Altered photos with "Lightroom"
- Thread starter Appaloosa1224
- Start date
- Tagged users None
iani
Valuable Member
Definitly, I do. I just see this program being advertised and I can see people selling corals are now going to use it.
How did you come to that conclusion from this thread?
Browns,
I think you're reading way too much into this. Lightroom is nothing more than Adobe's subset of Photoshop, designed for photographers, with a user interface designed to make make it more efficient to process images. As was discussed in another thread, digital photography requires that any image be processed in some way.
If you are shooting in the jpg format, your camera is taking the data captured by the camera's sensor and processing it to generate the final jpg image. If you look at most camera operator manuals, you will likely find that there are several ways to customize the final image to suit your tastes.
If you are shooting in the RAW format, that means your camera is simply keeping all of the data that the sensor captures. A RAW file is nothing more than a collection of data and must be converted to generate a usable jpg or tif image. This is where the RAW converter software comes into play, either the converter that comes with the camera software, with Photoshop, or a separate conversion software package.
Once the RAW file is converted, Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom is used to adjust contrast, lightness/darkness, color density, etc.
This is no different from what was done with film. Different brands/types of film produce different types of images, i.e., some are more saturated, some more contrasty, etc. In a darkroom, either with the film-processing chemicals, printing paper, and/or printing techniques, the captured image is further manipulated to produce what the photographer saw/captured in the camera.
In true digital photography, software replaces the film, chemicals, printing paper (yes there are several printing papers, each designed to produce a different type of image quality) and is used to do nothing more than bring out the best of what the camera captured. Again, this is no different than we used to do in the darkroom. Anything beyond that gets away from actual photography and more into photographic art.
We all agree that too many people abuse the software's capabilities to generate images that do not represent the appearance of the actual coral. Those of us who practice photography only use the software to produce a final image that represents what we saw/captured in the camera.
Note that digital photography, particularly of corals, cannot be done without software, just as film photography cannot be done without chemicals in a darkroom. Do not condemn the software or those who use it for photography. Your only beef should be with those who use digital photography tools to produce images that don't represent reality.
gary
I think you're reading way too much into this. Lightroom is nothing more than Adobe's subset of Photoshop, designed for photographers, with a user interface designed to make make it more efficient to process images. As was discussed in another thread, digital photography requires that any image be processed in some way.
If you are shooting in the jpg format, your camera is taking the data captured by the camera's sensor and processing it to generate the final jpg image. If you look at most camera operator manuals, you will likely find that there are several ways to customize the final image to suit your tastes.
If you are shooting in the RAW format, that means your camera is simply keeping all of the data that the sensor captures. A RAW file is nothing more than a collection of data and must be converted to generate a usable jpg or tif image. This is where the RAW converter software comes into play, either the converter that comes with the camera software, with Photoshop, or a separate conversion software package.
Once the RAW file is converted, Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom is used to adjust contrast, lightness/darkness, color density, etc.
This is no different from what was done with film. Different brands/types of film produce different types of images, i.e., some are more saturated, some more contrasty, etc. In a darkroom, either with the film-processing chemicals, printing paper, and/or printing techniques, the captured image is further manipulated to produce what the photographer saw/captured in the camera.
In true digital photography, software replaces the film, chemicals, printing paper (yes there are several printing papers, each designed to produce a different type of image quality) and is used to do nothing more than bring out the best of what the camera captured. Again, this is no different than we used to do in the darkroom. Anything beyond that gets away from actual photography and more into photographic art.
We all agree that too many people abuse the software's capabilities to generate images that do not represent the appearance of the actual coral. Those of us who practice photography only use the software to produce a final image that represents what we saw/captured in the camera.
Note that digital photography, particularly of corals, cannot be done without software, just as film photography cannot be done without chemicals in a darkroom. Do not condemn the software or those who use it for photography. Your only beef should be with those who use digital photography tools to produce images that don't represent reality.
gary
Paintguru
In need of tank
Wow....just wow....
Browns, I'm glad you have a camera that produces pictures of corals that EXACTLY duplicate how they look with the human eye; I'd patent that baby, since it is probably the only one like it in the world.
Browns, I'm glad you have a camera that produces pictures of corals that EXACTLY duplicate how they look with the human eye; I'd patent that baby, since it is probably the only one like it in the world.
Saltysteele
Bret
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,153
- Reaction score
- 1
paint, you said it, bro.
browns, sorry to say, but you may actually be doing what your are against, by not altering your photos
unless you're a pro, i guarantee you've got photo's that don't accurately represent what your corals really look like.
so, by not altering a photo, how do we know that you are selling us a piece of dog poo that caught the right light and ended up looking like an everlasting gobstopper?
browns, sorry to say, but you may actually be doing what your are against, by not altering your photos
unless you're a pro, i guarantee you've got photo's that don't accurately represent what your corals really look like.
so, by not altering a photo, how do we know that you are selling us a piece of dog poo that caught the right light and ended up looking like an everlasting gobstopper?
mak060
Reluctant Zoa Collector
Sorry to keep this off OP, but Browns' frag pack pic from the other day looks darn good to me; and no offense Salt, but the zoas you posted today, are the skirts brown or green?
Saltysteele
Bret
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,153
- Reaction score
- 1
no problem, bro, no offense taken 
they're actually that color, a kind of gold, i guess (i thinking you mean the one with the cynarina, chalice and paly's?)
i know what he's saying. i think he's left defending something he didn't mean to be taken so far down the road.
i agree, that altering corals to sell or show off, making them look different from what they are, is wrong. however, altering pix to make them look more like what they look like in your tank, IS NOT WRONG. if you take your film to meijer (a retail store in this 5-state area) to be developed, they are going to get processed, as well. they alter the pic's to fix redeye to an extent, fix white balance, cropping, adjusting. they don't do that to make aunt jenny look different, but to make her look like she does. yes, maybe she really does have blue hair!
as long as we have been taking photo's, we have been processing (altering) them. as a photographer i've met before, and is a member here (won't mention names, as i don't want to drag anyone into this), said (and i'm paraphrasing), "show me a bunch of untouched photo's, and i'll show you a bunch of photo's that look like s***."
this whole ps BS as of late is tiring me. it's never going to end. someone, someday is going to have a couple hairs on their **** crossed and start pulling on each other, and start ripping in again.
I'M A PS USER, AND I'M PROUD OF IT!! I use photo to alter my coral pic's to make them look like what they actually look like, and do not try to pass them off as something they're not. I alter them the same way I alter any picture I take, whether it a tank pic, a birthday pic of my daughter, or a Christmas pic, and that is to make them look clean, true to life and the best they can look. Period.
they're actually that color, a kind of gold, i guess (i thinking you mean the one with the cynarina, chalice and paly's?)i know what he's saying. i think he's left defending something he didn't mean to be taken so far down the road.
i agree, that altering corals to sell or show off, making them look different from what they are, is wrong. however, altering pix to make them look more like what they look like in your tank, IS NOT WRONG. if you take your film to meijer (a retail store in this 5-state area) to be developed, they are going to get processed, as well. they alter the pic's to fix redeye to an extent, fix white balance, cropping, adjusting. they don't do that to make aunt jenny look different, but to make her look like she does. yes, maybe she really does have blue hair!
as long as we have been taking photo's, we have been processing (altering) them. as a photographer i've met before, and is a member here (won't mention names, as i don't want to drag anyone into this), said (and i'm paraphrasing), "show me a bunch of untouched photo's, and i'll show you a bunch of photo's that look like s***."
this whole ps BS as of late is tiring me. it's never going to end. someone, someday is going to have a couple hairs on their **** crossed and start pulling on each other, and start ripping in again.
I'M A PS USER, AND I'M PROUD OF IT!! I use photo to alter my coral pic's to make them look like what they actually look like, and do not try to pass them off as something they're not. I alter them the same way I alter any picture I take, whether it a tank pic, a birthday pic of my daughter, or a Christmas pic, and that is to make them look clean, true to life and the best they can look. Period.
