Luminar 4

[Jagerbomb52]

I was getting bored yesterday waiting for the snow storm that never made it up from the USA to Ontario where I live so I took a old photo and the ship from the picture above and placed it into the old photo using both Luminar 4 and Photoshop 2020. The auto selection tool in Photoshop is pretty good. Getting the finer details can be tricky but it can be done. The ship magically appeared 200 miles north in a few hours LOL

 

[HiloHawaiian]

Looks great! I can’t tell at all...

 

[DanielC]

Affinity Photo $50
i don’t use it a lot, so this is just for awareness. It’s supposed to be a photoshop killer. But I don’t know if it has the powerful AI that Photoshop does.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Affinity Photo $50
i don’t use it a lot, so this is just for awareness. It’s supposed to be a photoshop killer. But I don’t know if it has the powerful AI that Photoshop does.

Yes it does a lot of things but the biggest thing it does not do is replace the sky. This is a big advantage that Luminar 4 has over any editor right now. The Ai intelligence of this software is what makes it so good.

 

[HiloHawaiian]

Affinity Photo $50
i don’t use it a lot, so this is just for awareness. It’s supposed to be a photoshop killer. But I don’t know if it has the powerful AI that Photoshop does.

Yea, what Ag said......and, I’ve used it, I personally don’t think it kills PS. It’s a cheaper, very capable substitute for sure, and maybe easier to learn if you’re not married to PS — but overall less capable than PS IMO....

 

[DanielC]

Good to know. I usually use it to convert Photoshop files that I receive for video production projects from clients. It saves me having to pay Adobe monthly for the privilege.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

OK so I have several photos now on Social media groups that are not really as shot. Using different programs to make them better and one being Luminar 4 I am starting to feel guilty when I get comments like wow what a great shot. Do you guys inform your audience that they are not as shot?

 

[Tufargon]

I seriously doubt the very good photographers tell their secrets about their photos. It sure wouldn't bother me. I might just say they were edited is about it.

 

[DanielC]

OK so I have several photos now on Social media groups that are not really as shot. Using different programs to make them better and one being Luminar 4 I am starting to feel guilty when I get comments like wow what a great shot. Do you guys inform your audience that they are not as shot?

Your skill set is not limited to the capture of the image. The processing and grading of an image is all part of the skillset. There should be no guilt involved. You produced an enjoyable image using all of your skills. That is commendable and marketable and praisworthy.

 

[HiloHawaiian]

This is a really difficult question to answer in 2019. Most dedicated professionals would cry foul. Trust me, I've known/met/worked with many professional photographers/videographers on a variety of projects for decades. I don't have an answer for you, because I just don't know anymore. It's all art, right? Do you declare your image as artwork rather that a photograph ( which theoretically is supposed to represent a true frozen moment in time)?

One guy, Pat C., took great pictures of satellites in a completely dark clean room, painted them with strobes, and assembled them in PS later. He was a master at it. The finished picture was a mosaic of 20+ images, adding people, items as needed. I would light the entire scene meticulously, stage people, spending hours on-site, while Pat spent hours staring at a screen. Which one is a real photograph? Mine, I guess. What is Pat's? Our customers didn't care, they were for marketing/PR purposes.....

When does photography stop being photography? - 1854 Photography

What is photography? Over the past few years contemporary photographers have incorporated sculpture, performance, moving image, analogue processes and digital technologies into their practice, stoking a sometimes-heated debate about where exactly the medium begins and ends. But for Catherine...

www.bjp-online.com

Photo Manipulation Throughout History: A Timeline

The history of doctoring photographs dates back to the 1860s, only a few decades after Niepce created the first photograph in 1814, photographs were already being manipulated. The nearly iconic por…

ethicsinediting.wordpress.com

 

[Jagerbomb52]

 

[Jagerbomb52]

 

[HiloHawaiian]

View attachment 5803

Very nice! From many yrs experience, you can kinda pick-out what is realistically possible in a naturally occurring scene, compared to an assembled scene with S/W. You can detect unrealistic, mis-directed/mis-matched-color lighting. The thing is, if the end result is pleasing art-wise, how much does a label matter?

I draw the line at photojournalism. That’s gotta be reflective of a frozen moment in time to tell it’s story, or it can venture into a visual lie. These folks take their craft very, very seriously — it’s downright dangerous at times...

The BIG question 30 yrs ago when PS 1st came on the market — how much manipulation is allowed before it’s not a “photograph“ anymore? I guess that’s the kicker. I went to a NPPA (National Press Photographers Assoc.) meeting in the early 90’s where it was topic #1. They came-up with strict guidelines that keep changing. This is a good example:

Danish Debate Leads to Disqualification

nppa.org

 

[Jagerbomb52]

I think a lot of the older photographers that still use film are the ones who have a problem with software. I have seen it many times on forums where they say learn to do it right with your camera settings and there is no need for software. LOL

 

[HiloHawaiian]

I think a lot of the older photographers that still use film are the ones who have a problem with software. I have seen it many times on forums where they say learn to do it right with your camera settings and there is no need for software. LOL

LOL, but that’s unrealistic too, the manipulated scenes never occur naturally. I don’t have an answer for you. I understand both sides very well.

I don’t think it’s an age thing, it‘s a philosophical/ethical debate about what does the word photography mean in 2020? I don’t know... The other argument:

”The decision to corrupt images to achieve a result not captured in camera creates a body of work without either integrity or truth that is too easily revealed if put under even the slightest interrogation. The resulting work in this case is closer to a form of ‘magpie’ collage than a photographic language unique to the photographer.”

What is the role of the 21st century post-digital photographer?

“Within the limits of his medium, without resorting to any method of control that is not photographic (i.e., of an optical or chemical…

witness.worldpressphoto.org

BTW, Film isn’t used much anymore. It’s so damn expensive. The cost of film/chemicals/processing/silver recovery are enormous. Restrictions on silver recovery in processing in most countries make the total cost $5-10/shot. The only folks I know who still use film are rich advanced hobbyists that shoot 4x5, trying to channel their inner Ansel Adams. I could never get past the whole upside down/backwards/dark viewfinder under a cape thing...

 

[Jagerbomb52]

LOL well on that note the birds are not real but the sun is

 

[Jagerbomb52]

 

[HiloHawaiian]

That's great, really dramatic, including the right light direction/shadows, not easy. I'd consider making the moon about 1/2 that size or less. Why? I'd take long tele to get the moon that big, the but the bridge was obviously taken with a much shorter lens. The hardest part is making it look real. I suffer from the same problem....it's just not that easy!

Here‘s a straight post-sunset shot from last night. A photo merge, but the color is pretty close. I upped the contrast, b/c it’s set so low on the D5500.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Good thing I have a suit case full of moons LOL

 

[Jagerbomb52]

OK I think I need to get something else done around the house tonight before I add anything more