Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
warwagon

A few local photographers who use too many filters.

82 posts in this topic

In school you're taught to think and act like others. Creativity has no part in that.

never went to art school huh?... it's definatly not teaching you to be ike others... they teach you the basics and make you go out on your own, then defend why you went that way... definatly not "you didn't do it like the masters you fail" idea.....

Well polarization filters and ND Filters are there to correct for inefficiencies or deficiensis in the actual technique of capturing with a camera, like reflections(Especially on water), and being able to use longer shutter times in bright days.

and yes, you can't remove certain polarized light in post. and of course you can't prevent the image from having to much light in post, though you can generally adjust exposure by +/- two steps, but this doesn't really solve the problem ND's do.

I think what people most think about here is gel filters and color filters, and these can be perfectly e recreated as actual filters in post, even better since you can adjust it to a much better degree. or at all :) I wouldn't really classify Polarization and ND filters as effects filters as such.

I mean, you wouldn't use Vaseline to get a soft filter now anymore :)

there is other uses for vaseline? :o hehe j/k :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos Added to first post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he's talking about LightRoom, NOT photoshop. one is an photo editor, the other a photo developer/manager.

acutally, I'm the one that brought up light room, and photoshop :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love how anyone with a DSLR things they are a photographer now lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love how anyone with a DSLR things they are a photographer now lol.

The one chick who takes photos for the first photography place, recently had her DSLR Nikon camera stolen out of her car. She then wanted to replace it as soon as possible to start taking pictures again, so she sends me a link asking me if "This was a good camera to buy" it was pretty much a point in shoot, non DSLR. I told her... uh... that isn't the same as what you had.

The second person I linked to, I chatted with about a year ago talking about photography. I asked her what camera she uses .....she had to go look ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never went to art school huh?... it's definatly not teaching you to be ike others... they teach you the basics and make you go out on your own, then defend why you went that way... definatly not "you didn't do it like the masters you fail" idea.....

there is other uses for vaseline? :o hehe j/k :laugh:

other than smearing on your neutral lens filters ?

:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos Added to first post

Well

- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)

- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.

- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.

if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.

Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.

The one chick who takes photos for the first photography place, recently had her DSLR Nikon camera stolen out of her car. She then wanted to replace it as soon as possible to start taking pictures again, so she sends me a link asking me if "This was a good camera to buy" it was pretty much a point in shoot, non DSLR. I told her... uh... that isn't the same as what you had.

The second person I linked to, I chatted with about a year ago talking about photography. I asked her what camera she uses .....she had to go look ....

Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.

Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well

- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)

- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.

- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.

if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.

Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.

Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.

Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.

The last 3 are from the 2nd photographer. The 1st 3 are from the 1st photographer.

Here are 2 more photos from photographer #2

2153_417590838308535_2135441803_n.jpg

581188_342262702508016_759204412_n.jpg

Here is one that I took

img98022.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your 2nd photographer is way to fond of ruining picture by making them look like they where taken in the 70's, the first one, isn't always terrible, but sucks at proper focus and positioning. and while the black and white with some color effect can be nice and cool, she's using it all wrong, firstly only one color should ever be present, and in general only one object, sometimes one object but with all the colors on that object.

the framing on that particular photo is also pretty damn bad.

your pic is good, but could have had better lighting on the girl, probably could have benefitted form one or two light reflector/shading plates. of course that could require helpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your pic is good, but could have had better lighting on the girl, probably could have benefitted form one or two light reflector/shading plates. of course that could require helpers.

I agree the original turned out way to dark.

Here is one I took for one of the local bar owners in town for his facebook page. Personally I LOVE how this one turned out

thebarf.jpg

I just talked to photographer #1 apparently her editing software of choice is Picmonkey.com. Yes she just applies filters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well

- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)

- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.

- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.

if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.

Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.

Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.

Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.

Hey I always shoot wide open :p It's not about shallow DOF, but about learning WHERE to focus, hence why that particular photo the feet are in focus, but I do agree with you however, too many people just shoot 1.8/1.4 just because...

Also the iphone olympic shooter, cheated, as he used LED flashes and lighting help, still pretty good technique and what not, but not truly "iphone only" photos.

And I think most of those 5 photos are way to processed to be lightroom, they seem instagramish if you ask me.

The last 3 are from the 2nd photographer. The 1st 3 are from the 1st photographer.

Here are 2 more photos from photographer #2

Here is one that I took

img98022.jpg

I remember her! Did you ever hook up? ( way off topic :p :p :p )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Na...turns out she was engaged. who knew? I not me! Now married. Still friends though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she was engaged?!!?!? whoa!! wait are you married or is she married?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was engaged now she's married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the original turned out way to dark.

Here is one I took for one of the local bar owners in town for his facebook page. Personally I LOVE how this one turned out

thebarf.jpg

I just talked to photographer #1 apparently her editing software of choice is Picmonkey.com. Yes she just applies filters.

Pretty good! BUTT that over exposed window in the back... then again i'm nitpicking so don't mind me :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Eyes!!!!!!!!!!

Ooook, so apparently this was not taken by photographer number #1 who I thought it was but a different photographer she knew, i'll call her photographer #3

428618_10200381853167160_326441807_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Eyes!!!!!!!!!!

Ooook, so apparently this was not taken by photographer number #1 who I thought it was but a different photographer she knew, i'll call her photographer #3

428618_10200381853167160_326441807_n.jpg

Instafilters I guess...

You know what my beef with these sorta photos/filters, is that there ARE people out there, who tag these sorta pics as "awesome, unbelieveable" and if you say otherwise "OMG YOU PRICK"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instafilters I guess...

You know what my beef with these sorta photos/filters, is that there ARE people out there, who tag these sorta pics as "awesome, unbelieveable" and if you say otherwise "OMG YOU PRICK"

ya that particular photo got great reviews! one was "Great pic of you guys!" ... I wanted to comment "Filters much"

Then photographer #1 posted a wedding photo

943071_467499813328113_136286894_n.jpg

All the comments were "LOVE IT" ... my comment wanted to be... LEAVE THE PHOTO ALONE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blurry hell, 0 details, you should comment and start a war... war wagon :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, those are god awful. More Photoshop Cowboy than Photographer I would say. Lots of people use filters now thinking they're artists but they're just ruining what is probably an already badly taken photo.

Photoshop is supposed to be for enhancing photos, not butchering them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uninstall Instagram and stop posting these pictures please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a0vmoem.png

Let me just adjust my lens here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are 3 that I took at a Halloween party last year, I actually took around 100, but these are a sample of 3. Look ma, No filters!!'8180709437_f2ce350377_c.jpg

8180724197_0785b5e6a9_c.jpg

8180783322_5950f29809_c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are 3 that I took at a Halloween party last year, I actually took around 100, but these are a sample of 3. Look ma, No filters!!'

how bout you quite posting photographs you took last year and post a few new ones :p :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.