didnt look like a shot to me, i have also seen people doing that, not much on this site but on RC

I have a very basic understanding of photoshop, I would say that altering levals such as brightness and contrast would be acceptable without the "photoshopped" connotation.

Since the thing you guys are all after is sps colouration its important (im geussing) that the hue or saturation levals arent enhanced or altered.

For example with wasps photo - contrast and brightness can make a nice improvement, without enhancing the colours unfairly.

Thanks Feelers. What is saturation anyway?

As to the previous post, I’ll re state that I’ve seen the cry PHOTOSHOP! used to discredit a pic of a nice tank, because the complainant did not like the method of filtration used on the tank. Not once but several different times. No I’m not an expert in the industry but I could see no evidence of photoshopping at all in these cases.

It is this mentality why I am reluctant to do it, even for a genuine purpose. Plus I’m sure photoshop could be abused anyway. How much is too much.

didnt look like a shot to me, i have also seen people doing that, not much on this site but on RC

http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/1-vt85 ... sc&start=0

you couldn't see any there either. So what examples do you have wasp?

I guess what this is about, to me anyway, is that Combo's "photoshopped" pic of my tank is actually more accurate than the other one. I'd like to substitute the pic if it was "ethical".

But is it?

It certainly looks more photoshopped than some I've seen critisized, because even my non expert eye can see it.

you couldn't see any there either. So what examples do you have wasp?

You want me to spend an hour running around looking for them? Can't be bothered.

No need either as most people on the board will remember it.

The photoshop allegation has been used several times and I certainly thought it was a wild claim in some cases.

Im definately not an expert, but the saturation is the intensity of colour.

When you increase the saturation the colour (to me at least) leaks or blurs around the edges of the object.

here is an over saturated image.

here is how saturation works on a photo.

To me at least you can tell because of the edges and unnatural look. I can see how this can be abused to make acro growth look better than in real life. It seems to be a bit of a grey area. I would say the best thing is to state what has been done if any alterations have been made.

this is where you can kinda see what I mean.

http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgur ... D%26sa%3DG

hue is the tint of the colours,

Ok, I didn’t want to heat up discussion. I just saw those overexposed pictures. If we are not good photographers, we can use auto or manual correction to get as close as possible to WYSWYG.

Good hands and good camera can do that:

no flash, F 4,5 1/80, manual white balance ISO 200

no flash, F 4,5 1/80, manual white balance ISO 100

flash, F 4,5 1/80, manual white balance ISO 100, altered brightness

Camera: Olympus C-7070

what about this one:

altered or not?

Hmmm... Well looking at that tree pic I can certainly see how a drab tank could be made into a stunner!! :lol:

As to your last post Combo I'm guessing the bottom ones photoshopped? Only because it seems unusualy highly coloured?

Come on spill the beans Is it or isn't it? How do you know?

BTW just to illustrate my previous point about false accusations, on that mammoth thread of Bombers on RC, even HE was accused of photoshopping, and the pics had been taken by Gregt! I just don't believe it.

Come on spill the beans Is it or isn't it? How do you know?

I do not know. But it's awesome, isn't it?

Especially those with significant experience in the industry.

wasp seems to have a bit of experience (he post pic's of his tank and show's that he is succesful in propagating corals which seems alot more then you do) he also didn't want to enhance his pic's (hey at least he has some that could be enhanced) because he didn't feel that it was right.

????

exactly how i felt.

Everyone of my photos has had the photoshop treatment.

Pies

same!

yeah we know pies.

we still need more christchurch pics.

Yeah, Pies's pictures are MASSIVELY photoshopped. They look nothing like the real thing. Here's a picture of what his tank really looks like that I snuck when he wasn't looking last time I visited.

i could have sworn that it was reef's tank!

so if this is your tank ira then please don't mind me asking who's pic's you posted in your name on this site? :bounce:

we still need more christchurch pics.

very much agree, as lots of strong opinions and "advice" come from chch.

funny i use the same camera as pies & i still cant get a decent pic of my tank+ Maybe my tank sucks

Maybe my tank sucks

For once you are right about something.

Mine haven't but going to start

WASP I can't see the harm in improving your image as long as it is in keeping with the real thing.

I think we all know how hard it is to get good photos because of the extreme lighting!!

thanks fat al your valued opinion is much appreciated

If TV has taught me anything, it's that you two have some serious unresolved sexual tension you two need to deal with...

thanks fat al

Lucky the shore is far away. you could have a few problems in the future, not the sort of thing you say if your are 4 ft and under 60kg.

its like lorel and hardy

I was thinking Jerry Springer