It's been going on since photography began.
I understood that images were being posted for congratulations and/or critique. I someone doesn't see some other interpretations they won't know if their own choice is still as valid.
I appreciate the drama that the photoshoppers have brought to your pictures, but I do prefer your originals.
"Ok, so I have removed the cropping - I agree that is a matter of choice." (Quote)
Thank you for removing the cropping, the photograph is at least beginning to represent my intentions.
"I agree, but your picture does not. It is flat and almost monotone. There is no depth or subtly. In my version you can see where the sun is coming from, it has depth by increasing the contrast and you can see the difference between the sea and the sky. Also you can now see differences in the background as the coastline recedes. Again on your's the background just goes away." (Quote)
My version, is the scene which I wished to depict. you are indeed entitled to make any comments you wish, without necessarily interfering with someone else's image.
There was a heat haze, on the day, making the scene looked washed out and the colours taking on a pastel quality and I liked that. My choice, what you have done is altered my image to one you prefer, fair enough but not right.
"I agree, but if you are going to post pictures that are flat and lifeless then expect some comment.
"The adaptation of the FastCat done by Lakesailor does in no way detract from the fact you wanted to capture - the spay from the bow - IMHO it enhances it as there is depth behind the spray created by returning the vessel to it's original colour and giving it contrast." (Quote)
Unless you have travelled to the Gibraltar Straits I can't see how you can possibly have any idea as to the fastCat's true colour. One can clearly see that the altered image has completely changed the whole colour of the image, causing the sea to appear grey. So how can the FastCat's colour now be correct?" (Quote"
The whole purpose was to produce a soft image which conveyed the conditions on the day. Maintaining the true life colours as they where in that quality of light.
"As again Lakesailor pointed out, your camera will adjust the picture digitally anyway depending on the cameras setting - white balance, exposure area etc. I don't know what type of camera you are using, but have you tried shooting in RAW?" (Quote)
"Indeed, but I want to see a crisp well defined image with a level of contrast that says I'd like to have been there - not a flat rather boring picture with no depth or contrast or for that matter colour. " (Quote)
"Sorry if that sounds harsh, but being a "keen" photographer does not always suffice, play with the camera's white balance and exposure settings, also remember that our brains are complex things that adjust automatically, even the best cameras can't do that to the same degree. Look at the scene you want to capture and think how it will come out. I like natural soft light but that is normally best early morning or evening - you can always predict where you are going to be when the view occurs. Does your camera have a spot meter option? If so, have a play with that and see what a difference it makes.
I use a Nikon D300s and a Pentax Optio compact which is also waterproof. I shoot in "fine" unless I want to do something very specific when I will shoot in RAW, but that is not often. I also have a 345 roll film camera, but don't use that much these days." (Quote)
I agree with all of the above, indeed I use a Nikon D70, which has a raw facility and I am well aware of all the combinations of settings one can control manually. This enables me to control the image's colour temperature and level of exposure to produce the image I want.
The end result is then transferred to my computer and slightly altered by photoshop software to my taste.
"This shot was taken using the compact and it is how it was!" (Quote)
It's been going on since photography began.
Ansel Adams. A great of early photography. Do you suppose this shot really looked like this?
I understood that images were being posted for congratulations and/or critique. I someone doesn't see some other interpretations they won't know if their own choice is still as valid.
That's how you learn.
Activesail has seen some alternatives and still has reasons to prefer his own. That's healthy discussion.
I was a professional photographer for 25 years. I don't object to people mucking about with my images. That was the reason I was producing them.
Well now we need to scan in a few Turners and a Renoir or two and see if we can't sharpen them up.
I have been a member of PhotoSig on and off for years. Now they can hand out criticism.
The painting is a fraud.
I really did do it yesterday, but it was a quick piccy that I've played with in Photoshop. Ooops. Sorry.
