So, I opened the folder with my RAW shots and started filtering those that I would be posting. One of the things that I add before I post pictures would be my watermark. I want people to know who took the picture [and also to make sure it isn't used without being given credit due me.]
Of course, admittedly I know that not all my shots are awesome and that why I tweak levels and at times dim the glares caused by the pop-up flash. [This I won't have to do since I'll be getting a diffuser pretty soon. Yay!]
This is how I treat my photos before sharing them with the world. Sadly, there is this big debate as to if this is a good thing or a bad thing that photographers practice and whether it is one of the ways of "true" photography.
Well, in my opinion, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the past, film photographers control the amount of light (aperture), shutter speed and film (ISO) used to come out with great photographs. In essence, digital photographers do the same as well. DSLRs have aperture control, shutter speed and ISO options embedded into their systems.
To get those special effects on photographs, film photographers would have modified lenses (fish eye, soft focus lenses, double exposure etc.,). Nowadays, this can be achieved if not directly for the DSLR software itself, then through Photoshop or other similar software.
Like everything we've known in the past decade, things evolve. Photography is no different. Imagine all the things you had to lug around if DSLRs aren't as smart as they are now. Heavy, huh? [My respect to those that had gone through this.] So generally, I think that we still practice the same things they did before with photographs, it just so happens that this time around we use a mouse and a software instead of lenses and a darkroom. [Oh, but I so would want to learn how to develop film.]
Anyway, I was reading through Jin Joson's post about this a few days ago. And well, she does make a point. Photography is now used for so many different things and have so many branches already and at times post processing is a must.
At the end of it all, I don't think post processing is a bad thing and if possible we should also come up with our own styles since it can be a new avenue to express ourselves better. Though here's my qualifier [and my pet peeve]: When so called "photographers" say "May photoshop naman" after taking and even before taking a shot. Post processing should never be an excuse to NOT learn the basics of photography.
IMO.
Well, in my opinion, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the past, film photographers control the amount of light (aperture), shutter speed and film (ISO) used to come out with great photographs. In essence, digital photographers do the same as well. DSLRs have aperture control, shutter speed and ISO options embedded into their systems.
To get those special effects on photographs, film photographers would have modified lenses (fish eye, soft focus lenses, double exposure etc.,). Nowadays, this can be achieved if not directly for the DSLR software itself, then through Photoshop or other similar software.
 |
| Some of the photos I post processed for the weekend. |
Anyway, I was reading through Jin Joson's post about this a few days ago. And well, she does make a point. Photography is now used for so many different things and have so many branches already and at times post processing is a must.
At the end of it all, I don't think post processing is a bad thing and if possible we should also come up with our own styles since it can be a new avenue to express ourselves better. Though here's my qualifier [and my pet peeve]: When so called "photographers" say "May photoshop naman" after taking and even before taking a shot. Post processing should never be an excuse to NOT learn the basics of photography.
IMO.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment