Do you prefer raw photos or "improved" versions ?

[Tadmirer]

Do you prefer raw photos or "improved" versions ?

Fraise wrote on another thread -

huh? you have to use photshop on all digi pics or they end up at res that won't even fit on your screen. Plus I always love it when ladies know hot to use PS as I personally love to see smooth touched up pics that look super sexy as opposed to raw pics which 9 out of 10 times show bad skin or acne or bad shadows. Who wants to see shaving bumps on peoples asses?

Thought this might be interesting conversation among all of us photo "collectors".

So, do you like "photoshop-ed" pictures ?

When you save pictures for yourself, do you keep them as you find them, or do you change size, alter color, sharpness, etc. ???

Do you take out the imperfections ?

What software do you use or recommend.....or hate ?

Disclaimer - Yes, we all know that most images are copyrighted, but I'm talking about what you keep for your own enjoyment - not a use which would generally violate copyright protections.

[chefmike]

Tadmirer-this is an informative topic,,,the only photo software I have now is FastStone Capture...one of several freeware programs they offer. I usually only use the enlarge, zoom, etc...but I was just playing with the sharpen feature and it was interesting...I'd be interested to see what stuff you guys use, etc.

[chefmike]

and while I'm at it, T-how come I can change my font to bold but can't get any color but black? is this feature not available to everyone? and how the hell do I use the quote feature? any help would be appreciated...

[Ecstatic]

and while I'm at it, T-how come I can change my font to bold but can't get any color but black? is this feature not available to everyone? and how the hell do I use the quote feature? any help would be appreciated...
Chefmike: see the button that says quote? Hit that, and the entire post is quoted for you. Edit to strip out bits you don't want. Highlight any bits you want to set in a different font or color and use the options above the posting box to apply the changes. Or type the code in yourself (you see the code in the text box, but not in the finished post). Simple, really.

Tadmirer, as a photographer and Photoshop user since v. 3.0, I agree that some photoediting is almost always necessary, and I think that Photoshop is the ultimate tool (though there are great plug-ins you can use to extend its feature set). A little background: RAW is actually a photo format supported by professional and "prosumer" cameras, which saves 12-bit data from the camera's CCD directly to the memory card; this is the highest quality format, lossless, and much richer format than JPEG. I don't think this is what you mean by "raw" but I figured I'd clarify that point. RAW images can't be viewed on the web, and are about twice the filesize of an equally large (pixel dimension) JPEG. So if you're taking RAW photos, they have to edited to be used.

More to the point, as Allanah has mentioned in another thread or two, you typicallywant to resize images to a viewable size (say, from 3000x2000 to 800x600 or 1024x768--not sure if I have my numbers right there), plus correct the color balance, levels, curves (not the model's curves, lol), and sharpen the image after making the adjustments. I would not consider any of this "photoshopping" (though if you use Photoshop, technically it is), because the goal is to optimize the photo quality, not alter the model's appearance.

Some further post-processing may be appropriate to eliminate or minimize problem areas; this can include adjusting skin tone, removing minor imperfections, and highlighting desired features. The border between judiously finishing a photo and overworking it is hard to define, but if the process is overdone, then you get really fake looking skin or lighting and the image quality (and model's appearance) imho is compromized. Where you draw that line is subjective.

[Ecstatic]

To answer your preference question, I prefer a natural look with minimal photo finishing, but correcting skin tone and lighting, sharpening after resizing, etc. I think are fine. Turning a girl into a porcelin statue with overly "smoothed" skin isn't.

[brickcitybrother]

I agree with Ecstatic mainly... I want to see your true colors shining through. lol

[Tadmirer]

Ecstatic - thank you for your well-articulated clarification re: RAW images.
I erred in using that term to refer to what would have been more accurately descibed as"un-improved" photos.

Part of my reasoning, in starting this thread, was to learn from those on this board who have more knowledge on the subject.
So, it's successful, already. :lol:

As an enthusiastic amateur digital photographer myself, I have been using JASC Paint Shop Pro, for years.
As this is only a hobby, my current camera is a typical HP 5.2 mp, that any fool can buy at Circuit City, and use to take reasonably good quality photographs.

Although PSP is definitely not on par with Photoshop, it can facilitate probably 80-90% of the actions.
Started with it, simply because of the relatively high cost of Photoshop, and grew into a comfortable rut with it.
Have been considering abandoning it and going to Photoshop, as my interests have now grown.

I was curious, too, because I often see photos (taken by far more skilled professionals) that could IMHO use some "adjustment".
Harsh lighting, completely un-natural skin tone and distractingly obnoxious backgrounds are probably the things that I mind most.

And many times I see photos posted, and the poster apologizes because
they are so small. Always wonder why they don't just enlarge them.

Of course, everyone's monitor size, quality and color display is different, but I like to see photos (and not just porno)
as large as I can fit on my 21.5 inch Samsung. Frequently, that means considerable enlargment, and adjustments, as you described.

As with my use of "raw", the term "photoshop-ed" has a different interpretation for a professional, rather than an amatuer like myself.

However, if I'm surfing a Grooby site, or newsgroups, or whatever, I do prefer to see photos that don't have an obvious "fake" appearance.
Fortunately the best sites are now displaying much larger, clearer images than even a year or so ago.

As you say, that point where the line is crossed is subject to personal preference. I myself don't care for the typical "Eros pic" look.

chefmike - Ecstatic probably answered your questions better than I could have. I would just point out that you might wish to read the info about
BB code,

http://www.hungangels.com/board/faq.php#21

especially if you are new to code, in general, or even if you are familiar with HTML, there are a few differences.

[Fraise]

You know even though I said that ,in the end when I'm cleaning myself up with the paper I keep beside my keyboard I don't really care. As long as the pics are fuckable through the screen I'm good to go. 8)

But yes if someone could takecare of those shaving bumps that would be nice :lol:

[Tadmirer]

You know even though I said that ,in the end when I'm cleaning myself up with the paper I keep beside my keyboard I don't really care. As long as the pics are fuckable through the screen I'm good to go. 8)

But yes if someone could takecare of those shaving bumps that would be nice :lol:

Damn, dude.................now I'm stuck with that image in my head. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have to immediately go back to my Sarah pics. :lol:

[Fraise]

You know even though I said that ,in the end when I'm cleaning myself up with the paper I keep beside my keyboard I don't really care. As long as the pics are fuckable through the screen I'm good to go. 8)

But yes if someone could takecare of those shaving bumps that would be nice :lol:

Damn, dude.................now I'm stuck with that image in my head. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have to immediately go back to my Sarah pics. :lol:

8) http://www.fixturesetc.com/images/products/Porcher_Reprise_toilet_paper_holder.jpg

[Ecstatic]

PSP is a fine program, Tadmirer, though Photoshop is the gold standard. I've been using Photoshop since v. 3.0, so I've constantly upgraded and gotten the upgrade price. If you have to buy the program outright, it's damned expensive; best to buy it as part of the CS suite and even better if you can swing an educational purchase.

As for enlarging photos, unfortunately that never works well because the program has to interpolate, adding non-existent data based on the data of surrounding areas. It's much better to reduce filesize than to enlarge a rastered (bit-mapped) digital image.

Any 5 megapixel camera is a good start. I waited for years to invest in digital because of the quality/cost factor; until just a few years ago, digital simply was far inferior to film. Then professional cameras (like the Nikon D) came out, which were arguably equal to film but cost $4000 and up. I could get a digital back for my large format (4x5) camera...for a mere $16,000. Last year Nikon introduced the D70, and I finally went for it: under a thou, full SLR with interchangable lenses, the kind of system I need. A little compromised compared to the D2, but at a fraction of the cost. (Of course, there are other fine prosumer cameras, but I'm already invested in Nikon so I wanted to leverage that investment.)

Glamour photography is "a whole nother" field, where photo retouching is expected and necessary, but it is easily overdone. The best photographers make you forget the artifice and just see the beauty, but it's not an area that I've much experience in. Nature and event photography is my mainstay.

[chefmike]

thanks!

[Tadmirer]

Well chefmike, I saw some bold there, but no color .

Just kidding !

[chefmike]

Well chefmike, I saw some bold there, but no color .

Just kidding ! How's this-Thanks!

[Tadmirer]

Jolly good.........I believe you've got it, sir.