Pulitzer Prize Winner's Photos are PostProcessed

Started Apr 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Regular MemberPosts: 201
Re: Sometimes it does. See my post above. And this link
In reply to riknash, Apr 18, 2012

Oh yes, it was on purpose! My point was to show that the term "post processing" is so vague as to be nearly useless.

I think there needs to be two terms: one that covers simple contrast/exposure/dodge/burn applied generally to the whole image or major sections.

Another term entirely for...."distortion" changes that do crazy things like alter the size of people's eyes and shrink their limbs.

riknash wrote:

Your example is much too much complex with what appears to be an army of skilled artists redefining the model's image. Perhaps the exaggeration was intentional.. The OP was insinuating that the Pulitzer Prize winner's photo was less respected because there was some PP to his photo. Would the photo have had more credibility because they managed to pull off a nifty HDR effect with an extremely expensive lens that could be easily done with PS in PP?

nitts999 wrote:

How do you define PP? Your argument of contrast is weak, this is "real" post processing:

riknash wrote:

Does post processing render a photo less respected than one which produced the same result using front of sensor processing such as a filter or a lens which delivers incredible contrast?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow