- This topic is empty.
Lofoten
-
Spent 2 weeks up in the north of Norway on the Lofoten islands. Weather was amazing and we were there a the meadows were in ful lbloom. they were cut just as we were leaving. This is a shot across one of these meadows, looking out to sea. I was wondering if it would be worth whiel spending some time (a lot of time :D ) in Photoshop cleaning up the lamp post and wires or do they not detract from the image too much.
Nikon D80, 18-135 f3.5, 1/200 f/13, ISO 200, AP
I was there last November, and it was a totally different landscape then, I would love to go
again in the summertime, it looks beautiful. I would do a little bit of post processing on it,
the horizon needs a little bit of straightening and would get rid of the posts in the middle of
the field., dont you hate lamp posts???you shouldnt be doing stupid crap like with photographs – removing lamp posts and wires and like the likes with photoshop. they are part of the landscape and its up to you as a creative person to compose the shot in such a way that things like wires and stuff dont detract from your photos.
in this case the photo is fine. the lamp posts dont detract from the shot – they are there for a reason and if you took them out youd be only decieving people.
as shutterbug said, straighten up the horizon and yer bang on.
Hi Rob – i’m of the opposite opinion – and think that sometimes, cloning out distractions is an essential part of the post-process technique.
Sometimes no matter how careful you are – a ‘distraction’ may appear. eg – sports.
I do agree it is better to frame it correctly initially…..if possible….but a pleasing addition may be anothers distraction.
Anyway – as a quick 2 minute excercise using CS5’s new “Content aware” brush – i took out the poles , fixed the horizon, and did a 3×2 crop based on the ‘rule of thirds” – so the horizon is on the top third horizontal.
ciao
brenBren,
Thanks for the repost.
Rob, you could start a long and sometimes heated discussion here about post processing etc. I sit in between. I try to get the best shot in the field but am not adverse to a bit of PP. Most people think that post probessing was invented with digital protography but that is incorrect. Dodge and burn came from post processing in film, where you had your little lollipop sticks and stopped parts getting more light than the rest and even in extreme circumstances removing ‘anomolies’ from the image. With digital photography it is so much easier and you can do so much more. Just because it is easier donen’t make it wrong.Probably not the place for this discussion. Thanks for all the comments
Michael
again – it is just decieving people. its basically a lie. which i dont agree with. the image you just conjured up is your vision of what youd want the place to look like – but it doesnt look like that. it is never essential too do that, and if people are going to that kind of drastic post processing to an image id certainly hope theyd be kind enough to put up the 2 versions. the real and fake one.
Michael, im not trying to arse up your thread here. sorry if it seems that way, i just have a strong opinion on that type of PP, and when it was mentioned i had to throw my 2 cents in.
i know all too well about dodging and burning in the dark room – im no stranger to it.
anyway….id prefer the first. tis more honest.
enough said.
Rob, while I too am not in favour with lots of cloning etc, there are ways of expressing your opinion a bit better ;) , enough said.
Michael. The image looks a bit soft, could do with sharpening. Perhaps its more how its appearing in my browser.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
