| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2006 02:15:32 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
YIKES!!!! I don't have anything but what came wiff the camera... maybe, if ya take a thought, and bend a bit and balance the background...
ya don't need all of that stuff... show us what ya can do straight from the source. Give me you view from the camera. |
Its not to say I am not able to - as in this photo - straight from the camera:
However, I enjoy the freedom of creativity. As I grow and improve perhaps I will love interest, but for now I enjoy it. And perhaps I am just ornery tonight and shouldn't be arguing. :oP |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:22:45 AM · #102 |
Hahah. This thread is hilarious, and the argument is just going in circles...maybe if somebody is really good, they can capture this argument on film, I think a shot of a banana peel would really illustrate the content of this thread...
Please don't take me seriously...I kid.
But seriously, I would like to share what I think photography is all about. Just like with any other art, it was started because the artist enjoyed it. Shoot in the style/fasion that makes you happy. I'm not going to go all zen and say that the only true style is straight out of the camera shooting, because I don't aggree with that. Here is the photographic process as I see it. Your eye sees something that grabs your attention, and then your mind fasions an image about what you want to capture. The photograph doesn't always match up with the image that you had in your head, so in order to satisfy you expectations, you should do whatever you need to whether it be Post processing or any other type of modification.
Well now I feel like i'm preaching. Im sure some of you aggree, and some of you dont. And that really doesn't matter too much, because.............I am the walrus.
-Jason Hayden |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:24:16 AM · #103 |
The only way to approach photography from a strictly purist PoV is color slide (transparency) film. It's pretty much the WYSIWYG choice in photography. But even then, limited dynamic range does hinder its ability to capture "what is real".
The Coolpix line of cameras are pretty aggressive in thier processing. Both my 8700 and 950 are anyway.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:24:55 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by jprezant:
Hahah. This thread is hilarious, and the argument is just going in circles...maybe if somebody is really good, they can capture this argument on film, I think a shot of a banana peel would really illustrate the content of this thread...
Please don't take me seriously...I kid.
But seriously, I would like to share what I think photography is all about. Just like with any other art, it was started because the artist enjoyed it. Shoot in the style/fasion that makes you happy. I'm not going to go all zen and say that the only true style is straight out of the camera shooting, because I don't aggree with that. Here is the photographic process as I see it. Your eye sees something that grabs your attention, and then your mind fasions an image about what you want to capture. The photograph doesn't always match up with the image that you had in your head, so in order to satisfy you expectations, you should do whatever you need to whether it be Post processing or any other type of modification.
Well now I feel like i'm preaching. Im sure some of you aggree, and some of you dont. And that really doesn't matter too much, because.............I am the walrus.
-Jason Hayden |
CooCooKaChoo |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:26:43 AM · #105 |
However, I enjoy the freedom of creativity. As I grow and improve perhaps I will love interest, but for now I enjoy it. And perhaps I am just ornery tonight and shouldn't be arguing. :oP [/quote]
oh my.... very nice! nicely played! Straight from the camera... and out-did much of the post processing I have seen. That's what I am talking about. Think beyond the software....
that is grand stuff. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:28:49 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Brielle:
Originally posted by jprezant:
Hahah. This thread is hilarious, and the argument is just going in circles...maybe if somebody is really good, they can capture this argument on film, I think a shot of a banana peel would really illustrate the content of this thread...
Please don't take me seriously...I kid.
But seriously, I would like to share what I think photography is all about. Just like with any other art, it was started because the artist enjoyed it. Shoot in the style/fasion that makes you happy. I'm not going to go all zen and say that the only true style is straight out of the camera shooting, because I don't aggree with that. Here is the photographic process as I see it. Your eye sees something that grabs your attention, and then your mind fasions an image about what you want to capture. The photograph doesn't always match up with the image that you had in your head, so in order to satisfy you expectations, you should do whatever you need to whether it be Post processing or any other type of modification.
Well now I feel like i'm preaching. Im sure some of you aggree, and some of you dont. And that really doesn't matter too much, because.............I am the walrus.
-Jason Hayden |
CooCooKaChoo |
My main arguement is... the photo should match up... and it is our/my responsibility to make it so. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:30:43 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The only way to approach photography from a strictly purist PoV is color slide (transparency) film. It's pretty much the WYSIWYG choice in photography. But even then, limited dynamic range does hinder its ability to capture "what is real".
The Coolpix line of cameras are pretty aggressive in thier processing. Both my 8700 and 950 are anyway. |
My arguement is taking the image out of the range of nature... not enhancing it. When the image is taken beyond the bounds of nature... it is not photography... |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:30:44 AM · #108 |
| So is post processing ok? If you saw a sunset with really warm tones in your minds eye, is it ok to adjust the hue/saturation so that you can create what your mind saw? |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:35:58 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by jprezant:
So is post processing ok? If you saw a sunset with really warm tones in your minds eye, is it ok to adjust the hue/saturation so that you can create what your mind saw? |
only if you set your camera to capture it as so. Once it leaves the camera... all bets are off. Learn the camera... make it so on the first shot. (I almost said, 'Make it so on your first go' but that was a hokey rhyme.) Good question... and borderline clever.....I like you! |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:37:47 AM · #110 |
ok, since this is about photography, let's get to it. you said that you believe that the photo should represent the scene as you see it. right?
Last week I saw this homeless guy sitting outside a church in Germany. 100 people walked past him without even casting a glance in his direction. So in fact, this is precisely how i saw the scene, and in my eyes this photo sums up the situation perfectly. how is this any less valid a photo than the unedited version? it was my perception, therefore it's representative of my reality, no?
 |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:41:35 AM · #111 |
| Actually, Pedro I think this thread is really just about trying to push people's buttons nothing more. Great photo btw! |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:42:03 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
ok, since this is about photography, let's get to it. you said that you believe that the photo should represent the scene as you see it. right?
Last week I saw this homeless guy sitting outside a church in Germany. 100 people walked past him without even casting a glance in his direction. So in fact, this is precisely how i saw the scene, and in my eyes this photo sums up the situation perfectly. how is this any less valid a photo than the unedited version? it was my perception, therefore it's representative of my reality, no?
|
Did you rotate this one Pedro? Because I'm totally "anti-rotate"
(cool picture by-the-way) |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:42:25 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
My arguement is taking the image out of the range of nature... not enhancing it. When the image is taken beyond the bounds of nature... it is not photography... |
Not sure I follow... it seems you are talking about "no studio shots now" I'm confused.
Anyway, I hope Brielle doesn't mind, but I did a bit of quick PS to her image to show more of what I think her eye saw or at least what my mind's eye saw when I looked at her nice photo.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:42:37 AM · #114 |
If you want it the way god and nature intended then please - throw away your camera and travel. Your eyes and you mind are the only things able to create such a thing - certainly not a digital camera. What, you think god shoots Nikon?
Personally I think you're stirring the pot just to stir it. If not then I honestly don't know why you're on this site because it's clearly the wrong audience for you're preaching.
You're making a lot of bold statements about things that simply come down to personal preference and jumping to a lot of conclusions about skill levels based upon technology used.
It seems you are confusing processing with photography. They are not one in the same and they are separate talents. To say someone (who in your opinion) uses too much processing therefore they are a bad photographer is ignorant. Often times in professional environments the processing isn't even done by the photographer (I used to process images for Allsport photography - but I never shot anything for them).
I think you are taking a very limited view of photography and photographers.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:43:57 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
ok, since this is about photography, let's get to it. you said that you believe that the photo should represent the scene as you see it. right?
Last week I saw this homeless guy sitting outside a church in Germany. 100 people walked past him without even casting a glance in his direction. So in fact, this is precisely how i saw the scene, and in my eyes this photo sums up the situation perfectly. how is this any less valid a photo than the unedited version? it was my perception, therefore it's representative of my reality, no?
|
Your reality is your perception... unfortunately... the rest of the world saw the same image in color... Same image... just as the world exists. Your shot is as you see it, but not in the true sense of the world... BUT... that is not really what I am arguing. I am more against you or anyone else taking this and bending it and shifting it and layering it..... That is what I was on about... totally turning it over from the truth. B/W is a personal preference... not really manipulation.
Message edited by author 2006-07-28 02:50:54. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:44:11 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Not sure I follow... it seems you are talking about "no studio shots now" I'm confused.
Anyway, I hope Brielle doesn't mind, but I did a bit of quick PS to her image to show more of what I think her eye saw or at least what my mind's eye saw when I looked at her nice photo.
|
I don't mind at all. :o) Mind if I ask what you did? I did play around with it some latr on, but everything I did tended to make my lil ghostie less transparent. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:45:10 AM · #117 |
How do you define nature? There are a ton of things that we have yet to discover so how can we say what is natural and what isn't? I say if you think there are clear fish with neon signs in them, then dammit! I want to see my guppy with a full belly!!!!
//i76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/jprezant/ohman.jpg
Message edited by author 2006-07-28 02:51:00. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:47:37 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by Brielle:
I don't mind at all. :o) Mind if I ask what you did? I did play around with it some latr on, but everything I did tended to make my lil ghostie less transparent. |
This isn't basic rules legal, but...
I painted with a solid white brush onto a layer in Soft Light Mode over the ghost. Then turned the transparency of that layer down to taste... about 40%. I did the same with black around the edges of the photo.
Did a quick levels adjustment on the midtones and wala. :-)
Message edited by author 2006-07-28 02:48:02.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:48:57 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
If you want it the way god and nature intended then please - throw away your camera and travel. Your eyes and you mind are the only things able to create such a thing - certainly not a digital camera. What, you think god shoots Nikon?
Personally I think you're stirring the pot just to stir it. If not then I honestly don't know why you're on this site because it's clearly the wrong audience for you're preaching.
You're making a lot of bold statements about things that simply come down to personal preference and jumping to a lot of conclusions about skill levels based upon technology used.
It seems you are confusing processing with photography. They are not one in the same and they are separate talents. To say someone (who in your opinion) uses too much processing therefore they are a bad photographer is ignorant. Often times in professional environments the processing isn't even done by the photographer (I used to process images for Allsport photography - but I never shot anything for them).
I think you are taking a very limited view of photography and photographers. |
I am not confusing proscessing with photography... that is exactly what I am arguing against. Photography is seeing the image and capturing it... processing is taking that image and changing it... It is not personal preference.... it is changing the truth to fit personal interpretation...
Change is good... but staying true to truth is a skill... take the shot and keep the intention.... rather than take the shot and manipulate the intention. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:49:25 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
This isn't basic rules legal, but...
I painted with a solid white brush onto a layer in Soft Light Mode over the ghost. Then turned the transparency of that layer down to taste... about 40%. I did the same with black around the edges of the photo.
Did a quick levels adjustment on the midtones and wala. :-) |
Faboolous. :o) I shall have to see if I can accomplish the same now! Thanks! |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:51:22 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
Change is good... but staying true to truth is a skill... take the shot and keep the intention.... rather than take the shot and manipulate the intention. |
I think I follow... sooo, if the processing is intented to mimick nature, it is good, but if it alters reality then it is bad. Am I correct?
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:53:11 AM · #122 |
This age old argument comes up all the time, and I must confess, it bugs the heck out of me. The purists calling processing evil and un-natural and everything, the ps folks calling the purists silly, and naive, etc. I say, BLEH!!!! on all of you!
If someone gets a sense of fulfillment from shooting straight from the camera, and they don't want to process at all, good for them! But if someone likes to take their shots, and 'manipulate' or whatever, good for them! Neither side is right, or wrong, or evil, or pure or unpure or anything else. They are going for the end result that they want. If they like it, cool. Some other people might like it too, even cooler.
I play guitar, sometimes I like taking out my acoustic and playing it. Sometimes I plug in my electric, crank the overdrive and some effects and rock the f*** out. Neither way is right or wrong, it all just depends on the moment, you know?
So if you get your kicks from being a straight shooter, awesome, cool, go for it man, don't let me get in your way.
...But...if I want to process my images to hell and back, leave me alone and let me do it! You are more than welcome to dislike the end result, but if I dig it, don't tell me I am evil, or un-talented or anything else, I will give you the same respect.
If God didn't intend pics straight from the camera, He wouldn't have made printer docks. But, if He didn't intend processed images also, He wouldn't have made Photoshop.
I can dig what you're into man, but let me dig what I'm into.
In summary, my opinion on the matter, there is no right or wrong, only difference. So quit yer bitchin' and go take some photos! |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:54:21 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by Brielle:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
This isn't basic rules legal, but...
I painted with a solid white brush onto a layer in Soft Light Mode over the ghost. Then turned the transparency of that layer down to taste... about 40%. I did the same with black around the edges of the photo.
Did a quick levels adjustment on the midtones and wala. :-) |
Faboolous. :o) I shall have to see if I can accomplish the same now! Thanks! |
see... that is exactly what I am on about.... why canna ya just try and do the same thing in camera??????? Mucking about....do this, do that... and never try and get it right from the go... make it right from the camera...Photography ceases to exists when the image is manipulated to 40% this and white brush that..... it has now become graphic art.... |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:57:37 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
This age old argument comes up all the time, and I must confess, it bugs the heck out of me. The purists calling processing evil and un-natural and everything, the ps folks calling the purists silly, and naive, etc. I say, BLEH!!!! on all of you!
If someone gets a sense of fulfillment from shooting straight from the camera, and they don't want to process at all, good for them! But if someone likes to take their shots, and 'manipulate' or whatever, good for them! Neither side is right, or wrong, or evil, or pure or unpure or anything else. They are going for the end result that they want. If they like it, cool. Some other people might like it too, even cooler.
I play guitar, sometimes I like taking out my acoustic and playing it. Sometimes I plug in my electric, crank the overdrive and some effects and rock the f*** out. Neither way is right or wrong, it all just depends on the moment, you know?
So if you get your kicks from being a straight shooter, awesome, cool, go for it man, don't let me get in your way.
...But...if I want to process my images to hell and back, leave me alone and let me do it! You are more than welcome to dislike the end result, but if I dig it, don't tell me I am evil, or un-talented or anything else, I will give you the same respect.
If God didn't intend pics straight from the camera, He wouldn't have made printer docks. But, if He didn't intend processed images also, He wouldn't have made Photoshop.
I can dig what you're into man, but let me dig what I'm into.
In summary, my opinion on the matter, there is no right or wrong, only difference. So quit yer bitchin' and go take some photos! |
God didn't invent the photo dock and software... man did. And man is evil... hippy...... (Ok... I jest... kekekekekkeke..... but by taking no stance you have no validity... your arguement is, nature v. man.... and I lan towards nature, 'cause man is fallible and nature has worked it out.) |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 02:58:31 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
God didn't invent the photo dock and software... man did. And man is evil... hippy...... (Ok... I jest... kekekekekkeke..... but by taking no stance you have no validity... your arguement is, nature v. man.... and I lan towards nature, 'cause man is fallible and nature has worked it out.) |
God didn't make cameras either. :oP |
|
