Dodawanie i edycja artykułów


, there are very few photographs to would not beiefnt from a tiny bit of the manipulation I write about below.I am 70 years old so when it comes to photography I have seen a lot over the years. When it came to image processing I had my own darkroom and manipulated images via burning and dodging and in some cases cropping. That is also where I draw the line with digital. I will only go as far digitally as I was able to do in a wet darkroom. The exception to that could be a white balance adjustment and sharpening because of the nature of digital images losing up sharpness because of anti aliasing filters in the front of sensors.If there were “clouds” in the image you wrote about and they needed to be enhanced through a program like Nik Viveza 2, or Nik Silver efex pro 2 or both, I consider that the same as manipulating in a darkroom. But to add clouds or anything else for that matter is in my opinion not photography.There is a very fine line. I have heard and I quote “but that is the way I saw it, but the camera gave me something different”. “So I altered the image the way I saw it.” So where does the line get crossed. For me, it is as I wrote above. It goes no further than what I could have done in a darkroom which consists of paper type, chemistry type, burning and dodging tools, film type that was used and chemistry used for that film. All of those things can be done to a certain degree in a program like Lightroom 4.4.Even worse than adding clouds, which was wrong, are photo journalists today altering the meaning of a photograph adding or taking out people or things or changing the look of the location to make the image say things that were not real. Many photo journalists in the past few years have been caught with their pants down and taken to task because of their image additions or subtractions.Elliot Stern

The best way to be more confident! Join us today

[Self Defence Manchester ][1]