Expert editing - Compare and contrast

12/22/2006 11:46:37 AM · #1

Scalvert Basic Editing

- me - Expert Editing

Knowing each was shot within it's specific ruleset, compare and contrast these shots as being "photographic in nature".

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/22/2006 11:49:55 AM · #2

His shot is much more photographic. You see, he's falling, but you're flying. :P

12/22/2006 12:09:19 PM · #3

Both photos are definitely within the rules sets, no question there. Scalvert's photo, in reality, is more photographic in nature than yours. His photo is a single photo that has merit on it's own. Your photo is a combination of two photos, neither of which seem to have any photographic merit on their own. Your image is about the post processing. Without the post processing, it wouldn't exist.

It's also obvious that neither photo represents any kind of reality. They are both designed to be about technique and trickery. They are rooted in the idea of fooling the viewer into believing something that isn't true. Here on DPC, that type of image does well though. Lots of people are more easily amused by clever technique than what an image may say on its own. There are several photographers on this site who thrive on this notion. It's about winning a contest.

Personally, I don't care for either image. Neither supports my own interests in photography. My objectives are to create images I find appealing primarily with the camera and then by injecting some of my own personality and thoughts via post processing. I have no interest in creating the primary image in post processing or going to extreme lengths to blur that line.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/22/2006 12:13:16 PM · #4

Err, they both strike me as equally 'photographic' whatever the hell that means. Both of them could have been shot with a background underneath the subject. I believe the one with the kid and the cap actually was.

You captured light and recorded it on media. Congratulations, it's a photograph.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

12/22/2006 12:14:36 PM · #5

I gave Scalvert's image a 7 and yours a 6. I thought both were amusing. I would have given Scalvert's the "extra" point at the time because of the apparent complexity of carrying the image off within the rules.

12/22/2006 12:32:58 PM · #6

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Your photo is a combination of two photos, neither of which seem to have any photographic merit on their own. Your image is about the post processing. Without the post processing, it wouldn't exist.

Where I disagree is that BOTH of our photos are in reality composites. His was done in-camera (with a large print) and mine was done digitally with Photoshop. Without the large-scale print, his image would not exist or have any "merit".

Where they are alike is that they were both shot for a very specific effect. I don't have a large-scale printer, so shot two images. In taking the clouds shot, I was VERY aware of the composition I needed to pull this shot off. Consequently, I shot about 5 exposures of myself and about 40 of the clouds.

12/22/2006 12:55:34 PM · #7

So what point do you want to make with the comparison?

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Your photo is a combination of two photos, neither of which seem to have any photographic merit on their own. Your image is about the post processing. Without the post processing, it wouldn't exist.

Where I disagree is that BOTH of our photos are in reality composites. His was done in-camera (with a large print) and mine was done digitally with Photoshop. Without the large-scale print, his image would not exist or have any "merit".

Where they are alike is that they were both shot for a very specific effect. I don't have a large-scale printer, so shot two images. In taking the clouds shot, I was VERY aware of the composition I needed to pull this shot off. Consequently, I shot about 5 exposures of myself and about 40 of the clouds.

12/22/2006 01:02:22 PM · #8

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

So what point do you want to make with the comparison?

Point? I dunno if there is a point. :-) Maybe someone else has a point...

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:02:34.

12/22/2006 01:08:01 PM · #9

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
So what point do you want to make with the comparison?

Point? I dunno if there is a point. :-) Maybe someone else has a point...

I sorta thought you might have some sort of objective with your original post since you asked for comparison and discussion on the idea of being photographic in nature. Sorry for the intrusion.

12/22/2006 01:10:17 PM · #10

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I sorta thought you might have some sort of objective with your original post since you asked for comparison and discussion on the idea of being photographic in nature. Sorry for the intrusion.

No apologies needed. Anyway, I really didn't have an objective other than a discussion of the "photographic in nature" clause of the EE rules.

12/22/2006 01:11:05 PM · #11

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

No apologies needed. Anyway, I really didn't have an objective other than a discussion of the "photographic in nature" clause of the EE rules.

Do you believe your submission was photographic in nature?

12/22/2006 01:13:41 PM · #12

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

No apologies needed. Anyway, I really didn't have an objective other than a discussion of the "photographic in nature" clause of the EE rules.

Do you believe your submission was photographic in nature?

Yes, in that it could be done in-camera with either a backdrop as scalvert used or in that I suppose I could have jumped from a plane (which might have been more fun than bar stool surfing). :-)

Maybe I should say it is "photo realistic".

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:14:07.

Ben

12/22/2006 01:14:15 PM · #13

I don't know whether this is relevant or not but i dislike both equally really.
So in that respect there both the same to me.

12/22/2006 01:14:57 PM · #14

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

No apologies needed. Anyway, I really didn't have an objective other than a discussion of the "photographic in nature" clause of the EE rules.

Do you believe your submission was photographic in nature?

Yes, in that it could be done in-camera with either a backdrop as scalvert used or in that I suppose I could have jumped from a plane (which might have been more fun than bar stool surfing). :-)

Maybe I should say it is "photo realistic".

But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature?

candlerain

12/22/2006 01:15:39 PM · #15

Originally posted by routerguy666:

You captured light and recorded it on media. Congratulations, it's a photograph.

I agree with this statement. So many photographs have been enhanced here anyway. I feel like I cannot compete here because I am not very good at photoshop.

I find that your picture is a bit odd though due to the fact that the lighting is very unnatural. The sky and your face are lit from different angles.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/22/2006 01:16:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by candlerain:

I find that your picture is a bit odd though due to the fact that the lighting is very unnatural. The sky and your face are lit from different angles.

That's usually the trickiest thing to do well in composites and most often what is badly screwed up. Same also when dropping in a replacement sky - a different lens, time of day or direction compared to the earth is often painfully obvious.

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:17:32.

candlerain

12/22/2006 01:17:21 PM · #17

Originally posted by Kerm:

I don't know whether this is relevant or not but i dislike both equally really.
So in that respect there both the same to me.

Not liking a photo does not make it a bad one though.

Edit: typo

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:18:31.

Ben

12/22/2006 01:18:29 PM · #18

Originally posted by candlerain:

Originally posted by Kerm:
I don't know whether this is relevant or not but i dislike both equally really.
So in that respect there both the same to me.

No liking a photo does not make it a bad one though.

I agree.

12/22/2006 01:19:09 PM · #19

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature?

I'd say this: It's as much "photographic in nature" as HDR.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/22/2006 01:19:48 PM · #20

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature?

I'd say this: It's as much "photographic in nature" as HDR.

That's not what I asked.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

12/22/2006 01:20:28 PM · #21

Originally posted by candlerain:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
You captured light and recorded it on media. Congratulations, it's a photograph.

I agree with this statement. So many photographs have been enhanced here anyway. I feel like I cannot compete here because I am not very good at photoshop.

I find that your picture is a bit odd though due to the fact that the lighting is very unnatural. The sky and your face are lit from different angles.

I don't think that people need to feel that they are at a disadvantage because of lack of PS knowledge. Take scalvert's image that was used in the comparison that started this thread, there wasn't much PS done to that image. The most "in your face" thing that he did was cropping the image.

Really, I think there's way too much emphasis placed on PS skills over just plain photo making skills.

[edited spelling]

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:22:22.

12/22/2006 01:22:46 PM · #22

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by candlerain:
I find that your picture is a bit odd though due to the fact that the lighting is very unnatural. The sky and your face are lit from different angles.

That's usually the trickiest thing to do well in composites and most often what is badly screwed up. Same also when dropping in a replacement sky - a different lens, time of day or direction compared to the earth is often painfully obvious.

While I did try to keep that in mind, I did flub it a bit.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/22/2006 01:24:07 PM · #23

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature?

I'd say this: It's as much "photographic in nature" as HDR.

That's not what I asked.

Yes I do. I captured both photos within the challenge deadline with a very specific agenda.

Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:24:50.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

12/22/2006 01:27:36 PM · #24

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

But since it wasn't done in-camera, is it photographic in nature?

I'd say this: It's as much "photographic in nature" as HDR.

That's not what I asked.

Yes I do. I captured both photos within the challenge deadline with a very specific agenda.

Are you saying you think it is "photographic in nature" because it met the deadline/agenda?