How pics can look when doctored.

[MikeWinLDS]

Both! :LOLOL

[Speed6 Guy]

I didn`t ask why this thread was placed in the C&B forum, I asked where it came from. You *do* realize that a personal attack against another member is against forum rules, right? So, I ask, is this an attack against another member??

This is by no means a personal attack. I just wanted to see what other people think about this issue. If you look at the thread of Scottwax then you will see that I said good job. This is not going to turn into a flamefest and if it does feel free to close it and delete it.

I have some great unretouched pics of my old car where it looks great! Can`t see any of the hail dents, bird crap pits, etc. That`s why I put no stock in pictures (unless they are halogen/swirl pics).



I don`t need to look at Scott`s C&B`s or ponder whether the images are "doctored" to know that the cars he does look good...all I have to do is look at his repeat customer list.

This is just what I am saying I put no stock in pictures on the internet and just wanted to see who else feels the same.

just jealous he cant do as well at ScottWax. Scotts stuff is true baddazz stuff.

Please:chill:





I love to detail my cars but would not call myself a pro. So if you are new to detailing don`t look at this forum or any other forum for that matter and think you can make a car look as good as some of these pictures.



And I am sorry to all of you out there who detail that have to use picture altering to make your work look better then it realy is.

[coupe]

Dunno why everyone is gettin uptight, he didnt accuse anyone of anything.



I know the members who doctor their pictures, most of the time its painfully obvious. Alot of our highly regarded members threads i dont bother to even look in becuase i know i will see a bunch of doctored pictures.



I also know the ones who do not.

[imported_DieselMDX]

care to enlighten my via PM of who does it?

[imported_bigfoot]

Speed 6guy: I completely understand your point to prove how funny pics might look if retouched in any way possible. But, you also need to understand that it looked like too much casualty the fact that Scottwax got flamed by some idiot thinking that he PS his pics, when the reality is that Scott is a master on what he does, and has a very long list of return customers.



Not trying to flame you, Bro, just making sure to clarify and show to everybody the 2 sides of the coin...



Joey

[Todd@RUPES]

Dunno why everyone is gettin uptight, he didnt accuse anyone of anything.



I know the members who doctor their pictures, most of the time its painfully obvious. Alot of our highly regarded members threads i dont bother to even look in becuase i know i will see a bunch of doctored pictures.



I also know the ones who do not.

Impossible for you to KNOW who does what unless you are present when the photos are taken, uploaded, and posted. Not a personal attack, but there is a huge flaw in your theory. Pictures, directly out of the camera, are not true representations of how the scene looks anyways. Different cameras capture the same image differently. Further more, the same camera on different settings capture the same image differently.



Personally, I don`t think anything is wrong with enhancing the photos after the fact. Why? Because different cameras capture more or less, so how do you know how it looks in person. A Nikkon D80 is going to take better photos then a Kodak, and since there is neither is the same, it is safe to assume that neither is "real".



So I assume you don`t look at any photos, since a photo (untouched or not) isn`t a true represenation?

[Speed6 Guy]

Impossible for you to KNOW who does what unless you are present when the photos are taken, uploaded, and posted. Not a personal attack, but there is a huge flaw in your theory. Pictures, directly out of the camera, are not true representations of how the scene looks anyways. Different cameras capture the same image differently. Further more, the same camera on different settings capture the same image differently.



Personally, I don`t think anything is wrong with enhancing the photos after the fact. Why? Because different cameras capture more or less, so how do you know how it looks in person. A Nikkon D80 is going to take better photos then a Kodak, and since there is neither is the same, it is safe to assume that neither is "real".



So I assume you don`t look at any photos, since a photo (untouched or not) isn`t a true represenation?

I understand what you are saying. But that being your opinion and this thread about picture altering being my opinion.



I just like to see as accurate a representation of the subject as possible. If I wanted misdirection I would pick up a copy of the Weekly World News.





But like said above there are some people who post that I just have stopped looking at there materiel. If I scroll down on a thread and see a doctored pic I just say well this is crap and move on to the next thread.



I am not going to name names of whom I think do this.



I like to come to this site and see the cars that other people have the privilege to work on. I will still come and look and still see some people misrepresent there work.

[Setec Astronomy]

I don`t get the point--as I indicated, I have some great unretouched pics of my old car, taken with a low-res camera...the car looks great even though it had 200 hail dents, tons of bird crap/acid rain damage, etc., none of which was detectable in the picture. The point being anyone can take a picture of a shiny car.



Unless Scottwax and TH0001 and Picus and plenty of others are just really nice guys and they talk their way into a lot of rich people`s driveways and garages to take pictures, these are guys who have a clientele of new and repeat customers who clearly have enough money and time to find people who do excellent work, not to mention the exotics and classics which likely would only be touched by trusted detailers, and that a lot of their work comes from referrals.



You are deluding yourself if you think that detailers of that caliber are doing a crappy job and pulling the the wool over our eyes with Photoshop. Again, I don`t get the point--am I a super-detailer because somewhere in my gallery is an unretouched picture of a crappy car that looks good, and a super-detailer sucks because they might have postprocessed a picture? Are you saying that anyone who adjusted a color balance on a photo is a hack detailer?

[SpoiledMan]

With the power of Photoshop CS29 (LOL) I was able to turn this....







...into this...







Can you do that with Photoshop Speed6?

[BlueZero]

When I was in school for photography we took a field trip to a state park. Our assignment was to take a photo of the sunrise. All those people, same sun, same day and not one photo looked the same. It`s fun to see photos of the cars but as mentioned that`s all it should be used for, fun. With that said, I still enjoy looking at the photos. Just don`t put too much stock in them. I base the skill level of the detailer on more what they type than the photos they post. Just my 2 cents on the subject. After all, we are all here for the love of detailing and clean cars.

[Todd@RUPES]

I understand what you are saying. But that being your opinion and this thread about picture altering being my opinion.



I just like to see as accurate a representation of the subject as possible. If I wanted misdirection I would pick up a copy of the Weekly World News.





But like said above there are some people who post that I just have stopped looking at there materiel. If I scroll down on a thread and see a doctored pic I just say well this is crap and move on to the next thread.



I am not going to name names of whom I think do this.



I like to come to this site and see the cars that other people have the privilege to work on. I will still come and look and still see some people misrepresent there work.

I understand your point, but I say that even an "unaltered" photo from a camera is not an accurate representation of what is taken. Should I not use "vivid", adjust my f stop, mess with my white balance, ect.... These are all adjustments on a camera that can be made to alter the image the computer sees through the lense. As stated above, give 20 guys the same camera and the same scenery, and you get 20 different pictures. Which one is accurate?

[Setec Astronomy]

I love to detail my cars but would not call myself a pro. So if you are new to detailing don`t look at this forum or any other forum for that matter and think you can make a car look as good as some of these pictures.

So this is really all about ego, jealousy, and sour grapes?

[Speed6 Guy]

With the power of Photoshop CS29 (LOL) I was able to turn this....







...into this...







Can you do that with Photoshop Speed6?

Yes I can. Not saying that I can reproduce the results of the paint work done in the picture (great job Spoiled Man) but I can take a clear and accurate picture of my work.

I understand your point, but I say that even an "unaltered" photo from a camera is not an accurate representation of what is taken. Should I not use "vivid", adjust my f stop, mess with my white balance, ect.... These are all adjustments on a camera that can be made to alter the image the computer sees through the lense. As stated above, give 20 guys the same camera and the same scenery, and you get 20 different pictures. Which one is accurate?

As for the accuracy part it is a bit vague on what is accurate and to whom it is accurate. I would call accurate a picture that if held up to the place and time taken, you would have no difference in color or contrast. As though you are not holding a mirror in your hand and looking at the subject behind you or just an empty frame and you can see the subject in side of the frame.

[JasonD]

How about we all get back to what really matters, detailing cars. Time to move on guys.