/p/ - Photography » Thread #3435874

[52 / 8 / ?]

752KiB, 1278x1000, 2019-02-17 09_46_28-Editing YOUR Photos!! - YouTube - Waterfox (Private Browsing).png

how much photoshop is too much photoshop /p/?

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 14:50:07 No.3435874 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3435876 >>3435887 >>3435895 >>3435902 >>3435920 >>3435958 >>3435979 >>3436084 >>3436096 >>3436280 >>3436891 >>3437206 >>3440706 >>3440746 >>3441302

is adding a mountain to a desert scene still photography or is it now in the realm of >>>/ic/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 14:57:05 No.3435876 Report

Quoted By: >>3435877

>>3435874
People do composite photos all the ti...
>Peter McKinnon
I'm not a fan of this faggot though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2019-02-17 10_00_50-Editing YOUR (...).png, 404KiB, 1920x1028

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 15:02:03 No.3435877 Report

Quoted By: >>3435884 >>3436003

>>3435876
if you watch the video he literally inserts a stock image of a mountain
https://youtu.be/gpzjvW6nJu8?t=738

and I thought photoshopping foreground snow in was bad enough already

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 15:15:32 No.3435884 Report

Quoted By: >>3436138

>>3435877

If you're gonna go to the extreme and comp something, at least only use your own photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 15:17:22 No.3435887 Report

Quoted By: >>3435889 >>3435934

>>3435874
At least mirror the mountain so the sunlight is going in the same direction, jesus

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 15:21:06 No.3435889 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435887
I knew something looked off in that pic.
Good eye, anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 15:25:09 No.3435895 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
composite has its place but is not photography. Even less if its made with pieces you did not shoot yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 15:47:07 No.3435902 Report

Quoted By: >>3435914 >>3435948

>>3435874
my personal opinion is once you start adding elements to the scene, it's no longer photography. I think removing elements in landscapes like cars, people, signs is totally acceptable. But McKinnon goes way too far with the editing, which I think also shows how far a lot of those people on IG are editing their photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 16:11:17 No.3435914 Report

Quoted By: >>3441359 >>3441841

>>3435902
Add ANY NUMBER of things = cheating
Remove SOME MINOR things = not cheating

giannis

giannis Sun 17 Feb 2019 16:20:57 No.3435920 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
If it looks good, it looks good and that's it.
Most of the time though it looks somewhere between bad and kitsch trash.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 16:57:05 No.3435934 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435887
The photo was clearly taken on a planet with some kind of twin solar system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 17:22:07 No.3435948 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435902
THIS. He reminds me a bit of a French photog I used to watch a few years ago. He made great lightroom tutorials which everyone loved then as his following grew it's as if he stooped taking photos and tweaking them a bit and went full blown photoshopping these exaggerated colors everywhere to enhance the image to look like the idea he had in his mind. Taking it a step further, he started recommending and selling additions like sunbeams and other effects to just add to your photos. I'm not against the use of it, but he got to the point where every video was as if he was just creating a picture full of composite layers.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1547096400716.jpg, 220KiB, 1600x1067

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 17:40:19 No.3435958 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
Nothing wrong with adding some birds or removing some shit in the background but this is fucking retarded. Hurrr look at me I'm a pherrterrgrher except that what you see is not even what I have took a photo of.

Visualsbyjulius is a gigafaggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 18:19:12 No.3435979 Report

Quoted By: >>3435981

>>3435874
Good edit. It's not photography, though. It's already photo manipulation. As long as you're making clear distinction, there's nothing wrong with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 18:21:10 No.3435981 Report

Quoted By: >>3435993

>>3435979
>lighting is in the wrong direction
>good edit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 18:28:35 No.3435993 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435981
Someone's jelly...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 18:36:57 No.3436003 Report

Quoted By:

I think it's a good way to make a nice image, especially if you're getting paid to make nice images.

>>3435877
An even better way to make a nice image is to buy the whole image on shutterstock and sell it to your client.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 20:16:04 No.3436075 Report

Quoted By: >>3436100 >>3436118

Personal belief, but anything more than color grading, and it ceases to be photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 20:36:56 No.3436084 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
what the fuck is this shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 20:50:37 No.3436089 Report

Quoted By: >>3436093

He showed himself inserting a stock picture of a mountain because he's showing what you CAN do. These are videos for beginners

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 20:56:13 No.3436093 Report

Quoted By: >>3436124

>>3436089
His entire portfolio is for beginners/aesthetically illiterate people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:00:23 No.3436096 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
Looks like shit. If you think it looks good you have no taste and have been on Instagram too much. Shit edits that are over the top are becoming too common. Just waiting for someone big to get caught stealing photos

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1306959950214.jpg, 56KiB, 600x488

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:07:49 No.3436100 Report

Quoted By:

>>3436075
This.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:24:24 No.3436118 Report

Quoted By: >>3436122

>>3436075
You're eliminating better half of published photographers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:32:38 No.3436122 Report

Quoted By: >>3436128

>>3436118

I'm not saying that their art doesn't look beautiful, but it's not exclusively photography any longer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:34:02 No.3436124 Report

Quoted By:

>>3436093
Well that's what's popular, and this guy is at the top of the scene so whatever he's doing is clearly working. It does look dumb but i'm not hating on him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:39:16 No.3436128 Report

Quoted By: >>3436277

>>3436122
I'm indifferent. I can like photo manipulation, and I can like sooc jpeg. Just saying that that definition is wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Feb 2019 21:44:59 No.3436138 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435884
Technically there's nothing legally wrong if he paid/used openly licenced image, but I have to agree, that it's very bad practice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 02:47:23 No.3436277 Report

Quoted By: >>3436382 >>3436459

>>3436128

To me, heavy PS use takes away the needed talent to make an excellent photograph. When you can digitally manipulate an image, the time and effort just aren't put in to get it right. Maybe it's a just forgotten skill during the time of film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 02:54:54 No.3436280 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
imagine being the poor person that submitted this shit to peter mckinnon and then watching him come up with this shit.....

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 09:25:34 No.3436382 Report

Quoted By: >>3436454

>>3436277
I'm sorry anon but spending 6 hours on a PS edit takes talent. Sure, you might not find it ethical, but people edited their prints back in the days of film too. Editing is part of producing a photograph.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 14:20:04 No.3436454 Report

Quoted By: >>3436457

>>3436382
>I'm sorry anon but spending 6 hours on a PS edit takes talent.

Not saying that it doesn't, but it simply isn't photography any longer, but digital art.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3543.jpg, 46KiB, 605x350

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 14:25:53 No.3436457 Report

Quoted By: >>3440823

>>3436454
>Take that Gursky

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 14:34:43 No.3436459 Report

Quoted By: >>3436471

>>3436277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkroom_manipulation

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 14:51:16 No.3436471 Report

Quoted By: >>3436674 >>3437169

>>3436459

That's entirely different than making a composite image such as OPs post.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1525437957210.jpg, 132KiB, 854x1024

Anonymous Mon 18 Feb 2019 21:40:20 No.3436674 Report

Quoted By:

>>3436471
Not really.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Feb 2019 11:43:03 No.3436891 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
Was this supposed to look like a pro work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Feb 2019 03:29:11 No.3437169 Report

Quoted By:

>>3436471
darkroom manipulation very much includes compositing

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Feb 2019 06:24:50 No.3437206 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
nigga at least make the shadows go in the same direction

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Feb 2019 19:10:57 No.3437364 Report

Quoted By: >>3440594 >>3440823

A N D R E A S G U R S K Y
N
D
R
E
A
S

G
U
R
S
K
Y

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Feb 2019 19:20:40 No.3437367 Report

Quoted By:

Well... It looks like shit on that example but I also think that it's not the point of photography to add things to your liking that weren't present in the original composition. Removing is another story in my opinion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Feb 2019 19:44:55 No.3437377 Report

Quoted By:

Removing blemishes or other temporal stuff is fine. Adding a whole fucking mountain is not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Feb 2019 20:04:00 No.3440594 Report

Quoted By:

>>3437364
Even the photography world is plagued by talentless jews.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Feb 2019 21:07:07 No.3440618 Report

Quoted By:

The only reason to care about whether something is "still photography" is so you can add an objective sheen to your feeling of superiority over someone who uses more manipulation than you find tasteful. Artistic images have always been manipulated; images should be judged on their merits, not on any rules.

Not that I care much about this particular image. I guess it would be ok as a fashion shot, but otherwise it seems like a completely meaningless image. Peter McKinnon churns out a whole lot of those.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 56h5v.png, 11KiB, 782x94

Anonymous Tue 26 Feb 2019 23:29:08 No.3440706 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874

Peter McCucknon

Peter McCucknon Wed 27 Feb 2019 00:44:47 No.3440746 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435874
BUY MY LIGHTROOM PRESET PACK

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Feb 2019 03:53:40 No.3440823 Report

Quoted By:

>>3436457
>>3437364
Gursky is trash fuck him

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO aaaaaaaa.jpg, 80KiB, 854x480

Anonymous Thu 28 Feb 2019 05:04:03 No.3441302 Report

Quoted By: >>3441336 >>3441361

>>3435874
lel

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Feb 2019 07:41:35 No.3441336 Report

Quoted By:

>>3441302
that's just darkroom editing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Feb 2019 08:43:28 No.3441359 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435914
Yeah pretty much

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Feb 2019 08:46:06 No.3441361 Report

Quoted By:

>>3441302
Ruined

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 01 Mar 2019 09:21:35 No.3441841 Report

Quoted By:

>>3435914
The only thing you should be allowed to fuck with is the shit you can get away with in lightroom.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

how much photoshop is too much photoshop /p/?