| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2006 07:50:45 PM · #26 |
bumping just for the fun of it
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:56:04 PM · #27 |
i asked one of my editors 'how much is too much' and the basic answer i got was that if the printed image goes beyond what other people on the scene would remember, it's too much. for example, if the sky was simply overcast and not dramatic, but the print looks like something with icelandic skies, then it's too much. also, moving/removing objects is strictly taboo.
as to 'heavy editing', most of the people i shoot for want it right in camera, because they just don't have time for heavy editing. this works for me. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 10:19:29 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
i asked one of my editors 'how much is too much' and the basic answer i got was that if the printed image goes beyond what other people on the scene would remember, it's too much. |
Skip, would you also agree that that also goes for in-camera manipulation of the scene or is anything you can do in-camera OK?
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 10:33:07 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
as to 'heavy editing', most of the people i shoot for want it right in camera, because they just don't have time for heavy editing. this works for me. |
I remember all those specials about the Sport Illustrated Swimsuit edition or Playboy choosing the Playmate of the Year. They would have the inevitable shot of the Publisher and several editors with a loupe in hand, pouring over hundreds of photos on a large contact sheet.
I know a lot of that still goes on today because what you see on a LCD screen does not translate to a printed photo. Editors just do not have the time to do a lot of correction and newspapers definitely do not have that time. Plus, I can't imagine a lot of photographers would last very long in the business if the majority of the work they turned in needed more than a minor levels and sharpening to look great.
I am not a great photographer because I know great photographers get it right in camera. I sit on photoshoots, I argue with them, I see the dailies...they kick my ass. But..I know it can be done. Therefore I know what my goal is and what anyone who wants to be considered a professional photographer worthy of being hired should strive for. Photographic perfection in camera.
Is it hard? Absolutely no doubt. But, it's why good photographers get paid the nice money. You just KNEW that it wasn't as simple as buying nice gear and learning photoshop! >:-D |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 03:57:26 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by skiprow:
i asked one of my editors 'how much is too much' and the basic answer i got was that if the printed image goes beyond what other people on the scene would remember, it's too much. |
Skip, would you also agree that that also goes for in-camera manipulation of the scene or is anything you can do in-camera OK? |
it all depends on the scruples of who you're shooting for. i know exactly what you mean about 'in camera manipulation', and, again, it comes back to whether or not what you captured accurately portrays what most people remember. however, even if you approach an assignment professionally, you only have your point of view; this is no different than a one referee seeing things differently than 2 others. i have a photo of a goal-line fumble that was called a fumble when the coach (and everyone else on the sideline) thought it was a touchdown. the following photo ran on the front page of a weekly paper with the credit 'Photo Illustration by Skip Rowland', because the editor and publisher believed that no one would believe that the image could be produced in camera...
Originally posted by hokie:
Editors just do not have the time to do a lot of correction and newspapers definitely do not have that time. Plus, I can't imagine a lot of photographers would last very long in the business if the majority of the work they turned in needed more than a minor levels and sharpening to look great. |
this is where shooting for real tight deadlines is such great experience--you find yourself in situations where you have 30-60 minutes to scan through 100s and 100s of images to select 5-10 images, and then you have to caption them all! and doing this with editors popping in or calling, contributing their own sense of urgency...
i've shot on some teams where some members primarily shoot for weekly publications or for marketing agencies. the stuff they put in their portfolios is simply incredible, but you wouldn't believe the nightmare they cause for the photo director...because they're shooting with the mindset that they can fix it in photoshop. i believe there is a time and place for everything, but i'll ditto you on the getting it right in camera: it's an excellent habit to develop.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 07:02:10. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 05:41:12 AM · #31 |
It seems that Reuters has implemented a "Minimal Editing" ruleset for its photojournalists too. See here.
This was following that case where the photographer manipulated photos of the bombing of Beirut last summer. See this C|NET article. |
|
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: 07/30/2025 01:20:53 PM EDT.
