Are these real?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 7 years ago
  • Answered
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Answered

correct me if I'm wrong for me it looks unreal, so it should be in another category.

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Photo of Sean Mark Lovie Bansag

Sean Mark Lovie Bansag

  • 57 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
Yes, it does look unrealistic, and don't belive (even if the photographer is saying that they are real), that those images are without manipulations or PS procesing ... anybody who had try to take photos of sunset knows that ... This is processed image, and obviously from more than one photo) :) If it is not (I doubt), I would like to take class from him, to show me, how to do it ... even if it takes six days or more ...

But, for the rules in Pixoto, looks plausible (can't take a photo like that in one peace, but could be nature like that), and that counts, even if they are made "by computer" ... no exif data gives you the info, that the images were manipulated ...

The RAW or original image(s) will give you the clue ;)
Photo of Jamie Keith

Jamie Keith

  • 90 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
The first one is real but looks like it has had some photo shop work with the sun rays and light saturation.

The 2nd one has 3D feel to this i can probably pull this off but if it is real then i am very impressed.

However looking at the 2nd one this might have been real photo converted into making the light more vivid with some post photo-shop work or after effects.

Both very nice photos/images though.
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
The first one is also not real ... it is processed and manipulated ... you cannot take photo like that in nature ... if you can, show me how!

Give me guidance.
Photo of Jamie Keith

Jamie Keith

  • 90 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Your right, but what i am trying to say the photo is real but just been edited in photo shop to enhance the colors and adding the light rays.

Also looking not all photos will have EXIF info when they crop their image afterwords.
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
Yes, I agree with that theory ... that's why I said it is plausible (for me the real photo is that image was taken in the nature with camera and minimal manipulations on PC), but, image like that can not be taken in nature ... background is much manipulated (not just sun rays) ... depth of field is unrealistic (to hard cut out) ... light is unrealistic because of the "sunset", etc (the sky shows a longer exposure time (and probability the different ISO settings / noise), as required exposure time for the sharpness of poppy fields and light ... I also think, that the poppy flower in the foreground is added later (too much sharpness on the edges) ... so, yes the field probably exist, everything else is manipulated ... and they are not his images ... I can prove that too :)
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
The most funny thing is, that this is probably not his image at all!

This image is all over the internet (in all wallpapers backgrounds) and on Devianart is under this author: http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethi...

Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
And the most funny thing, he is gone in a second after I posted this out ... makes you wonder, doesn't it :)
Photo of Jamie Keith

Jamie Keith

  • 90 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Looks like he deleted his account to. Yes these look exactly like the one he posted to.
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
Jp ... :) and also the proof, that image was digital manipulated too ... the author is from Devianart :)
Photo of Charlie

Charlie

  • 636 Posts
  • 52 Reply Likes
The real funny thing Urosh is why people from pixoto doesn't even notice that they were also cheated by their members. if you asked me i don't want to sell/buy stocks that were stolen.

They should really be professional or they must hired a professional to look out the leaderboard.
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
Well Charlie, I said it before, and I will say it again ... (got some enemies here on Pixoto, because of that, but truth hurts) ...

For that, you have to know something about photography! "Mistakes" that are made all the time by Pixoto team members say it all ... they don't have a clue what photography is, what to look, what to do! You can see how people changed when they become their team members ... All they are interesting in, is making money, doesn't look like they will change anything (I don't find no great profesional names from photographers on Pixoto, but I can find them on ViewBug, on National Geographic, etc ... and some great photographers left the Pixoto ... BTW, they didn't fix the script either ... you can still download any image without problems, without watermark, and in higher resolution that was posted ...so makes you wonder, what the hell are they doing at all! :)

No fishy her, isn't it! :D
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
Hi Urosh, we have a solution for script and it should be implemented this week.
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
We will see :P
Photo of Urosh Grabner

Urosh Grabner

  • 811 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
nop, still can download it ... it's just a litle more tricky
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
Hello Sean, just to let you know that the user has been deleted for copyright infringement.
Photo of Sean Mark Lovie Bansag

Sean Mark Lovie Bansag

  • 57 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you Jasenka
Photo of Cornelis Cornelissen

Cornelis Cornelissen

  • 86 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
This has been talked about in this forum before; I don't know why folks get so suspicious about something that isn't very hard to achieve. You can google this techique and find lots of how-to lessons. Here's one of them:
http://seeinginmacro.com/macro-photog...
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
The pics that Cornelis has brought up where previously in Abstract - Waterdrops. Do they still go there or do they now go in Nature Up Close
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
HI Mark, waterdrops on natural object or plant parts can now be in Nature up close category. The photos Cornelis has brought up are all in Nature up close category.
Hope this helps.
Photo of Charlie

Charlie

  • 636 Posts
  • 52 Reply Likes
Why you did not allow this before? and what happen now to abstract waterdrops?
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
Hi Charlie, before we have different subcategories (there was not waterdrop subcategory in Nature up close). Abstract can still have waterdrops (on unnatural objects) and waterdrop splashes also belong in Abstract.
Please check Category description page http://blog.pixoto.com/category-descr...
Hope this helps.
Photo of Charlie

Charlie

  • 636 Posts
  • 52 Reply Likes
but the water drops that were submitted in nature upclose http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... were not natural they were just like waterdrops in abstract http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... i hpe you understand what i mean.
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
Hi Charlie, waterdrops on natural object or plant parts should go to Nature up close category.
Photo of Cornelis Cornelissen

Cornelis Cornelissen

  • 86 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thanks for your answer Lenore. That is what I want to hear, MACRO. So the belong in Abstract Macro not in Nature Close.
I think the team of pixoto doesn ́t know how to categorize?
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Macro doesn't have to be in Abstract though ... if I take a macro shot of a bug, it will go into the Animals - Insects category. There has been much confusion about these waterdrop shots and I honestly don't know what Pixoto's official ruling is regarding their proper category :-)
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
Lenore thank you for helping Cornelis, you are right about macro photographs.
Waterdrops on natural object or plant parts can now be in Nature up close category, as per Category descriptions http://blog.pixoto.com/category-descr... , while waterdrops on unnatural objects and waterdrop splashes go in Abstract category.

Hope this helps.
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Thanks Jasenka, that definitely helps :-)
Photo of Cornelis Cornelissen

Cornelis Cornelissen

  • 86 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
So the conclusion of this all is: I may send in photo ́s into Nature Close that:
- are not natural, I can make my own waterdrops on a natural objects. I can take a feather and make some nice studio photo ́s of it. This is like photoshop in reality!!!
Last year this discussion took part about the flowers; some photographers can only make nice pictures of it in their studio so Pixoto has created a sub category for this. Now it is starting again with Nature close.

See some examples of outstanding studio photography between the insects in Nature close:

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18297 Posts
  • 1328 Reply Likes
Hello Cornelis, I will ask for clarification on these photos and let you know when I get feedback.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.