| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2008 01:18:13 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i just don't think they merit more than a 1 in a competition not specifically FOR hdr.
|
HDR?
 |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:20:01 PM · #52 |
yes ...that moss is unnaturally green and the water indicates either long exposure ..or multiple exposures.
and, you indicate in your description that you used three shots through photomatix. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:22:47 PM · #53 |
| oh ..while we're on the topic of long exposure water shots. don't like those either. i'll giving all of those shots a 3 from now on. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:26:38 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by JustinM:
... I wanted to see by entering this photo that was obviously far from the original what the voters would think. It got almost exactly in the middle (49% percentile) with a score just above the median. I am sure if I had entered more of the "true" photograph of this scene my score would have been down by at least 0.5. I think the voters here on DPC no longer care that much about "true" photography as much as it may seem sometimes from forum discussions... |
I've never understood why we should care, if and how much an image may divert from its original. What I do care about is whether or not it's a) credible and b) better than what it was prior to processing. Over-processing, to me, means I can't, credibly, buy its reality as an object, say, next to chair, a car or, if you like, even a real carnival. When it hurts the eyes, it could be over-saturated, over-sharpened or what have you. While this may be effectively and appropriately done for a clear purpose, it fails the test when the effect(s) doesn't (don't) serve such a purpose.
I can think of as many reasons for calling a photo true, to use your term, as I could for not doing so. It would be true, when the apple it is either invites the sense of one we can recognize (be that from a dream or right off some cart) or when it, simply, prompts a bite, no matter the taste. And I'm not talking about an apple as the subject of a photo. I'm talking apple as an object just like any photo.
The worm always comes from the outside, the external sugar, ambiguities and frills. It's the photographer's job, the way I see it, to remove any ideas and artifacts from his work that are external to it.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 13:27:36. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:28:15 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
yes ...that moss is unnaturally green ... |
Actually, in overcast, wet conditions, that moss is very close to what you'd see in person. JMO of course. :-)
I've found that wet, overcast conditions REALLY make colors pop - sometimes to the point I'll find myself pulling down the desat from what was captured. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:28:29 PM · #56 |
I think this thread is funny :P In general, I think people who take all-or-nothing viewpoints (also known as fun-da-men-ta-lists) are kinda funny (if unarmed) :D
And I score a pic high if I like it. Don't care wether it's because of 'pure' photography (what's that anyway?) or because of PP.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:30:46 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i just don't think they merit more than a 1 in a competition not specifically FOR hdr.
|
HDR?
|
This, to my eye, is exactly the kind of HDR I like. If we saw the 3 source images, we would likely see that the camera could not be set for a single exposure that would adequately represent the scene. Exposing for the highlights would leave the shadows blocked, and exposing for the shadows would blow the highlights. The human eye at the scene is NOT limited to a single exposure setting: it dynamically alters aperture and focus as you look at this or that.
Using photographic techniques (aperture to get dof, exposures) to represent the scene is the craft we are all learning. There is inherent abstraction in photography: a 3 dimensional scene is being flattened into a 2 dimensional representation.
So, wailing against the use of HDR, or blurred moving water is like wailing against the use of black and white or shallow dof to achieve the intended artistic effect. I note with interest that Thaddeus makes use of the latter two techniques regularly... |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:33:24 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
yes ...that moss is unnaturally green ... |
Actually, in overcast, wet conditions, that moss is very close to what you'd see in person. JMO of course. :-) |
I'll both agree and disagree. The moss is pushed to a hyperreality in that shot, BUT I am NEVER satisfied with the greens that are captured in a digital media. I look at them and say, "that's not ANYTHING like what I remember seeing". The moss in the Columbia Gorge or the Olympic Rainforest DOES almost glow. It saturates your senses. If I want to capture that impression, I have to alter the photo because the camera cannot do it by itself.
I don't mind Thaddeus giving his opinion though. He can vote how he sees fit. Plus, I see he hasn't voted at all yet, which suits me fine as well. ;) |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:34:16 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Camabs:
I think this thread is funny :P In general, I think people who take all-or-nothing viewpoints (also known as fun-da-men-ta-lists) are kinda funny (if unarmed) :D
And I score a pic high if I like it. Don't care wether it's because of 'pure' photography (what's that anyway?) or because of PP. |
Absolutely!! it is if some feel that the PP they apply is pure, but some is off limits or beneath them. Sure, they can adjust levels, sharpen, convert to monotone--that is okay. Anything else is cheating. Yet we don't see straight from the camera challenge entries from them, now, do we? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:35:50 PM · #60 |
| our inability to disagree without malice is what keeps humanity away from utopia. it's also what makes us human. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:37:24 PM · #61 |
Pre-digital days, photographers had to choose films based on color representation--some were better at flesh tones, some were better at green foliage. With digital, there are many other, different considerations. So any assumption about "what the camera sees is pure" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the tools. their strengths, weaknesses, limitations.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 13:39:46. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:37:40 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
yes ...that moss is unnaturally green ... |
Actually, in overcast, wet conditions, that moss is very close to what you'd see in person. JMO of course. :-) |
I'll both agree and disagree. The moss is pushed to a hyperreality in that shot, BUT I am NEVER satisfied with the greens that are captured in a digital media. I look at them and say, "that's not ANYTHING like what I remember seeing". The moss in the Columbia Gorge or the Olympic Rainforest DOES almost glow. It saturates your senses. If I want to capture that impression, I have to alter the photo because the camera cannot do it by itself... |
I very much agree. Here's my attempt to walk the same rope:
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:39:42 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
our inability to disagree without malice is what keeps humanity away from utopia. it's also what makes us human. |
The malice will eventually thin the herd down to those people who share a common outlook. I look forward to many agreeable conversations with myself. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:41:29 PM · #64 |
i've looked back and can't find it. who is indicating that a camera see's things as "pure"? I certainly don't. yes, i use shallow DoF and black/white ..what's your point? are you commenting your opinion on a style of photography or trying to find ammunition to launch at me?
would anyone be offended if considered hdr analogous to britney spears? tired, overdone, and constant bad examples overshadowing those nuggets of pop stars that are truly great. thus ends the argument.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 13:45:34. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:01:54 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
yes, i use shallow DoF and black/white ..what's your point? |
My point is simple: you use techniques to achieve the effect you wish, to express your vision. Others use techniques that differ from yours, to achieve the effect they wish. So why so judgmental? If you will judge an image by the technique used to create it, rather than the image itself, then is your primary interest the technique alone?
I was in a gallery, part of a group showing, and two visiting photographers were actively, animatedly discussing my friends' images on the walls. I strolled over, as I was interested in what they were so excited about: they were discussing the pros and cons of the matting and framing choices, and ignoring the images themselves completely. Consequently, I had no interest at all in their opinions on the images--if they even paid attention to them.
So, when you make these huge umbrella "I will vote a 1 for any image that has ______" declarations, it seems to me that you are missing the point completely.
I am not overly fond of bug images--but I evaluate each one that shows up in a challenge on it's own merits, and one of the most fantastic images I have ever seen here was this:
So, keeping an open mind will allow you to get more value from this site, and to offer more value to others here, as well. Which, to me, is the point of being here.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 14:02:57. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:06:00 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I am not overly fond of bug images--but I evaluate each one that shows up in a challenge on it's own merits, and one of the most fantastic images I have ever seen here was this:
So, keeping an open mind will allow you to get more value from this site, and to offer more value to others here, as well. Which, to me, is the point of being here. |
I'm flattered. :) I've been trying to use processing more often to actually convey something rather than just "improve" the picture (ie. the processing has a message in itself). In that shot I was trying to make it as "pretty" as possible while still making the spider the subject. As I said in the notes, the phobic would ignore the beauty of the shot and simply fear the spider. The non-phobic wouldn't understand this and be drawn to the color and bokeh instead. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:11:48 PM · #67 |
i don't really care about what techniques are used. i care about the end result ..that which is put on display for the sake of viewing and personal opinion creation. for me ..hdr images are a dime a dozen and rarely exceptional. some would say the same about b/w, street, formal portraiture, cross processing, fake polaroiding, leaves, dogs ..the list is endless. and that's perfectly ok.
what concerns me most is my inability to express an opinion, however unpopular it may be, without being jumped all over as if i were singling out individuals and horribly destroying their fragile sense of self. i'm not.
btw ..matting and framing are EXTREMELY important to the final presentation of a piece of art. to not see how they play into the overall aesthetic is indeed tragic. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:13:41 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I am not overly fond of bug images--but I evaluate each one that shows up in a challenge on it's own merits, and one of the most fantastic images I have ever seen here was this:
So, keeping an open mind will allow you to get more value from this site, and to offer more value to others here, as well. Which, to me, is the point of being here. |
I'm flattered. :) I've been trying to use processing more often to actually convey something rather than just "improve" the picture (ie. the processing has a message in itself). In that shot I was trying to make it as "pretty" as possible while still making the spider the subject. As I said in the notes, the phobic would ignore the beauty of the shot and simply fear the spider. The non-phobic wouldn't understand this and be drawn to the color and bokeh instead. |
and this image only placed 24th. thank you for illustrating the fundamental flaws of the system. attractive, well thought out images are overlooked, while heavily processed, poor original images are getting ribbons. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:19:18 PM · #69 |
| btw, justin ..my apologies for hijacking the thread. that was not my intention. i think it's time to put the soapbox away for the day and go browse through flickr for a bit. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:25:40 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i don't really care about what techniques are used.
|
This is not consistent with your earlier statements about how you plan to vote on HDR images, and that they are not worthy of more than a 1 by definition unless the challenge is an HDR specific challenge.
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
btw ..matting and framing are EXTREMELY important to the final presentation of a piece of art. to not see how they play into the overall aesthetic is indeed tragic. |
I didn't say matting and framing were unimportant. I said that I didn't have interest in the opinions about the images from people who only cared about the matting and framing.
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
what concerns me most is my inability to express an opinion, however unpopular it may be, without being jumped all over as if i were singling out individuals and horribly destroying their fragile sense of self. i'm not. |
So, you are feeling "jumped all over" and resort to suggestions that those who disagree with you have a "fragile sense of self". I didn't see anyone disrespect you, just a discussion of the opinions you expressed in a forum (discussion implied....). But it seems clear, now, that you value argument rather than discussion, as your "fragile" comment and the "thus endeth the argument" statements suggest. So I won't trouble you or myself with any more wasted breath here.
Peace. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:32:15 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
btw, justin ..my apologies for hijacking the thread. that was not my intention. i think it's time to put the soapbox away for the day and go browse through flickr for a bit. |
Welcome to DPC! |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:32:18 PM · #72 |
| I was having a little fun as I noticed you don't vote, yet! Carry on...bring on the zeros! ;) |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:32:45 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i don't really care about what techniques are used.
|
This is not consistent with your earlier statements about how you plan to vote on HDR images, and that they are not worthy of more than a 1 by definition unless the challenge is an HDR specific challenge.
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
btw ..matting and framing are EXTREMELY important to the final presentation of a piece of art. to not see how they play into the overall aesthetic is indeed tragic. |
I didn't say matting and framing were unimportant. I said that I didn't have interest in the opinions about the images from people who only cared about the matting and framing.
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
what concerns me most is my inability to express an opinion, however unpopular it may be, without being jumped all over as if i were singling out individuals and horribly destroying their fragile sense of self. i'm not. |
So, you are feeling "jumped all over" and resort to suggestions that those who disagree with you have a "fragile sense of self". I didn't see anyone disrespect you, just a discussion of the opinions you expressed in a forum (discussion implied....). But it seems clear, now, that you value argument rather than discussion, as your "fragile" comment and the "thus endeth the argument" statements suggest. So I won't trouble you or myself with any more wasted breath here.
Peace. |
oh this just begs for a response ..
i only feel jumped all over because people such as you keep bringing up other types of over used or equally unlike styles/techniques/whatev that just so happen to coincide with the styles displayed in my portfolio ..
i chose to end the discussion because i recognized that a good portion of my comments could be perceived as "trollish" and i certainly don't want that reputation. unpopular, fine ..but i'm not a troll. nor am i out for blood.
my comment on hdr voting was tongue-in-cheek and entirely pointless ..since i have yet to ever, and plan to never, vote in a challenge. i loved hdr when i first started looking at it. then it all started to look the same, and bland, and uninspiring ..boring. and most of the examples were poorly executed. rather than misinterpret single statements ..take the time to read and comprehend the full thread ..OR..ask me to explain what i mean. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:33:26 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i would agree ..this looks more like an image that has been squeezed through topaz adjust. both techniques are on my shit list of over (and poorly) done applications.
Topaz Adjust |
It is actually an HDR, made and tonemapped in Photomatix. After that though, I used levels, curves, hue/saturation adjustment layers and some dodging and burning. Also I created a gaussion blur layer and set the layer mode to either soft light or hard light, can't remember.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:40:17 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I am not overly fond of bug images--but I evaluate each one that shows up in a challenge on it's own merits, and one of the most fantastic images I have ever seen here was this:
|
I'm flattered. :) I've been trying to use processing more often to actually convey something rather than just "improve" the picture (ie. the processing has a message in itself). In that shot I was trying to make it as "pretty" as possible while still making the spider the subject. As I said in the notes, the phobic would ignore the beauty of the shot and simply fear the spider. The non-phobic wouldn't understand this and be drawn to the color and bokeh instead. |
It was EXCEPTIONALLY Well Done, sir! :-) |
|
