| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2006 06:23:19 PM · #26 |
When I go out shooting, I know sometimes that I am going to have to heavily post process something to come out with the desired product. Sometimes it's less. I tend to process the picture to the point where I like it. Sometimes it ends up digital art, sometimes it could still be considered a photograph. I point you to one of my self-portraits from last night:
Original:
Final:
I would consider the final version still a photograph, and not digital art.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 08:19:32 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Magpie Mine
and the original.
One or two things done to this ;-)
Strighten the Chimney, move the foreground to balance the chimney/engine-house.
Draganize and make mono, then go to town on dodge and burn
I enjoyed myself ;-) |
I can see that...and it's a fine piece of artwork. ;^) |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 08:26:48 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Photography started out defying reality. It can be said that B&W images themselves are augmented reality, simply from thier lack of color.
OK, now we have digital sensors that can see the visible spectrum (plus some). If we drop the color are we defting what the canera saw?
How about if we put an IR filter on the lens and do no further processing? Is this now reality, because the camera saw the image in near IR? The same goes for graduated ND filters, diffusion filters and a lot of pre/in-camera techniques.
When do you start processing "reality"? Is anything done in-camera legitimate reality, while PS work is not?
Even in photojournalism, if I were to use a filter in front of my lens for effect, could I get away with that and keep my job and dignity? Or would I be fired like someone who changed color in PS to augment a sky? |
All valid points Leroy. I don't see any major rights or wrongs with any of this really. Something I was reading recently sparked this thought and I'm trying to see how other's feel about it.
Personally I don't lay a heavy hand with post-processing (I'm afraid to go too far) - yet I do edit for clarity, contrast, some color saturation...and I use filters on occasion for special effects or to help with exposure. Many of these tools available to us now digitally (and of course physically) were available to film photographers using other means & methods.
I guess most of the time I lean toward keeping it "real" - meaning what I visualized at the time of capturing the image. As has been pointed out that can vary by individual.
Thanks everyone for an enjoyable discussion on this subject. ;^) |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 08:28:07 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by LERtastic:
... Final:
I would consider the final version still a photograph, and not digital art. |
Agreed, and well done I might add. ;^) |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 12:28:52 AM · #30 |
I always strive to get things right in camera first. More often than not though, I fail. I tend to bracket a lot too, so that I can merge the exposures in pp, but unfortunately, that's not legal in challenges.
For Single Tree, my vision was to capture a silhouette against a burnt orange sunset sky but the weather in Auckland was completely foul during the submission period. So I knew that if I was to get what I wanted, I was going to have to do some major processing.
So from this original:
I wound up with this:
I guess you could say I pushed it far, I'd do it again if I felt the need to :) And boy I'm grateful the voters liked my vision too... |
|
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: 09/10/2025 12:02:05 PM EDT.
