Experts??????

[clud17]

I had a photo published in Digital Photo magazine this month, it was in the "your pictures section" which they give you a critique and where you can improve your shot, following that they set to with improving it in photoshop and give the readers tips on where to improve it PP.

technically the photo was flawed as id used as the camera had chosen 1/60 and i was using a 55-200 lens so there was a bit of shake. I acept the critique.

I was then realy suprised at the job that they had done with photoshop and turned my natural looking Robin shot into an over saturated and miss coloured bird which to me it didnt look like a robin after their experts pp.

sorry i dont have the PP'd shot, but if you get this magazine have a look and tell me what you think, id be interested. Anyway heres my original which is straight off the camera with a slight crop.

 

[david1701]

any chance of a scan of the page as I didn't follow you too well

 

[danbroad]

The problem with art and photography in general is that it's both emotive and deeply personal. One person's idea of a great shot is another person's nightmare.. In keeping with the thread I've just started, our expectations of our end results are all widely varied.

Personally, I think that your robin is a great shot. I like the shake and the blur; I think it imparts a little life into the frame. If I had any thoughts [and remember, someone's advice doesn't count for anything, don't take it to heart] then the viewpoint could have been a little lower - but then, you have to take the shot where you can get it. I really like how the wings' movements have generated a ghostly transparency. Had your shot been tack sharp and perfectly still, for me it might be have been good for one look, but not for repeated viewing.

I don't subscribe to the monthlies, but if I'm in a newsagent then I'll have a look at the PP'd version. If you're proud of it, then it's a keeper, simple as that!

 

[clud17]

scanner not workin so ive taken a quick shot, this is the PP version, i think they are unatural colours for the Robin and you loose the slight translucent effect:shrug:

 

[clud17]

i agree Dan, i havn't taken it to heart as i think my picture although flawed is very pleasing and one of my favourite. I have shown a few friends and they agree that my un processed version is better.

 

[danbroad]

Yep, I agree. They've taken an imperfect but interesting shot and made it more average by trying to conform. I'm entirely with you on this. Your original works for me, this doesn't.

Wasn't photography pushed forward by those who didn't conform? Capa, Man Ray, Bresson? Don't pay the magazine any attention, and work towards your own goals; seems you're doing just fine without their help!

 

[clud17]

Cheers mate, i guess after all i was quite suprised that they couldnt see what i can see and was curious they printed their changes. Im hearing the "should have gone to specsavers" tune.

 

[HoppyUK]

I shouldn't worry too much about what a bunch of magazine guys say about your photos. Their comments have no more validity than anybody elses, and no less I guess, but their main purpose in life is to sell magazines.

I think it's a charming shot, but TBH I'm not sure that you can take much credit for any great skill. It looks very much like a lucky capture of a friendly robin, and because of the flash, it has frozen the wings with a bit of ghosting from the ambient exposure. It's not camera shake as such.

Who decided to use flash? Was it you or the camera? But take the credit where you can Not trying to dis you bud, but don't take it too seriously.

 

[bindex]

Just another reason why you're better with a decent forum like TP. I gave up to magazines quite some years ago, they just seem to repeat themselves endlessly and after a while you find that they've little to offer.

You're shot may well be flawed, but it is quite a pleasant shot. Any opinion of a particular photo is open to interpretation, but I don't think they improved it at all.

 

[clud17]

I was sat taking shots with the robin a distance away, didnt realy have time to adjust the settings when he came closer so i popped the wheel to auto, thats why the camera flash tripped on Hoppy, and i agree it is very much a lucky capture rather than skill. A great example of rightn place right time

 

[HoppyUK]

I was sat taking shots with the robin a distance away, didnt realy have time to adjust the settings when he came closer so i popped the wheel to auto, thats why the camera flash tripped on Hoppy, and i agree it is very much a lucky capture rather than skill. A great example of rightn place right time

You were there, right place, right time, right camera, and pressed the button. Credit to you.

If you look at most of the great photos, especially the photo-journalistic news shots that can even change the world, most of them fall into the same category

 

[munchycarrot]

Are these ''pro's'' taking pics or just critiquing them? "those who can't" & all that....

I agree with the above posts, great shot & as far as i can see, they have done the pic no favours, but i guess if they can pull it apart more by badly editing & showing it, then it sells their mag. Take comfort in the fact that they had to do this to critique it in this manner
I used to subscribe to 2 or 3 mags but as already mentioned... they repeat so much to pad things out. By doing this to your pic, gives them an extra page

If you look at most of the great photos, especially the photo-journalistic news shots that can even change the world, most of them fall into the same category

Look at Capa's work for a good example of this. He was a self-promoted egotistical man, but was in the Cartier-Bresson dubbed "right place, right time" scenario. I was lucky enough to recently interview Simon Norfolk, in relation to War/Aftermath photography...his views on the greats i.e Capa, were that he was self-made & got lucky in most instances. Although his last shoot wasn't so....

 

[HoppyUK]

Are these ''pro's'' taking pics or just critiquing them? "those who can't" & all that....

I agree with the above posts, great shot & as far as i can see, they have done the pic no favours, but i guess if they can pull it apart more by badly editing & showing it, then it sells their mag. Take comfort in the fact that they had to do this to critique it in this manner
I used to subscribe to 2 or 3 mags but as already mentioned... they repeat so much to pad things out. By doing this to your pic, gives them an extra page

Look at Capa's work for a good example of this. He was a self-promoted egotistical man, but was in the Cartier-Bresson dubbed "right place, right time" scenario. I was lucky enough to recently interview Simon Norfolk, in relation to War/Aftermath photography...his views on the greats i.e Capa, were that he was self-made & got lucky in most instances. Although his last shoot wasn't so....

Just to defend the magazine in this, Digital Photo, which I know very well, they certainly don't go out of their way to dis people. They provide an alernative point of view, food for thought, suggestions etc. Often they are right, or at least most people would agree with them, but not always and often there is no right or better way, just different.

And the magazine is called Digital Photo, which tends to take the view that a bit of post processing, or even a lot, can improve almost everything

 

[Sparkles33]

I prefer your unedited shot, it's more natural and prettier and I love the colours

the other one looks like it belongs in a story book

 

[clud17]

Just to defend the magazine in this, Digital Photo, which I know very well, they certainly don't go out of their way to dis people. They provide an alernative point of view, food for thought, suggestions etc. Often they are right, or at least most people would agree with them, but not always and often there is no right or better way, just different.

And the magazine is called Digital Photo, which tends to take the view that a bit of post processing, or even a lot, can improve almost everything

Thanks for all the comments and interest. Im not suggesting that they have dissed me and i actually like the magazine as i think it has helped me in many ways to learn about photography. Im just glad that other people agree with me about their edit.

 

[Diverkeith]

I prefer the unprocessed shot .... much better without the PP

 

[Lensflare]

The magaziner had a point to prove - they trade on processing stuff don't forget - most of their features are on how to fiddle with things to make them better....!

I like the more muted colours, there is enough colour contrast between the orange and blue (always a good colour contrast) to not need the saturation increasing. They have also increased the contrast - which has over sharpened it. Look at the browns in the bird's back to see this.

Like the less vivid version and the softness is actually a part of the subject, let alone theimage. Robins are a soft creature, so a little does no harm.

Don't ake everything you see in magazines as gospel (I know, I work for them for my living) they have pages to fill,a nd more often than not on very limited budgets. This is what results when production costs are cut - there isn't enough time or staff to do the job right. So they rely on overworked hacks who just push out any old tatt to fill the pages they are required to fill. Those magazines with a higher editorial budget have much better features, because there is time and staff to do it well.