Of course we can disagree David, it would be a boring picy that everyone liked. But for me the most work should be done in the camera. We couldn't get such a cliche manipulated look such as this in camera but if Richard paid a visit to this church when the lighting was right he would have done far better than this monstrosity:-)
These effects are mostly just the click of a button that a two year old could do.
Thanks for the comment. I normally don`t put my sig in my photographs. I only do it if posting it on my own website. Since this is posted on my own website, the sig is in it. I have the original size photo, but that`s to big to post here. (I was a bit too lazy to resize it....) EQ
Britt
30-Apr-2006 14:21
I love the mood that this one has and I agree that without it, it might just be another shot of a pretty church. This is gorgeous. If you need your sig on the photo, make it almost transparent or watermark it - just my suggestion.
Open your eyes to a different world Rod, beyond the confines of just the what the lens sees. Yeah, there's post processing on this - and so what? I think it turns what might have otherwise been a mundane shot into something moody and atmospheric.
I guess you and I will never agree about PP though. Each to their own.
We do agree on the sig though. They ruin otherwise excellent photographs.
David.
Rod
29-Apr-2006 03:44
All I can see here is post processing Richard & the silly sig of course. I bet there's a good shot under all this make up.
