Post Reply ⌈POLL⌋ Is it better to use photographic filters or graphic softwares to alter aspects of a photo?
Executive Producer
57136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Not here, nowhere!
Offline
Posted 8/28/10 , edited 8/29/10
Don't know what they are? Click on these links to view information and pictures on each type of function.
Leave comments supporting your vote decision and discuss your choice with one another!
Posted 8/28/10
I chose Photographic filters becuz it would alter the photo my naturally then making it look fake
Photographer
5004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / . in your pants .
Offline
Posted 8/28/10 , edited 8/28/10

i say photographic filter. because once you take a picture with it, and when it alters. it looks more natural than when you're editing it with a program.

and. of course, its easier. who wouldnt like easy things? im faashoo down for it. (: aha.


Snapshot Signatures // ohhSHNNAAP // 2O1O. O8. 28.
Posted 8/29/10
LOL go photographic filters! XD
Executive Producer
57136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Not here, nowhere!
Offline
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/30/10
I disagree with both of you because of your reasons, not because of your votes.
1. A good graphic software is, if used correctly, professionally advanced enough to alter a photo in such a way that if an individual were to look at the photo, he/she would not be able to tell whether it looked fake or natural, altered or unaltered.
2. In my opinion, photographic filters aren't easier to use, in some cases. Using graphic software could switch between several filters quickly, but using photographic filters aren't a "drag-and-drop" kind of function.

The reason I support photographic filters is because I think the experience of using a photographic filter is better than using an artificial function to alter photos, such as graphic software. The thrill of being able to capture an explicitly drop-dead amazing photo using a photographic filter through experimenting is much better than toggling through the functions of a graphic software. In other words, photographic filters provide a thrilling challenge, which is what a graphic software lacks.

The reason I support graphic software is because it's convenient, compared to photographic filters, and can produce the same effects than that of photographic filters. Graphic software such as Photoshop provide its own set of artificial filters, which are designed to imitate actual photographic filters. Although it isn't as thrilling as the usage of photographic filters, it still is a very advanced way to post-alter photos.
Posted 8/29/10
uhh u make things so complicated! But I see where ur going
Photographer
5004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / . in your pants .
Offline
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/30/10

jackiely73 wrote:

I disagree with both of you because of your reasons, not because of your votes.
1. A good graphic software is, if used correctly, professionally advanced enough to alter a photo in such a way that if an individual were to look at the photo, he/she would not be able to tell whether it looked fake or natural, altered or unaltered.
2. In my opinion, photographic filters aren't easier to use, in some cases. Using graphic software could switch between several filters quickly, but using photographic filters aren't a "drag-and-drop" kind of function.

The reason I support photographic filters is because I think the experience of using a photographic filter is better than using an artificial function to alter photos, such as graphic software. The thrill of being able to capture an explicitly drop-dead amazing photo using a photographic filter through experimenting is much better than toggling through the functions of a graphic software. In other words, photographic filters provide a thrilling challenge, which is what a graphic software lacks.

The reason I support graphic software is because it's convenient, compared to photographic filters, and can produce the same effects than that of photographic filters. Graphic software such as Photoshop provide its own set of artificial filters, which are designed to imitate actual photographic filters. Although it isn't as thrilling as the usage of photographic filters, it still is a very advanced way to post-alter photos.




I can understand where your reasoning is heading to, but I do disagree with you. I don't support graphic software because it's 'convenient', or so you say.
Think of it this way; lets say that you're currently on vacation, with a convenient and small laptop. Yes, you could take pictures, and upload it. As easy as that, but once you want to actually alter the photo, you can't do so until you get back home. I don't find it 'convenient' since you'd have to successfully install the program, which will probably take about thirty minutes to an hour, or so. While the photographic filter is just there with you.

I also find it more expensive. Lets say you bought Photoshop, and you successfully installed it onto your computer. Then a virus or some kind of problem came along, and you'd have to clean it completely. Now, you have to re-install Photoshop, or whatever kind of graphic software you purchased once again. This can be a hassle, especially if you lost a disc, or maybe even the product key. There, you wasted a good fifty dollars.
But with photographic filters, you'd buy it, if you're interested in photography, correct? Because they can be worth quite a lot of money. So therefore you wouldn't lose it. It's not like a disc with a product key where you can easily misplace it. Even if you lose it, I'm sure you'd find it once again, but with your packet with the product key at the end, that can be easily thrown away without you knowing.

Apparently you don't find photographic filters 'easier' to use. But I think so. Why, you might ask. Because it doesn't take that much time or skills to do it. With graphic software's, you'd have to have the right skills to make it look real and natural. You have to get the right tint, the right hue, the contrast, and all those other things. I find it really confusing, and requires a lot of time and effort. I believe ones that major in some kind of graphic arts position can make it look natural while altering the photo. But ones who are new can't do so. They can alter it, I have to admit. But the way some alters it makes me believe or know for sure it's fake. Yes, practice makes perfect, but once they perfect that skill, whomever is taking a photo with photographic filters will already be done.

Yes, a photographic filter isn't all that 'convenient' since you have to change the lens. But neither is the graphic software. So either way, I find them both inconvenient, but in my opinion, I'd rather stick with the photographic filter.


Snapshot Signatures // ohhSHNNAAP // 2O1O. O8. 29.
Posted 8/30/10 , edited 8/30/10

ohhSHNNAAP wrote:


jackiely73 wrote:

I disagree with both of you because of your reasons, not because of your votes.
1. A good graphic software is, if used correctly, professionally advanced enough to alter a photo in such a way that if an individual were to look at the photo, he/she would not be able to tell whether it looked fake or natural, altered or unaltered.
2. In my opinion, photographic filters aren't easier to use, in some cases. Using graphic software could switch between several filters quickly, but using photographic filters aren't a "drag-and-drop" kind of function.

The reason I support photographic filters is because I think the experience of using a photographic filter is better than using an artificial function to alter photos, such as graphic software. The thrill of being able to capture an explicitly drop-dead amazing photo using a photographic filter through experimenting is much better than toggling through the functions of a graphic software. In other words, photographic filters provide a thrilling challenge, which is what a graphic software lacks.

The reason I support graphic software is because it's convenient, compared to photographic filters, and can produce the same effects than that of photographic filters. Graphic software such as Photoshop provide its own set of artificial filters, which are designed to imitate actual photographic filters. Although it isn't as thrilling as the usage of photographic filters, it still is a very advanced way to post-alter photos.




I can understand where your reasoning is heading to, but I do disagree with you. I don't support graphic software because it's 'convenient', or so you say.
Think of it this way; lets say that you're currently on vacation, with a convenient and small laptop. Yes, you could take pictures, and upload it. As easy as that, but once you want to actually alter the photo, you can't do so until you get back home. I don't find it 'convenient' since you'd have to successfully install the program, which will probably take about thirty minutes to an hour, or so. While the photographic filter is just there with you.

I also find it more expensive. Lets say you bought Photoshop, and you successfully installed it onto your computer. Then a virus or some kind of problem came along, and you'd have to clean it completely. Now, you have to re-install Photoshop, or whatever kind of graphic software you purchased once again. This can be a hassle, especially if you lost a disc, or maybe even the product key. There, you wasted a good fifty dollars.
But with photographic filters, you'd buy it, if you're interested in photography, correct? Because they can be worth quite a lot of money. So therefore you wouldn't lose it. It's not like a disc with a product key where you can easily misplace it. Even if you lose it, I'm sure you'd find it once again, but with your packet with the product key at the end, that can be easily thrown away without you knowing.

Apparently you don't find photographic filters 'easier' to use. But I think so. Why, you might ask. Because it doesn't take that much time or skills to do it. With graphic software's, you'd have to have the right skills to make it look real and natural. You have to get the right tint, the right hue, the contrast, and all those other things. I find it really confusing, and requires a lot of time and effort. I believe ones that major in some kind of graphic arts position can make it look natural while altering the photo. But ones who are new can't do so. They can alter it, I have to admit. But the way some alters it makes me believe or know for sure it's fake. Yes, practice makes perfect, but once they perfect that skill, whomever is taking a photo with photographic filters will already be done.

Yes, a photographic filter isn't all that 'convenient' since you have to change the lens. But neither is the graphic software. So either way, I find them both inconvenient, but in my opinion, I'd rather stick with the photographic filter.


Snapshot Signatures // ohhSHNNAAP // 2O1O. O8. 29.


Pshh! U know what I'm going with this one
Photographer
5004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / . in your pants .
Offline
Posted 8/30/10



what? you're going with which one? ahaa, yeeh. im confused. XD


Snapshot Signatures // ohhSHNNAAP // 2O1O. O8. 3O.

Posted 8/30/10 , edited 8/30/10

ohhSHNNAAP wrote:




what? you're going with which one? ahaa, yeeh. im confused. XD


Snapshot Signatures // ohhSHNNAAP // 2O1O. O8. 3O.



I'm going with yours. Its easier to understand... Well for me it is

15767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 9/19/10
I do both..simple as that =P
You must be logged in to post.