Flowers not as advertised

Lip_Stick

gordikin wrote: »

The first picture is a poorly taken one. The second picture has been very badly 'photoshopped' by someone with a problem with their eyesight. You cant fairly compare the flowers from the pics. supplied.

Why do you say it has been photoshopped? Bear in mind I'm a designer so use all sorts of programs, inc photoshop.

gordikin

Where's the background? A totally flat white background with no texture is not real...it's been altered. The colours of the flowers look to have been enhanced and the green fern on the right looks odd...as an amateur photographer I'd rightly be laughed at if I submitted that to my local camera club. It certainly isn't the original picture as taken.

piglet25

The fern looks fine to me, there are two varieties of it in there, is that what you mean? Admitted, the photo isn't brill but its enough for the purpose : )

Lip_Stick

gordikin wrote: »

The first picture is a poorly taken one. The second picture has been very badly 'photoshopped' by someone with a problem with their eyesight. You cant fairly compare the flowers from the pics. supplied.

Gordikin, it seems you're the one who needs their eye sight checked over. Both pics are exactly the same. Complete fail there. As for no texture, the pic has a slight grain to it, so how can you tell? How on earth as well, do you enhance white flowers? Piglet has already stated how the roses became that washy blue.

You're talking absolute tosh. Tell you what, put a red background on it, lets see how well you do.

Churchmouse

I should know better than to come back on here, I've been flamed enough for my opinions

gordikin there are two sets of photos on this thread, and the relative positions are reversed in the two posts. Rather than refer to first and second photographs it might be better to refer to colourful and insipid photographs for reference. I know absolutely nothing about photoshop so will refrain from any comment on that.

pulliptears

gordikin wrote: »

Where's the background? A totally flat white background with no texture is not real...it's been altered. The colours of the flowers look to have been enhanced and the green fern on the right looks odd...as an amateur photographer I'd rightly be laughed at if I submitted that to my local camera club. It certainly isn't the original picture as taken.

The flat background is because either the flowers have been photographed in front of a white box studio, or the image has been cropped and placed onto a white background. The flowers themselves dont appear altered, although the vibrancy has possibly been increased a little from the original photo the flowers in that shot were vibrant to begin with.

In the second photo however all the photoshopping in the world could not get them anywhere close to being vibrant.

gordikin

Lip_Stick wrote: »

Gordikin, it seems you're the one who needs their eye sight checked over. Both pics are exactly the same. Complete fail there. As for no texture, the pic has a slight grain to it, so how can you tell? How on earth as well, do you enhance white flowers? Piglet has already stated how the roses became that washy blue.

You're talking absolute tosh. Tell you what, put a red background on it, lets see how well you do.

How are both pics. exactly the same?

gordikin

pulliptears wrote: »

The flat background is because either the flowers have been photographed in front of a white box studio, or the image has been cropped and placed onto a white background. The flowers themselves dont appear altered, although the vibrancy has possibly been increased a little from the original photo the flowers in that shot were vibrant to begin with.

In the second photo however all the photoshopping in the world could not get them anywhere close to being vibrant.

That's my point. One pic has been altered to whatever extent and the other pic is a poorly taken one that seems to emphasise the OP's position.

Not arguing about altering the delivered flowers pic...it's a poor pic.

gordikin

piglet25 wrote: »

The fern looks fine to me, there are two varieties of it in there, is that what you mean? Admitted, the photo isn't brill but its enough for the purpose : )

It's not if it's been altered...and it has.

pulliptears

gordikin wrote: »

That's my point. One pic has been altered to whatever extent and the other pic is a poorly taken one that seems to emphasise the OP's position.

Not arguing about altering the delivered flowers pic...it's a poor pic.

Any pic of those flowers would emphasise the OP's position though, a washed out white bunch of flowers are not at all 'vibrant', white flowers could never be classed as vibrant really and the wrapping certainly isn't.