| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2005 11:52:48 AM · #1 |
A very interesting article at Luminous Landscape: Making images - Not taking images.
Quite an eye opener.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 11:56:32 AM · #2 |
"...the lens has all the optical qualities of a glass âturd.â "
This jumped out a me from the article...Ha!
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 12:10:00 PM · #3 |
I have nothing against people who make dramatic looking photos using Photoshop it is just not for me. I will use Photoshop to make the photo look like what I saw, but in the end I want the photo to look at least close to what I saw.
I wonder if people looking at these kind of highly process photos 10 or 20 years from now will wonder how we could have every liked them? I am kind of hoping this is a trend that will not last too long, sort of like bell bottom pants.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 12:14:25 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I am kind of hoping this is a trend that will not last too long, sort of like bell bottom pants. |
I agree. But does this mean my pants aren't cool anymore? |
|
|
|
03/20/2005 12:18:58 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I have nothing against people who make dramatic looking photos using Photoshop it is just not for me. I will use Photoshop to make the photo look like what I saw, but in the end I want the photo to look at least close to what I saw.
I wonder if people looking at these kind of highly process photos 10 or 20 years from now will wonder how we could have every liked them? I am kind of hoping this is a trend that will not last too long, sort of like bell bottom pants. |
The point here is that he's making what HE saw when he took the picture. In fact, speaking of the tineliness of the work, he's doing digitally more or less exactly what Ansel did in film processing. just at a deeper level.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 12:27:23 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The point here is that he's making what HE saw when he took the picture. In fact, speaking of the tineliness of the work, he's doing digitally more or less exactly what Ansel did in film processing. just at a deeper level.
Robt. |
I agree, Bear. That's exactly what I thought when I saw his work, and Ansel, is timeless to me. He's not for every picture, but definitely for sweaping landscapes.
Stephanie
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 12:50:03 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The point here is that he's making what HE saw when he took the picture. In fact, speaking of the tineliness of the work, he's doing digitally more or less exactly what Ansel did in film processing. just at a deeper level.
Robt. |
I would have to see a print to really get a good idea as to just how his photo ended up, but to me, on my screen, it has far too much contrast for my taste. I think this goes way beyond what Adams normally did. I also think that we are going to go through period where people go a bit nuts on the post processing, but the novelty of being able to make such dramatic photos I also believe will wear off both for the photographer and the viewing public.
I do a fair bit of processing on my photos to improve them, but in the end I judge how well I have done on this by whether they look like they have been processed, if they do then I failed to achieve the look I was going after (and I do fail from time to time)
I do believe that in time many these photos, the ones that have been very heavily processed and show it, will be viewed as not timeless as much as dated.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 01:07:15 PM · #8 |
That tornado ranch shot is freakin awesome.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 01:15:42 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The point here is that he's making what HE saw when he took the picture. In fact, speaking of the tineliness of the work, he's doing digitally more or less exactly what Ansel did in film processing. just at a deeper level.
Robt. |
I would have to see a print to really get a good idea as to just how his photo ended up, but to me, on my screen, it has far too much contrast for my taste. I think this goes way beyond what Adams normally did. I also think that we are going to go through period where people go a bit nuts on the post processing, but the novelty of being able to make such dramatic photos I also believe will wear off both for the photographer and the viewing public.
I do a fair bit of processing on my photos to improve them, but in the end I judge how well I have done on this by whether they look like they have been processed, if they do then I failed to achieve the look I was going after (and I do fail from time to time)
I do believe that in time many these photos, the ones that have been very heavily processed and show it, will be viewed as not timeless as much as dated. |
It may be a difference in monitors. To me it looks really pure, rich and controlled.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 01:25:07 PM · #10 |
I feel like I've gone round and round this subject so many times recently. Fundamentally, I agree with what the guy says - however, he overlooks the necessary input of the eye in the first instance: and I don't just mean an eye for a composition, I mean an eye for the possibilities of the dynamic range of a scene compared to you equipment, as well.
I bought my new camera because the way my landscape work is heading, I want to be able to produce big prints of it - so I need sharp, well resolved detail; and I'm not rich enough to get a medium format digital back and camera. So there is a point to all the hype of equipment. Also I needed, for my street stuff, something that dealt happily with low light, was quick, responsive, and accurate. I now have that.
But all that says nothing about how good or otherwise my photographs are.
E |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 01:01:23 AM EDT.
