QE2 Leaving Liverpool

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wirral Tog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont see what all the fuss it about?

The OP has only altered the picture like the majority on this site
 
Perhaps not. It would be a sad day if it was.
Click to expand...

Jerry, are you saying you shoot and print and do nothing?

The 'LINE' moves with every person

Dave
 
That's my point.

Once you edit a photo, it's a manipulation.
Varying levels of manipulation are acceptable to different people, but it's all manipulation at the end of the day.
 
That's my point.

Once you edit a photo, it's a manipulation.
Varying levels of manipulation are acceptable to different people, but it's all manipulation at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

I cant agree more, but lets not forget HDR :thumbs:
 
Which is just another point on the manipulation scale :) Acceptable for some, unacceptable for others.
 
Cake anyone?:)
 
for what its worth....got to agree with this one


jerry12953 said:
Once you cross the line, it sort of stops being photography and becomes more like photoshop skills....:)
Click to expand...

OR ART

BUT i have no pp skills whatsoever:shrug:....i may change my opinions once i learn how to


from the wirral side of the mersey you would be hard pushed to find anywhere that would not have the high amount of lights behind the ship ! making it a very tricky shot under those conditions
 
Adding things that weren't there is nothing new.. Landscape artists have been adding additional subject matter for years. John Constable wasn't adverse to adding 3 grazing cows in the bottom left of his landscapes if it made them look better, and he wasn't alone in this practice.

Big mistake here is making it look artificial, no reflections.

And wasn't Adams who said " You don't take a photograph you make it. " And he spent a lot of time in the darkroom getting the result he wanted.

And I agree we need a "can o worms" smiley
 
I know of a wedding photographer that regularly takes photos of couples at night on their wedding so that he can add in a fireworks shot to their album ... even if they didn't have fireworks at their wedding ... :cuckoo:
 
WeddingHack said:
I know of a wedding photographer that regularly takes photos of couples at night on their wedding so that he can add in a fireworks shot to their album ... even if they didn't have fireworks at their wedding ... :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

I bet they love it. Cheesy as, but that's what some people like.
 
dcash29 said:
Jerry, are you saying you shoot and print and do nothing?

The 'LINE' moves with every person

Dave
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between what I do, and adding completely new elements to a scene, for example.

I just think it would be a real shame if there was an expectation that photographs were pick and mix combinations from several locations.
 
I think it would have been wise for the OP to say that he had manipulated the image. Seeing as I had chosen to go to see the fireworks in Southport rather than the QEII, I thought I'd chosen wrong :bonk: until Pete Carr had pointed out some errors. (I should have noticed the lack of reflections , doh! :shake: )

Unless you are a documentary or news photographer, I can see nothing wrong with the editing of pictures you see fit, as long as you are not passing them off as fact. ;)

What level of editing you do is up to you as an individual. 'imho'.

Whenever I meet a photographer (film) who hasn't embraced digital, they say 'it's all done in the computer', to which I reply 'with film, it's all done in the darkroom'. Of course neither comment is necessarily correct. ;)
 
Just think if this guy had photoshop, he could have put fireworks in there too.

'Frank Hurley had been famous for documenting Shackleton's doomed 1914 trip to Antarctica. His work helped people realise the power of photographs through his images of great events from the 20th century, but it was revealed that some of his stunning photos were elaborate concoctions and others were outright fakes. He was a conjurer with a camera. Dramatic skies were added in later, for example, and scenes were reenacted when he had missed them on film. The rescue shot is another example of his forgery - it was actually a shot of Capt. Morsley leaving them to go find help, not his return shot.'

Wayne
 
Welcome to TP wirral tog and dont be put off by the initial reaction to your post..there really are some very helpful and knowledgable members on here, yes and a fair few know it alls too....but stick around dont be disheartened.
 
Im taking my bike test on the 4th of november:D
just thought i would sling that into the mix, it wasnt in the original, , i added it later
 
petemc said:
There's a line. Don't start adding things that weren't there. People were removing freckles long before digital so theres nothing new there.
Click to expand...


so adding smooth skin isn't adding something :thinking:
 
He hasn't done anything wrong. He has added something to an event which by doing so, sort of voids the event as that didn't happen but as he has only added another firework to his frame, it compliments the Liverpool skyline.

If he was asked to cover an event and show the images from it he would be lying in his images and that could be brought to question.
As these images are of his own and are not for any commercial usage there really is no issue here.

Would be nice to of said there is an added manipulation though
 
He added 2 extra fireworks. There was only 1 barge firing, the one on the right are real. :)
 
Probably sticking true to your guns here huh? Because its on home soil :P
 
I was only correcting you as you said "added another firework". Just wanted to clear that up as it was 2 :)
 
petemc said:
I was only correcting you as you said "added another firework". Just wanted to clear that up as it was 2 :)
Click to expand...

pity that you couldnt be graceful enough to give the OP something constructive instead of heaping **** on his thread.
 
Well I've already PM'd him to apologise and to ask him to stick around but I guess he isn't so there doesn't appear to be any real point in doing so now.
 
He'll be back dunna worry. Its not like its anything more than critic no matter how far its taken.
 
I quite like this shot ... Even with extra firework(s) ... :shrug:

Cannot help thinking it may look even better without the QE2 and the fireworks though. The reflections in the water have a lot of appeal.
 
Well well well what a bun fight this turned out to be:boxer: :boxer:
Join a photography forum and get kicked around the ring first round :boxer: by a local lad :D well round 2 is coming up Pete and i got me gloves on:boxer::D

I did only want a bit of advice though and i guess the local lad didnt like me barging on his forum with my fake pics. Im just glad i didnt do any hdr on it :woot:

For those that want the facts it was 6 pics 3 of the fireworks, 2 of the waterfront and 1 of the ship yep even the ship was put in there. Apart from the fact that you cant see the QE2 much i do feel that it gave a good impression of how the night went and thats all i was trying to achieve.

Now Pete did pm me and apologise to his credit after he realised he clearly jumped all over me for faking a pic, so no hard feelings ay (most of us do a bit of PS these days Pete;)

Anyway Hello :wave:
 
petemc said:
Well I've already PM'd him to apologise and to ask him to stick around but I guess he isn't so there doesn't appear to be any real point in doing so now.
Click to expand...

Too little too late in my opinion. I've just noticed this thread and cannot believe how a new member has been treated. Regardless of what people think about how far digital manipulation should go there is no need for the rudeness and arrogant attitude shown to Wirral Tog who only asked for advice on how to improve his photographic skills.

I hope you're proud of yourself.
 
I look forward to seeing more from Wirral Tog. What he/ she has shown is an ability to generate ideas and try to execute them. We should commend him/ her for doing so. Well done on trying something new and welcome.
 
Just shows how easy it is for things to get out of control in Forums. There are no visual clues as to the posters attitude. A word typed is not the same as a word said. Sometimes these things get out of control when no real hurt is intended.

Just shows how important the visual world is
 
Hacker said:
Too little too late in my opinion. I've just noticed this thread and cannot believe how a new member has been treated. Regardless of what people think about how far digital manipulation should go there is no need for the rudeness and arrogant attitude shown to Wirral Tog who only asked for advice on how to improve his photographic skills.

I hope you're proud of yourself.
Click to expand...


I agree Colin.

I can see where your coming from Pete, but give the guy a break. There's no need to kick a man while he's down.
 
petemc said:
O rly? So if I put a flying Delorean into my photos everyone would be ok with that? If I put another QE2 in there that'd be ok? Can't have enough QE2's. Maybe some dolphins, a whale, the leaning tower of PizzaQUOTE]

Strange you mention that Pete

As it happens i just caught the QE2 arriving and low and behold there where the dolphins, cheerleaders and that lob sided tower you mentioned.

qe2fake.jpg


:D

Please dont shoot Pete folks he's just miffed because i almost got the shot :woot:

:thumbs: No hard feelings hey
Click to expand...
 
Pete,

I dont see how this is any different from your latest pic on flickr where you state....

I basically waited around for 3 hours to get this photo. I spent 30 mins at the cruise terminal warming up with a coffee and headed back to my spot. I waited for another hour doing various tests with my filter on and off to see how the light was working and then waited. 10pm, the QE2’s horn blows a signal that the display is about to start. *clack* My ND filter and holder fall off into the Mersey. “Noooooo!” Absolutely totally randomly and very fustratingly it fell off! I was using the ND to compensate for the dynamic range issue. The light on the ship and the light from the fireworks didn’t match up. Go for one and lose the other. So I had to go for the fireworks and wait till the end to squeeze in a static nicely exposed photo of the QE2 to later use for exposure blending. Typical really.
Click to expand...

:shrug:
 
Wirral Tog said:
petemc said:
O rly? So if I put a flying Delorean into my photos everyone would be ok with that? If I put another QE2 in there that'd be ok? Can't have enough QE2's. Maybe some dolphins, a whale, the leaning tower of PizzaQUOTE]

Strange you mention that Pete

As it happens i just caught the QE2 arriving and low and behold there where the dolphins, cheerleaders and that lob sided tower you mentioned.

qe2fake.jpg


:D

Please dont shoot Pete folks he's just miffed because i almost got the shot :woot:

:thumbs: No hard feelings hey
Click to expand...

Very good indeed!

jerry (Keeping head below parapet)
Click to expand...
 
Wirral Tog said:
I did only want a bit of advice though and i guess the local lad didnt like me barging on his forum with my fake pics. Im just glad i didnt do any hdr on it :woot:
Click to expand...

Oh god, no nothing like that. We've got a great number of local photographers here and I love that. I love seeing the local area by others. Almost every day I browse the recent shots on Flickr for Liverpool and I even admin the Liverpool Flickr group. Its nothing at all like that, simply what I felt was a step too far and I'm sure anyone who knows me would say that I'd argue the point about anyones work.

Now Pete did pm me and apologise to his credit after he realised he clearly jumped all over me for faking a pic, so no hard feelings ay (most of us do a bit of PS these days Pete;)
Click to expand...

No hard feelings dude :) Glad you came back to fight another day.

Hacker said:
Too little too late in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Really? You know when I sent it? :p

I hope you're proud of yourself.
Click to expand...

I have a framed a print out of this thread. Give over dude. Its the internet. Not like I stoned him.

Chillimonster said:
Pete,

I dont see how this is any different from your latest pic on flickr where you state....
Click to expand...

Wow I had no idea that posting my own QE2 firework photo where I admit to putting 2 photos together would come back to haunt me in this very thread :p There's a difference. If you were there on that night you would have seen exactly what I photographed. The only reason why I did what I did was simply because my ND fell off into the Mersey so I couldn't balance the exposure correctly. Literally a few seconds after the fireworks ended I took a slightly longer exposure to get a clear shot of the ship. Its not like I took fireworks from another photo and put them in just to make something up because I failed on the night. My photo is exactly what happened where as Wirral Tog's was what he wanted to happen.
 
petemc said:
My photo is exactly what happened
Click to expand...

Unless of course in the time between the photo of the fireworks and the photo of the QE2 one of the people on the deck of the QE2 moved....or one of the tugs shifted slightly...or the clouds changed by the smallest amount! Because if thats the case then all you've done is "make up what you wished happened"...and by your own standards thats "cheating"!

Unless of course when you blend two exposures it means your allowed to use two sets of standards:shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top