Sunday, May 24, 2009


I took myself to the Royal Botanical Gardens yesterday. Had a cheese and vegemite sandwich beneath a ridiculously enormous oak and listened to the bell birds, because I am a very cheap date.

I can't tell you what any of those plants are, as I was too busy playing with my camera to take much note. Very lax of me.

At what point does the image stop being photography and start being manipulation? I've adjusted the light and colour balance on several of these, as the sun was playing silly buggers most of the day. While I am getting better at taking, first shot, the photo I wish to take, I'm never going to be serious enough to get an end result I like without some manipulation.

Or I could simply remember to take a damn tripod with me.


  1. I am also vexed at how Seamonkey steals colour from images. They don't display quite so faded in Firefox. And apparently I saved at shit compression. Bleh!

  2. Anonymous24/5/09 06:56

    Manipulation is a pretty expected part of photography, really. It's part-and-parcel if you hand-develop, so why shouldn't it be with digital?

  3. Just record, 'twas I who damned your tripd.

  4. You have such strange and alien flora there....

  5. Anonymous25/5/09 01:33

    Beautiful! You're quite talented with a camera, I'd say.

  6. I dunno, I suppose because digital manipulation is so easy, it feels like a cheat. At least if you're messing around in a dark room you do need some technical knowledge, instead of just futzing around on a slide bar.

    Gillian, that was not very nice of you. My tripod did nothing to deserve that.

    Thanks Andrew, Ennis.

    Jaime, to be fair, I didn't even hit the native section of the botanical gardens. Those were mostly in the cactus area, and the grey garden.

  7. The reason images look "less faded" in Firefox is that there's a color profile embedded in them (done automatically by the camera) containing a slightly different RGB space definition than the default used by a monitor. Gecko 1.8 didn't do anything with such color profile yet and thus rendered the image using the monitor's color profile, but Gecko 1.9 does honor such embedded profiles. SeaMonkey 2 (coming Real Soon Now (TM)) will show the images the same as your Firefox does.

    Warning: Do NOT try to grok color profiles when you have a brain capable of exploding. Camera manufacturers, monitor vendors, the Mozilla Foundation and the SeaMonkey Project explicitly deny any- and all responsibility for the effects of splattered cranial material. This is HEAVY stuff. Do not operate while under the age of 49 or above the age of 30, if you ever have drunk alcohol, or do not hold at least three PhDs in colorimetric sciences.

  8. Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, photo editing is an essential part of the process, and isn't better or worse than throwing away 90% of one's output (as opposed to showing every single photo you take). I personally am fine with doing anything which I could theoretically have achieved using the camera itself; why limit myself artificially, just because I didn't have the time to really sit down for it when I initially took the photo?
    This means I do a lot of levels and curves work, straightening horizons, etc, but no direct pixel manipulation, other than for the two exceptions of red eyes and very occasionally skin blemishes.

  9. I do recall reading somewhere about some crazy hack to up the colour in firefox, and decided it was not worth the brain sprain.

    I like your argument too, except I'm pretty sure with all the faffing in the world I'll never get my photos perfect first time. I should probably take some lessons.

    Dad offered to lend me his camera for when I travel, which is significantly more powerful, but I don't know. I'm familiar with mine, I know how to trick it to do what I want. Plus, it runs on AA batteries, always a plus when camping.

  10. Those little open pods (photo #6) look like a fairy fairground ride!

  11. Hey! That's exactly what I thought when I saw them!