Interesting article if you ignore the title.

I would love to see the video of the creation of all of those before and afters. Just to see if they were done within minutes of each other or at completely different times of day and to see the immediate out of the camera or whether there was massive amount of editing done or lighting used.

After all with 3 speedlights you can make a dull day in the city look like the golden hour

This seems to be the thing that some photographers do to try to differentiate themselves from ams. they do a before and after however what they don't reveal is whether they have done the before at mid day with nasty overhead light and the after at the golden hour with night soft low sunlight and then layers lots of post processing. This effectively makes the after totally unachievable for people reading / viewing.

Its like saying i was baking a cake on an open fire in the middle of the back woods and i came out rubbish and then someone saying look at mine that they did in a £1,000,000 kitchen with all the gadgets. The conditions are completely different and you would have to have had eons of experience to make the result in the first conditions come out anywhere near the same.
 
Last edited:
jamesev said:
I would love to see the video of the creation of all of those before and afters. Just to see if they were done within minutes of each other or at completely different times of day and to see the immediate out of the camera or whether there was massive amount of editing done or lighting used.

After all with 3 speedlights you can make a dull day in the city look like the golden hour

This seems to be the thing that some photographers do to try to differentiate themselves from ams. they do a before and after however what they don't reveal is whether they have done the before at mid day with nasty overhead light and the after at the golden hour with night soft low sunlight and then layers lots of post processing. This effectively makes the after totally unachievable for people reading / viewing.

Its like saying i was baking a cake on an open fire in the middle of the back woods and i came out rubbish and then someone saying look at mine that they did in a £1,000,000 kitchen with all the gadgets. The conditions are completely different and you would have to have had eons of experience to make the result in the first conditions come out anywhere near the same.
Click to expand...

He say's he doesn't use lighting at all, so all natural light.

As for before / after post - he has a post here:
http://www.boredpanda.com/i-used-ph...ne-photo-you-wont-believe-its-the-same-photo/
 
There are many parts that make a great photo. Light, composition, camera craft, subject and pp. They all work in conjunction with each other to make great photo, get one wrong and you end up with a photo that is good not great. Things you can't put right in pp are subject and to a degree composition and light (other than moving some sliders around and cropping, straightening). So the article is maybe a little misleading, in that there is no mention of pp or time of day etc. But still shows the importance of subject, light and composition.
 
The point of the article is about seeing a different picture in the same situation because he learnt about photography.
My mum doesn't see a picture separated from the foreground and background when she decides to take a picture, because she doesn't understand how it is done.
My mum sees a bird on a fence with an ugly brick wall behind the subject.
I would see a nice even background colour and not the ugly distracting details that would present themselves if the DoF reached across the back to front of the image, because I know how to separate the subject and can see the focus area separate from other details.
 
jamesev said:
I would love to see the video of the creation of all of those before and afters. Just to see if they were done within minutes of each other or at completely different times of day and to see the immediate out of the camera or whether there was massive amount of editing done or lighting used.

After all with 3 speedlights you can make a dull day in the city look like the golden hour

This seems to be the thing that some photographers do to try to differentiate themselves from ams. they do a before and after however what they don't reveal is whether they have done the before at mid day with nasty overhead light and the after at the golden hour with night soft low sunlight and then layers lots of post processing. This effectively makes the after totally unachievable for people reading / viewing.

Its like saying i was baking a cake on an open fire in the middle of the back woods and i came out rubbish and then someone saying look at mine that they did in a £1,000,000 kitchen with all the gadgets. The conditions are completely different and you would have to have had eons of experience to make the result in the first conditions come out anywhere near the same.
Click to expand...
You can see the light position in several of them suggests they were taken within minutes of each other.
Not that I believe a lot of the kit descriptions he uses but there's not millions of £ worth visible in any of the shots either.
So as far as kit goes again, using what's appropriate rather than buying the best and expecting better results.
 
Furtim said:
As for before / after post - he has a post here:
http://www.boredpanda.com/i-used-ph...ne-photo-you-wont-believe-its-the-same-photo/
Click to expand...

Right, so there we have it. The photographer himself states "I’m not ashamed to admit that I use Photoshop, it’s a very powerful and helpful tool and it makes it possible for me to create the visions I have for my art." - and people are getting scolded for saying the processing plays a significant factor?

The processing has a lot to do with it. Nobody is wrong for saying so, the photographer himself pretty much says so.

It's like he took the crappiest photos he could to make a point, then just took them properly and boosted them a lot in PS.
 
The issue I have with it is that he is not giving a 'like for like' comparison.
By comparing unedited 'bad' with edited 'good', he's maximising the difference (to help drive people to his site and tutorials).

It might be interesting to see a version with 4 images - IE adding an edited bad, and an unedited good - which would clearly show how the 'improvement' was a combination of both better visualisation / execution of the shot, and post processing to realise that visualisation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top