Real or Rendered?

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
You guys are quick with the EXIF. But the second picture is TEH RENDERED. (Well, sort of. It was a color correction to what I actually saw from what the camera adjusted to because of user error (I completely forgot I was in auto mode)

Edit: OH CRAP, no it's not, I linked the wrong picture, hahaha. Okay, that one's real.

Color correction != Rendered

Generally, most of the hue, saturation, and value adjustments that can be made in PS can also be done in the darkroom, and those, along with unsharp masking and various other techniques, are not considered "rendered" or unethical (by most people - a few photogs think that anything digital is "untruthful," which is BS, not my opinion, but a fact). For that matter, basic work with the clone tool might even be "acceptable" to some traditionalists, because retouching oils have existed long before PS.

Also, digitally modify!= render; 99% of what's done in Photoshop, even the creative filter stuff, is not rendering - that would be making models in a 3D modelling program.

 

[jst0ney]

both real

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
You guys are quick with the EXIF. But the second picture is TEH RENDERED. (Well, sort of. It was a color correction to what I actually saw from what the camera adjusted to because of user error (I completely forgot I was in auto mode)

Edit: OH CRAP, no it's not, I linked the wrong picture, hahaha. Okay, that one's real.

Color correction != Rendered

Generally, most of the hue, saturation, and value adjustments that can be made in PS can also be done in the darkroom, and those, along with unsharp masking and various other techniques, are not considered "rendered" or unethical (by most people - a few photogs think that anything digital is "untruthful," which is BS, not my opinion, but a fact). For that matter, basic work with the clone tool might even be "acceptable" to some traditionalists, because retouching oils have existed long before PS.

Also, digitally modify!= render; 99% of what's done in Photoshop, even the creative filter stuff, is not rendering - that would be making models in a 3D modelling program.

True. That photo is 100% real, anyway. I was definitely stretching the definition of "render", but we all know that ATOT can easily spot the difference between CG and real life, but real life and photoshop are much more difficult sometimes. Now, perhaps if I'd called it "Real or Photoshop", but that just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
True. That photo is 100% real, anyway. I was definitely stretching the definition of "render", but we all know that ATOT can easily spot the difference between CG and real life, but real life and photoshop are much more difficult sometimes. Now, perhaps if I'd called it "Real or Photoshop", but that just doesn't have the same ring to it.

You still would need to define what kind of PS you're talking about. The "problem" is that creative decisions are made in taking the photo from an original image on a negative, transparency, or raw digital file, to paper. Heck, in the film world, I can drastically change the color saturation, dynamic range, contrast, and sharpness of an image based on what kind of film I choose. I just think that people get too worked up over this kind of Photoshop, despite the fact that folks have been doing this stuff in the darkroom for years (though not as easily, quickly, or accurately).