Pretty much.
[doublepost=1530216498][/doublepost]
You have a point, I should do the same.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Weekly Photo Challenge 25th June - 2nd July 2018 - Mirrors
- Thread starter Hughmac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty much.
[doublepost=1530216498][/doublepost]
You have a point, I should do the same.
Finally. A tripod that carries itself.
Isn't that a bipod?
As long as it's carrying itself, you can call it whatever you want.
This has been an interesting discussion. I'm having a problem with the whole idea of "fake.". Art is made in many different ways. Is there really a difference between adding, taking away, changing some aspect of what's there, making something that was never there, etc? Isn't that part of the very nature of the creative process? Isn't that what the word "creative" means?
Yes, well that is why I was originally trying to determine what @malofx meant by "fake" in his original post. If it's just extending the canvas and cloning in feet so that it looks realistic, I don't consider that fake at all, especially given that someone else was in charge of pushing the button, but if he had been in front of the camera, rather than the subject, it would have been "right" in camera. However, if he really just can't get it to look right post and it's a hack job of cloning, then I can see where the term "fake" might be appropriate in that it doesn't look realistic. In this context "fake" can mean very different things. I clone stuff in and out of photos all the time, if, for whatever reason I couldn't get my vision right in camera.
At any rate, here is my entry for the week. A real mirror, and a mirror-like surface, for two times the fun.
I completely agree. I think the only "fake" is when someone forges, tries to pass off someone else's work as their own, etc. I agree that there is nothing fake about malofx' image.... with or without feet. I wonder if it would be more appropriate for us to change the vocabulary in this discussion from "fake" to "not from the camera", "not original to the image", or some other such thing.
I still want to know where to get one of those self-carrying tripods.
Last edited:
So here it goes. I wanted to sit this one out because I didn’t have any mirror based shot. Not sure if this will get counted but these orbs are found on the way from the millennium bridge towards St. Paul’s cathedral.
It was a good few years ago when I went out with my mates but gave some editing spin this time around.
Not hoping to be able to compete but the numbers count for something.
Last edited:
I think this is the main reason why, I was having trouble cloning the feet, since the reflection isn't the same color and the proportions aren't identical, I was going to do one foot at a time and gave up.
I do have to agree with everyone's comments, because I have cloned stuff on certain photos, I have also taken stuff out, and I never considered those being fake.
Thank you for pointing those things out.
Personally I have no objections to 'corrections' to photos, as post processing is such a major part of the art anyway.
Cheers
Hugh
Cheers
Hugh
Guys we need to move this chat to the other threads because this is clouding @Hughmac 's judging duties..
[doublepost=1530347597][/doublepost]
Wow! amazing...
[doublepost=1530347597][/doublepost]
Wow! amazing...
Guys we need to move this chat to the other threads because this is clouding @Hughmac 's judging duties..
Surely you are not suggesting that someone of such unimpeachable character, intelligence, and integrity as Hugh would be swayed by such an informed discussion.
Oh great @mollyc, I had the same idea to take a picture like this and here you go and take one way better than the one I eventually captured when I finally had a chance to take some pictures this morning. Thanks a lot!
I thought there would be no use in posting my picture but that is not exactly the spirit is it.
P1040471 by Lance Randall, on FlickrMirror-like, but not really a mirror. A Woodlouse shell reflected on my partners blue glass office desktop.
Canon 6D, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, Spot Metering, Manual Mode
ISO 160, 90mm, f/32, 20 Seconds
Canon 6D, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, Spot Metering, Manual Mode
ISO 160, 90mm, f/32, 20 Seconds
_DSC7594
A mirror sculpture in Münster with a small built-in self portrait.
Sorry but the only photos I have that are vaguely mirror-related are of the Bean. I've posted this in POTD before but this is me reflected in the Bean on a rare occasion when no-one else was around (dawn in winter).
The Bean and I revisited 2 by another scotsman, on Flickr
as I am mirrorless at the moment, here's a placeholder.
If I find time tomorrow to shoot an idea I got, I will replaceholder.
Last edited:
Okay, in the spirit of these threads, I'm going to try and upload something to each one but have nothing of note for this one. Had to improvise around the house today but at least it is an entry of sorts...
Framed Bannister by Andy Whiteford, on Flickr
Framed Bannister by Andy Whiteford, on Flickr
Great discussion on the subject of "fake." If one were sketching a beautiful building and there was a big ugly cell-phone tower behind it, it would be within "artistic liberty" to omit the ugly tower for the sake of a more appealing result. You could also add to the drawing to make things "as they should be," like if you were a historian trying to propose restoring that building to original condition. I guess with photography it can be a little different, but I think you can still apply the same ideas in some circumstances. It's one thing to add something that doesn't belong, but in this case, the feet belong! Now if he gave himself hooves or something...