Brianemone Posted December 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 didnt look like a shot to me, i have also seen people doing that, not much on this site but on RC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelers Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelers Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelers Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combo Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combo Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie extreme Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Everyone of my photos has had the photoshop treatment. Pies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianemone Posted December 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 yeah we know pies. we still need more christchurch pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie extreme Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskisteve Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 funny i use the same camera as pies & i still cant get a decent pic of my tank+ Maybe my tank sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Maybe my tank sucks For once you are right about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fay Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetskisteve Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 thanks fat al your valued opinion is much appreciated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 If TV has taught me anything, it's that you two have some serious unresolved sexual tension you two need to deal with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 its like lorel and hardy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misnoma Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 I was thinking Jerry Springer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.