Evaluate My Photo

[Kan Win]

Lights

OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-3

1/50s f/2.8 at 14.0mm iso800

More to come in the New Year, from all three Olympus cameras that I have had.

Seasonal Greetings to One and All

Kan Win

[The Vulcan]

This one hasn't worked for me.

It's well exposed and the colours are good, but it's screaming for perspective correction in my opinion.

I'm sure a bit of work in Photoshop would vastly improve this.

[Nordlys]

I have to agree with Vulcan.

The lower portion of the frame could also be trimmed.

Good exposure but lacks a little tweak.

[MrSquigle]

Does anyone else think that fiddling with photos is kind of cheating ??

Just my opinion, but I think if you have to fiddle with a pic, then it is not the real photo anymore.

Understand and agree with it for commercial purposes.

[Kan Win]

Good and fair comments, thank you.

I was just leaving this place and turned around with camera in hand and took the shot, no flash and hand held BTW.

Still trying to figure out a few things as I do a lot of my photos on the spur of the moment, nothing set up just switch on the camera change some settings and take a shot.

This one was in .jpg. I have it in Raw, I think, as well. The Olympus E-3 is set to save both Raw+Jpg (Fine) files so will look at the Raw.orf files in the new year.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

[ballzafire]

The pretty girl on the right has her back to us.

Also, it's a bit dark.

Certainly you can do better...

[Kan Win]

Does anyone else think that fiddling with photos is kind of cheating ??

Just my opinion, but I think if you have to fiddle with a pic, then it is not the real photo anymore.

Understand and agree with it for commercial purposes.

Good call “MrSquigle”.

I do not with exception to rotate, crop, adjust photo on ACDSee version 5.0 if need and to resize them and post photos on my web-page.

Coming soon to half a million hits on my web-page, “Thailand as I see it” and not doctored up.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

[astral]

Does anyone else think that fiddling with photos is kind of cheating ??

Not at all.

Taking a perfect photo, straight off, is sometimes impossible.

In the past you needed a dark room and all the equipment or had to pay a professional.

On the computer it is so much easier to correct exposure by shading or dodging areas

to create the image your eye and mind saw, rather than what the camera recorded.

It is all part of the skill of creating the "perfect photograph".

[The Vulcan]

Photo adjustments are not cheating. take an artist, he paints perspectives that just don't exist. What he does paint is what he perceives.

I'm no artist but I follow this thought pattern. I always try to imagine the final outcome as I wish it to be. I'm not concerned with accurate colours and perspectives at the point of shooting. I know how I see an image, and I'll expose accordingly. This is merely me recording what "I see".

[Jimmyd]

I don't understand this attitude. Whatever the camera + your output method produces is something not to be touched?

It doesn't make sense. Why are these things to be trusted more than you and your eye?

Edited December 30, 2007 by Jimmyd

[astral]

All too often we look down at our feet, when we should be looking up to heaven.

It works for me too but agree on the perspective.

[legag]

Does anyone else think that fiddling with photos is kind of cheating ??

Just my opinion, but I think if you have to fiddle with a pic, then it is not the real photo anymore.

Understand and agree with it for commercial purposes.

It is cheating and I'm totally agree with ya MrSquigle.

[The Vulcan]

Ansell Adams might have had an opinion on this topic!

[astral]

Yes but he did it all with the camera...........

A real work of art.

[The Vulcan]

Yes but he did it all with the camera...........

A real work of art.

Not at all. Several negatives combined to achieve the image, masses of darkroom manipulation i.e. dodging, burning, holding back etc, and then hours printing.

Anyway; still the ultimate photographer in my eyes.

[astral]

Just playing with SilkyPix to see what I can do with those verticals on the lights

and a slight tweak on the exposure.

What do you think?

[Nordlys]

Not at all. Several negatives combined to achieve the image

Really?

masses of darkroom manipulation i.e. dodging, burning, holding back etc, and then hours printing.

Personally I wouldn't consider any of that cheating. Whatever the effect you get out of that, you're still projecting the same image out of the negative on the print through enlarger. If you call that cheating camera, lens and film (and filters) also cheat. I've made many shots using infra red film (black and white) and the image you get out of it is hardly what you see with your naked eyes (or for that matter, black and white photography itself!). But I think it's fair to say double exposure and filtering with Photoshop are cheating.

Even my eyes cheat because I have red - green color blindness.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Nordlys

[Jimmyd]

Just playing with SilkyPix to see what I can do with those verticals on the lights

and a slight tweak on the exposure.

What do you think?

To be honest, the picture is nothing special. I say this with all due respect. If I saw this picture in a group of images, I would pass it over.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Jimmyd