| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2005 02:25:08 AM · #1 |
| Nothing like a natural shot...but all these image mix programs really turn ordinary beautiful pics into gorgeous ones...but theres nothing like an original |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 10:06:15 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Nothing like a natural shot...but all these image mix programs really turn ordinary beautiful pics into gorgeous ones...but theres nothing like an original |
The line between enhancing, or improving, or bringing out the best in a good-to-begin-with original and changing it into something that was not there to begin with is subjective at best and gets into personal tastes. Agreement around where to draw that line is almost impossible to find. Erring on the side of the natural is often perceived as a lack of editing skills and thus much maligned. To posess the skills and resist excess is what we all should be striving toward.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 10:16:41 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Nothing like a natural shot...but all these image mix programs really turn ordinary beautiful pics into gorgeous ones...but theres nothing like an original |
The line between enhancing, or improving, or bringing out the best in a good-to-begin-with original and changing it into something that was not there to begin with is subjective at best and gets into personal tastes. Agreement around where to draw that line is almost impossible to find. Erring on the side of the natural is often perceived as a lack of editing skills and thus much maligned. To posess the skills and resist excess is what we all should be striving toward. |
That's exactly how I feel. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 10:19:08 AM · #4 |
advanced photo editing kills the art in some ways
Quoting the title of this thread and responding to that quote, if the use of advanced editing is being blamed for killing the art then there was probably little there to begin with. Anyone who opts on the side of overkill while editing most likely lacks the eye to take a good picture to begin with. It's all art. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 10:31:55 AM · #5 |
Piet Hein, Danish philosopher/mathematician, said:
There is one art,
no more, no less;
to do all things
with artlessness.
Amen, brother!
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 10:41:40 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Anyone who opts on the side of overkill while editing most likely lacks the eye to take a good picture to begin with. |
It depends on what you're looking to produce. Where you work will be viewed. If you are presenting your work as 'photographs' I agree -- they should be edited very little. If you are presenting it as anything but 'photography' then why wouldn't they be strongly edited.
To make the statement that anyone who gets really involved in PP (or as you put it, 'opts on the side of overkill') 'lacks the eye to take a good picture' is a very ignorant comment.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 11:32:40 AM · #7 |
| I don't think that it is killing the art, rather it is creating a new one. Sure anyone can make some basic adjustments, but it takes some skill to take a bland picture and turn it into a great one. I am a little young to have been taking pictures back in the good 'ol days of film photography, so all I've known is digital cameras and digital editing. My roots are in graphic design where digital editing is encouraged to improve the picture. True there's nothing like the original, but I don't see anything wrong with making it better. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 11:47:51 AM · #8 |
I'm sometimes surprised by how much can be done in Photoshop to 'rescue' an image, but you're right...nothing beats getting it right at the time of exposure and there seems to be a little less incentive to do that now.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 11:48:20 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by deapee:
[
It depends on what you're looking to produce. Where you work will be viewed. If you are presenting your work as 'photographs' I agree -- they should be edited very little. If you are presenting it as anything but 'photography' then why wouldn't they be strongly edited.
To make the statement that anyone who gets really involved in PP (or as you put it, 'opts on the side of overkill') 'lacks the eye to take a good picture' is a very ignorant comment. |
Do you have any idea what the meaning of "overkill" is? Try Websters. Ignorant? |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 12:12:56 PM · #10 |
| Photography is a visual art that communicates with the viewer. There are many ways to communicate your message. There are many messages to be communicated. Even good editing cant always save a bad photograph. You need the basics of a good photograph to begin with. The theory that all the best photography in the world has not had any editing whatsoever whether in the traditional darkroom or digital is very unlikely. Photographers want people to look at, enjoy, and possibly purchase their work so they are going to do what it takes to obtain that goal. Photography is manipulated in may ways from selective focus, perspective, film or digital settings used through to the way the image is edited through to the final product. Art does not stop at the click of the shutter button. To say so suggests a misunderstanding of what art is suppose to be. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 12:32:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Do you have any idea what the meaning of "overkill" is? Try Websters. Ignorant? |
My statement to you was not meant to be a personal attack -- I simply stated I felt your views to be uninformed -- but you called me out.
Yes, I do know what overkill means -- to overdo something to the extent that it ruins its original intent (which I didn't even have to look up, thanks).
Your reference to overkill was not one with a fine line. You said 'opts on the side of overkill' which is a very general statement that is opinionated -- where does your definition of overkill begin? Certainly if you have no skill in post-processing, the littlest bit of pp could be considered overkill. Just because a lot of time went into something after the shot does not make it 'overkill' -- where as I would assume by what you previously said would be 'opting on the side of overkill'.
Oh...and ignorant -- that means lacking knowledge in a certain subject or uninformed. I won't take it back, your generalized statement 'anyone who opts on the side of overkill...' (or putting too much time into post-processing whether properly or inproperly done) '...lacks the eye to take a good picture' is ignorant -- misinformed, unknowledgable, unaware, inexperienced, obtuse, sappy, shallow, untaught, untrained, witless, or whatever other word I can think of that will help you understand the definition.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 12:54:10 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Photography is a visual art that communicates with the viewer. There are many ways to communicate your message. There are many messages to be communicated. Even good editing cant always save a bad photograph. You need the basics of a good photograph to begin with. The theory that all the best photography in the world has not had any editing whatsoever whether in the traditional darkroom or digital is very unlikely. Photographers want people to look at, enjoy, and possibly purchase their work so they are going to do what it takes to obtain that goal. Photography is manipulated in may ways from selective focus, perspective, film or digital settings used through to the way the image is edited through to the final product. Art does not stop at the click of the shutter button. To say so suggests a misunderstanding of what art is suppose to be. |
I couldn't agree with you more, very well put. If you have not achieved your goal at the click of the shutter, then finish it in ps. After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:07:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by radiman:
I couldn't agree with you more, very well put. If you have not achieved your goal at the click of the shutter, then finish it in ps. After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
The good end product is the goal, but sometimes we are just aiming at good photographs, or good photography, and not at good art.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:18:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by radiman:
I couldn't agree with you more, very well put. If you have not achieved your goal at the click of the shutter, then finish it in ps. After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
The good end product is the goal, but sometimes we are just aiming at good photographs, or good photography, and not at good art. |
Photography is art.
I should add, "in my opinion".
[edit]Message edited by author 2005-01-09 13:19:13. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:21:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by radiman:
I couldn't agree with you more, very well put. If you have not achieved your goal at the click of the shutter, then finish it in ps. After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
The good end product is the goal, but sometimes we are just aiming at good photographs, or good photography, and not at good art. |
But photography itself is an art, hey don't get me wrong if all my pictures turned out without having to touch them in ps, I would be overjoyed. But what comes to my mind are the days where the lighting, weather, etc... are just horrid, and you have that one opportunity to catch that image you have in your head. Now if doing that meant a little photoshop action, I am all for it. In my mind one of the biggest factors of a good picture is the composition, and if you have that then well I feel it's half the battle. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:38:43 PM · #16 |
Admittedly I didn't read the whole thread.
Just wanted to point out this one glaringly overlooked point..almost 100% of the published images you see (whether it be landscape or portrait) is heavily retouched.
I met a woman considered to be the best retoucher in North America. She said the better photographer you are, the more your photos get retouched. She's spent 30+ hours on one photo alone. And most of her clients are FILM photographers. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:51:55 PM · #17 |
I seem to oscillate on this.
I come from an image processing background. I knew Photoshop inside out for years before I picked up a camera.
When I started taking pictures I thought good photographs came straight out of the camera and photoshop was cheating.
Then I started to learn just how much editing is done to many of the photographs considered masterpieces in this field - Magazine covers, wedding photographs, Ansel Adams et al. I started using photoshop more and more, but mainly to patch my bad camera skills and save my pictures.
Then I swung back and spent a while focusing on getting good results out of the camera. I learned more about just how controled the lighting is, on even 'natural' looking scenes. I worked on getting good camera results and minimal photoshop post processing. My camera skills got better, but my pictures still didn't match my original vision for a shot.
Now that the results I get from the camera are as good as I can get (with my current level of skill) I don't save images in photoshop any more. I make them the most that they can be, better than even possible from the original capture. Some recent images have had 20+ layers and an hour or so of photoshop work to get to that point. The originals were not bad in the first place - I wasn't fixing flaws, I was trying to realise my original idea for the image.
To the original thread title, having more artistic options doesn't kill art. Not having the talent and skill to make art from those options, might. You can make terrible, tacky, tasteless photographs with a disposable point and shoot film camera or a $8000 DSLR and photoshop. Art doesn't come from the tools.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 02:10:26 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by radiman:
...After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
I'm not after a product. Products are after me. I go through great pains to put a distance between what I want to achieve and the commercialized aesthetics peddled at me with increasing frequency and force.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 02:11:53 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by radiman:
...After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
I'm not after a product. Products are after me. I go through great pains to put a distance between what I want to achieve and the commercialized aesthetics peddled at me with increasing frequency and force. |
Mmm, zeuszen...I drink your words like sweet wine...
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 02:14:17 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by radiman:
...After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
I'm not after a product. Products are after me. I go through great pains to put a distance between what I want to achieve and the commercialized aesthetics peddled at me with increasing frequency and force. |
But surely all you could ever want would be to sell them for stock at 20c a use ?
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 02:17:08 PM · #21 |
It cannot be overemphasized that serious post-exposure manipulation has always been a part of the "establishment" photography scene. Others have mentioned this below, and it's absolutely correct. That's not to say there are no "perfect" unmanipulated photographs, but rather that photographers as a group have always been willing to do whatever it takes to make the finished image align with their visualization of what it should be.
Photoshop, in this context, is simply a very efficient tool that pouts this sort of manipulation within reach of anyone who cares to work diligently to learn the tool. No special skills, beyond visualization, are needed to use photoshop.
Another point; for a long time color photography was relatively "straight" simply because there wasn't much darkroom manipulation possible, since the finished prints has to ocme from labs. When hand-processing "canoes" became available for color prints, and it became possible to do color work in a "normal" B/W lab, this started to change a little.
In B/W photography, on the other hand, hands-on manipulation of both film and the printing process has always been possible, and indeed it's a requirement for truly stunning results.
In my mind, what digital imaging has done is open up the world of color photography to people with an intensely artistic vision who before were limited to B/W work. I don't think that "your" picture is in any way superior to "his" picture, or you as an artist to him as an artist, because your image came straight from the camera and his came from the darkroom of his mind & vision.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 02:19:31 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by radiman:
...After all it is a good end product that we're after isn't it? |
I'm not after a product. Products are after me. I go through great pains to put a distance between what I want to achieve and the commercialized aesthetics peddled at me with increasing frequency and force. |
But surely all you could ever want would be to sell them for stock at 20c a use ? |
Well, if I didn't know the writer, the irony might just, and quite easily so, escape me...
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:01:06 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Do you have any idea what the meaning of "overkill" is? Try Websters. Ignorant? |
My statement to you was not meant to be a personal attack -- I simply stated I felt your views to be uninformed -- but you called me out.
Yes, I do know what overkill means -- to overdo something to the extent that it ruins its original intent (which I didn't even have to look up, thanks).
Your reference to overkill was not one with a fine line. You said 'opts on the side of overkill' which is a very general statement that is opinionated -- where does your definition of overkill begin? Certainly if you have no skill in post-processing, the littlest bit of pp could be considered overkill. Just because a lot of time went into something after the shot does not make it 'overkill' -- where as I would assume by what you previously said would be 'opting on the side of overkill'.
Oh...and ignorant -- that means lacking knowledge in a certain subject or uninformed. I won't take it back, your generalized statement 'anyone who opts on the side of overkill...' (or putting too much time into post-processing whether properly or inproperly done) '...lacks the eye to take a good picture' is ignorant -- misinformed, unknowledgable, unaware, inexperienced, obtuse, sappy, shallow, untaught, untrained, witless, or whatever other word I can think of that will help you understand the definition. |
Overkill means overdone, plain and simple. If you overdo it, overwork it, it is ruined. A person that thought overworking something was the way to save it probably lacked the eye to capture the image to begin with. If you feel this is a personal attack perhaps it is because what I wrote hits close to home. Or perhap because you didn't like the statement I made about your windmill. I'm happy with my level of knowledge in Photoshop.
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 15:02:43. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:05:51 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Overkill means overdone, plain and simple. If you overdo it, overwork it, it is ruined. A person that thought overworking something was the way to save it probably lacked the eye to capture the image to begin with. If you feel this is a personal attack perhaps it is because what I wrote hits close to home. Or perhap because you didn't like the statement I made about your windmill. I'm happy with my level of knowledge in Photoshop. |
We are really in agreement on everything you just said except that someone's post-processing skills has nothing to do with their photography skills
As far as it hitting close to home -- that's not true one bit. I'm just getting into photography and am here to learn. I can't shoot and I can't post-process, and I know that.
And your comment about my windmill -- I wasn't even aware of it. I don't write names down, I don't hold a grudge. I take this website as one thread at a time. Just because I disagreed with you here on this subject doesn't mean that I wouldn't back you up 100% on another issue if the opportunity arose. Like I said, I don't write names down.
EDIT: I just checked your comment on my windmill, and I found it helpful the day you gave it to me so why would that be an issue at all? Do you honestly think I would be 'against' you just because you don't think one of my photos is focused exactly right?
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 15:07:42.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:08:25 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Overkill means overdone, plain and simple. If you overdo it, overwork it, it is ruined. A person that thought overworking something was the way to save it probably lacked the eye to capture the image to begin with. If you feel this is a personal attack perhaps it is because what I wrote hits close to home. Or perhap because you didn't like the statement I made about your windmill. I'm happy with my level of knowledge in Photoshop. |
We are really in agreement on everything you just said except that someone's post-processing skills has nothing to do with their photography skills
As far as it hitting close to home -- that's not true one bit. I'm just getting into photography and am here to learn. I can't shoot and I can't post-process, and I know that.
And your comment about my windmill -- I wasn't even aware of it. I don't write names down, I don't hold a grudge. I take this website as one thread at a time. Just because I disagreed with you here on this subject doesn't mean that I wouldn't back you up 100% on another issue if the opportunity arose. Like I said, I don't write names down.
EDIT: I just checked your comment on my windmill, and I found it helpful the day you gave it to me so why would that be an issue at all? Do you honestly think I would be 'against' you just because you don't think one of my photos is focused exactly right? |
Peace. |
|
