Automotive Photography Competition #163

[LeonOfTheDead]

I find that to be a very narrow-minded view. I'm not a journalist and I'm not shooting subjects for a catalog or something. I take a photo to create a quality/beautiful/striking image. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the last general comp, I would've personally voted for Manik's shot, but it's no more "accurate" than Dary's.

And I don't know if there is a word or two missing here or something, but I really don't understand this: "the subject of the photo loses of important in favour of the colour/contrast/light/etc conditions, see post processing."

i didn't want to pass for a "narrow-minded" thinker ...
my rusty english seems to prevent me from express myself properly...what i meant is this:
i appreciated some post processing since in a lot of cases it improves the overall quality of a photo, considering also the fact that some digital camera in a way change the way the picture would look if taken with an old style camera, the colour looks different and so the light.
but then i noticed that a lot of people began to appreciate just the enhancements done to the photo, because it was the "brand new tech", it was cool, and the subject of photo became less important.
since photochop&co are available a lot of people seem to contract a sort of "post processing fever" and they apply it to nearly every pics even when it is not necessary. this let standard pics look less attractive and the ability of taking a photo became secondary to the one of using photochop&co.
i am not against it, but against the use of it and the fact that a lot of guys are no more good in judging a good picture. just my opinion, i hope this time it's clear enough

i voted for Manik's too.

[zeppelin]

I hope I have the permission to actually think that this method results in LESS interesting final pieces...

You have permission, and I respect everyone's opinions. It's just that you seem to make derogatory comments almost every competition about people's editing. Perhaps not derogatory, but critical without being constructive. That's why I seem irritated.

We could argue about this forever too (I wouldn't mind this conversation continued in the general photography thread, as opposed to here). I think processing has its place in photography, as it does in film too. Lots of movies have added effects (see Sin City) to create something different. It's all a matter of taste, and I've allowed editing because I believe it's cemented its place as part of modern photography.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Lots of movies have added effects (see Sin City) to create something different.

and also 300, but they both suck.
while in other movies like "eternal sunshine...", "life aquatic with steve zissou" (kinda peculiar), "the cell" or a more action one like "iron man" (still waiting too see it but a lot of friends are saying it's a very good "super-hero-movie") are good in order to improving the images' impact.
it's a matter of personal opinions, and of good taste, again.

[henk4]

You have permission, and I respect everyone's opinions. It's just that you seem to make derogatory comments almost every competition about people's editing. Perhaps not derogatory, but critical without being constructive. That's why I seem irritated.

when I come across extreme editing I get irritated....and that fortunately is done by very few entrants of the competition.
When I look at these competitions I think a picture has to carry over a certain message (at least that is what the author must have intended). When this message overwhelmingly says "photoshop" I immediately loose interest. I am not interested in how the picture was manipulated to get the desired effects, as it has little to do with photography. If you for instance look at Wouter's Bugatti picture, this will get my attention because I want to know what combination of shutter times, focus depth and zooming movements were applied. These are interesting photographic techniques done at the time of the shot and not ex-post applied computer generated effects. As a side note, I also never visit the chop forums here.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

and also 300, but they both suck.

The effects done in the movies previously stated, 300 and sin city, give the movie a different perspective and I personally think they are very decent. It adds a very different feel to the movie which gives it uniqueness. 300 & sin city are movies i would definitely recommend.


Different people have different opinions but I've only heard good comments on how these two movies are portrayed until now.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

when I come across extreme editing I get irritated....and that fortunately is done by very few entrants of the competition.
When I look at these competitions I think a picture has to carry over a certain message (at least that is what the author must have intended). When this message overwhelmingly says "photoshop" I immediately loose interest. I am not interested in how the picture was manipulated to get the desired effects, as it has little to do with photography. If you for instance look at Wouter's Bugatti picture, this will get my attention because I want to know what combination of shutter times, focus depth and zooming movements were applied. These are interesting photographic techniques done at the time of the shot and not ex-post applied computer generated effects. As a side note, I also never visit the chop forums here.

While you wonder all this do you forget that to get a good edited photo you have to have a decently composed picture to start with to get good results with it in and editing studio/program. An edited photo is still a photo and has been taken with different shutter speeds and aperture etc. You think the photo loses its "message" if its photoshoped? The point of the editing is too enhance this "message" not to get rid of it and to get it across in a more spectacular and "unreal" manner to show what the photography wanted to get out of the picture.

[henk4]

While you wonder all this do you forget that to get a good edited photo you have to have a decently composed picture to start with to get good results with it in and editing studio/program. An edited photo is still a photo and has been taken with different shutter speeds and aperture etc. You think the photo loses its "message" if its photoshoped? The point of the editing is too enhance this "message" not to get rid of it and to get it across in a more spectacular and "unreal" manner to show what the photography wanted to get out of the picture.

yes, but as I said, if the picture shouts out: "photoshop" then things have gone too far for me.

[pat_ernzen]

yes, but as I said, if the picture shouts out: "photoshop" then things have gone too far for me.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

[basman007]

basman007
TReal car
The Netherlands
03/05
Canon EOS 350D

[LeonOfTheDead]

i noticed this: me, and pieter, are saying that we don't like photoshop and that in the photography competition editing shoul be limited, for all the reason given, while others are saying we fail since we don't like editing and that it sounds nearly weird because it's a common use and because it cans improve the picture's overall quality. as in movies, i am not interested in a heavy digital effect use if it is pointless but appear different. in "300", what's the point of that kind of images? what are suggesting me? in "sin city" the use (weel, non-use) of colours gives a message, even if my personal opinion is that it is'nt a good movie no matter what people say, while in "300" is just a way of saying "since we hadn't the budget to rebuilt Sparta, we used the green-background and when the time to replace it with CG came, we thought the we could substituting it with something different, and so we started adding a lot of fake and absurd details to distract people watching the movie from this stupid story, bad interpratation etc". imo.
as from photography. a good photo is no more required, since it has to be "cool" and not well done. in the last shoot by Fumacher in the automotive competition the pic was very good...and then it became blue thanks to photediting. that was a good pic, and it didn't matter since, imo, it was ruined by an excessive photochop work. i voted for Pat, at least the photo seemed real, or at least more than the red 599.

[Manik]

Manik
Aston Martin V8 Vantage
May 17, 2008
Canon EOS 350D
Tone Mapped

[zeppelin]

...but they both suck.

Whoa, hold on a minute, I just caught this. Now 300 was far from a great movie, sure, but Sin City? I don't normally say opinions are wrong outright, but yeah, that was just uncalled for. Sin City is a modern masterpiece.

[pat_ernzen]

Whoa, hold on a minute, I just caught this. Now 300 was far from a great movie, sure, but Sin City? I don't normally say opinions are wrong outright, but yeah, that was just uncalled for. Sin City is a modern masterpiece.

I'm with you. 300 looked cool at times, but otherwise it pretty much sucked. But yeah, Sin City is pretty amazing all around.

[Wouter Melissen]

Ditto on Sin City. That was the best adaptation to film of a comic and very entertaining.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Whoa, hold on a minute, I just caught this. Now 300 was far from a great movie, sure, but Sin City? I don't normally say opinions are wrong outright, but yeah, that was just uncalled for. Sin City is a modern masterpiece.

I'm with you. 300 looked cool at times, but otherwise it pretty much sucked. But yeah, Sin City is pretty amazing all around.

Ditto on Sin City. That was the best adaptation to film of a comic and very entertaining.

...ok ok...
i will give it another chance, i promise