Nikon User Thread

Virum... I'm completely at a loss on your criticism of Brandon's images. Can you point out what it is about the filters that you're seeing as cheezy? What are you seeing? I thought those pics looked good... and I'm not seeing an excess of processing.

Honestly... I'm not loading a question here... I really want to understand your criticism. At this point I feel it's like seeing a pic in the contest and saying, "don't light your shots like that... it's cheesy"... but I'm not understanding why? You really need to explain your point further when you throw out a general statement like that.

I'm open-minded... more info please.

Also... nobody knows that guy from the other forum... and I don't get that either... I don't think the point was that fire can't sometimes suck... or a hammer can't sometimes suck... The guy on that other forum didn't get the point... the point was that you could say "fire sucks" and it's such a general statement that it leaves people scratching their head... for something so useful... i.e. photoshop processing... to merely cast it aside with a general statement such as "photoshop filters are cheesy"... is like saying fire sucks. Bacon sounds like a one-dimensional thinker... Ming wasn't saying "fire's great"... he was saying that general, sweeping comments beg for clarification.
 
Last edited:
Virum,
I'm not offended. Sorry you took my post the wrong way. I just wasn't sure what you were critiquing. Not enough info for me, that's all. -peace-
 
Virum said:
Well, I'm coming from personal experience (when I was a kid I used to think filters were awesome and cool too); my own thoughts when I see an obviously filtered image, and other people's reactions to filtered photographs posted on other artistic communities.

Here's and example of a reaction from what an art forum where I posted what you two said in an effort to get a link or something to point you guys to:


This guy is a working, professional artist; he's gone to school, he's got the credentials, and that's his response to your comments...

(I might want to mention that the forum is brutal with the crits it gives out; that wasn't the response I was quite hoping for, but there you go.)

I don't mean to offend, honestly. Filters have there place occasionally, but 99.9% of the time they shouldn't be used. If you want something to look like water color, get a painter to paint you a water color, use the photo as reference if you have to. Filters are generic, they're cheap, and they give a standard effect that anybody can get because they can push a button. That's not art.

Take a photo, color correct it, do your own paintover, but don't rely on a computer algorithm to make an image look like something that it's not. I hope you see where I am coming from. :)

Works Cited​

Bacon, Angel of. "Photoshop Filters?" PAAC. 1 May 2007. 1 May 2007 <http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=1555500&postcount=136>.
Click to expand...


As someone who teaches photography at the community college here in town, in addition to someone who makes a decent part of his living off of shooting events (I don't say that to establish an ego or say my opinion is right and yours is wrong) what you are doing is stating an opinion as a matter of fact.

Art, regardless of whether it is captured with brush, pen, camera, or rectum is in the eye of the beholder as well as the artist. Whether using a filter is the most original method of achieving the end result is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I bring to the table the case of Bert Monroy, a painter who works exclusively in Photoshop. This image:
Damen.jpg

This is my latest and most ambitious digital painting of a Chicago scene unveiled at Photoshop World in Miami on March 22, 2006.
It is a panorama of the Damen Station on the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority.
Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline.
The rest was created in Photoshop.
• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that it is not art?

He sells them so aren't they art?

Another issue here at hand is snobbery. You can see if every single day here on this site when someone posts a film that was shot with another camera and the reception based off the tool. Last night I was speaking with a friend about tools and I will admit that I have gotten jobs simply because of my kit. I think in video, photography, painting, or cloning we should look at the end result and judge that as it's own work rather than looking at the process to achieve that image.

Another example: How many people bash a film submitted to a DVX Fest for having Magic Bullet applied? I've been here for a lot of fests and read THOUSANDS of comments about Magic Bullet. Do you think the average person watching a film at home says: Hey, they used a filter package to achieve that look? Nope.

Same thing here.

I would worry less about the work flow and focus more on the end result, but that is my opinion though.

I also believe that 'every' digital image needs post processing.
 
MattinSTL said:
Virum... I'm completely at a loss on your criticism of Brandon's images. Can you point out what it is about the filters that you're seeing as cheezy? What are you seeing? I thought those pics looked good... and I'm not seeing an excess of processing.

Honestly... I'm not loading a question here... I really want to understand your criticism. At this point I feel it's like seeing a pic in the contest and saying, "don't light your shots like that... it's cheesy"... but I'm not understanding why? You really need to explain your point further when you throw out a general statement like that.

I'm open-minded... more info please.
Click to expand...
Not images. Image, and it appears he took down the image I was originally referring to, so that's not really helping the context of my posts. I have nothing against post processing in photoshop, I do it all the time, it's the same thing as the stuff you do in a film lab.

Adjusting channels, messing with curves, painting out unwanted stuff, and such is completely different than hitting the cut out filter, or whatever.

Jeremy, as for the huge image, can you point out specifically which filters were used?

There's a big difference between using filters like that, and using a filter to make something look like a painting or a vector piece.

That's all I'm saying, and I'm surprised you all disagree with me and think I'm being a snob. That's okay though.

When I see a very successful professional photography gallery that has an image where he took a photo, when to "Filters" and then selected an effect and hit apply and that's all, I'll concede I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you got bamboozled because the original image was taken down... this clears it up enough for me I guess.

I still think it could be a matter of opinion though... I've seen some stuff that I think is the product of "paint daubs" and "find edges" and it has a really cool look that appears to be genuinely painted... and to say that if you want something to look like a painting... then paint it... well that hinges on opinion... I'm not a good painter, but sometimes I like a photo to have an illustrated quality...

Either way, you probably got sucked into this conversation because whatever pic you were criticising is gone now. Looking at what was posted I was really confused by your comments.

For the record... there was an artist local to me that had these really cool looking flower "paintings" on canvas... but on closer inspection I thought the "painting" looked way too perfect... within a couple minutes I came to the conclusion that they were photos processed in photoshop... then he paid one of the online services that will print a giant pic on canvas... then popped 'em in a really nice frame.

I'm willing to bet that many, if not most patrons to the gallery never even put it together... and his "paintings" were starting at $600.

I guess all I'm saying is that I see processing on a case by case basis... and I guess you do too... but bringing the opinion of some other guy... who didn't understand the analogy to fire and hammers... seemed to further the appearance that you were dealing in absolutes... which is what set everybody off in the first place.
 
Ah there was a pic with filters and it's gone now? I thought he was referring to the pic of Brandon and his girl (#34 lol j/k Brandon there's only 12 or so) which to me just looked like your typical adjusted shot (curves/levels, hue/sat, USm, etc.) I probably would have agreed, as I think PS filters can be cheesy. They can also be quite useful though, depending entirely on the application. I use them for web development and print ad stuff all the time to get a quick look.
It's all relative.

Mattin illustrated the meaning of my point well, re fire and hammers. The metaphor was tools and their applications.
 
Wave of Light said:
1178062749.jpg


This thing, lives in my back yard, and it scares the hell out of me.
Click to expand...


AHHH KILL IT KILL IT!!!

And not to be crude or anything, he looks like hes takin a ****.

My piece on the whole filter thing....Art is art, whether you use a pre made filter in PS or you take your time painting a picture in PS, art comes from that persons view, and if it is best represented using a picture with a filter, so be it. No 2 people are the same and no 2 people have the exact same artistic view.

Oh and who cares about what other people say about art and how it should be done, if its art to you, and it makes you happy, F everyone else.
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I guess all I'm saying is that I see processing on a case by case basis... and I guess you do too... but bringing the opinion of some other guy... who didn't understand the analogy to fire and hammers... seemed to further the appearance that you were dealing in absolutes... which is what set everybody off in the first place.
Click to expand...
Right.

I merely posted what he said as an illustration of the kind of reactions I've witnessed to filtered images, not necesarrily that it is an absolute.

I do see where you are coming from too, but I still stand by my opinion, but I am a bit of an ass at times.

Steve_Arm said:
So, Virum is fined with submitting 3 flower images to the contest. :D
Click to expand...
Don't count on it... :P
 
Ya know, the only reason I removed the photo is because I wanted to avoid such a big deal made out of this opinion of not using PS filters... anyhow, here's the image... the filter I did use is like watercolor or something... I don't usually use those things, but I thought it made it look pretty nice :) Anyhow, here ya go...

n500600447_56021_9330.jpg


I like it... others may not... fair enough :)
 
I like it, too. I think it works better on tightly framed shots like that. A wider shot wouldn't work for me as well.
 
i think it looks good too...

but i think what Virum was trying to say was that some people just abuse and overuse filters and then call it art. A lot of people do think that the moment you add a filter, their picture suddenly becomes art. They don't really think about composition or lighting or all the other aspects that creates a truly magnificent photograph. To them, filters replace all that. So I think that Virum's comment was not pointed directly at Brandon's picture but more towards filters themselves and how the majority uses them.
 
Me too Steve. I got a hammer.

I like the pic, if it was wider, it would be too busy...the image wouldnt stand out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top