View Full Version : What do you think about this picture?
Original or altered (meaning photoshop "enhanced")?
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2765/pict2499awf4.jpg
.:Chris:.
10-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Are you asking whether or not it's been edited in photoshop? If so, I'd guess yes. It looks as if the levels have been adjusted.
Are you asking whether or not it's been edited in photoshop? If so, I'd guess yes. It looks as if the levels have been adjusted.
That's what I meant. I just didn't know how to word it. Pretty much I'm wondering if the picture itself was altered in anyway in Photoshop.
Hoosier Daddy
10-06-2007, 07:16 PM
I am 100% positive thats altered. You can't even really make out the tires, that lets you know the contrast has been messed with.
Ronald Mcdonald
10-06-2007, 10:15 PM
It looks like it's been through some sort of photo editing program, yes.
DC Dave
10-06-2007, 10:49 PM
yup its been edited
.:Chris:.
10-07-2007, 12:09 AM
You can't even really make out the tires, that lets you know the contrast has been messed with.
I thought about that too, but I'm not 100% sure about it. Check out the dynamic range of the entire scene. There's a portion of the background that seems over exposed but the foreground shadow areas (tires and surrounding area included) are underexposed. Maybe the scene had too much dynamic range for the camera?
To the OP: Are we going to get a firm answer on this or are you just looking for some opinions?
To the OP: Are we going to get a firm answer on this or are you just looking for some opinions?
I was curious to see what everyone thought. Here's the original picture...
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2310/pict2499nf0.jpg
What do you guys think about this picture? Same color car as post above this one.
http://haknslash.com/pictures/chrispino/wall/wall5.jpg
.:Chris:.
10-07-2007, 11:12 AM
What do you guys think about this picture? Same color car as post above this one.
It's got a pretty high level of contrast.
It's got the right white balance.
It's a bit over-exposed probably (there's very little detail in the tire/wheel well area. This may be due to your contrast change, you could very well have clipped the shadows)
It's over sharpened. Once you start to introduce white artifacts in any area that's detailed/textured (ie. pavement) you've over sharpened IMO.
The joint in the masonry wall does nothing for the picture. If you're really dead set on this shot, clone it out. It looks like it's growing out of the car.
The white areas of paint/peeling add to the feel of the picture, but they're distracting. They detract from the main subject, the car. Clone them out or reduce their brightness/contrast/saturation/whatever.Is that enough, or should I continue on?
oASHo
10-07-2007, 12:45 PM
EDITED. post the original
In other words 94TurboGSR, that was also edited? I'm just learning about Photography and all the concepts.
The first picture I posted was something I did just messing in Photoshop. I posted the Original picture afterwards. The last picture I posted in post #9 the guy said he didn't put it into an editing program that its "shade". Meaning he took it probably during an overcast or sun going down or shaded area.
IMO, its edited and he won't admit to it. This is how his car looks in another picture he took...
http://www.haknslash.com/pictures/chrispino/acr/makeover/3.jpg
EDITED. post the original
I don't have original picture but I did just post another picture of his car that came from the same camera as the other picture above.
.:Chris:.
10-07-2007, 01:33 PM
In other words 94TurboGSR, that was also edited? I'm just learning about Photography and all the concepts.
Yes... probably. What you have to understand is that satuation, sharpening and a lot of other photoshop-esque features can be changed in-camera. Digital cameras process every image taken, it's part of how they work. My point is this: it's possible to make a picture look the way that one does without any post production... it's just not likely.
If you're really interested in photography and related concepts you should get out and shoot, shot, shoot. Take pictures and edit them. Photoshop tutorials are one of the most prevelant things on the internet. You'll pick it up in no time. Search google and you'll learn how to use photoshop before you know it. Unforunately there's a lot mroe to photography than photoshop. :lol:
oASHo
10-07-2007, 01:45 PM
i dont think you have any idea, there are alot of people out there that just dont use the camera for settings, they also use photoshop to help make the picture better quality. i myself have used photoshop quite a few times...
.:Chris:.
10-07-2007, 02:09 PM
it's possible to make a picture look the way that one does without any post production... it's just not likely.
Yeah, that's why I said it's not likely. There are various reasons why photoshop should be used on every single shot IMO. For example, sharpening: See Sharpening 101 (http://www.bythom.com/sharpening.htm)
...most digital cameras employ what is known as an anti-aliasing filter--essentially a diffusion filter over the sensor. (The exception is the Kodak Pro 14n). Why? Because the Bayer pattern sampling used in digital cameras has a tendency to produce colored artifacts and moire patterns on small detail. By blurring the light slightly so that multiple photosites get some of the information from a particular detail, this lessens the chance that these hard-to-remove artifacts appear. Unfortunately, it also has a further tendency to make edges less distinct.
The method by which most digital photographs are "corrected" is to apply a sharpening "filter" using an image-editing program, such as Photoshop. What these filters do is to detect transitions (edges) and make them more pronounced.
There is no level of sharpening that fits every picture. Leaving camera sharpening at 0 and sharpening manually in photoshop is the way to go IMO. Take it for what you will.
If you do have photoshop, you should check out the sharpening tutorial/example on that page. It really enlightens the user on what sharpening is and how it does what it does. Interesting stuff.
Thanks for the help guys! I do have Photoshop 7 on my PC. I PS all the time but I haven't worked on actual Photo's yet as far as sharpening them and all that.
I'm going to read up on all that and start practicing. Seems like something I can do as a personal hobby.
My camera is just a "Point and Shoot". I have a Canon PowerShot A540 and a pretty tall Tripod. I'm going to start messing with it. I haven't even taken the time to learn the camera. I leave it at "Auto" and snap away.
I was told in a Photography forum on another message board:
"You'd be surprised with what the average P&S can produce in the right persons hands"
I just don't see myself buying a more expensive camera and equipment until I learn more about Photography.
.:Chris:.
10-07-2007, 02:49 PM
"You'd be surprised with what the average P&S can produce in the right persons hands"
Absolutely, as I said in a thread yesterday: You can get great pictures from any camera under great conditions. Eventually you will want to upgrade so that you have a chance to capture good pictures in less than perfect conditions... but that's a ways off yet. Just have fun with your camera.
EVERY photographer Edits.
Ask any photographer from any magazine, or production company. Editing is a must in this industry. So if you gotta edit, then edit.
oASHo
10-08-2007, 01:37 AM
EVERY photographer Edits.
Ask any photographer from any magazine, or production company. Editing is a must in this industry. So if you gotta edit, then edit.
+1. well said
chillllll
10-09-2007, 12:10 AM
Can't you just look at the exif file to see if it was edited?
.:Chris:.
10-09-2007, 10:32 AM
Can't you just look at the exif file to see if it was edited?
Yeah, unless the EXIF was edited as well. It's usually a pretty good place to start because editing EXIF data isn't common... but it's easy to do.
Why would some one go through all that?
I mean, If you have to edit a picture to make it look "better", then more power to ya. That just means your a bad ass editor and your editing skills pick up where your photography skills lack.
But sometimes, even if your good at photography you still have to edit a picture because of the circumstances.
.:Chris:.
10-09-2007, 12:03 PM
It depends which line of thinking you follow. Some people are all about photography, other people do whatever it takes to get an image... and some people lie inbetween.
Not everything can be done with photography, and if you're not editing then you're selling yourself short IMO. You're only looking at half of the picture (no pun intended).
Here's an example from 2/10 Photos - powered by SmugMug (http://210photos.smugmug.com/)
http://210photos.smugmug.com/photos/189579092-L.jpg
I would say that's an outstanding picture, but obviously it wasn't like that when it came from the camera. Should they have stayed with the original? I don't think so, maybe other people do. I wouldn't say their photography skills lack in this case, but their editing certainly makes the picture what it is... right?
Thats exactly what i was saying...
editing skills pick up where your photography skills lack.
IMO, editing makes for a better picture. I, 90% of the time, edit my pictures.
oASHo
10-09-2007, 01:36 PM
me too.
.:Chris:.
10-09-2007, 02:35 PM
Sorry, I misread/misunderstood what you wrote DareDevil. My statements still stand, but now we're shooting at the same goal. :-D
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by
vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5