Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think the test would be to show the pictures to that woman and ask her which is more indicative of where she lives. Harrison McClary wrote: > First I agree that almost all photos need "something" other than the > default RAW settings in Lightroom or whatever. However; looking at > his photos they are way over processed. > > Never did I make a straight print working news, always there was some > burning, dodging and in B&W sometimes bleaching to get the print to > look like what I "saw" when I made the photo. To expect that there be > a great straight shot just because we now shoot digital is a little > ridiculous. I keep thinking back to my old friend from my Atlanta > days who got in trouble a few years ago in Charlotte for his > "manipulation" of digital files. From what I saw he did nothing > wrong. the intent of his photos was not altered, just colors SLIGHTLY > pumped and backgrounds burned down, no big deal, IMHO. > > Now these photos in the link Tina shared look like they came from a > cartoon, guy really needs to learn how to tweak an image without going > over the top. > > On 4/20/09 5:58 AM, Tina Manley wrote: >> The judges thought he used too much photoshop based on the difference >> between the photos he submitted and the RAW file. The photographer >> argues that a RAW file is not really indicative of what the scene >> looks like without being converted and that the appearance of the >> submitted files depends on which software is used. > >