Jason Fox new release

Tangwich · Jan 29, 2016

The picture is clearly photoshopped and won't look like that in real life. BUT, I think that when you see the coral in real life, it'll look really nice and people will just forget about the photoshopped picture and will give Jason Fox props and say he is legit. In other words, the picture is used to create hype on an already nice looking coral and his fanboys will back him up because the coral does look nice (just not as nice or glowing like in the picture). Reef 2 Reef is a cult. There's too much money involved in sponsorship to call these people out. Mods are very protective of their sponsors.

:congrats:

:thumb:

:lock1::lock1::lock1:

nasotang · Jan 29, 2016

I don't understand people who say "its photoshopped". I can't get a good pic without photoshop being involved. I don't really tweak anything other than gamma correction, which i like cause it reduces haze from lights. But people probably complain about my photos too.

The best is when someone shoots an iphone pic of frags and you cannot see anything related to true color. Useless without processing for at least white balance...

I'd show some examples of a sketchy one i have but photobucket seems to be down right now. I just wonder if there is any process that is acceptable to customers...the camera tends to see detail your eyes can't, so even of nice colored corals, the pic has more richness than your eyes and brain can handle.

lowbudget · Jan 29, 2016

Confuse said:

The picture is clearly photoshopped and won't look like that in real life. BUT, I think that when you see the coral in real life, it'll look really nice and people will just forget about the photoshopped picture and will give Jason Fox props and say he is legit. In other words, the picture is used to create hype on an already nice looking coral and his fanboys will back him up because the coral does look nice (just not as nice or glowing like in the picture). Reef 2 Reef is a cult. There's too much money involved in sponsorship to call these people out. Mods are very protective of their sponsors.

yeah im sure the coral looks nice. but the power of led is awesome.

lowbudget · Jan 29, 2016

nasotang said:

I don't understand people who say "its photoshopped". I can't get a good pic without photoshop being involved. I don't really tweak anything other than gamma correction, which i like cause it reduces haze from lights. But people probably complain about my photos too.

The best is when someone shoots an iphone pic of frags and you cannot see anything related to true color. Useless without processing for at least white balance...

I'd show some examples of a sketchy one i have but photobucket seems to be down right now. I just wonder if there is any process that is acceptable to customers...the camera tends to see detail your eyes can't, so even of nice colored corals, the pic has more richness than your eyes and brain can handle.

like [MENTION=7381]oredith[/MENTION] there is photoshop and there is PHOTOSHOP.

Confuse · Jan 29, 2016

nasotang said:

What I mean by photoshopping, and perhaps I should have been clear, is tweaking the photo to make it look better than the coral really looks. I've used.phtoshop to correct white balance and tweaks here and there, but my goal was to match what I saw with my eyes, unlike this picture.

lowbudget · Jan 29, 2016

Confuse said:

so if i add disco lights on top of my tank and those disco lights are beating down on the coral i should try and capture that in photochop?

nasotang · Jan 29, 2016

Confuse said:

Yeah i hear you. I use white balance, auto contrast levels and color, and what i tweak might be clarity, vibrance and gamma correction. Vibrance is not really legit, i do small changes though. To me touching saturation is a no no.

I've definitely produced some images that look as bad as this one just by having not enough white light, no tweak necessary other than white balance. Images treated this with blues only just aren't publishable.

rickzter · Jan 31, 2016

Best evidence is in person, ur own eyes unless u fail to trust them even then, end of story. Fact of the matter is it will sell for a lot of money and that's that. Look at the high cost of those rhodactis mushrooms with tumors, ha-ha. Pff.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

F-Dawg · Jan 31, 2016

Is there software out there that can remove the filters and effects from a processed photo?

kajung2k · Jan 31, 2016

It is my understanding once it's turned into a jpg or exported out of Lightroom / photoshop that file cannot be put back to its normal settings. If people want to see what the photo looked like before they should ask for the original RAW file, as that will be the picture as is.

squid · Jan 31, 2016

kajung2k said:

A pro photographer on r2r asked for the RAW to no response. JF doesn't have any white lights on his tank either and when asked to see in daylight he puts on his 20k halide which is blue as $&+$ and says that's it in daylight lol what a crock of sh!;

bustayanky · Jan 31, 2016

There was a new thread just started about this infamous JF Home Wrecker and they were questioning the fact JF says he doesn't photoshop. But just recently got closed and deleted. Gotta protect the vendors/sponsors.

playaslk · Jan 31, 2016

As mentioned by others JF has a following by people who bought his corals in the past. His stuff is nice but is very expensive and seems to be so even for regular corals to which he attaches his name. His fans seem to defend JF to prop up/justify the $$ they spent w/ him

IEreefmaster · Feb 1, 2016

nasotang said:

Yes! I used to run in to this issue all the time.....even on a high-end DSLR it is nearly impossible to capture the glow of the corals colors under high blue or purple light. The other issue here is typically LEDs and the light bouncing off of the corals is so intense that you have to compensate for this in camera... This makes your colors come out some, but everything else is black.....in order to find the perfect balance post-processing is required 100% of the time. My opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IEreefmaster · Feb 1, 2016

I think I found some a good example.... Here was my brain straight off the camera as the camera sees it.

And after post processing...to bring out the true colors and adjust the levels of exposure....etc...

Obviously one has the tenticals out and one doesn't but you get the idea...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BeanMachine · Feb 1, 2016

Difference is your "post processing" is to make the coral appear true to real life and the other is to make colors more vibrant or that are simply not there.

IEreefmaster · Feb 1, 2016

Exactly Cody....Truer to real life...it is physically impossible for the camera to pick up what your eye senses.

For me in having the privilege of shooting many folks corals and tanks....I always adjust my photos to provide the best representation of what I saw when I shot the photo with my naked eye.

Is WWC botching saturation on coral photos to make them appear better or more vivid than they are in person? Hard to say without actually seeing it in person under their circumstances. LEDs are a helluva thing, but even so....I would be willing to bet that this photo was edited in some way. Based on my experience.

-IE

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

organism · Feb 1, 2016

IEreefmaster · Feb 1, 2016

Lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rayray · Feb 1, 2016

For me the bottom line is:

1. there was post processing done on the shot with the intention of improving sales/reputation

2. no 2 people have the same eyes, or perceptions, so its no big deal if #1 above was done.
E.g. Who thinks some women are beautiful? Who cares what it took to get there? I rest my case

Jason Fox new release

2

Premium Member

Premium Member

Premium Member

Member

Premium Member

Premium Member

Member

🐟

2

New member

2

Member

2

2

2

2

2

2

Member