Creativity or rules_standards

[molaselake]

"Another point to be made in this discussion is that somehow, some seem to think that post processing or Photoshopping is a "criticism" and look for anything that they can interpret in that light. I think that is stretched too far, when people are looking for cut and paste, sharpening, adding or changing position of items that has NOT even been done.
Even if it has been done, the point is whether it has improved the photo or not. It is even more silly when some who criticize postprocessing have done very little of it themselves and are criticizing a process that they have limited or no experience with."

Things appear differently to different people. If anything, this thread should have given you a glimpse into that. It doesn't matter what you ACTUALLY did, but rather how it is interpreted. The fact that you've done numerous quality pieces displaying your photoshopping capabilities should speak for itself. Whether or not someone has experience with post processing( I know I don't ), one can still view something as looking "pasted" in, sharpened, or the like. These kinds of things are visually obvious. Even when they're not purposefully done, we still may see it that way. That's just how it is. You can't open something up for debate and then become upset because it has taken a path you disapprove of.

[trog100]

"i think this entire forum is treading on dodgy undefinable ground.. it needs to redefine what the word "photo" means before it gets completely lost.."

i quote my earlier comment..

trog

ps.. your clone brush work removing the gravestone was still cr-p thow ron..

[MarcusK]

Nicely put Ron...

And i think it feels a little off visually because of the slant of the trees....

Marc

PS: I only feel concerned in your last post, as regards my comment on the clone trails... and in accordance with your request...no...they do not add to the photo hehe

[Ronnoco]

Nicely put Ron...

And i think it feels a little off visually because of the slant of the trees....

Marc

PS: I only feel concerned in your last post, as regards my comment on the clone trails... and in accordance with your request...no...they do not add to the photo hehe

Hey, please, don't get paranoid. I was not referring to the clone trails comment. I totally agree with you and Trog and whoever else mentioned the clone trails regarding the grave stone. I did too much of a "rush" job and got sloppy. What can I say?:blush2: :blush2:

I would show the original but I am having trouble with error messages when I try to upload it.... from this site...not my computer. I still might manage it, if I can figure out the why for the error messages.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

You can't open something up for debate and then become upset because it has taken a path you disapprove of.

Hey, Molly, you are really misinterpretting things rather badly. I was not at all upset and not surprised at all that it took that path. Various people have already equated technical excellence and composition with rules that they disregard in favour of creativity...and that is summarizing their point of view. I was just pointing out that you need to balance both creativity and technical excellence and composition.

I am hoping that the next "creative" photo that you see from someone who says that they purposely ignored poor lighting, poor framing, poor colour, poor background etc., that you point out to them, that despite the "imagination", impact, or whatever, it is still poorly done because some basic part of technique or composition was ignored.

Ronnoco

[molaselake]

Molly is my sister's name, my name is Liz.

It's quite possible that I misinterpreted you. What I got from your post was indignation, and I replied in regard to that.

I comment how I want to comment and on what I want to comment. I use the rules o' Liz as my guide. If that doesn't work for the person I'm responding to, he/she is more than welcome to ignore me. If something resonates, then so be it. It's really not a big deal.

[Ronnoco]

Molly is my sister's name, my name is Liz.

It's quite possible that I misinterpreted you. What I got from your post was indignation, and I replied in regard to that.

I comment how I want to comment and on what I want to comment. I use the rules o' Liz as my guide. If that doesn't work for the person I'm responding to, he/she is more than welcome to ignore me. If something resonates, then so be it. It's really not a big deal.

Sure it is, if you make a habit of reading into a post, what is NOT there. Try to realize that some people think, rather than get emotional and some people have the intelligence to minimize the assumptions and characterizations about others.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Here is the unsolarized original shot with one "metal tilted gravestone" photoshopped out.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Nice color. I much prefer the original, though I would have left a little more space in front of the gravestones to avoid cramping them.

GB

[Greg McCary]

Ron , I think that I am seeing some kind of compression artifacts around the trees edges. Blow the compressed version up in PS and see if you see them I think that it is causeing the whole image to lose to much detail.
Greg

[LeeIs]

The first impression I get when viewing the first image is "ameteurish" & "too much photoshop work" . I don't mind the idea of working with an image in an image editing program provided that the person editing the photo knows what they're doing and doesn't over do it.

[gahspidy]

The original is much better, and not a bad shot to begin with. I notice a strong Cyan color cast to it, though. The picture improves when adding 12 points of Red to the midtones and to the highlights in the PS Color Balance tool.
btw, it looks like you tried to bring out too much detail in the tree in the fg, thus the "compression" looking effect Greg pointed out.

[Ronnoco]

Ron , I think that I am seeing some kind of compression artifacts around the trees edges. Blow the compressed version up in PS and see if you see them I think that it is causeing the whole image to lose to much detail.
Greg

Well, yes, if you blow up the compressed version to about 250%, but that does not seem to be very relevant considering the compressed version is about 90 K and the original is 20 meg. needless to say without the compression artifacts.

So if I printed the uncompressed original, there would be no artifacts and if I keep the compressed version at 100% there would be no noticeable artifacts either.

Also, by the way, if I softened the area around the trees, the compression artifacts would disappear as well.

So, thanks for pointing it out, but unless artifacts are very obvious at 100% it is of limited importance and I can easily get around it.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

The first impression I get when viewing the first image is "ameteurish" & "too much photoshop work" . I don't mind the idea of working with an image in an image editing program provided that the person editing the photo knows what they're doing and doesn't over do it.

I think you mean "amateurish" and you are obviously NOT familiar with photoshop since there was not much done.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Nice color. I much prefer the original, though I would have left a little more space in front of the gravestones to avoid cramping them.

GB

Not a bad idea, but I had a little problem with people, just out of the frame in various areas.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

The original is much better, and not a bad shot to begin with. I notice a strong Cyan color cast to it, though. The picture improves when adding 12 points of Red to the midtones and to the highlights in the PS Color Balance tool.
btw, it looks like you tried to bring out too much detail in the tree in the fg, thus the "compression" looking effect Greg pointed out.

Thanks, Garry. I measured the colours in the white gravestone on the ground and it averages out to only a difference of 3 points, which certainly does not a "strong Cyan colour cast" make. Moreover the gravestone certainly looks white without any cyan shade to it either. The tree problem is mostly due to compression and easily fixable.
I will go back and look at the uncompressed 20 meg version.

Ronnoco

[molaselake]

Sure it is, if you make a habit of reading into a post, what is NOT there. Try to realize that some people think, rather than get emotional and some people have the intelligence to minimize the assumptions and characterizations about others.

Ronnoco

Looks like this thread got resurrected. Actually Ron, I'd think intelligent people would be able to think and be emotional at the same time. That being said, who are you referring to? Me? Because I don't recall getting emotional. Were you assuming I was?

As for the original photograph, I think the colors are lovely, but I find the presence of the gravestones unnecessary. They don't add to the mood at all. I see the beautiful background, and then I see gravestones plopped at the bottom that compete with what should be the main focus.

[LeeIs]

I think you mean "amateurish" and you are obviously NOT familiar with photoshop since there was not much done.

Ronnoco

"not much done to it"

lol. Are you kidding yourself?

"too much" doesn't necessarily ONLY mean running a million filters on your shot. It could also mean nuking it one time as you've demonstrated in the first shot you've shared. Yes you've done "too much photoshop work" on it whether you see it or not. In case you don't see it, I'd have to question your vision itself.

Please don't argue with me over semantics or spelling. You knew and know the point I was making.

As far as me not having "familiarity with photoshop" goes. Please. I use photoshop for a living and have been for over a decade. Let me teach you one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough" . Now go & flip between your two shots. You'll see that, sadly, you've let yourself go on this image.

Another rule is "there are no halos around trees in real life" lol. Honest. Trees are one the great challenges in photo retouching. But there are techniques to go about and 'select' them using the channels palette.

Anyways.

You give lots of critiques that are 'blunt' and to the point but you sure can't take one without getting hissy fits. That's just a bad bad combination.

[Ronnoco]

Looks like this thread got resurrected. Actually Ron, I'd think intelligent people would be able to think and be emotional at the same time. That being said, who are you referring to? Me? Because I don't recall getting emotional. Were you assuming I was?

As for the original photograph, I think the colors are lovely, but I find the presence of the gravestones unnecessary. They don't add to the mood at all. I see the beautiful background, and then I see gravestones plopped at the bottom that compete with what should be the main focus.

OK, so you are saying it is a good scenic, so forget the gravestones! I have to admit, I never considered that view. My initial view was that someone in the 1800s because of the peaceful view considered it as the perfect location for a graveyard and church, so I was trying to add some history into the view.

Nevertheless, I probably should have looked at it both ways and taken more photos without the gravestones. Good point.

Thank you.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

"not much done to it"

lol. Are you kidding yourself?

"too much" doesn't necessarily ONLY mean running a million filters on your shot. It could also mean nuking it one time as you've demonstrated in the first shot you've shared. Yes you've done "too much photoshop work" on it whether you see it or not. In case you don't see it, I'd have to question your vision itself.

Please don't argue with me over semantics or spelling. You knew and know the point I was making.

As far as me not having "familiarity with photoshop" goes. Please. I use photoshop for a living and have been for over a decade. Let me teach you one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough" . Now go & flip between your two shots. You'll see that, sadly, you've let yourself go on this image.

Another rule is "there are no halos around trees in real life" lol. Honest. Trees are one the great challenges in photo retouching. But there are techniques to go about and 'select' them using the channels palette.

Anyways.

You give lots of critiques that are 'blunt' and to the point but you sure can't take one without getting hissy fits. That's just a bad bad combination.

Why do you have LIBAN which means the country of Lebenon at the end of your postings?

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

"not much done to it"

lol. Are you kidding yourself?

"too much" doesn't necessarily ONLY mean running a million filters on your shot. It could also mean nuking it one time as you've demonstrated in the first shot you've shared. Yes you've done "too much photoshop work" on it whether you see it or not. In case you don't see it, I'd have to question your vision itself .

Oh, please, stop being silly! You sound like a high school kid.

"
Please don't argue with me over semantics or spelling. You knew and know the point I was making. .

Young people should realize that their credibility is directly related to their literacy and spelling. If you are sloppy in your sentence structure and basic spelling, then your eye for photography is probably equally sloppy.

Perhaps more time in your school work is warranted.

Ronnoco

[trog100]

"one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough"

sadly few that post here seem to know that.. i try not to start in the first place.. knowing when to stop is easier then..:

purely my opinon of course..

trog

[Ronnoco]

"one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough"

sadly few that post here seem to know that.. i try not to start in the first place.. knowing when to stop is easier then..:

purely my opinon of course..

trog

Well, first of all, Trog, I did not do as much retouching as people seem to think, which is interesting because it shows that few who look at a photo know what or how much retouching has been done. I noticed one person suggested that I added a mountain which apparently looked artificial. The mountain was an island and had NOT been added at all. It was part of the original photo. Someone else obliquely suggested that I added the gravestones, which also shows that either they have no eye for detail or perhaps they just want to be negatively critical, whether accurate or not. Really amusing that Leels indicated that I used a million filters etc. Again silly and untrue.

Second, I have been accused of being for "rules" of composition and technique and against "creativity". To site another example, one moderator suggested that heavy grain, blown out highlights and looking up the nostrils of a subject, actually was positive and creative. Interesting and amusing to me, that some of these same people go hyper and suddenly pro technique when I push the opposite Photoshop creativity approach. It demonstrates that a lot of photographers here have no legitimate concept of Critique and that is surprising since there is a lot of valid information on the subject on the Internet, in magazines, books, and even through information on competitions. I learned it through considerable experience, but then no one has my experience.

Third, I did a stunt similar to what someone else did using a duotone filter which produced an unrealistic midday pink sky with loss of detail in the foreground and ended up with the photo of the week. This tends to show how skewed and off-base even the moderators are in the area of Critique.

Fourth, this is not my typical type of shot. I tend to shoot straight to film or in digital for colour in the first place. I never add and seldom find the need to subtract very much either.

Fifth, the approach I used has been done frequently in black and white and proclaimed as having good contrast and creating a mood. (Not that I agree with that assessment.)

Contrary to what anyone thinks, I am not suggesting this is a great photo but the comments indicate a need to drop prejudices toward photographers, styles and techniques and really learn how to look at a photo with a good eye and critique it in a professional objective manner.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

Well, I see that you still must try with all your might to belittle others.

Can you honestly say that the "island" in the distance does not rise in elevation? Can you honestly say that the headstones in the very first version posted did not have rough edges?

You are 100% correct, I know VERY little about all the wonderful things that can be done in photoshop. However, I can certainly state that something looks unreal to me. It does not matter what it is, real or not.

So, you speak of your great experience and talent. Please do us all a favor, and share some of this grand knowledge so that we may become better. An excellent example of this can be found in Loupey. He writes pieces all the time to try to help others. If you put half of your energy in teaching, as opposed to trying to belittle, we would all be better off.

OK, so now it's your turn to belittle me more. Go ahead and say I have no eye, talent, etc. Tomorrow, I will rise and live, smile, and thank everyone I come in contact with. I will attempt to make some photos, and all the while I will be enjoying the beauty surrounding me, and the company of friends. One thing I WILL NOT do is cry because someone thinks that the way of enlightenment is to belittle others.

Oh yeah, don't forget to tell me that I'm off topic.


I do agree with that last part. Speaking for myself, I could certainly become better at critique, which in turn would help to become a better photographer.

[Ronnoco]

So, you speak of your great experience and talent.
Oh yeah, don't forget to tell me that I'm off topic.
.

Gee, I did not say anything about "talent" whatsoever. As a matter of fact to contradict your "spin", C.F, GB1, Allison, and several whose "handles" are too easy to forget have demonstrated considerable talent. Despite a demonstrated emotional problem, even you have good talent.

However talent is not always good enough to be good or successful particularly in professional photography. You need to know your field thoroughly and have an excellent and OBJECTIVE eye and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the process of Critique.

You also need to express yourself well. You know very well that you made a mistake by suggesting that I artificially added the "mountain", so why continue a silly argument. A slight elevation on an island does not make a mountain and the point was that it was not artificial.

The problem at this point is your "spins" have reduced your credibility. Keep it objective, without the characterizations and the spins and you will get your points across much better.

Ronnoco