| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2005 03:11:22 PM · #26 |
sorry for being late to the party...
i have been told, (and lazily, i haven't done the research to completely understand/verify this) that digital cameras have algorithms built into their processing that actually flatten out the images so that even if you do have all your settings exactly correct, the image you capture will, in fact, require some degree of post-processing.
i'll venture that at least 19 out of 20 images i capture require at least a minor adjustment to levels. a few weeks ago, i had a rush job that required making a cd of 120 images and getting prints; there was no time for any post-processing whatsoever. they all looked like absolute crap (but, they were good enough to pick the 60 that were needed). with just a bit of work, all 60 have now been printed, and everyone is happy.
i'm sorry, but i don't believe for a minute that there are photographers out there capable of shooting digital or film and not needing to do post-processing. i used to go through this same thing with film, all the time. i'd get my images back from the lab, find the ones i wanted, then take them somewhere else for reprints--where the reprint lab would do all the color corrections. i was constantly amazed at the difference two different labs would produce from the same negative.
i really disagree with the title of this thread. the art is in the final delivery, the image that you present to the viewer. the skill you use to get there is up to you as an artist. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:14:36 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
i really disagree with the title of this thread. the art is in the final delivery, the image that you present to the viewer. the skill you use to get there is up to you as an artist. |
That's what I meant. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:32:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
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... |
How did you guys manage to figure out my plans? I'm so disappointed :) |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:34:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Photography is art. |
Ursala, you don't really think that the 20 cent images available at shutterstock or istock are art, do you?
Photography is an art. But not all photographers aim for art every time they shoot. Sometimes we shoot for commercially vialbe results. I think also that we often shoot to reproduce something we like for others to see; we see something we think is beautiful in nature and wish to preserve and share it. This doesn't have to be intended as art, but sometimes strikes some viewers that way.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. For a photographer to label their own work art is presumptuous, sometimes justifibly so but more often not. The use of, or avoidance of, any particular tool (such as photoshop), or any particulat technique, does not make a photograph a work of art, nor do they prevent a photograph from being artworks.
Gordon- Photoshop first, camera second is opposite the norm. How much has that skewed your approach? your perspective on things like those being discussed in this thread?
I think there is a certain amount of validity in the premise of this thread's originator. The excessive use of photo editing can take an image out of the realm of a photographic work of art; but it can also take it into the realm of digital art, or graphic art, or whatever is the correct term to apply when it gets so far away from what the camera captured. Valueing one form of art over another is a matter of taste. Some people like opera and classical, others like jazz and the blues.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:40:56 PM · #30 |
I don't agree that art is in the eye of the beholder, but I am not good with words, and I don't know how to explain it.
To me, photography is art. Not all art is the same, not all photography is the same. But to me it is art. And even though that is an "opinion", it is the truth for me. It's like listening to good music, it communicates on a different level. Even Poulanc :)
I really don't know how to put these things in words, I wish I could, but I am not a words person.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:44:39 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Valueing one form of art over another is a matter of taste. Some people like opera and classical, others like jazz and the blues. |
Very well put. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:54:46 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
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
|
The skill in photography isn't at all about being able to use a camera, any man monkey and dog can use a camera.
The skill is in the visualisation and the realisation of an image - the skilled photographer will acheive his vision, be by camera and no editing, film and developing or digital and photoshop.
This is where the skill is
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:55:47 PM · #33 |
| This discussion could go on forever, both sides have very good points, and as it was put earlier it is simply just a matter of somebody's tastes. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 03:57:50 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I don't agree that art is in the eye of the beholder, but I am not good with words, and I don't know how to explain it.
To me, photography is art. Not all art is the same, not all photography is the same. But to me it is art. And even though that is an "opinion", it is the truth for me. It's like listening to good music, it communicates on a different level. Even Poulanc :)
I really don't know how to put these things in words, I wish I could, but I am not a words person. |
Well, I asked and you answered. I will respect your opinion.
Your photos speak elegantly and more than compensate any lack of ability in words.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:04:13 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by ursula:
I don't agree that art is in the eye of the beholder, but I am not good with words, and I don't know how to explain it.
To me, photography is art. Not all art is the same, not all photography is the same. But to me it is art. And even though that is an "opinion", it is the truth for me. It's like listening to good music, it communicates on a different level. Even Poulanc :)
I really don't know how to put these things in words, I wish I could, but I am not a words person. |
Well, I asked and you answered. I will respect your opinion.
Your photos speak elegantly and more than compensate any lack of ability in words. |
Thank you. I will respect yours also.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:18:16 PM · #36 |
| I totally agree with NSBCA7. Without the talent, all of the neatimage and photoshop image enhancing programs do not mean a damn thing. Yes, anyone can turn an ordinary photo into a better one. Photography is an art and you almost have to edit most pictures ,even if just a little bit of sharpness is added. But I see some pictures in the galleries that are not so special and it's the bold colors, the cloning and the burning that make them stand out. How is someone like me who takes good pictures, access to an ordinary Image mix photo editor which came with my camera stand a chance in these challenges?? I dont think I stand much of a chance. So untill I can shell up 100 bucks for a Neatimage or photoshop I probably am better off not entering these challenges. That is what people base critiques on. The final product. Not the original form of the photo. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:24:22 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I don't agree that art is in the eye of the beholder... |
I feel the same way. The beholder may not know how to see. His eyes may be too big to see the bonsai tree. They may be too small to see the surroundings.
The beholder may be too young to have seen how little there is of so much. He may be too old to remember to fly. He may have sold his soul and looking at tedium.
I can't trust the beholder.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:24:30 PM · #38 |
I have not read this whole thread so if I repeat someone forgive me. I too enjoy taking a photo and leaving it at just about the right out of the camera configuration. I have also tried to get a no editing challenge beacuse I thought it would be fun. But to say that the editing is killing photography is not correct IMO. It is all art and art in itself cannot be wrong. Some people enjoy the simple look of the photo and other enjoy the possiblities of what you can do to it. I truely enjoy both forms. Some people do take a picture and edit it to were you would not recognize the original, but it still art and can be very enjoyable to look at. I say for those that can make a great picutre straight from the camera congrads, to those who like to edit, beautiful work. But it still all what I am on this site for, ART.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:28:15 PM · #39 |
| That would be a good idea a no edit challenge. It would be interesting to see what people can do just relying on the camera. I bet there would be a lot more time put into the picture taking aspect of it. Which could probably be a good thing. Make people think out their game plan a little more. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:40:55 PM · #40 |
If we had a no edit challenge, the majority of the top scorers would undoubtedly be shooting DSLRs. The advantage would be overwhelming. The less sophisticated you sensor/lens combination, the more you have to rely on post-processing to perk the image up. Someone down there, I forgget who, said he had heard that the sensors/camera software are designed to flaten images. This is definitely true on the consumer-market cameras, because it helps to "rescue" poorly-lit, poorly-exposed images. And anytime you rely on automatic exposure, your result is almost bound to be less-than-optimal exposure.
Then there's the hwole magapixels issue; those with 3Mp cams are at a "disadvantage" compared to 8 Mp cams; it's a law of nature. At the size we view images here, programs suc as NeatImage can do a fine job of narrowing the gap in this area.
And so it goes.
Be interesting if someone has a 2 Mp point-and-shoot, a "prosumer" cam like my Nikon, and a Big Gun Canon or Nikon, and could shoot the exact same scene with all 3 cams and post the original, unedited images to this thread...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:52:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
i have been told, (and lazily, i haven't done the research to completely understand/verify this) that digital cameras have algorithms built into their processing that actually flatten out the images so that even if you do have all your settings exactly correct, the image you capture will, in fact, require some degree of post-processing. |
It depends a lot on the camera. For example, from Canon's documents:
The further to the left, the more post-processing is required to get a basic image. The 'from the camera' images are mostly designed to need work or offer the best possible starting point. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:52:58 PM · #42 |
I think the amount of editing on an image in and of itself means nothing. It is how that editing effects the photo that is relevant. I have several PS actions that I use regularily that have numerous steps. I often apply theses actions very judiciously so that their effects are very subtle but, nevertheless, extremely important. So I completely disagree with this threads title. The blame should never be with the tools or equipment but by the user.
T
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:53:39 PM · #43 |
| The Past from August, 2003 was a "No-Edit" challenge ... just after a "No-Limits" challenge (The Future). Perhaps it would be interesting to read the threads which followed and see what people actually thought .... |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:54:51 PM · #44 |
This argument always rages on and I'm in the purist camp. The problem seems to me that this is a photo contest and people expect winning shots to be an emphasis of photo technique, composition, skill in choosing subject, angle, DOF, POV, etc. over that of supreme editing talents.
I really believe that the general movement on this site now is towards a notion of "if it's not a great original then make it great with Photoshop" mentality - and it makes for digital anaesthetic of the brain.
A landscape may well be a stunnning one but that's thanks to nature mainly. However, if the photographer chooses an interesting approach to that, then it deserves more top votes than a shot that begins live bland and dull, yet is made silky smooth and richly toned through heavy dodge + burn and a bit of NeatImage. I acknowledge that everyone wants to see a pretty picture at the top, but it ought to be there for the right reasons.
People need to think a bit harder about what they're looking at and what makes it good photography. Otherwise no one wins anything but Photoshop envy or new editing skills.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 04:56:34 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Gordon- Photoshop first, camera second is opposite the norm. How much has that skewed your approach? your perspective on things like those being discussed in this thread? |
I would say very little. I think the craft of Photography, particularly digital photography is 50% camera, 50% post processing. If you choose to focus on only half of the skills required, then your images suffer. Certainly on an image by image basis the emphasis on camera or processing skills varies. However, my claim is that both are equally important in general. To ignore one or think the other 'kills the art' is mostly ignorant of the history and current practice of photography.
I just happened to approach it from the post processing side first. I place probably more emphasis on the camera skills than most for a while. The fact that I'm better educated in the post processing aspects just makes it clearer to me how much more I have to learn. If you look at my more popular images, you'll see ones with almost no Photoshop work, yet many instantly think they are created digitally.
Until you master both sides, your images will not reach their potential. Art is something that might start round about the time you master the basics like lighting, camera controls or photoshop - not before. (And yes - these are the basics- the fundamentals of photography, using a camera and making a good print - it doesn't get simpler)
The problems occur when you start using skill in one area to prop up or hide a lack of skill in the other. This is particularly common, when people talk about 'fixing' a bad image in Photoshop. You can make it better perhaps, but it is always worse than if it was a good image in the first place. The entry level Photography magazines further perpetuate this myth as well. But this is also true when people who haven't bothered to master the post processing aspects try to deride it as 'cheating' rather than trying to understand what is commonly achieved. On DPC we see many examples of bad, unsubtle, heavy handed use of digital processing and as a result threads like these occur pointing out the terrible damage Photoshop does to photography.
Yet we also see many examples of poor camera skills, bad composition, horrible lighting - perhaps more focus should be applied there ? Does bad lighting and poor camera skills kill the art in some ways ?
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 17:08:19. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 05:06:38 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
This argument always rages on and I'm in the purist camp. |
What camps? Why does there need to be two opposing camps? I wouldn't say that I am a purist but I do prefer natural looking photography. I see no point in self-imposing editing restrictions, however. I think you can use a hundred different editing steps to produce a very natural image or you can use only one editing step to produce a very vivid artistic image. This idea that photography needs to be divided into different camps seems to serve no purpose to me. All that matters is how the image is being used and that you are honest about your techniques.
T
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 17:10:37.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 05:15:00 PM · #47 |
I sometimes look at photoshop as a sculpter would look at a rock. He does not see the rock as a rock but what is inside of the rock. So was the photo to start a poor photo or was it a great photo that was inside but just needed to be brought out. So if the compostion was bad and the set-up uninteresting maybe it should still be voted lower even though it had some great photoshop work.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 05:30:12 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
This argument always rages on and I'm in the purist camp. The problem seems to me that this is a photo contest and people expect winning shots to be an emphasis of photo technique, composition, skill in choosing subject, angle, DOF, POV, etc. over that of supreme editing talents.
I really believe that the general movement on this site now is towards a notion of "if it's not a great original then make it great with Photoshop" mentality - and it makes for digital anaesthetic of the brain.
A landscape may well be a stunnning one but that's thanks to nature mainly. However, if the photographer chooses an interesting approach to that, then it deserves more top votes than a shot that begins live bland and dull, yet is made silky smooth and richly toned through heavy dodge + burn and a bit of NeatImage. I acknowledge that everyone wants to see a pretty picture at the top, but it ought to be there for the right reasons.
People need to think a bit harder about what they're looking at and what makes it good photography. Otherwise no one wins anything but Photoshop envy or new editing skills. |
But don't you edit your images?
I only clicked on 2 and you use quite a fair bit of PS worl.
Converted to Lab colour
> blurred channels 'a' & 'b'
> curves on Lighten channel
> USM on Lighten channel
> Dupe layer with reduced opacity Soft Light
> applied Colour Balance and Hue/Sat
> Dodge & burn
And Pride of London
Edits:
> Hue/sat
> Dodge/burn
> Lab colour > sharpen Lightness
> Gradient Map (for blue hue)
> very mild noise reduction
> crop
Me Confused..
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 05:35:52 PM · #49 |
I hate the arguments of 'saving an image'.
Some of my best work (in fact most of my best work) has been edited quite a lot. I find the more challenging the shot, the better the rewards but also the more need I have for editing.
For example, shooting a landscape can sometimes be extremely tricky. I can find a perfect spot and composition and know in my heart that this is going to be a great photo. Now to me that is the hard work done - finding and seeing a good photo.
But then you start clicking away and there is too much of a difference of light to make the correct exposure. (and believe me I try everything) even with a 2 stop graduated ND the sky is still too bright for the perfect exposure.
This is common to most I am sure.
You get home, and look at your range of images and none of them have anywhere near the beauty that you saw with your own eyes earlier that day, and the images look crap.
Now, what do you do? The purists say they would leave them as is, so day wasted, opportunity wasted, and they have images that represent a scene that didn't look like that with the human eye.
Or, one can spend a few hours evening out the exposure, bringing the foreground to the correct brightness, and darkening the sky to bring it back in line with how it actually looked.
This isn't saving an image, it is heavy editing to restore it back to it's original state.
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 17:38:08.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 05:37:54 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by timj351:
What camps? Why does there need to be two opposing camps? |
Well alright - a bit pedantic - but I was merely reacting to opposing views in this thread.
I too use Photoshop - a lot (and I love using it) but I prefer to keep my photography less influenced by it because it's not as useful to me as becoming better with the camera alone. If I know what to with my camera it leaves me less work to do on a computer, which I spend too much time using as it is!
It's also handy to get to know the camera better when plunged into a situation where you want that really good spontaneous pic. Being instinctive counts for a great deal, especially if taking journalistic shots.
|
|
