Buzz Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 Al, I would have to guess the photoshop one would be the topwater bass. Both of them are great work, I just like the looks of the swimbait one better. That's what I think too. I don't have the photoshop program and I'm sure I wouldn't be as good at it as those of you who use it. My feelings are that photos are a piece of time that are captured forever and are as real to me as when the photo was taken. I don't always get great photos,but the ones I have are remembered as a small timestamp of my life. Since I don't try to sell them, I don't have a use for any type of photo shopping. I have seen some great paintings rendered from photos. That, to me anyway, is art. If fishing was easy it would be called catching.
Feathers and Fins Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 Phil, it isnt a problem with what you are doing I have seen it... It is when someone has changed the wording to the point the post was no longer even close to the original one. I could give an example but it might break the bad word filter lol... In all seriousness though it was bad enough for me to report it to the persons hosting service for violations of the hosting terms of service even. Basically a Big Ego who thought he could do anything just because he owned the site. I also watched a site loose a law-suit over editing (again altering the person to the point the original content was lost) https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
Al Agnew Posted May 8, 2012 Author Posted May 8, 2012 I don't worry much about anything people say to me on the net. Either I've got a thick skin or I just don't place enough weight on their opinions to let it bother me. It's real easy to get nasty when you're typing on a keyboard; most of us would never allow ourselves to get that nasty to somebody in person. I hate to see Ron go, too, but on the other hand, I think that overall he was pretty well appreciated, and I don't think he should have let a couple people get under his skin that much. Maybe we should start another spotted bass thread so that people can beat up on me for a while The lily pad painting was the paint on canvas, the other one was Photoshop.
duckydoty Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 Oh- and I edit Babler's posts ALL the time. Man, that guy can't spell a lick. BwaaaHaaaHaaa. I cant spell too well either. I always try to have MonaChari proof read my reports before posting them, but some mistakes still get through. What's even worse, is when we spend an hour working on a report and post it. Then while reading it on my phone, I find another error and try to edit it and end up losing the whole post. Cant stand it when that happens! A Little Rain Won't Hurt Them Fish.....They're Already Wet!! Visit my website at.. Ozark Trout Runners
Members Jonny Henbest Posted July 31, 2012 Members Posted July 31, 2012 I feel photoshop to be another medium of art. There are some amazing photographers out there that can capture every bit of beauty and perfection from a scene in the camera and it needs no other editing. There are others that are as skilled. I fall into the latter of the two. While it is a learning process- understanding your equipment, lighting, etc, the skills of some are limited. If photoshop is what it takes to create a beautiful image, what's the harm? Isn't that what photography is all about? Sharing what YOU see in your mind's eye with the world. There is also the side of photography that I personally love. Creating surreal art. This is a rather controversial aspect of Photoshop I suppose, but I personally love it. Creating something in an image that has never and will never truely exist. I am not good enough with a pen or paint to create what I see in my head but give me a camera and a computer and I might just blow you away. Here are a few examples of what I mean- The frist reflection image- I saw the shot I wanted but had to take it from a dock on the lake. There would have been no possible way to get this shot without either a boat or taking four individual shots and stitching them together in photoshop. I did play with saturation and sharpened the tree a little. The second- the only thing real is me. Everything else was a blank canvas. It is a composite that I spent countless hours on simply because I had an idea and wanted to bring it to life. The illuminated tree- that was a night shot- 30sec exposure of a tree lit up by some fisherman. There was little to no post-processing in photoshop. The fourth- Another night shot. I believe around a 20 sec exposure. To portray the image as I wanted it had to be cleaned up in photoshop. It was a high ISO shot to show more of the stars so it had to be de-noised, in my opinion. I think there is a time and a place for photoshop and I believe it very much depends on the style of the photographer. I see it as another tool in my belt but I have the utmost respect for the photographers out there who can perfect the magic of capturing exactly what they want in-camera. Just my 2 cents
Billfo Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 I just bought Photoshop Elements 10. I only use it to "slightly tweek" my colors. My preference is vivid colors- but still natural. I dont use 99% of the software-by choice.. When I want to make something a bit more "eye popping" I use a HDR program..see pics attached. Email me Red-Right-Returning is for quitters !
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now