3 ms·
Realistic (read candid/unplanned) photographs are best. I would hate to see Wiki portraits replaced with the front covers of Time and Vogue.
by glitchc 2y ago
Realistic (read candid/unplanned) photographs are best. I would hate to see Wiki portraits replaced with the front covers of Time and Vogue.
- the__alchemist 2y agoConcur. Photographers are universally unwilling to not use heavy post-processing.
- southernplaces7 2y agoVery serious hobby photographer here. Not all of us follow this tedious tendency. Of course it depends on the photographic niche but even in mine, which is a mix of social, street and fine art/abstract photography, I avoid as much as possible anything except a bit of cropping and minor contrast adjustments with the most basic digital tools. Specifically, I detest massive post processing of photos, since it seems dishonest and a cheap way to cover for a lack of willingness to learn composing better shots. And don't even get me started on the utter dreck of so-called photographers using AI tools like Adobe's Firefly crap (good tools, but crap in the context of this specific rant) to "seamlessly and realistically" move or erase objects in photos. If you're going that far with manipulating your photos, why bother taking them in the first place?
- everdrive 2y agoAgreed, this move seems like wasted effort at best.
- lxgr 2y agoDefinitely not as a general rule. Many of the Wikipedia photos in question are celebrities mid-sentence, speaking at some fan convention, taken from a bad angle and digitally zoomed in. There's a middle ground between that and a professional set card.