Hi,
inspired by other thread I would like to explain few facts about digital photography. It's a fickle business, I admit that.
If I take a shot of one snake with 3 different cameras (not necessarily different brands) I will end up with 3 different looking images. Pocket cameras tend to exaggerate colour saturation, whilst pro cameras are bit harsh on contrast, etc..
Apart from that, look at these 4 images, taken without and with flash - huge difference!
and these two:
Trust me, none of these pics represent the true colours of the snakes.
That's not the end of it - if I then upload the pic into Photobacket, SmugMug or into APS attachments, the image will look different again, there will be a slight colour shift, loss of sharpness or loss of contrast or maybe the opposite.
One other thing to consider, is the monitor. I have my monitors regularly calibrated and if yours is even slightly out of whack, you will see different quality pic to what can see in front of me.
After converting RAW to JPEG or TIFF file, it takes sometimes a lot of fiddling in Photoshop; correcting white balance, contrast, saturation, colour temperature, etc., to get a true to live image. It's not faking, it's a necessary step in post-production, which every pro photographer does. It's then up to the photographer's integrity not to exaggerate any aspect of the process for whatever reason.
If I was selling the snake in the two top pictures (or the bottom ones), the first one would be more eye-pleasing and more impressive to use in an advertisement. However, the buyer would be disappointed upon receiving the real thing and it would fly into my face.
Gee it reminds me of something ....... "it comes down to trust" .... have I heard that before?
inspired by other thread I would like to explain few facts about digital photography. It's a fickle business, I admit that.
If I take a shot of one snake with 3 different cameras (not necessarily different brands) I will end up with 3 different looking images. Pocket cameras tend to exaggerate colour saturation, whilst pro cameras are bit harsh on contrast, etc..
Apart from that, look at these 4 images, taken without and with flash - huge difference!
and these two:
Trust me, none of these pics represent the true colours of the snakes.
That's not the end of it - if I then upload the pic into Photobacket, SmugMug or into APS attachments, the image will look different again, there will be a slight colour shift, loss of sharpness or loss of contrast or maybe the opposite.
One other thing to consider, is the monitor. I have my monitors regularly calibrated and if yours is even slightly out of whack, you will see different quality pic to what can see in front of me.
After converting RAW to JPEG or TIFF file, it takes sometimes a lot of fiddling in Photoshop; correcting white balance, contrast, saturation, colour temperature, etc., to get a true to live image. It's not faking, it's a necessary step in post-production, which every pro photographer does. It's then up to the photographer's integrity not to exaggerate any aspect of the process for whatever reason.
If I was selling the snake in the two top pictures (or the bottom ones), the first one would be more eye-pleasing and more impressive to use in an advertisement. However, the buyer would be disappointed upon receiving the real thing and it would fly into my face.
Gee it reminds me of something ....... "it comes down to trust" .... have I heard that before?