| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2013 10:19:07 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
exactly +1 |
Forgot about slide film. Yup -- good way of looking at it! |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:20:44 AM · #77 |
There is no such thing as a level playing field, anywhere, in any kind of competition.
There is no way to handicap an artist, in competition or anywhere else.
Photography does not begin and end with the release of the shutter button. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:27:52 AM · #78 |
I can essentially get all the RAW processing I want in a minimal image if I want to take the time and create a custom Picture Style. I could boost a certain color ranges, define a contrast curve, tweak the sharpening. I haven't tried it yet, but I bet I could create a selective desaturation image that would pass validation in a minimal challenge. That said, I have found the above too much effort to go through for a particular challenge. Maybe it is time for a change ;-)
I did enjoy shooting the light on white minimal challenge as it showed myself how much I have grown in the last year. A year ago I don't think I could have successfully shot the image. I will say the lack of sharpening control really infuriated me. I kept ending up with either too much or too little. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:41:44 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
its arbitrary in that we have progressed past that point. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:44:49 AM · #80 |
| It's a shame we can't enter the same image in both challenges with different processing rules for each and see how they do. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:48:35 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
its arbitrary in that we have progressed past that point. |
Well, the technology has progressed. Some of the people have not. [eta] no disrespect to the photogs out there who enjoy using antique equipment & historic processes like wet glass plates.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 10:51:58. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:50:47 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Well, the technology has progressed. Some of the people have not. |
:]
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 10:54:15. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:53:54 AM · #83 |
.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 10:54:07. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:55:35 AM · #84 |
I'm not trying to pick a fight! I meant no disrespect for the photogs out there who enjoy traditional photography equipment. They make very interesting, engaging photographs. People are still building pinhole cameras & making their own wet glass plates. It's all good. [eta] The thing is to find your own particular obsession, & go with it. I start to feel a mood swing coming on when it seems like people are trying to dissuade me from my own obsessions. But then I usually see something shiny & move on.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 11:04:51. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 11:50:56 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
its arbitrary in that we have progressed past that point. |
Except that mastering the discipline of getting it "right" at exposure results in a higher quality of work straight through the workflow. I don't know why people keep fighting this. There are many aspects or facets of what we call "photography", and post processing is just one of them. By occasionally taking PP out of the equation altogether, we push ourselves into a different zone and, if we embrace it, only good can come of it.
It's as if you're chastising the people who still draw with charcoal, since we've progressed beyond that point to better and better colors, isn't it? This ignores the fact that drawing with more primitive tools isolates such factors as "line" and "gesture" in ways that color painting does not.
I wish everyone could just relax and accept each challenge for what it IS: a "challenge" :-) |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 11:54:56 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
its arbitrary in that we have progressed past that point. |
Except that mastering the discipline of getting it "right" at exposure results in a higher quality of work straight through the workflow. I don't know why people keep fighting this. There are many aspects or facets of what we call "photography", and post processing is just one of them. By occasionally taking PP out of the equation altogether, we push ourselves into a different zone and, if we embrace it, only good can come of it.
It's as if you're chastising the people who still draw with charcoal, since we've progressed beyond that point to better and better colors, isn't it? This ignores the fact that drawing with more primitive tools isolates such factors as "line" and "gesture" in ways that color painting does not.
I wish everyone could just relax and accept each challenge for what it IS: a "challenge" :-) |
+1E9 |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 12:10:04 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
its arbitrary in that we have progressed past that point. |
Except that mastering the discipline of getting it "right" at exposure results in a higher quality of work straight through the workflow. I don't know why people keep fighting this. There are many aspects or facets of what we call "photography", and post processing is just one of them. By occasionally taking PP out of the equation altogether, we push ourselves into a different zone and, if we embrace it, only good can come of it.
It's as if you're chastising the people who still draw with charcoal, since we've progressed beyond that point to better and better colors, isn't it? This ignores the fact that drawing with more primitive tools isolates such factors as "line" and "gesture" in ways that color painting does not.
I wish everyone could just relax and accept each challenge for what it IS: a "challenge" :-) |
I'm not chastising anyone.
i understand the exercise, i understand the intent, what i don't understand why anyone feels we need to fiddle with the camera buttons for processing. the camera preview is different than my computer monitor.
if we to have minimal RAW editing allowed wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? what it removes is the trial and error of setting up your camera to get the right processing settings.
i am still forced to nail the lighting, nail the composition, nail the exposure. basically nail the entire setup. what is removed is the hoping the algorithms get it right.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2013 12:28:17 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think the most rational way of looking at this is that "Minimal Editing" is the digital equivalent of what we had to do in film days when we shot color transparencies; you got those right in camera, or they didn't work at all. It's not as arbitrary as some seem to think it is. |
its arbitrary in that we have progressed past that point. |
Except that mastering the discipline of getting it "right" at exposure results in a higher quality of work straight through the workflow. I don't know why people keep fighting this. There are many aspects or facets of what we call "photography", and post processing is just one of them. By occasionally taking PP out of the equation altogether, we push ourselves into a different zone and, if we embrace it, only good can come of it.
It's as if you're chastising the people who still draw with charcoal, since we've progressed beyond that point to better and better colors, isn't it? This ignores the fact that drawing with more primitive tools isolates such factors as "line" and "gesture" in ways that color painting does not.
I wish everyone could just relax and accept each challenge for what it IS: a "challenge" :-) |
Nobody's fighting the importance of getting it right in camera, or at least I'm not. What I object to is the notion that PP can make up for not getting it right in camera, the other notion that because PP offers so much that it's no longer important to get it right in camera, & the other notion that a minimal rule set is going to take people back to the basics & get it right in camera & leave it that way as some kind of proof because it's good for you. And the other notion that "getting it right in camera" is somehow an objective thing, independent of any individual photographer. And the other notion that minimal rules creates a level playing field.
Yes, occasionally restricting myself to the minimal rule set would probably be good for me. Do I always do what others think is good for me? No, I usually do what interests me.
So, if you were to write a mission statement for yourself as a photographer, would 'getting it right in camera' be part of your statement? Is it something you feel you have to speak to, when you're defining yourself as a photographer? |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 12:34:21 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i am still forced to nail the lighting, nail the composition, nail the exposure. basically nail the entire setup. what is removed is the hoping the algorithms get it right. |
It's the difference between previsualizing the finished result and constructing the result after the fact. When you process from RAW, virtually every aspect of the image other than lighting and composition is malleable. You can, and often do, end up with a result that's radically different than what you'd had in mind when you captured the image.
Minimal editing teaches you to construct your image as far as possible BEFORE making the exposure: color balance, contrast, saturation, sharpness, a host of variables need to be locked in prior to shooting. Doing it this way, as an exercise, tends to make you more AWARE of these variables in a way that pushing sliders in post doesn't even begin to approach.
It's just good discipline. If I were still TEACHING photography, my early classes would be done via minimal editing, just as back in the day my early classes were done with slides, not prints. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 12:36:01 PM · #90 |
| I'd be the first to agree that minimal editing does NOT "level the playing field", BTW; it greatly favors the experienced photographer with a good command of his/her equipment. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 12:40:02 PM · #91 |
This is a test. Pick your preference carefully...
;D |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 12:50:46 PM · #92 |
| Previsualizing the finished result...I feel like I have never understood that concept. Does everyone do that but me? Does that mean that when you leave the house with your camera & associated gear you already know, & can see in your mind, what your photograph is going to look like? And you can reliably get exactly what you previsualize? |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:07:05 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Previsualizing the finished result...I feel like I have never understood that concept. Does everyone do that but me? Does that mean that when you leave the house with your camera & associated gear you already know, & can see in your mind, what your photograph is going to look like? And you can reliably get exactly what you previsualize? |
With me it's more making me shot look like what I see. :)
When I take a picture of a backlit bird or squirrel, I know that I'm going to overexpose to expose for the animal, but that I'm going to process it for both the background and the animal to bring them back together. I know what I want my final picture to look like, and I set my settings to a point that I know that I can get those results from my RAW file. My eye can process the animal in the shadows and see the gorgeous colors in the background, but if I shoot it, one is either severely underexposed or overexposed and I need to fix it.
(I have the problem that in the winter, my deck railing is completely in shade and the yard is in sun. It's a nasty shooting situation. I'm starting to add flash, but the animals aren't real crazy about it.)
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 13:14:31. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:10:18 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Previsualizing the finished result...I feel like I have never understood that concept. Does everyone do that but me? Does that mean that when you leave the house with your camera & associated gear you already know, & can see in your mind, what your photograph is going to look like? And you can reliably get exactly what you previsualize? |
Pre-visualization can involve a couple of things ... for example, I knew what time Moonrise would occur and a location where I could get a view of it over a mountain, so yes, I planned to go there and knew approximately what the shot would look like when I left the house.
I think more often it refers to knowing what framing/cropping and tone/color range you want in the final version, and adjusting your exposure parameters to give you the data you need to achieve that. For example, if you know you want to end up with a high-key look, it's better to set up your lighting and exposure to give you something which will achieve that, rather than taking a "normal" exposure which then needs major manipulation to get the look you want. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:11:57 PM · #95 |
| My problem is reality doenst look like what i envision, so when i get home, i need to make that adjustment. :) |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:13:35 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
My problem is reality doenst look like what i envision, so when i get home, i need to make that adjustment. :) |
You can adjust reality from home?! Must take a lot of RAM ... ;-) |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:31:47 PM · #97 |
Hmm. Thanks for taking the time. Thinking it over...
Knowing what to do with the camera to get a useful capture is good.
Knowing what day & time the full moon is going to be in a clear sky above a pretty landscape is good.
But, like mike_311, reality doesn't look like what I envision. I need the artistic process to realize it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:35:28 PM · #98 |
Previsualization, at the root level, means this: I look at a scene and I see in my mind's eye what I want the finished image to look like. I calculate my exposure and other technicals based on the desired end result, then use PP techniques to accomplish the result when and as needed.
As Paul noted, previsualization can include anticipating such issues as angle of light etc and inserting yourself in the right place at the right time. But ALWAYS it invol;ves a certain amount of analysis/introspection on location and before pressing the shutter. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:41:05 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
But, like mike_311, reality doesn't look like what I envision. I need the artistic process to realize it. |
It's hard to be really helpful talking in complete hypotheticals. Why don't you post an example (small is OK) of a picture, and describe in as much detail as you can how you want it to look, and perhaps what processing you may have already tried, and how that falls short of accomplishing your aim. Put it in your Workshop folder and let others have a go at editing it, and see if any of those techniques work for you. There's potentially a side-challenge coming up (mentioned in another thread) following a similar process.
Of course, for the current challenge running under the Minimal rules the post-processing doesn't apply anyway -- for this you need to pre-visualize how you want the image to look, and try to get the lighting and exposure such that the camera can capture it without needing further processing other than sharpening. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:42:59 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Previsualization, at the root level, means this: I look at a scene and I see in my mind's eye what I want the finished image to look like. I calculate my exposure and other technicals based on the desired end result, then use PP techniques to accomplish the result when and as needed.
As Paul noted, previsualization can include anticipating such issues as angle of light etc and inserting yourself in the right place at the right time. But ALWAYS it invol;ves a certain amount of analysis/introspection on location and before pressing the shutter. |
I don't know about everyone else, but my minds eye has a higher level of polish than could be entirely captured in the camera. which fundamentally is why i don't like minimal, my camera cant create want i want it to.
once and a while it surprises me.
|
|
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: 07/27/2025 09:26:49 AM EDT.
