Forum Rants

[Emulator]

How many of these didn't receive the "treatment"?
http://digital-photography-school.com/25-photographs-of-the-moon-with-peace-and-tranquility/

 

[Smudger]

"How many of these didn't receive the "treatment"?

For me, those 'moon' images typify the problem that digital post-processing, and many of the perpetrators of it, brings: that of knowing when to stop.

Most of the images in the link are kitsch: gaudy and cliched almost to the point of nausea, and they have been chosen to represent the clichéd, romantised feelings of the 'teacher' who curated them.

They are mostly nothing more than over-egged, sickly, synthetic cappucino-bar wall images, and I wouldn't put any of them in my bathroom, let alone use them to inspire photography pupils to produce yet more of the same.

To make matters worse, many of the digital-ists have signed their daubs, as though to give them an extra veracity. Alas, if you put your name at the bottom of an image, and suffix it with 'photography' your work becomes fractionally more worthless.

File under vapid, unthinking 'PhotoTosh'.

 

[CakeHole]

................and just how exactly is anyone looking at a Photographic image supposed to arrive at the conclusion that the tweaking performed on the image they are looking at was "designed to deceive (or try to) the individual into believing what they are seeing is real?"

Bit hard to explain that as it would be common sense IMO, the image example here if used publicly the stone work has been designed to make you think there was more detail to that piece of stone than there is, much in the same way many images of models or celebs are air brushed to death to feed their own ego.

In any type of public domain id equate it to fake goods, the badge on a wrist watch may say "Breitling" but it may be cheap junk, the only reason it says "Breitling" is to fool others looking at at and feed the owners ego.

How many of these didn't receive the "treatment"?
http://digital-photography-school.com/25-photographs-of-the-moon-with-peace-and-tranquility/

To my eyes all of them look tweaked in some fashion, overly gaudy jacked up colours, artificial (what i call the plastic or cartoon look) and basically the skill of photography totally raped.

"How many of these didn't receive the "treatment"?

For me, those 'moon' images typify the problem that digital post-processing, and many of the perpetrators of it, brings: that of knowing when to stop.

Most of the images in the link are kitsch: gaudy and cliched almost to the point of nausea, and they have been chosen to represent the clichéd, romantised feelings of the 'teacher' who curated them.

They are mostly nothing more than over-egged, sickly, synthetic cappucino-bar wall images, and I wouldn't put any of them in my bathroom, let alone use them to inspire photography pupils to produce yet more of the same.

To make matters worse, many of the digital-ists have signed their daubs, as though to give them an extra veracity. Alas, if you put your name at the bottom of an image, and suffix it with 'photography' your work becomes fractionally more worthless.

File under vapid, unthinking 'PhotoTosh'.

Exactly, agreed 100% also the bit about "signing" to feed their ego, though why they would want to sign something they had no skill in creating id never understand. Maybe photoshop should auto apply a adobe watermark whenever you use it if they want things to be signed by their creator

Maybe part of the issue is the society we live in today, the look and me and what i have culture. Another stupid thing that depresses me.

 

[3dogs]

Bit hard to explain that as it would be common sense IMO, the image example here if used publicly the stone work has been designed to make you think there was more detail to that piece of stone than there is, much in the same way many images of models or celebs are air brushed to death to feed their own ego.

In any type of public domain id equate it to fake goods, the badge on a wrist watch may say "Breitling" but it may be cheap junk, the only reason it says "Breitling" is to fool others looking at at and feed the owners ego.

To my eyes all of them look tweaked in some fashion, overly gaudy jacked up colours, artificial (what i call the plastic or cartoon look) and basically the skill of photography totally raped.


Exactly, agreed 100% also the bit about "signing" to feed their ego, though why they would want to sign something they had no skill in creating id never understand. Maybe photoshop should auto apply a adobe watermark whenever you use it if they want things to be signed by their creator

Maybe part of the issue is the society we live in today, the look and me and what i have culture. Another stupid thing that depresses me.

"Bit hard to explain that as it would be common sense IMO, the image example here if used publicly the stone work has been designed to make you think there was more detail to that piece of stone than there is, much in the same way many images of models or celebs are air brushed to death to feed their own ego."

Common sense, Crikey Sport! thats getting a bit too technical for a simpleton like me to unnestand. Like bringing out detail in the stone that was not there.... and now AIR BRUSHING Celebs Ego..........
MATE! too, too teknikal for me....
Actually its quite a simple straight forward "happy snap" taken into Lightroom and a couple of sliders moved........translated into the WET darkroom what the author did was burn and dodge, no more no less... you know like going back to the film and using exposure to drive saturation.....but then Digital IS a dark Art nothing at all to do with the old kind of Photography

"For me, those 'moon' images typify the problem that digital post-processing, and many of the perpetrators of it, brings: that of knowing when to stop.

Most of the images in the link are kitsch: gaudy and cliched almost to the point of nausea, and they have been chosen to represent the clichéd, romantised feelings of the 'teacher' who curated them.

They are mostly nothing more than over-egged, sickly, synthetic cappucino-bar wall images, and I wouldn't put any of them in my bathroom, let alone use them to inspire photography pupils to produce yet more of the same.

To make matters worse, many of the digital-ists have signed their daubs, as though to give them an extra veracity. Alas, if you put your name at the bottom of an image, and suffix it with 'photography' your work becomes fractionally more worthless.

File under vapid, unthinking 'PhotoTosh' "

Now, having said what you think of them, how about having a bash saying which ones did not get the treatment.........I think its REALLY a trick question 'cos I have not seen that many moons all in one night for a while.

 

[CakeHole]

Common sense, Crikey Sport! thats getting a bit too technical for a simpleton like me to unnestand. Like bringing out detail in the stone that was not there.... and now AIR BRUSHING Celebs Ego..........
MATE! too, too teknikal for me....
Actually its quite a simple straight forward "happy snap" taken into Lightroom and a couple of sliders moved........translated into the WET darkroom what the author did was burn and dodge, no more no less... you know like going back to the film and using exposure to drive saturation.....but then Digital IS a dark Art nothing at all to do with the old kind of Photography

LOL if you think altering exposure (or how light or dark a photo is) in any way is the same as tweaking every detail and colour you can in an image then there is no point discussing the merits or skill in photography any further. Even if it did equate one involves having to know what you are doing the other involves backside cheeks sat on chair and as you say moving a "couple of sliders". There is a big difference in having the skill and knowledge to do something right first time and repeatedly trying to do what you want without success.

Now, having said what you think of them, how about having a bash saying which ones did not get the treatment.........I think its REALLY a trick question 'cos I have not seen that many moons all in one night for a while.

If there are any in that link unaltered id like to know which, because as stated to me they all look altered.

 

[3dogs]

"LOL if you think altering exposure (or how light or dark a photo is) in any way is the same as tweaking every detail and colour you can in an image then there is no point discussing the merits or skill in photography any further."

Well back when I was doing film, exposure DID have a strong effect on colour saturation..... too short and one lost saturation, too long and colour became too saturated. Manipulating aperture and time had a major effect on colour AND over/under exposure (lightness /darkness)........In digital Raw one can do that after the image is made as well as before. In digital the right slider can do all of that...In fact in digital the control over all aspects of colour force the photographer to to have colour construction skills akin to a painters understanding of the colour wheel.

There is a big difference in having the skill and knowledge to do something right first time and repeatedly trying to do what you want without success.

Agree, thats why so many film photographers have so much difficulty transitioning to digital.

 

[CakeHole]

There is a big difference in having the skill and knowledge to do something right first time and repeatedly trying to do what you want without success.

Agree, thats why so many film photographers have so much difficulty transitioning to digital.

I can see we will have to agree to disagree, any idiot can click a computer slider to they get the desired result.

 

[3dogs]

I can see we will have to agree to disagree, any idiot can click a computer slider to they get the desired result.

Sure we disagree, on this, but that is ok with me because all that is at most is a very small thing in a much wider landscape.

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[Emulator]

I see a D. Telegraph supplement is using HDR images routinely, among them are Getty & Alamy sourced and others, in fact they all could be HDR of varying magnitude. So you are in good company, depending on your allegiancy. I am sure not all will be happy!

 

[The Hat]

Is there anything wrong with using Aftermarket Carts. ?​

In the market place there are many 10’s of thousands of 3rd party cartridges and inks available for Canon and Epson printers. Now I wish to speak mainly of Canon cartridges.

There is nothing wrong in using third party inks and cartridges, they are a great source of good cheap ready to use consumables and they can easily fill the gap between the refilling and OEM cartridges.

There are many good third party inks and cartridges available on the market today but there are thousands more out there that are not fit for purpose, knowing which is which, is a matter of using you head and not your wallet to decide.

For example:- The average OEM cartridge costs about $12 or so give or take a little, which are way to expensive for most compulsive Printaholics and so we come to the aftermarket ones !

Any good ink supplier will charge about $5 P&P on an order to your home, then if you happen to purchase a set of empty cartridges to fill yourself, they can cost about $5 a set and if you decide to purchase only a small amount of ink, that will cost your another $5.

Going on the above modest prices that will set you back a minimum of $15 and yet there are ink sellers out there and I wont call them ink suppliers willing to sell you a complete set of ready filled cartridges for $6 including P&P to your home.

If you still cant see the catch then stop reading because you obviously don’t need good advise you’re already hooked on these ridiculously cheap consumables that are not going to do MY printer any harm. ! !

Now I can hear some guys saying I use them all the time and that maybe so but staying that lucky can be only be a part-time luxury, because you’ll lose your print head when you least expect it in nearly every circumstance.

Now as for the ink itself that’s inside these very cheap cartridges, it’s a bog standard colour mix, of what ingredients is anybody’s guess and can be used in every inkjet printer known to man, even pigment ink printers. ! ! Aren’t all inks the same I hear you say, well no certainly not is the plain truth.

Yes that’s what I am saying, they’ll say anything to suck in the naive who just don’t know the consequence of using the wrong ink in their little Canon printer.
If you can afford to lose the odd print head then used I say.

Does this actually happen, yes it does because there are many on this very forum that were taken in by their slick advertising and have suffered exactly the same fate, the loss of their print head. (All to often)

So my advise is to buy you third party inks and cartridges from a good ink supplier, one that wont sell you ink for the sake of a sale, and not from these fly-by-night EBay sellers out to make an easy fast buck at your expense, and under no circumstances even think about refilling these same cartridges, it’s just not worth it.

Rant over..