Sad day for me

Tom-Lutz wrote: call me "OLD SCHOOL" then. To me its just wrong. Too many times I've seen pics look more like an OIL PAINTING than a real true to life photo.

Not trying to stir the pot of emotions here, but isn't photography about individualism and what you the photographer/artist want to create?  Boy think of where art would be if all the painters just followed the same path?  Art would be mundane and lifeless, certainly artist like Pablo Picasso is a good example of someone who experimented, who wasn't afraid of going against the grain.  I think freedom and experimenting with your photograph is very important, otherwise you limit and cap your creative expression.  There, that's my 2 cents! 

Tom, it is a sad day for you as you have a closed mind, progress in life comes from people with open minds, I am old school, I  started my photography life with an old Zorki 4K rangefinder, had my films developed by my local chemist and was never really delighted with what they produced, mainly because everything was averaged out based on the good old grey scale, I set up a darkroom so I could develop my own and found that I could make choices, was that cheating ??? I think not, after years of happy print film along came digital, I resisted the change for a long time, nothing could better film processed by my good self !!!!, surely digital was inferior, but I opened my mind and dived in, I found that instead of being in a smelly chemical darkroom, I was in a nice dry daylight room but doing the self same adjustments, as with film I could adjust or not adjust, the choice was/ is mine.
all I am saying is, if you feel your own work is good enough to stand on its own, then stick with that, believe in yourself, but don't accuse others who happily adjust in photoshop of cheating, in all walks of life we have toolboxes it's up to each and everyone of us wether we use those tools or not, choices are what make life exciting, it's how we develop (scuse the pun), if you choose to ignore such a huge rich resource tool such as photoshop then that's your choice, but please don't try to diminish its pleasures for those that do choose to use it.
all the best to you Tom in your photoshop free world.

if you like taking short cuts to making oil paintings fine, but don't tell me that's the best way to do something now.I did just fine before PS and now this comes along and I'm right back where I started trying to paint oil painting which I could never do. AND FURTHER MORE DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. 

Tom-Lutz wrote: . . . Too many times I've seen pics look more like an OIL PAINTING than a real true to life photo.

Perfectly true.  PS can be abused.  And some shooters make a habit of abusing it.  Kind of like cosmetic makeup for a lady.  But ... that does not mean everybody has to abuse it.  Done right - the PS result is almost always better than a straight out of the camera JPG shot.  Learning PS skills can be a steep curve.  I first tried PS years ago, thought it was not worth the effort (at that time), now I use Lightroom for everything.  Unfortunately the skills needed for editing are very different from those needed for taking a nice photo in the first place.  Many of us are better at one than the other.  That's just life.

Kelly

the problem is with this oil painting look, it wins those contests too many times. IF that's what the judges are looking for then they're just as much part of the problem.

Why I never bother with contests. 

Seriously, I just shoot for myself.  Or "the boss" when I have one.  I don't "get" the appeal of contests.

Maybe find a different contest with a different jury?

Kelly

Rudy Sosa wrote:

Tom-Lutz wrote: call me "OLD SCHOOL" then. To me its just wrong. Too many times I've seen pics look more like an OIL PAINTING than a real true to life photo.

Not trying to stir the pot of emotions here, but isn't photography about individualism and what you the photographer/artist want to create?  Boy think of where art would be if all the painters just followed the same path?  Art would be mundane and lifeless, certainly artist like Pablo Picasso is a good example of someone who experimented, who wasn't afraid of going against the grain.  I think freedom and experimenting with your photograph is very important, otherwise you limit and cap your creative expression.  There, that's my 2 cents! 

Isn't that the truth, during that time when Picasso lived, wasn't his art shunned?  

Tom-Lutz wrote: if you like taking short cuts to making oil paintings fine, but don't tell me that's the best way to do something now.I did just fine before PS and now this comes along and I'm right back where I started trying to paint oil painting which I could never do. AND FURTHER MORE DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. 

Nobody is telling you what to do.  You put your opinion on a forum, expect discussion.

Can you link me to the "oil painting" shots you're talking about? I'm curious. 

If it's the HDR fad I am in the same boat as you!

Ian Stone wrote:

Rudy Sosa wrote:

Tom-Lutz wrote: call me "OLD SCHOOL" then. To me its just wrong. Too many times I've seen pics look more like an OIL PAINTING than a real true to life photo.

Not trying to stir the pot of emotions here, but isn't photography about individualism and what you the photographer/artist want to create?  Boy think of where art would be if all the painters just followed the same path?  Art would be mundane and lifeless, certainly artist like Pablo Picasso is a good example of someone who experimented, who wasn't afraid of going against the grain.  I think freedom and experimenting with your photograph is very important, otherwise you limit and cap your creative expression.  There, that's my 2 cents! 

Isn't that the truth, during that time when Picasso lived, wasn't his art shunned?  

Far from it! In a relatively short time, he became famous and sought after, and especially after WWI, he sold anything he made (painted, sculpted, pottery...)So much so, that he c ould simply sign his name to a piece of paper, and give it to a friend asking for a loan. Although what this has to do with the present topic is far from clear...

I would agree this has somewhat veered off course... and didn't he cut his own ear over a woman or something? Picasso, not the OP.

I also agree on finding other/better contests, I don't get all the convoluted voting, the pictures seem all over the place as far as skill level, and the Viewbug terms are not anything I'd agree to anyway. Although you need to read Terms & Conditions on any contest site because there seem to be some that are just a photo grab - some sites apparently want photos to sell as stock or whatever and probably figure people aren't going to even look at the terms to know what they're getting into when they enter a contest or use a site.

I'm a longtime film photographer, and when I shoot digitally I do little if any post processing. There's a process of course to get photos into a viewable format (other than the back of a digital camera) but I often open in PS to view and organize and print directly what came off the media card without any further post processing. Sometimes I adjust contrast or brightness especially for printing.

With color film it's a matter of sending it out for development as not too many people ever had color developing at home, and the machines and the lab technicians adjust as needed (but if you got a crappy picture there's only so much they can do). Doing B&W darkroom work I found it depends - often if I shot a roll at the same time in the same lighting once I determined an initial exposure time I'd be able to crank out prints from that roll pretty efficiently with little or no other adjustment - it's a matter of having gotten a proper exposure and framed and composed photos the way I wanted. I might do some dodging to bring out some detail or burning in light corners, it just depends on the original image and how much I'm enlarging it, etc. but I might not have to do any.

The thing is, if you don't get good photos in camera you'd probably never get much done in a traditional wet darkroom, there are only so many hours in the day. Seems similar with digital images, if you get good pictures in camera you wouldn't need to edit much. It's possible to edit a photo creatively but with a lot of what's out there I find I often notice the processing more than the photo.

John Landolfi wrote:

Ian Stone wrote: during that time when Picasso lived, wasn't his art shunned?  

Far from it! In a relatively short time, he became famous and sought after, and especially after WWI, he sold anything he made (painted, sculpted, pottery...)So much so, that he c ould simply sign his name to a piece of paper, and give it to a friend asking for a loan. Although what this has to do with the present topic is far from clear...

Rudy was trying to make a point about personal perspective in expression (and how that's a good thing).

I'm still stuck on "oil painting". I use PS for every image, but they don't look like oil paintings. I'm thinking HDR as well?

 Then yoiu need to go over to VB and enter some of the contests. THAT'S when you'll see it for yourself. Last Christmas was one of the worst I'd seen in a winner. It was a PS of a santa Clause convention and all the people dressed up looked like paintings. NOT even close to real.

 I wish ?I could ut I've never learned to do that. It amazes me that there people in this forum that aren't at VB. How did they find this forum i!!?? What else is it linked to ??

 I did it simply because some of the prizes are appealing,but I can see its just no longer worth it. I'll enter the contests just for the exposure to my best work.

Tom-Lutz wrote:  Then yoiu need to go over to VB and enter some of the contests. THAT'S when you'll see it for yourself. Last Christmas was one of the worst I'd seen in a winner. It was a PS of a santa Clause convention and all the people dressed up looked like paintings. NOT even close to real.

Can you link us to what you're talking about?