Uknown Yellow Flower............

[Kelley (Texas)]

I have no idea what these yellow flowers might be. They were very difficult for me to edit, might have something to do with the yellow color. Kelley (Texas)

[attachment 313433 043copyedited5-19-15.jpg]

 

[DavefromCt]

They're pretty cool looking whatever they are!

 

[Nancy-IL]

It is a very pretty flower. Do you have the original without the editing? I very seldom edit my photos. Guess I'm just old school.

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

Just messing around and experimenting with some photo editing effects. I found out that you can change the color of this unknown yellow flower as per se. I am getting into uncharted waters and must confess that this appears to me as being dishonest. I have always done very little editing of my pictures, presenting them as they were originally taken.

How many of you agree with me that this type of photo editing could be considered as being dishonest? Kelley (Texas)

[attachment 313463 043edit5-20-15experimentthree.jpg]

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

Please take a look at the Post where I changed the color of the flower and my view that it is dishonest editing. I am like you, I usually do little editing to my pictures as per se and try to post them as original as possible. Kelley (Texas)

 

[DavefromCt]

I have definite opinions on this subject. The only time it would be dishonest if it was misrepresented like a news story or something where it Has to be the truth and an accurate photo. The rest is art. Just about every photo you see in magazines and for sale are heavily edited and changed. They fix models and take bits of fat or discoloration off of them. Landscapes that are sold and really pop, are all heavily edited. This photography thing we are in is considered art and I think should be fixed if there is a problem. I had a friend that believed nothing should be touched and now he is waaay into fixing them in software and is selling his photos. You know, we think of guys like Ansel Adams and great photographers of the past and say that they did it straight from the camera, but I've read articles on them and they manipulated their photos extensively. That's where the terms in software comes like "burn" to make something darker etc. When I used to do film in darkrooms, our teachers taught us how to bring out the shadows and mute the brights...Once you had the negative developed, when you expose it onto photographic paper you could mask out certain portions (or block the light falling onto the paper) for a specified time so that the end result would be more pleasing than just normally developing. I've heard so many pros and cons on this subject but I think whatever pleases your eye or even others eyes, you should do it. I don't know of any professionals that don't do it, so don't feel guilty! P.S. ....Having said all this, photography instructors teach, and rightly so, that we should think about the photo and subject and lighting and composition beforehand and try to get the best photo possible right out of the camera to begin with. Only then can we tweak it to our satisfaction.

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

most of my photography prior to breaking my neck was traveling the back roads of South Texas taking pictures of old houses, barns, historical sites, and other old interesting sites. As such, I always felt that the pictures had to be as accurate as possible as to what I actually observed, and I did as little photo editing as possible, maybe correcting a picture that was over/under exposed, or if it needed to be sharpened, cropping when needed, and resize the picture. I just felt it important to keeping the picture as It actually was when I took it. Same with all pictures that I have taken, which includes the flower pictures posted on this or any other forum.

All being said, I guess that I could live with changing pictures if it involved using your imagination to produce a picture that was created for "fun" purposes and was not of a serious nature. I really need to give this subject more thought, but I just know that I felt dishonest when I changed the color of the flower.

I do respect your views on this subject and appreciate you posing them. Kelley (Texas)

 

[Nauti]

I have a bit of an old school attitude on this subject.I prefer to try and get the result I want "out in the field" and if at first I fail I will go back out and try again.Just to put your flower picture into context,if I was looking for a red variety of the same type yellow flower,i would search until I found a red one that I could take a photo of.Under no circumstances (if I could'nt find the red variety) would I convert the yellow into red and pass it off as a genuine photo.
It would be the same with a landscape photograph....if I want a landscape photo with a stormy sky,i will wait till there is a stormy sky,not manipulate one on the computer while I sup tea and eat biscuits.
We all alter our photos to some extent but to add something that was'nt there in the first place or to completely change the colour of a subject etc means that the photo becomes a created image and not a true photo.
However,digital cameras have allowed us to expand our photography into creating art forms like Dave said, so we now have the opportunity to take genuine photographs and create art out of them as well which is brilliant,as long as we don't forget that true photos are the images that your eye sees the moment the shutter is pressed.

 

[Nancy-IL]

Thank you Kelley and like I said, "I'm old school" and I do know that all photos on any advertising, magazines, and anything to do with models or actors. It's all edited.

With me, just being an individual that enjoys photography on a non professional level, I do not edit my photos to the point of no return. I enjoy the simple things in life I guess and one of them is not messing with my digital pictures much, if at all any. Yes, I have brightened, softened or cropped, but that's it.

Years ago I too had developed my own film and even dabbled into teaching in the darkroom. I still believed in printing photos in their original state to show how one can improve them. Now with digital photography it's a whole new ball game. I love digital.

As for the editing, I love each and every photo that catches my eye. Edited or not, it's the content of the photo. I'm not against extreme editing, it's just not for me. I've enjoyed being here and I hope I haven't offended anyone opening this can of worms about editing.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

Nancy

 

[Nancy-IL]

How many of you agree with me that this type of photo editing could be considered as being dishonest? Kelley (Texas)

[attachment 313463 043edit5-20-15experimentthree.jpg]

Yes and no. It's a touchy subject. It's not dishonest but it totally changes the content. With you telling us it's been altered, it's not being looked at as fraudulent.

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

We are among friends on this forum, and also as adults, and we should always respect the views of others. I think this is a good subject and I am interested in what others think. I did enjoy Dave's aspect and he has given me some things to think about. Like I said earlier, I entered unchartered waters and felt very uncomfortable, had a very dishonest feeling over what I had done in changing a yellow colored flower into a red colored flower. I did feel better after reading Dave's take on the subject. Kelley (Texas)

 

[fmurphy]

First of all...the flower shot is beautiful! Great focus and depth of field. (now the rant) There is a huge difference I think between enhancing a photo and altering the contents to deceive someone. I really don't think editing/enhancing a photo is dishonest at all as long as it's not for for journalistic purposes...(news type photos) illustrations have been done for years and years even in the news side but they were done to make a point not represent so called facts. I believe as technology gets better it is making it easier for more people to enjoy photography and show their own interpretations of whatever object or scene they are displaying. Everyone likes to see their photos in different ways and are proud of what they do. The camera, lighting and the way you shoot something have a lot to do with it also. And if you're doing photos for yourself and not getting paid by someone else.....the only person you have to make happy is yourself. Kelley.... it's fun to get new software and share what neat things you can do with it. I love how you're getting in the middle of it and showing what the capabilities are and what the learning curve is. I encourage everyone to experiment and grow with the hobby...most of all share the fun. SORRY for the long rant here folks

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

n/t