Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Really?... gee I wouldn't have thought some people would fake their reflections with PS after shooting them. Defeats the purpose of being eaten alive by mozzies in the first place.  |
Probably just me, but I prefer the bites and wading through mud vs pushing PS sliders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Bunn
Fantastic colors at the horizon there Colin.
|
Thanks Josh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
It's OK if the photographer (not digital artist) provides the truth in the description accompanying the image. Then, it can be taken for what it is -- a work of photomanipulated art (photographs are works of art in their own right) -- but it lets the viewer know where reality ends and fantasy begins.
I've seen a lot of it on Facebook/online, where the Milky Way, for example, has been exaggerated and transformed and rotated to suit the composition and the author hasn't stated as such. It is great for what it is and is a representation of the artist's creative abilities as well as vision. But, amongst the viewers are people who are interested in photography and want to try their own hand at capturing the night sky. Seeing grandiose images like that does nothing but deflate their enthusiasm when they try it for themselves.
Then again, all you need to do is pump the saturation to 100 and beyond, to the point where posterisation (blocking) occurs, and you'll have an instant winner. 
H |
100% agree mate. If it's presented as photography and manipulated and not declared up front, it's a deception in my book, as many people think real scene unless told otherwise.
Not a big fan of oversaturation/processing.... just my opinion