|
moroneyk
Jan 31, 2005, 5:17 PM
Post #1 of 4
(1158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 39
|
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/...itstone/images/f.jpg
Tony Simpson bouldering at Burbage North in the Peak district, England. Comments and criticisms would be greatly appreciated. Some cloning was done at the bottom to remove junk.
Thanks,
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Jan 31, 2005, 9:23 PM
Post #2 of 4
(1158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
the bottom left part. either you have some funky rocks there, or you need to do a better job and/or less cloning. People will jump on the picture, wait for it... Some people think it is the most evil thing to do, psing the picture. Some people will ps the hell out of the picture, and could make a great image. Me thinks small corrections are ok, but if you need to cover large areas, than you should have though about it during the shoot.
you could have labeled the picture that he is highballing, or trad climbing, because we could not tell the difference. The background is such distorted, i cannot tell if it is close ground, or a valley far below, or even whether i am looking down, or to the side, i have no orientation whatsoever. Which might have worked, something scaleless, but not in this shot. A more classic (cliche?) shot would be a safer bet, a more intimate shot with a closeup, or shooting a bit from left, showing the pose.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Feb 1, 2005, 3:34 PM
Post #3 of 4
(1158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Some people think it is the most evil thing to do, psing the picture. Some people will ps the hell out of the picture, and could make a great image.
Climbing Magazine, sometime around '96 ran a cover photo of a climber bouldering. A second person was also in the frame walking around the back side of the boulder. He was too tight in the frame to crop out but could have been cloned out. They ran the picture in it's original form and in the editorial page showed how it would have looked cloned along with a discussion of why they chose to run it unedited.
The reasoning they printed at the time was this: When you view a climbing picture you are viewing a picture of someone doing the impossible. What makes it believable is that there is a level of trust placed on the photographer that they have represented the scene honestly. Once you start altering the image, that trust is broken.
Just something to ponder. Something I've been giving more thought to lately. A while ago I submitted a picture of Ambler climbing at our local quarries. It was a good picture (toot, toot) and was liked by a lot of people. I was bothered by the unattractive background though, so I cleaned it up in photoshop and resubmitted it (stating that it had been altered). It got (rightfully so) bombed across the board. Since then, I only use PS to mimick what would have been used in the darkroom anyway.
Photoshop has become such a ubiquitous commodity that any time someone submits a stunning image the peanut gallery automatically cries PS. That's the real crime. Good images automatically get slandered because people are used to being lied to. Someone skilled in Photoshop can produce altered images that look very believable. But do you want to be a skilled photographer or a skilled bullshit artist?
Not so much a comment on your photo in particular, moroneyk, but on the Photoshop trend in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
