It was expedient in my view. Planning ahead.
I agree. Though it would have included many reasons. How we were viewed abroad, etc.What I was meaning is they didn’t think ahead to a time where it would be easy to see the deception, and also a time where there is nothing wrong with a lowly ranked person being more important than higher ranking people. The blatant class arrogance that was normal and accepted, that subservience was a norm, and the upper classes were their betters.
We view that very differently now, and probably back then Scott himself would have been more proud of his achievements, as a mere lieutenant. But the upper crusts were not going to let that achievement or example be set by the lower class. So they made him one of them. To make it their class that set the standard. Another upper crust win...
I would say at the capture. You’re processing that image file until the final ‘print’. Image management maybe.
I think it’s an old movie term, but that’s a guess. Or was that post production, I don’t know.
I have no problem with post processing if it serves to correct the imbalance of the photo against the true view, as seen by the photographer.
The aim should be to present the view exactly as it was, otherwise the photo is not true reproduction of the subject?
They become more or less an impression, or expression. Not real.
Personally, I like to see photo that shows the subject exactly as it was. That is the point, to remind one of it, or show others a true likeness?
I get art and clever imagery modifications and the skills, technology and interest in doing that, but nothing is more useful in time, than a perfect likeness of that split second.
I’m guessing that’s your fly-tying as well. Little art-works in themselves.
I’ll go into WH Smiths and have a look over Christmas. Nice one.I haven't got my copy yet, but there should be some of my work in the new January issue of 'Trout & Salmon' mag. It will be the, "What's in Your Box?" feature. If it's Keith Logan's flies, then it's me what done it.
The thing is, that if everything after the press of the shutter button is post-processing then 'point and shoot' and 'straight-out-of-camera' aficionados are post-processing as well. The difference between them and me is that they entrust the post-processing to the camera, while I take charge of it myself. If they get the camera to deliver a JPEG, the camera has to apply all the same sorts of rendering to the RAW data to be able to produce a JPEG for display or printing. So, you need to know or guess what to tell it to use in teh way of white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc before you press the button, and then hope you got it right. That's the huge advantage of RAW processing - you don't need to guess things like white balance and contrast because you are going to get a look at what you captured and pick your settings after the fact.
Yep - I agree. I basically take the RAW file and then try to recreate what I saw with my eyes. Of course, I can't remember exactly how it looked by the time I am processing the file, but I know roughly... and I know the camera wouldn't do a better job if I tried to dial it all in, in advance. I maybe do a bit of 'enhancing' of colours, tones, shadows and highlights... to add a bit of drama to a sky... sort of thing... but then, hey-ho... that's what it's all about.
So, where would you stand with my having removed the red crane in the first image?
And what about black and white photography these days??? In the days of film, the film itself was monochrome, so there was no question about whether you were accurately reproducing what the eye saw. Nowadays, every image starts out as 24 million colours and if you want a black and white rendering of it, you have to throw away the colour data. So, if you do that are you changing the view so it is not exactly what was seen?
Does that make the Mona Lisa a fake tooTaking the crane out has made that photo a forgery
...,I cant un-see the original, unfortunately..Just pretend I took it on a day with identical light, before they put the crane there.
...,I cant un-see the original, unfortunately..
You don't think that the crane makes it more interesting and unique?
What anout a calender of classic views, each with some random but real once in a lifetime oddity in it?
Might sell better than "not stonehenge again"....