Your pictures – all are welcome.
You can receive the posts of this weblog by email.
I have many more images of Whitby and the Regatta which I intend to post very soon on www.lochnessimages.com under the Heading North of England.
Will viewers please say if they think Photoshop was used to adjust / manipulate this image. Yes or no !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please click on this image to see a bigger version.
I like the picture, but I'm not really the best person to guess if you've "shopped" it as I've never used any photo software myself so I don't really know what the results look like. But having said that, something doesn't look quite right about the seagull.
Tom.
Wrong; the seagull is as was. But one seagull was partially cut off along the top border so I cloned it out and you probably cannot tell. There were no adustments to brightnes, contrast, hue or anything other than size reduction. David.
Thank you for commenting and speculating !
You do really need Photshop for rotation of images when you get the horizons out with hand held shots.
 | SeasideMan pro 20/08/08 @ 07:51 |
Thanks for the suggestion but I remain resolutely against Photoshop and it's ilk. I'd rather get the picture right in the camera and improve my skills as I do so. Cartier-Bresson didn't have Photoshop and I intend to not do so either.
Tom.
 | la_spice [Member] 20/08/08 @ 08:27 |
A man after my own heart on that one 
Eventually everyone will become "graphic artists" - photoshop has a place for creating the surreal rather than the real.
| SeasideMan pro 20/08/08 @ 08:31 |
Thanks Spicey, I'm glad there are a few of us who still think this way. We are probably an ever-shrinking minority.
Tom.
No just removing half a bird from the edge of a shot is no big deal. In this case there have been no other 'artificial' effects David.
Well Cartier-Bresson used a 35 mm Leica and film and a dark room and I'd guess he did all the equivalent things to Photoshop using his dark room. I remember from going to a camera club that there are many tricks used in the dark room to improve images. On old film cameras they even smudged a filter with vaseline to get special effects and used a wide range of filters including graded filters to balance bright sky against a landscape when the film could not cope without parts of the image suffering burn out . David.
| SeasideMan pro 20/08/08 @ 10:07 |
If you're happy to take sub-optimal pictures and polish them up afterwards, that's your decision. I'm happier my way for the moment. Photography is a big, wide world and there's room for all of us.
Tom.
A seagull coming into the edge of the frame isn't really a suboptimal picture. When you take another shot the sun may have vanished or it may have clouded over so cloning or cropping out the unwanted wing makes common sense. I do agree its a bore if we were all to think the same. David.
| SeasideMan pro 20/08/08 @ 11:53 |
"A seagull coming into the edge of the frame isn't really a suboptimal picture"
If that was true, you wouldn't have cropped it out.
But let's say no more. As I already said, the world of photography is big enough for all of us and whatever methods each of us prefers.
Tom.
OK Thats agreed but discussion is creative and stimulating and one sometimes changes one's mind. For example I swore by film until I tried digital 6 years ago and would now never think about going back.
David.
 | jenray pro http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk 19/08/08 @ 22:46 |
Don't know, David, but it's a nice photo and very clever of you to get the gull so clearly...LOL...GBHs...XX
 | AmethystLady pro 19/08/08 @ 22:58 |
Nice picture, but the gull kinda looks 'clearer' than the rest of the picture, if you get my drift. Could be a great shot, or manipulated, hard to tell.
The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.
19/08/08 @ 22:34