elijah is correct in saying that the difference between a lot of pros and amateurs is post processing...some supposed pro's don't post process which is stupid...

and to say that you hate photoshop and use straight out of the camera is stupid. If you were shooting film, you'd adjust your exposure, hue/saturation, contrast, etc...all of which is done in photoshop.

 

here's some DOF for you

 

I didn't take the shot, obviously, but it was just way too awesome to pass up.

 

yeah im not saying i hate it, i use it too, but when its overdone its overdone.

i would have chosen different focus points on #2 and 3, jsut me though.

and i think ericson is using a 30d, maybe wrong

 

that thing is sweet!!! what is it?

 

KTM XBow. It's made by KTM, but it's mostly Audi parts. Think, German engineered Ariel Atom.

 

whoever is driving that looks like they had a fkn blast lol

 

overdone may be overdone BUT most of the people saying stuff is overdone have no idea what they're talking about

 

well some need a lot of editing to look god, when the original came out bad and tis the only one they have. but there are a fair amount of shots that just look wayy too fake

 

little people

 

i dont see an issue with post processing in the pro photographer world now.
the other night I was at an event a spoke with two pro photographers about the idea of post
processing. And here is what they told me.

There is nothing wrong with post processing all the pros do it.

now with me personally I post process my photos via adobe bridge and I find myself having to
alter exposure, hue, clarity and recovery light to make the photo look its best. Not to add to the photo but to correct levels in the photo. This is different from adding elements to a photo
that were never there in the first place.

Since Ive been learning how to use the camera a lot better I don't really find a need to edit
most of the photos I use now, but ill adjust something i.e. exposure anyway because even in a
good photo you can find something you can tweak to make it look better.

I suppose what I disagree with are photographers that are taking real life natural looking shots and adding elements into the photograph that were never there in the first place like light sources and so on in a nature shot. Which takes a nice look photo and makes it look flat out fake to anyone that knows how to use photoshop. Adjusting and fixing levels is fine, but if you start adding a fake beam of sunlight to the photo that wasnt there to highlight something in the photo or change the colors of the leaves and telling the viewer the photo is a
nature shot, I disagree with this.

i.e. taking pictures similar to something youd see in a newspaper or national geographic and
adding stuff to those types of journalistic/nature photos is a no no IMO.

now if the photos are meant to be glossy and consumerist type photos than everything goes
with post processing. So I suppose it depends on what target use of the photo is meant for.

So in short this is what I think
journalistic/nature shots, level corrections are alright, only to bring out the photo to its best.


consumerist photos everything goes ps the heck out of it.

 

photojournalism = limited editing because they are used to represent truth...

 

I use a Canon EOS 30D.

I've never used anything but M. Acutally Ive used AV in some situations, but I still prefer M.

 

What? Are you saying your gf took my picture?

 

No, i never even posted that pic, i dont know how that text got in the post....

 

Oh, haha. Weird. I was like, what the heck? I got wet for that shot.

 

took these this weekend.

 

tahhaha:

 

^ Showoff..