|
foeslts16
Feb 12, 2007, 11:21 PM
Post #26 of 52
(2279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 210
|
call yourself what ever you like . .
follow me here now . . . . . my post is in reference to the fact that digital photography allows us to do many new things - both good and bad (subjective terms, I should say.)
you somehow incorrectly inferred I was claiming that rotating photographs was strictly a digital process.
like i said in my OP this thread does bring up some good questions about "digital photography".
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 12, 2007, 11:28 PM
Post #27 of 52
(2273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
thomasribiere wrote: It also depends on how the photographer is hanging himself.
Yes, heads will roll if this is done incorrectly. Upside down images will be the least of problems at that point.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 12, 2007, 11:30 PM
Post #28 of 52
(2269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Why do I want to see some else photos of some bouldering job !!!
I am getting tired of looking at all the pine trees growing side ways, or chalk bags been upside down while climber is leading .
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 12, 2007, 11:30 PM
Post #29 of 52
(2266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Do as I did and pretty much stop paying attention to all the pretty glossy manipulated images.
Once you realize photography exists for its own benefit, then the subject matter becomes irrelevant... even on a climbing site.
I click on maybe one in a thousand online climbing photos for a closer look, and then almost never for the benefit of the picture itself.
So do whatever perverted justice you wish to your photos. Only other photogs will ever care anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
nefarius
Feb 13, 2007, 12:01 AM
Post #30 of 52
(2247 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2003
Posts: 128
|
"I am getting tired of looking at all the pine trees growing side ways"
My advice then would be to get rid of all of your WA lenses, for one. This is what they do. While I can't help you with the chalk bag thing, at all, trees slanting (OK, so not completely sideways) is part of using a wide angle lense.
I have plenty of shots from places like the Rostrum where I am on a rope, above the subject, shooting a wider shot to give feeling of height/depth and the tress are all slanting out from the center, no matter how you rotate the photo. It's referred to as lens distortion.
(This post was edited by nefarius on Feb 13, 2007, 1:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 13, 2007, 12:45 AM
Post #32 of 52
(2221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
dingus wrote: Do as I did and pretty much stop paying attention to all the pretty glossy manipulated images. Once you realize photography exists for its own benefit, then the subject matter becomes irrelevant... even on a climbing site. I click on maybe one in a thousand online climbing photos for a closer look, and then almost never for the benefit of the picture itself. So do whatever perverted justice you wish to your photos. Only other photogs will ever care anyway. DMT
You are right Dingus, I am just used to see it as it was in the original format and not been rotated or been mod.
|
|
|
|
|
nooyoozer
Feb 13, 2007, 12:53 AM
Post #33 of 52
(2216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 66
|
foeslts16 wrote: yr high if you don't think the second photo looks like it's a harder climb. and yeah, it's all subjective, but to say the op's point is not valid is just ignorant. the OP begs some interesting questions about how digital photography can allow us to alter photographs in bad and good ways. worst-case scenario, this thread is better than most of the posts on this site.
i'm high and i think the second looks harder.
who the hell cares what people do with their photos, worry about your own. it's all about how the photographer presents their shot, with their own style, not yours or what you think is right. I love slanted trees from lens distortion. it can add something, if done correctly it can give a surreal or intense feel. stop hatin' and git shootin'.
(This post was edited by nooyoozer on Feb 13, 2007, 1:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Feb 13, 2007, 4:21 AM
Post #34 of 52
(2194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
pffft, photography is all about cheating
If I shoot an image and in-camera orientation sensor rotates it, is it still cheating 
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 13, 2007, 4:26 AM
Post #35 of 52
(2191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
climbsomething wrote: Take a dusty old print from your parents' Instamatic in your hands and then tilt it. How digital was that?
That would be 100% digital of course.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 13, 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #36 of 52
(2167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Feb 13, 2007, 1:35 PM
Post #37 of 52
(2156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I'll usually rotate the picture to what I think looks best...shrug...a photo is a work of art, not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Feb 13, 2007, 2:23 PM
Post #38 of 52
(2143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
To the digital manipulation point: There are only two problems with Digital Manipulation.
The first is your own personal ethic as to how much manipulation is legit. No one can tell you what you do is right or wrong becaues it's your work, your style, your property.
The second is trying to pass off digitally modified work as "untouched". how hard is it to simply post "colurs adjusted, UMS, cropped?
The digital manipulation discussion has been had hundreds of times, do a search, or check out photo.net, but I think we've sucessfully beat this dead horse....
(This post was edited by krillen on Feb 13, 2007, 2:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Feb 13, 2007, 2:27 PM
Post #39 of 52
(2139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Yah, I know, I threw it in for kicks though 
|
|
|
|
|
skurdeycat
Feb 13, 2007, 4:50 PM
Post #40 of 52
(2123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 45
|
I'd just like to thank the OP and Majid for demonstrating how to improve several of my photographs. I always thought those magazine pics were taken from some overhanging rig, I can't believe how much flipping the pics changes the apparent view.
Surely this isn't cheating, but for those with ethical issues, just hold the camera upside down!
Thanks again.
Skurdey
|
|
|
|
|
nooyoozer
Feb 13, 2007, 5:51 PM
Post #41 of 52
(2105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 66
|
dbrayack wrote: shrug...a photo is a work of art, not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the situation.
that's pretty much the best way to put it.
|
|
|
|
|
nefarius
Feb 13, 2007, 7:57 PM
Post #42 of 52
(2074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2003
Posts: 128
|
"how hard is it to simply post "colurs adjusted, UMS, cropped?""
Why should you (have to bother)? When shooting film do you label them "dodged, burned, exposures manipulated, shot with Velvia" and on and on?!
It really does come down to a personal ethic. If you're cloning out ropes and shit like that, then yeah, it's now digital art as you are misrepresenting what happened/you saw. My personal ethic is to not do anything I can't do in a dark room.
As far as the rotating thing... Seriously, get over yourself, dude.
|
|
|
|
|
t_nut
Feb 13, 2007, 8:30 PM
Post #43 of 52
(2058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2003
Posts: 59
|
krillen wrote: To the digital manipulation point: There are only two problems with Digital Manipulation. The first is ...
it tickles (if that's a problem) and ...
krillen wrote: The second is ...
well, beware your surroundings. Other than that it sure can resolve any blockage.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Feb 13, 2007, 8:34 PM
Post #44 of 52
(2055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
nefarius wrote: "how hard is it to simply post "colurs adjusted, UMS, cropped?"" Why should you (have to bother)? When shooting film do you label them "dodged, burned, exposures manipulated, shot with Velvia" and on and on?!
|
|
|
|
|
randomtask
Feb 13, 2007, 8:38 PM
Post #45 of 52
(2051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 106
|
Speaking of photoshopped pics...What's with the cover of Climbing Mag from a few issues ago. The issue I'm talking about is the one with secret crags in it, sometime last year. Look on the cover, the climber's face looks like I photoshopped it, which means it isn't a good job at all.
-JR
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Feb 13, 2007, 9:12 PM
Post #46 of 52
(2037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
The one where it looks like the guy is back clipped? Or did you flip the biner in Photoshop?
(This post was edited by cintune on Feb 13, 2007, 9:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kinz
Feb 13, 2007, 9:22 PM
Post #47 of 52
(2031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 76
|
you are a moron
|
|
|
|
|
randomtask
Feb 13, 2007, 9:53 PM
Post #48 of 52
(2017 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 106
|
I'm talking about Climbing 247, April 2006. Look at the climber's face it looks messed up.
-JR
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Feb 13, 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #49 of 52
(2002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
Yeah, I remember seeing that, did you take the shot? Thought it was just some weird way the light was reflecting off the rock or something. There was some thread or other about it back when it came out.
|
|
|
|
|
randomtask
Feb 13, 2007, 10:34 PM
Post #50 of 52
(1995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 106
|
Sorry cintune, I think I am confusing you. I did not take the shot. I meant it was such a bad job that it looks like my skill level at photoshop was used!! I figured there had to be a disscussion about that somewhere.
-JR
|
|
|
|
|
|
