

[William W]

Photography, by those who do not undertake formal training in the Craft, is generally learnt differently now, than by those who took up the film 135 cameras as an “hobby” and then became interested in Photography as a Pastime.

The key significant differences are:
 the multitude of images already available in file form
 the plethora of image manipulation tools
 the increase of the screen as the common viewing device
 societies’ move to digital generally and the amount of time spent “at screen”

Even many basic mobile phones have digital editing software, for example, and humans cannot resist the temptation to “play” with the image and thereby take some ownership of it.

Add to this the fact that each year more children more often use a computer or similar device, thus increasing the number exponentially – the methodologies of taking up Photography as an hobby is now backwards to what it was previously - it now begins with the image onto the screen and thus this is why, intrinsically, there is so much emphasis on digital PP and not the Technique of the Capture.

Even many Institutions and Curricula are slanting the Course Work more and more towards Digital Post Production - in some institutions allocating many more hours than what, Wet Work, Darkroom and Print Finishing Technique were previously.

So, whilst it is necessary to understand that Digital Post Production is only the equivalent of traditional Darkroom and Photofinishing, it is reality that many people now use Digital Photofinishing as the main Tool of Trade.

Therein is the argument as to “What is Photography” and what is: “Image Creation”, if the image is created primarily by another means.

This debate is growing in respect to many Photographic Competition Rules and Judging Criteria.

Moreover, these elements have struck at the fundamental of the Teaching of Photography (and also other Subjects) and have been the topic of many Focus Groups and Professional Submissions apropos the Subject’s Content and Practical Coursework and Teaching Delivery.

WW

[William]

Quote : William W : Photography, by those who do not undertake formal training in the Craft, is generally learnt differently now, than by those who took up the film 135 cameras as an “hobby” and then became interested in Photography as a Pastime.

I had no formal training, Dad taught me on this 64/65 : http://www.butkus.org/chinon/pentax/pentax_spotmatic/pentax_spotmatic.htm, Thank goodness it had an inbuilt light meter , But you had to get it right in camera , It was actually easy to use

PS : Sorry it was actually this one : http://www.thecamerasite.net/01_SLR_Cameras/Pages/asahi.htm

[William W]

I am glad your Dad taught you. Dads and Mums with a passion for what they do, are often the best teachers.

[Roo]

Everything you can do in PS could be done in the print darkroom.working in full colour you could copy and paste, erace items, lasso items and move them, change the colour of a item in a colour picture to add colour in an in a black and white picture, pull a potion of a pic into the centre and other nifty tricks photoshop can do? Not having a crack, I understand that many of the stuff in photoshop was borne from the dark room days, even the layering of negatives where you could cut stuff out of one negative and lay it over the other one etc. I would have thought that with pixel manipulation the modern day photoshop software program would have been able to do way more than what the dark room could have done is all.

[ricktas]

working in full colour you could copy and paste, erace items, lasso items and move them, change the colour of a item in a colour picture to add colour in an in a black and white picture, pull a potion of a pic into the centre and other nifty tricks photoshop can do? Not having a crack, I understand that many of the stuff in photoshop was borne from the dark room days, even the layering of negatives where you could cut stuff out of one negative and lay it over the other one etc. I would have thought that with pixel manipulation the modern day photoshop software program would have been able to do way more than what the dark room could have done is all.

Not really, as you say, sandwiching negatives etc could be done. What photoshop has done is gotten us out of a dark-room, away from chemicals and made the process easier and faster...nothing more.

[Roo]

hmm ok that surprises me frankly, oh well live and learn, thanks for that ricktas

[William W]

Not really, as you say, sandwiching negatives etc could be done. What photoshop has done is gotten us out of a dark-room, away from chemicals and made the process easier and faster...nothing more.

The "etc" is quite important as there are many “etceteras” in the cache of skills for a competent and experienced (qualified) Darkroom Technician.

As one example (the lasso tool) - At Technical College, for the Advanced Diploma, we had to shoot 4x5 (multiple copies of the same lanscape scene at different exposures) and use a scapel to slice sections of the negs before sandwiching – so really this technique was not just sandwiching but making a new neg(s) like a gig-saw puzzle.

The join lines were smudge slightly by very gentle movements of the paper for periods of the exposure as the surrounding area was dodged, or alternatively the print finished with photo finishing dyes to remove (hide) any join lines.

The cutting part of the exercise was a technique that I never mastered completely, but the oldest fellow wearing the Grey Lab Coat and Collar and Tie (our Teacher), was a Master of it.

Ancient History, for your entertainment: (Yes we wore Grey Lab Coats and white shirts, collars and ties in the darkroom, always, at Tech: failure rate for year 1 Diploma was 60%: in Year 1 Adv. Dip. they culled about 40%, it was nothing to have one's work ripped up in front of the class if it didn't make the Teacher's standard - politically correct was not invented)


WW

[camerasnoop]

I think there are many people from the film days who thought that their prints and negatives that came back from the lab were exactly what they captured in camera. The guys at the lab would probably tell you different. They used to fix the photographers' mistakes. Photoshop has given every photographer ready to learn them, the skills that took many years to master. Thankyou for this insight William W.

[CHardy]

I have the same opinion as you ausbob, but mainly because I have seen photos that are so "overcooked" they are quite frankly horrible. I have photoshop elements 9, and I am trying to change my ideas and use it. Recently I removed a wire fence from in front of a horse....biggest change to my photos to date :) Unfortunately this subject brings the good and bad out in people...I left another forum before joining this one because I dared to say I didnt use photoshop. I was accused of thinking my photos were too perfect for editing
( if only they knew how wrong that statement was !)...I am led to believe that once I understand how to use elements 9 I will be more comfortable with post processing of my photos. I do know my photos would be better if I tweaked them, but at the moment, I try my hardest to get it "just right" at the time of shooting....ie no ballons popping out of someones ear etc...:D and I have only just begun shooting in RAW + Jpeg.. Im struggling to find the time to be bothered with editing the RAW images ( once again probably due to lack of understanding the process) . I am always on the look out for courses / workshops, but where I live there is nothing readily available. I have joined a local camera club, and next year they are separating into two groups..one for absolute beginners, and one to teach the post processing of images using photoshop...I need to split into two, so I can attend both classes :) Maybe after I see some of my images edited I might be a little more accepting of photoshop...who knows .......as yet I have not captured THE perfect image, but I keep trying.
PS: I hope I havent offended anyone..that is NOT my intention

[ricktas]

I think there is a difference between using photoshop and abusing photoshop. Any photo, over processed, whether in a dark room, or via photoshop is going to look bad. It is these bad end results that make people question their use of post processing.

The fact that you can identify and see that these photos are overcooked is a good start, cause you will not make the same mistakes (and they are a mistake), when you start delving into post processing. As often said, less is more, or, everything in moderation, is true for photo editing, just as it is for most other aspects of life.

Photoshop, or any other editing software, used well, can turn a great photo (out of camera), into a superb photo, but abuse of editing software can turn a great photo into a horrid mess.

Photoshop is not the evil doer, the person sitting at the computer is!

[ameerat42]

...I try my hardest to get it "just right" at the time of shooting....ie no ballons popping out of someones ear etc...:D and I have only just begun shooting in RAW + Jpeg... Im struggling to find the time to be bothered with editing the RAW images ( once again probably due to lack of understanding the process)...

Hi Charmaine. No offence at all from your post. You have made a good point above, "just right". There are lots of things a photographer can start to do when taking the picture. (I realise often enough when reviewing mine!)

I won't go on about the use of Photoshop etc as it's been quite adequately covered.

I hope the time comes soon when you realise that editing processing your raw images is far from being a bother. This is about the 2nd most important thing in digital photography, "developing" your raw files "just right". You will find it far more rewarding than trying to tweak some life out of a jpeg using any software, let alone P'shop.

When I had "jpeg only" cameras I'd feel exasperated sometimes in trying to get the photo to look the way I saw it at the time I took the picture. Since using raw I have never looked back. Once you get to know what you're doing you will hardly PP a jpeg again. At first I used to go raw to tiff (to tweak some more) to jpeg, but not any more. Now it's raw to jpeg (for posting on forums and printing). I still use Photoshop to fix up panoramas (stitched with yet other software).

The main reason for using raw is that it preserves much more info (and there are threads here about this, so no more here) than a jpeg, and working on a raw gives you so much extra scope. It might slow down your work rate, but not for long.

Anyway, good photographic travelling.
Am.

[William]

Can I dare say it , Yes I will , All images out of a Digital camera need some form of Post processing , Even if it is a little sharpening , :)PS : Another example , Finished product and original RAW out of camera , OK I know I cant show a RAW image , But this is as close as I can do to show you dont have to go overboard Original Raw converted to a tif file into PS and converted to jpeg for web viewing , No processing

Next the finished product

[zeroharm]

I am new to photography as well and agree to a point with all opinions posted here. I look at photography as an art form and appreciate all artists interpretations.. Some photos I do not like, but that is my taste and my opinion. It is not about what you look at, it is about what you see, and when I see something beautiful I do not think about how it came to be i quietly thank the photographer for making me smile.
so essentially I do not think it matters how a photo is processed, it is about what the photographer was wanting to achieve, and the joy that picture gives others. I don't take photos to win comps, I get more pleasure from sharing something I love doing with a group of likeminded people.
I know it is a bit of a fence sitting response, but I am new to this :D

[easty1]

Hey your not fence sitting you have made some valid points and I'm inclined to agree with you:th3:

[ausbob]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

[kiwi]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

There is no line. It's art and completely subjective. It would be like saying to Piccasso that he'd crossed the line when he made one eye bigger than the other if you see my point.

[William]

Quote : Ausbob : The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant

Of cause Bob , Thats the idea , It is more what I saw on the day than came out of Camera with the RAW Image which has no in camera processing done to it

[ameerat42]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

I guess what you're saying here is that "...changing a photo..." is what you are undecided about. This thread has, however, amply covered the many ways/reasons that this can be interpreted. The two main themes have been the idea that "art" is involved, and the idea that "some PP is often necessay". I suppose that where "the line is drawn" is something that affects everybody to some extent, whether in the "art" sense, or the "required PP" sense.

Welcome to the forum: we do the foregoing here much of the time. And are there any pics to admire?

[William]

Bob how about showing us some of your SOOC images in the forums so we can have a look at what you are doing , Would be good to get an idea of what you consider good after all the work and help we've put into this thread - Bill

[camerasnoop]

Bob how about showing us some of your SOOC images in the forums so we can have a look at what you are doing , Would be good to get an idea of what you consider good after all the work and help we've put into this thread - Bill

Hear! Hear!

[ricktas]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

The line gets drawn where each of us wants to draw it. But we also have to remember that where you draw your line, may not be where I draw mine. If we start saying the line is HERE, we are stopping creativity, when creativity is not our domain to rule over. To add to Kiwi's post about Picasso, I am not a fan of Picasso's work at all, but that doesn't mean everyone else should dislike it as well. Ausphotography is here for opinions and critiques and if we all liked the same stuff, processed the same way..it would be bluddy boring around here at times.

[jeffde]

I believe when you buy a DSLR (apposed to a compact ) and you shoot in RAW then PP is a must - whether Lightroom (which i use Photoshop of any other program). You have to do some enhancement whether to its just simple adjustments to exposure , highlight recovery, cropping etc

Where we (and others go wrong ) is when you process a shot for the sake of it. To try and make something that isn't - hence what fashion magazines do when they over process and over skin smooth. I clean up rashes , remove pimples etc and may smooth out a few wrinkles - but i won't remove the wrinkles, freckles, scars or moles, that make up the "character" of the portrait i've taken.

[davidd]

Bob how about showing us some of your SOOC images in the forums so we can have a look at what you are doing , Would be good to get an idea of what you consider good after all the work and help we've put into this thread - Bill

Of course, remember to set your contrast, sharpening and saturation to neutral before you take the shots, to avoid any 'enhancement' (processing) of the jpeg in the camera. ;)

[Mark L]

A photo I took today Image #1). I buggered up my settings but by by doing nothing to outlandish, PPing allowed my to make a reasonable image (#2).
I'm using nothing flash, D.P.P., the software that came with the camera. Now why would they give me that with the camera? :confused013
Without PP, I'd throw this photo out, and I don't want to do that.

[zeroharm]

Photography is art.. Tis all :)

[ausbob]

Photography is art and I really do apologise if I offended anyone, especially Bill whose image by the way I think is great. I didn't mean to say a line MUST be drawn either as ricktas said the line is drawn where we want it drawn. With regards to photos I have taken, I don't pretend to be anything other than a father who loves taking photos of his kids. Here is one of my favourites I have recently taken. Feel free to give me any opinion. By the way I am new to this so hopefully the attachment works. (I have shrunk the image size, I don't know if I am supposed to.)
Cheers

[camerasnoop]

A little work required on the composition, but the exposure looks fine, as is the idea. Your son is smack in the centre of the frame though. That is not the best place to have him. Put him in the bottom-right corner when framing your shot, or crop it in PP. The shadows are a bit deep on him, but you'll find that most here would simply lighten those in PP.

[ameerat42]

(No offence, but robust discussion.)

I like the way the angles of the rocks interplay here, Bob. They are strong elements. The little human figure (your son?) looks like he's concentrating on the job. Nice contrast in red/blue to highlight figure of interest.
Am.

[Caring]

Digital imaging technology has moved so fast and quickly that you can no longer keep the view that a camera produces an image. When I say image, I mean your usual JPG, BMP, TIFF, etc etc, or otherwise a collection of pixels, each with a different shade or color.

Photography is "painting with light".

I may speak figuratively, but the most obvious way to 'paint with light' is to take a capture of light which is made by a digital camera and stored as a RAW file. RAW editing software is then used to 'paint' with the light. You could paint a certain exposure in specific parts of the light, and or paint deeper contrast and colour. In short, look to your RAW file not as the final image, but if you like a canvas upon which you paint the gorgeous creations of your art.

[Roo]

Bob that pic is crap, you need to PP it, change the kids top to pink, put some grass on the hill (who likes looking at rock anyway, when green is way more calming), the grass colour will contrast better against the new t-shirt colour. Edit in a spaceship in the top right corner using the 1/3 rule, put some flowers in the foreground this will save you cropping and balance the pic better and you should be good to go. After all PP is all about changing the pic, I mean art :p

Tongue firmly in place before people start emo'ing out thinking I was being serious.

[zeroharm]

I love the photo Bob, and I wouldn't change a thing! As soon as I looked at it, my feet started to itch (I am scared, just a bit, of heights)... I am also one who 1. lightens 2. brightens 3. saturates & 4. sharpens.. And that is the extent of my PP... I don't add a sky, bush or grass, but don't care if anyone else does.. I have just purchased Lightroom 3.2 and am loving it.. It makes my pics(well some of them) Look exactly how it is when I am there, and that is what I want to achieve. Embrace this sites sometimes brutal honesty, I am sure nobody here has taken offence to anything you have said, we all love the same thing which is taking pics of our favourite things. I am looking forward to more of your pics :th3:

[ricktas]

The New to Photography forum is NOT for posting photos for critique. This thread is heading towards being a critique thread. Please post all photos for critique in the Member Photos forums.

[ameerat42]

Digital imaging technology has moved so fast and quickly that you can no longer keep the view that a camera produces an image. When I say image, I mean your usual JPG, BMP, TIFF, etc etc, or otherwise a collection of pixels, each with a different shade or color.

Photography is "painting with light".

I may speak figuratively, but the most obvious way to 'paint with light' is to take a capture of light which is made by a digital camera and stored as a RAW file. RAW editing software is then used to 'paint' with the light. You could paint a certain exposure in specific parts of the light, and or paint deeper contrast and colour. In short, look to your RAW file not as the final image, but if you like a canvas upon which you paint the gorgeous creations of your art.

Words, but. And not a thousand, so not an illustration.

[Dylan & Marianne]

bob, that's the kind of picture that really needs little done to it unless whatever turned out on your screen unedited looked different from
a. the way you envisioned the picture if creating an artistic image is your primary aim
b. the representation of reality if reality is your primary aim

where do you draw the line? I think wherever you choose!
if on a scale of 0-10 in terms where that line is, you might find that those who doggedly choose 0 all the time might find themselves missing out on turning good images into great ones. By the same token, those who doggedly insist on doing a 10 for every picture are probably the ones who earn 'photoshopping' its evil connotations. Personally, I probably think I sit somewhere about the 7-8 mark which is probably more than most would care to do. I recently posted an example of what 'can' be done to a bunch of images from iceland though it is very different to what 'should' be done to an image (which is pretty much subjective)

this is the link here: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?95479-Transitions-in-1080p-finished

[Caring]

Words, but. And not a thousand, so not an illustration.

The OP asked for an opinion, not an illustration.