As I said in my submission comments, I had to do a lot of "resurrecting" on the original version of my Best of 2005 image in order for it to fulfill my original vision for it.
original
submitted
wow, id love to know how you did that all
hours of work?
to me, its jsut mindblowing
As I said in my submission comments, I had to do a lot of "resurrecting" on the original version of my Best of 2005 image in order for it to fulfill my original vision for it.
As I said in my submission comments, I had to do a lot of "resurrecting" on the original version of my Best of 2005 image in order for it to fulfill my original vision for it.
I often try to post the unedited (resized) original in the photographer info so people can refer to it after the voting is over. Here's a recent one which took significant rescuing (still within the Basic Editing rules) from horrible shooting conditions:
Bear in mind that I shoot in RAW, and I have my in-camera parameters set to absolute minimum on everything; contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. So the "unprocessed" RAW image is actually a LOT flatter and duller than "reality". That said, here's an original of a ribbon-winner from a while ago:
The actual submission is a 3-exposure HDRI from shots bracketed around the above. Processing notes in the photographer's comments field.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, here's before-and-after on my most recent ribboner:
Here is an array of mine, the editing steps are included in the processed. Mind you, I took these as snapshots before I joined this site and learned how to take better photos (still learning).
Not much pp done really other than crop and converted to b&w, but it made such a difference from what was a poorly composed photo
to what (I think) is a pretty decent image
I had some people think this edit was HDR, but it's not. Steps are included in the submitted version's notes.
Original
Submitted
Edit: I missed that this thread was for ribbon winners to post originals. Please forgive me! Maybe I'll dig up the original for my lonely ribbon and post it later.
I had some people think this edit was HDR, but it's not. Steps are included in the submitted version's notes.
While it's not technically HDR, Topaz is a tone mapping tool, and what *most* people mean when they say something looks "like HDR" is that it has been tone mapped to an exaggerated degree. Which is exactly the case here. Lovely work though :-)
I had some people think this edit was HDR, but it's not. Steps are included in the submitted version's notes.
While it's not technically HDR, Topaz is a tone mapping tool, and what *most* people mean when they say something looks "like HDR" is that it has been tone mapped to an exaggerated degree. Which is exactly the case here. Lovely work though :-)
I had some people think this edit was HDR, but it's not. Steps are included in the submitted version's notes.
It looks great but it does not look real. And to me a photography is supposed to reflect reality unless I was asked to to do graphical art for a fairytale. DPC is a photography challenge site and I always try to keep that in mind when voting. I do of course not care how much photogs use Topaz or HDR capabilities as long as it is used in such a way that the image looks more real than what it might have done out of the camera
Our eyes captures a much bigger dynamic range than many of today's camera sensors and hence often does not do the 'real thing' justice. HDR and Lucis Art/Topaz are therefore IMO great tools and often capable of making a photo look more like what you saw in real life.
But this is all preference of course and just my own :)
A few comments seemed to indicate that some people thought I rotated this shot. This bird was actually flying from one tree to another, gathering twigs and bringing them over to its nest. This shot was taken right before he landed. I just cropped it, added quite a bit of vibrance & did a lot of work sharpening up the edges after I darkened all black areas (a little cloning on the wings).
It looks great but it does not look real. And to me a photography is supposed to reflect reality unless I was asked to to do graphical art for a fairytale.
I disagree with this. I'd say that realistic photography is but one thing you can do with the media. For me i have no interest at all with reflecting reality with many of my images rather that creating what i see in my head and what i want to portray in the shot. Different strokes etc.
From the Things That No Longer Work challenge. Photos belong to Deen.
Before ----------------------> After
CRAZY amount of post-processing on this (IMO and I stated as such for in-challenge commenting on this). I'm shocked that this came in 4th for the challenge. Kudo's to Deen, but still...
I wonder what TrollMan thinks of this? From earlier in this thread:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
It looks great but it does not look real. And to me a photography is supposed to reflect reality unless I was asked to to do graphical art for a fairytale. DPC is a photography challenge site and I always try to keep that in mind when voting. I do of course not care how much photogs use Topaz or HDR capabilities as long as it is used in such a way that the image looks more real than what it might have done out of the camera ...
