| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2005 07:11:25 PM · #1 |
| How do most photographers feel about edited pictures versus using the camera settings? Editing is great for taking out that ever present power pole but seems to me, the less editing you have to do the better. Unless you are going for some extravagant effects. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:14:42 PM · #2 |
Some post processing if needed in general, however, if the image is crappy no amount of post processing is going to make it better.
The key should be to get the best image possible straight from the camera then use post processing to enhance it, not make it.
Shooting RAW or jpg makes a difference as to the amount of post processing required. RAW will give you more latitude as to how far you can go before destroying the image.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:16:38 PM · #3 |
I'd say the 'better' thing to do is know in your head what you want your picture to look like in the end and make sure you can get there the best you can with the tools you have. For example, if you wanted your picture to have a blue tint to it, are you really going to waste time fiddling with camera functions and colored lights when you can just shift the color in PS and get the same (probably better controlled) effect?
Message edited by author 2005-09-05 19:22:02.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:19:09 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:
I'd say the 'better' thing to do is know in your head what you want your picture to look like in the end and make sure you can get there the best you can with the tools you have. For example, if you wanted your picture to have a blue tint to it, are you really going to waste time fiddling with camera functions and colored lights when you can just shift the color in PS and get the same (probably better controlled) effect? |
Joey, I do agree with what you say here. It still comes down to getting the best quality image straight from the camera. The best starting point will produce the best end point (in theory anyway).
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:20:38 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Joey, I do agree with what you say here. It still comes down to getting the best quality image straight from the camera. The best starting point will produce the best end point (in theory anyway). |
Definatly, photoshop can't save a bad picture
Message edited by author 2005-09-05 19:21:59.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:27:00 PM · #6 |
| Thanks guys, I am still new to all this so its nice to hear my thoughts are along the same line. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:45:39 PM · #7 |
I think this thread has pointed out the difference in approach between the two groups I call photographers and digital artists.
The photograher thinks "the less editing you have to do the better" as AzCKelly said in the original post.
The digital artist (or graphic artist, computer artist, or what ever label you like to use) thinks it is a waste of time to try to get a good file straight from the camera because you can get whatever you want with software.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:53:14 PM · #8 |
So how would you classify Ansel Adams? Was he an Analog Artist?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:57:47 PM · #9 |
The artist, photographer, whatever you call them should know what the image looks like before they really even start with the camera.
The hack just shoots a bunch of stuff and figures they can polish it up later.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 09:33:56 PM · #10 |
Hmmm...how does that work for those of us who enjoy street photography?
I never know what I am going to find when I go out, but when I see it, I know how to make it mine. Only instantaneous visualization, that split second where I know an image is coming together, with no forethought or planning involved.
Am I a hack? Am I an artist? Am I lucky?
(and no, I didn't say I was good at it. For good street work, check out xion and JPR and e301.)
Just food for thought. There are many different types of photography just as there are many different types of photographers.
Its not the amount of editing you do, its knowing when you're done.
Its not the length of time you plan an image, its what you think the moment you click the shutter.
d
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 01:32:28 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think this thread has pointed out the difference in approach between the two groups I call photographers and digital artists.
The photograher thinks "the less editing you have to do the better" as AzCKelly said in the original post.
The digital artist (or graphic artist, computer artist, or what ever label you like to use) thinks it is a waste of time to try to get a good file straight from the camera because you can get whatever you want with software.
Just my 2 cents. |
Noone said you don't need a good image straight from the camera. A bad image cannot be made great with photoshop no matter how good you are.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 01:42:59 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
So how would you classify Ansel Adams? Was he an Analog Artist? |
Ansel, more than anyone, championed the cause of making perfect negatives as the base element in making perfect images. Of course, the making of a perfect negative only occurs partly inside the camera; it's a combination of exposure and processing.
The analogous workflow in digital is RAW image processing; get the exposure right in-camera and tweak the parameters in RAW processing to get the desired tonal range.
What Joey Lawrence described is what Ansel called "previsualization"; the photographer, he said, needs to already have the finsihed product firmly in mind before the exposure is made. It's good advice for any photographer.
Still, even given the optimum possible negative, an Ansel Adams print usually (not always) involved considerable post-processing at the printing stage, mostly dodging and burning, to achieve the previsualized image.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 01:48:14 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by AzCKelly:
How do most photographers feel about edited pictures versus using the camera settings? Editing is great for taking out that ever present power pole but seems to me, the less editing you have to do the better. Unless you are going for some extravagant effects. |
Remember though that if you are going to enter the challenges, only basic editing is allowed for the basic challenges. This means that you would not be able to edit out a power pole. So...if you're talking about challenges, then editing is very limited. For your own photos though, just make them look how you visioned them looking. That's what I say. |
|
|
|
09/06/2005 03:12:04 AM · #14 |
|
|
|
09/06/2005 09:01:27 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
So how would you classify Ansel Adams? Was he an Analog Artist? |
I'd call him a historical relic whose names lingers on after his relevance begins to recede.
Originally posted by dahkota:
Hmmm...how does that work for those of us who enjoy street photography?
I never know what I am going to find when I go out, but when I see it, I know how to make it mine. Only instantaneous visualization, that split second where I know an image is coming together, with no forethought or planning involved.
Am I a hack? Am I an artist? Am I lucky?
(and no, I didn't say I was good at it. For good street work, check out xion and JPR and e301.)
Just food for thought. There are many different types of photography just as there are many different types of photographers.
Its not the amount of editing you do, its knowing when you're done.
Its not the length of time you plan an image, its what you think the moment you click the shutter. ... |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Ansel, more than anyone, championed the cause of making perfect negatives as the base element in making perfect images. Of course, the making of a perfect negative only occurs partly inside the camera; it's a combination of exposure and processing.
The analogous workflow in digital is RAW image processing; get the exposure right in-camera and tweak the parameters in RAW processing to get the desired tonal range.
What Joey Lawrence described is what Ansel called "previsualization"; the photographer, he said, needs to already have the finsihed product firmly in mind before the exposure is made. It's good advice for any photographer.
Still, even given the optimum possible negative, an Ansel Adams print usually (not always) involved considerable post-processing at the printing stage, mostly dodging and burning, to achieve the previsualized image. ... |
Seems to be a split of opinion here. I guess St. Ansel didn't believe in street photography, huh Robert? Or are dahkota, xion, e301 and JPR hacks? What about Henri Cartier-Bresson? Was he a hack too?
I think dahkota's position is more tolerant to all the different types of photography. Previsualization, or having a mental picture of what you want your final image to look like at the moment you hit the shutter button, is not necessary for all types of photography. To try to say that it makes better photos is the same as trying to get all photographers to imitate the Adams style. And it infringes on people's creativity.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 11:16:02 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Seems to be a split of opinion here. I guess St. Ansel didn't believe in street photography, huh Robert? Or are dahkota, xion, e301 and JPR hacks? What about Henri Cartier-Bresson? Was he a hack too?
I think dahkota's position is more tolerant to all the different types of photography. Previsualization, or having a mental picture of what you want your final image to look like at the moment you hit the shutter button, is not necessary for all types of photography. To try to say that it makes better photos is the same as trying to get all photographers to imitate the Adams style. And it infringes on people's creativity. |
Well, if you've followed my postings to favorite-photographer threads you've seen that I consistently list as my top two Ansel and Cartier-Bresson. I'm an equal-opportunity admirer. The one doesn't cancel the other out, and I've never said the one is better than the other as a model to follow.
The only reason Ansel crept into this thread is that the issue was "edited vs original pictures" and someone else said "Does that make ansel an 'analog artist'?", apparently referencing his skilled manipulation of prints.
I find it interesting that you, of all people, would take exception to this. After all, you consistently champion the cause of minimal post-processing, shoot-it-as-you-want-it-to-be photography, and this was Ansel's goal. He always said that if you did it right in the camera you were most of the way towards the desired result.
"St. Ansel", as you so quaintly deride him, didn't have any need to polarize the way you seem to; he was lavish in his admiration of others' work and styles, even when they did not align with his. He, like me, realized it's a big world, our world of photography, and there was room for many viewpoints in it. He particularly admired Cartier-Bresson, incidentally.
Or perhaps your derision is directed at me, not Ansel? I find it quaint that you seem to think, because I consistently discuss his work and his workflow, that I think this is the ONLY road to photographic excellence. That's a downright silly attitude and I'm pretty sure you know it's not an accurate representation of how I approach things.
Sometimes I dream of a DPC where you stop reflexively bashing everything I say and realize, like Ansel, that the world is big enough for all of us.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 11:33:42 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Hmmm...how does that work for those of us who enjoy street photography?
I never know what I am going to find when I go out, but when I see it, I know how to make it mine. Only instantaneous visualization, that split second where I know an image is coming together, with no forethought or planning involved.
Am I a hack? Am I an artist? Am I lucky?
(and no, I didn't say I was good at it. For good street work, check out xion and JPR and e301.)
Just food for thought. There are many different types of photography just as there are many different types of photographers.
Its not the amount of editing you do, its knowing when you're done.
Its not the length of time you plan an image, its what you think the moment you click the shutter.
d |
I'd just say that good street photographers are fast with pre-visualization, as was Cartier-Bresson. Capturing the "decisive moment" is an art in and of itself, the photographer sees what is happening and presses the shutter, knowing what they want to capture as opposed to just rattling off frames in a "spray and pray" strategy.
The process is largely the same, it just happens at a much faster pace.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 11:48:51 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Well, if you've followed my postings to favorite-photographer threads you've seen that I consistently list as my top two Ansel and Cartier-Bresson. I'm an equal-opportunity admirer. The one doesn't cancel the other out, and I've never said the one is better than the other as a model to follow.
The only reason Ansel crept into this thread is that the issue was "edited vs original pictures" and someone else said "Does that make ansel an 'analog artist'?", apparently referencing his skilled manipulation of prints.
I find it interesting that you, of all people, would take exception to this. After all, you consistently champion the cause of minimal post-processing, shoot-it-as-you-want-it-to-be photography, and this was Ansel's goal. He always said that if you did it right in the camera you were most of the way towards the desired result.
"St. Ansel", as you so quaintly deride him, didn't have any need to polarize the way you seem to; he was lavish in his admiration of others' work and styles, even when they did not align with his. He, like me, realized it's a big world, our world of photography, and there was room for many viewpoints in it. He particularly admired Cartier-Bresson, incidentally.
Or perhaps your derision is directed at me, not Ansel? I find it quaint that you seem to think, because I consistently discuss his work and his workflow, that I think this is the ONLY road to photographic excellence. That's a downright silly attitude and I'm pretty sure you know it's not an accurate representation of how I approach things. |
I do think that is how you approach things photographic most of the time. I think it is so deeply ingrained in you that often you don't even realize it. But I also think your eyes are being opened a bit by the capabilities of your new equipment.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Sometimes I dream of a DPC where you stop reflexively bashing everything I say and realize, like Ansel, that the world is big enough for all of us.
Robt. |
I probably have missed some of your postings. But apparently you have misunderstood some of mine. I don't champion "shoot-it-as-you-want-it-to-be photography". That would be previsualizeing it. More correctly I champion a "shoot-it-as-it-is" approach. And I don't reflexivly bash everything you say. Only the part that I think is poor guidance for learning photographers.
And I still think dahkota's world of photography is a bigger one than you espouse. Previsualization is not necessary, and does not necessarily lead to better photos.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 12:03:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Remember though that if you are going to enter the challenges, only basic editing is allowed for the basic challenges. This means that you would not be able to edit out a power pole. So...if you're talking about challenges, then editing is very limited. For your own photos though, just make them look how you visioned them looking. That's what I say. |
I am still learning how to use my camera's settings and take pictures so I don't have to edit things. I am new to DPC and just submitted to my first challenge without a single edit other than a resize to meet the criteria.
I never realized before how many power lines there were until I started taking pictures and then realizing how ugly they were(as they appeared in MOST of my pictures). I am a programmer by trade but would much rather spend my time taking pictures than editing. It just doesn't seem right to have to pull something out because you didn't start out right.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 12:18:23 PM · #20 |
Editing involves much more and/or much less than cloning out power poles.
As bear states, even Ansel did dodging and burning.
I think it really depends on the image you are looking to get in the end. Which is where previsualizing comes in, kind of. Everyone sees the world differently. And cameras do not see the world the way people do. Understanding how your camera sees the world and how it differs from how you see the world is the trick. And sometimes, your world requires more editing to what the camera saw. And sometimes it requires none. Neither more editing nor less editing is right if neither accomplishes your goal, be it documentary, emotive, shocking, or commercial or any one of a dozen reasons why you snapped the shutter.
The common goal of all photographers is to show what they see. How they get there is as individual as the person taking the picture.
In this discussion, no one is right. No one is wrong either.
But spray and pray sounds like fun!
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 12:20:51 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Previsualization is not necessary, and does not necessarily lead to better photos. |
Not previsualizing does not preclude good photos, but it sure will decrease the likelihood that one will result from the press of the shutter. Most good photos that result from the shoot and pray approach would have benefitted from using some forethought before shooting.
Even a hack gets lucky every so often.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 12:37:14 PM · #22 |
You know, I think the issue here is one of definition. Or use.
In a street situation or a bird in flight situation, or a sport situation, there is no time for pre-visualization per se. I think, with the better/more trained photographers, it becomes second nature. If your looking for a certain image, you know where to stand to get something similar (I'm not going to stand with my back to the sun to get that sunset and bird image). In the split second before you take the shot, you know how you will frame it (rule of thirds, of course;)). You essentially already know what you want before you get there. Is this included in previsualization?
I think we are arguing a matter of degree. An experienced photographer knows what he wants before he goes in there. Maybe not the exact image itself, but an idea of what, to that person, would make a successful image. Un/subconscious previsualization maybe?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 12:41:42 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
You know, I think the issue here is one of definition. Or use.
In a street situation or a bird in flight situation, or a sport situation, there is no time for pre-visualization per se. I think, with the better/more trained photographers, it becomes second nature. If your looking for a certain image, you know where to stand to get something similar (I'm not going to stand with my back to the sun to get that sunset and bird image). In the split second before you take the shot, you know how you will frame it (rule of thirds, of course;)). You essentially already know what you want before you get there. Is this included in previsualization?
I think we are arguing a matter of degree. An experienced photographer knows what he wants before he goes in there. Maybe not the exact image itself, but an idea of what, to that person, would make a successful image. Un/subconscious previsualization maybe? |
I think with street photography as with other forms that are spontaneous the photographer already has an idea of what they are looking for so when a scene emerges they just click. The idea has already been conceived so I think this qualifies as previsualization.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 12:54:11 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
You know, I think the issue here is one of definition. Or use. |
dahkota has a point.... and has given some examples.... what exactly is previsualization? Why is it useful? And How do we use it?
I think the most elemental way of previsualization is simply to look carefully through the viewfinder before the shutter is snapped. That process might eliminate excessive cropping we see on this site.
Old Zone System books request that we look at a subject and translate it to b & w.... in every detail and tonality before the shutter is released. Not an easy task.... and even st. ansel used b&w polaroids to do this. In our time we have easier methods - to make comparisons. For this particular task, previsualization in our mind is archic.
I would be anxious to hear of other useful reasons to previsualize.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 01:17:04 PM · #25 |
There are photographs in my head that are just waiting for the right moment to be taken. Would this be counted as previsualization?
There are locations I have visited that begged to be retaken with this or that added, so I returned. Is that previsualization?
There are times when I say, "I need to take a picture of a shoe." So I think and think about what shoe I could take a picture of and where I would place it, and what exposure and DOF I would use. Is that previsualization?
There are moments when I see something in front of me that begs to be captured right then so I do, composing it with the POV I want and using the DOF I want, etc., before I actually snap the shutter (hopefully the moment isn't gone). Is that previsualization?
There are instances when I pray the camera isn't set on some godawful setting like ISO 1600 and manual shutter at 1/60 in bright daylight because the most amazing thing is happening in front of me and if I stop to make sure I know what I am doing I'll miss it. Is there previsualization here?
Once we decide when previsualization starts and where it ends, maybe we can decide its validity as a tool.
|
|
