i try to keep my processing to a minumum.. just the options that come up on the raw editor on PS.. dont like to do any other kinda of fancy stuff after that.. mostly because of my limited knowledge of PS

 

post processing is the equivalent of dark room work in the digital age...

i have never been an opponent of post processing, but there comes a point where effects are used just because they can be used, which i have a problem with...

 

amen Don.

 

but seriously, if people want absolutely unedited photos, they should be shooting with a polaroid camera...not a DSLR

 

I think there are two schools of thought on this.
there are the traditionalists that view photographs should be kept pure and no editing needed if you have a great understanding of the camera

and the modern thinkers that learned with the digital age, IMO it still takes a great understanding of colors and skill to process a photo anyway. Simply put, if you dont have an eye for colors or the skill for software than you wouldnt be able to process them anyway. it brings out the most of the photos. If you originally take a bad photo you wont have much to work with anyway via processing.

Im more of the latter thinking, If you're serious about a particular photograph and choose not to edit it, than you're only shooting yourself in the foot because the industry standards require it to even keep up with others.

 

no no no no no....

"traditionalists"? please...have you ever printed a negative? are you aware that there are different filters for enlargers to increase/decrease contrast? burning and dodging? adjusting exposure?

tools that are in photoshop originated from the lab...

 

ha ha ha ha

oh man its always fun to see the digital only guys that weren't around with film.

Exactly the reason i am wanting to pick up a holga. For fun and for the use of film again. I miss film big time.

 

Yes Ive worked with film and developed my own BW photos many years ago. But Im positive you have a lot more knowledge about analog film. maybe traditionalists is the wrong term. Should I say purists? My experience stems from a very short uninteresting period in my life. Ive never taken photography seriously until I picked up my first dslr a few months ago. Prior to that I mainly studied and trained in digital imaging. Im pretty much the one people call when they need images or displays calibrated haha.

 

photographic purists are few are far between...a photographic purist probably wouldn't even be shooting digital....

 

I dont think so, I see a fairly large community of people that are against digital alterations/enahncements in photographs. These thinkers are everywhere IMO. But than I dont see any of them doing it as a profession. I could be wrong however.

 

fairly large as compared to what? a pack of minotaurs?

a group of 100 can seem large, but when you compare that subgroup to the number of photographers in the world, its fairly small

if you're thinking purist, they're straight from the camera, no cropping, no level adjustments, no exposure adjustment, nothing...

 

Actually I was around and did work with it, However you are correct about the digital aspect. Im a digital only guy, for now. Until I can afford to shoot in film and buy analog equipment. But honestly thats low on my to do list. Funds are better spent on a new full frame or L lenses haha. so I suppose that kicks me out of the true photographer club?

it's alright, I dont consider my equipment as a direct measure of my ability to create good photograph.

 

u didn't understand the point i was trying to make.

 

Ok keep in mind i am still trying to learn how to use photoshop.

For some reason some of the shots look different than how i edited them.







that last one turned out brighter than what i remember editing. ha ha

anyways, lemme know what u guys think. Comments and critiques always welcome.

Side notes, this was while walking on a trail and the sun is still in a bad spot cause the park closes at sun down so we had to be out soon. So lighting might still be a little harsh. Lemme know whatcha think bout the editing too.

 

I took your point as I was not in a position knowledgeable enough to speak about photography.
If I misunderstood, my apologies. I dont mean any harm.

 

O hai Don.

 

are the color ones the original jpeg or all of them edited?
from what I see, I dont see anything wrong with any of the pics in terms of color or exposure, if anything the differing opinion one may have would be purely personal preference. Nothing stands out as bad editing at all. but without an original reference its a tough call.

if you want a critique than maybe some of the BW may benefit from fill light + black level increase for more of a pop. Increase the white levels with curves.

in terms of the colored ones, I notice a slight yellow hue, but than that may be the look you want. so Im not sure if its really something that can be improved if its done intentionally.

 

they are all edited.

 

okie I added a couple of extra comments to my prior post.

 

they look different because

1) you're not using proof colors
2) your monitor is not calibrated

and herro tina