Sad day for me

Delicate post topic.  Personally I think Photoshop is just part of modern day photography.  I don't belong to Viewbug so can't comment on that.  But if people are winning there and you believe it's because they are Photoshop/editing their photos.  There is nothing wrong with that, they are using available resources.  You have the choice to embrace the tools of the trade.   Think back to the first camera tripod that was invented.  You have two photographers side by side taking a photo of the sunset.  One photographer has a tripod and other photographer believes using a tripod is cheating.  Photographs are taken, photographer with tripod has a sharp photo, the other photographer with no tripod has good photo, but soft.  No one cheated here, just using what available tools to make a better shot.   The person viewing the photo doesn't care how the photographer took the photo or if they used a tripod or not.  They only care how the shot looks. 

Tom-Lutz wrote: To me its cheating. Let a photo rise or fall on its origonal merit, not on what's done after the fact.

Just to be concise:

Most. Photos. Suck. Without. Editing. I'd like to be proven wrong but it hasn't happened yet.

I looked you up on VB, but all I found was this:

www.viewbug.com/member/tommlutz

which is a NULL page. So you're on VB but no one can see your images without friending you?

I can't see anything of yours, and I would like to. And as i said above, you can't "lift" anything from VB to show here, you can only use links to pages on that site.

If you'd like to discuss an image, watermark it and post it here, please.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but an awful lot of the members of VB like/favorite/award images simply to acquire points and climb up to higher levels. I'd keep a grain of salt handy because I'm pretty sure it has very little to do with the quality of images for many folks. Given most of the images submitted to the contests, it's apparent most of those folks have no clue what constitutes a decent photograph.

Nice analogy about early photography but not accurate but I see your point. I'll still never agree to it simply because I can take good photos but t hen be lousy at photoshop.

 I've got it water marked but have no clue how to send the post here. I disagree about photos sucking just because they haven't been photo shopped.

Tom-Lutz wrote:  I've got it water marked but have no clue how to send the post here. I disagree about photos sucking just because they haven't been photo shopped.

I think he means higher end photography.  It's all been touched by editing hands.


As far as uploading a photo, just click on the Insert Image icon next to the red Play button.

[/url]

If you are such a purist, in film days, which film did you use?
Did you ever experiment with vivid colour fim?
Film for landscape?
Film for portrait?
Cross processing?
Developed your own black & white?

If you only did eg Kodak Ectachrome, did you ever have them printed?
On what contrast paper? Did you tell them not to dodge or burn?

When you scan your film in, what equipment do you use?
Did you try them all to see which one gives you colours and contrast closet to the film?

Just trying to make you aware that being a purest takes a lot of effort.

 NO, never did that

 When I do that nothing but a blank box comes up. and don't say clear the cookies. I just did that yesterday. NO that's not the problem

People who don't like to edit their photos usually aren't very good at editing. They don't understand the process so they think it's "cheating".

This doesn't apply to Tom Lutz of course, just making a general observation.

Ruby Grace wrote: Delicate post topic.  Personally I think Photoshop is just part of modern day photography.  I don't belong to Viewbug so can't comment on that.  But if people are winning there and you believe it's because they are Photoshop/editing their photos.  There is nothing wrong with that, they are using available resources.  You have the choice to embrace the tools of the trade.   Think back to the first camera tripod that was invented.  You have two photographers side by side taking a photo of the sunset.  One photographer has a tripod and other photographer believes using a tripod is cheating.  Photographs are taken, photographer with tripod has a sharp photo, the other photographer with no tripod has good photo, but soft.  No one cheated here, just using what available tools to make a better shot.   The person viewing the photo doesn't care how the photographer took the photo or if they used a tripod or not.  They only care how the shot looks. 

Well said 

Also, there is the matter of degree of adjustment.  "Cheating" with PS sounds like making drastic adjustments.  It does not have to be that way.  With Lightroom I can make mild adjustments, that in essence "fix" the poor adjustments that the camera might make with a JPG image.  And yes, the camera does make those adjustments in a JPG.  And yes, those JPG adjustments the camera makes are not always correct, much less optimum.  There is no "natural" or "true" image, no matter how advanced the camera is.  Hard for beginners to believe, but that is the way cameras and photography are.

Kelly Cook

Tom-Lutz wrote: Nice analogy about early photography but not accurate but I see your point. I'll still never agree to it simply because I can take good photos but t hen be lousy at photoshop.

You mean historically accurate? Analogies rarely are. 

Ruby Grace wrote: Delicate post topic.  Personally I think Photoshop is just part of modern day photography.  I don't belong to Viewbug so can't comment on that.  But if people are winning there and you believe it's because they are Photoshop/editing their photos.  There is nothing wrong with that, they are using available resources.  You have the choice to embrace the tools of the trade.   Think back to the first camera tripod that was invented.  You have two photographers side by side taking a photo of the sunset.  One photographer has a tripod and other photographer believes using a tripod is cheating.  Photographs are taken, photographer with tripod has a sharp photo, the other photographer with no tripod has good photo, but soft.  No one cheated here, just using what available tools to make a better shot.   The person viewing the photo doesn't care how the photographer took the photo or if they used a tripod or not.  They only care how the shot looks. 

    good post Ruby

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.

Tom-Lutz wrote:  When I do that nothing but a blank box comes up. and don't say clear the cookies. I just did that yesterday. NO that's not the problem

Huh. Try a different browser? You don't state what OS or browser you are using, so difficult to discern too much.

Tom-Lutz wrote: Nice analogy about early photography but not accurate but I see your point. I'll still never agree to it simply because I can take good photos but t hen be lousy at photoshop.

Right. That's why I posited "most". And certainly, preference has a large part to play here.