| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2010 08:34:10 PM · #1 |
...that is the question.
As a photography enthusiast, I understand to make enhancements to our photo such as cropping, sharpening, brightness and contrast... and then "some" cleanup such as dust, pixels, zits etc. However, going extreme and changing the whole thing and making it a different product is what I am kind of against.
I put us into three categories:
Pure photographer : Which is an artist who uses still cameras and captures his or her end product through the viewfinder. Even from film days, there were film enhancements, as I mentioned above, and nothing more applied for this level. I would like to consider myself a pure photographer for the most.
Photographer with some PS level enhancement : That's what most of us do. Enhancing above options plus HDR, replacement of major objects, enhancing some of the techniques such as blur, glowing etc.
PS artist : This is a new level of art came after photography (obviously) and pretty much took over some excitement from original photography itself.
As a photographer, I am against heavy PSing, and keep myself away as much as possible. Maybe you have noticed from my latest Side Challenges, I feel kind of sorry to loose "Viewfinder" photography, a vision of a person through the lens, but not through a digital enhancement program (if photography concern)
Even though we are members of "Digital" Photography Challenge website, I encourage you to learn and practice following things and try to see if you can avoid some of the PS stuff more and more each time.
1-Crop your photo through the view finder as much as possible
2-Take your time and position yourself to see the best perspective from your viewfinder.
3-Learn your three simple settings on your camera, F stop, Shutter speed and ISO
...and the rest is your creativity with just your camera on the middle. |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 09:23:49 PM · #2 |
Very good points. It is always best practice to get the best image possible straight from the camera.
A point to consider re: cropping -
The aspect ratio of the camera is not the aspect ratio of the final product you want
I crop alot to square. This means shooting so the viewfinder has some wasted space to allow for this crop. This is also necessary if shooting for one of the larger standard sizes like 8x10 or 11x14. Or even panorama if you don't want to go through the stitching of many photos together.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2010 09:43:36 PM · #3 |
I don't know, I think that if done well, a nice PS job can really bring an image to life...
Note the difference between my recently successful entry:
and the full size version of it.
You'll see I've enhanced the image in several ways, mostly that involved a good dodging on the coyote's face, a lightening and re-coloring/sharpening of the eye, separating the coyote and the background into two different layers, so that the background could remain beautifully smooth, while the coyote was able to be sharpened and cleaned up a bit..
I don't know if that counts as "excessive" or not, to me I'm just re-creating what I saw in the field that day, to some I'm killing a good image with too much photoshop - I'd be interested in your views, is the full size just a nicely prepared photograph, or is it PHOBAR?
Message edited by author 2010-12-18 21:44:19. |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 09:48:06 PM · #4 |
| It's obviously not "BAR" ... |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 09:59:02 PM · #5 |
um, didn't pure photographers use to "photoshop" images in the darkroom before photoshop?
I say do whatever floats your boat. in the end only you have to be happy with your finished product.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2010 10:10:01 PM · #6 |
| I'm definitely in your third category, and admitted as much in a comment I left about an hour before this thread started. I would like to take fantastic photos, but I'd probably still see them as a means to other ends. |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 10:30:34 PM · #7 |
| I seek to take technically perfect shots. It's a challenge to me. When I take a picture that isn't as good as I like but it means something to me, I'll PS the crap out of it to get something I'm happy with. I do admire the true photographers out there that are purists and leave the editing to their settings on the camera. Take a look at all of the ribbon winning images and you can be assured that they were edited much more than would fit into your description of a pure photographer. This site is a real place of learning. I enjoy what is presented here on this site. Editing is allowed and I embrace it. BTW I don't do more than basic editing when I enter a challenge. Why?? Because it's what the voters give good scores for. If I entered some of my PS'd shots in challenges, they'd be in contention for the brown ribbon every time. |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 11:03:26 PM · #8 |
I'm a convert. I started out with film SLR, and no access to a darkroom, so I shot slide film straight out of camera, using the viewfinder, and camera settings. I have a good friend that kind-of mentored me in photography (he worked in the media department of a non-profit organization, and would travel all over the world to get photos to use in fund-raising). He had full access to a darkroom, and matured in the art doing lots of post-shot adjustments in the dark room, so for him, the picture, as taken, was just the first step.
While it is a bit frustrating for me to not have everything directly out of the camera, I have come to appreciate the benefits of being able to edit the original to create the same thing, only more so. I have also come to appreciate some strong edits that create a different feel entirely to the shot.
I think my biggest lesson has been that (as of now) no amount of PS can save a bad picture - so it is important to capture the image the best you can right from the start.
At the same time, post editing can greatly enhance an image, taking it from good to great - even exceptional.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2010 11:26:50 PM · #9 |
I like to keep it simple, get it on the sensor, minimal editing. But sometimes, ya just gotta thump it! It's all about the image YOU wish to produce, the response YOU want to invoke. Some of your wilder imaginings just will not be caught like that, and some degree of manipulation and massage will have to take place. Modern digital photography is freedom!
We say in Kentucky: "Whatever knocks your hat in the creek." |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 01:53:36 AM · #10 |
Besides candid shots, or something comes up fast that you want to take photos of... I think most of us have time to think and adjust our angles or subjects to avoid some obstacles from our view as much as possible.
Here is what true photography, in sense of creating photograph using as minimal technology possible.
"Creating and enhancing photo using film techniques" (in PS)
such as, contrast, brightens, cropping, dust and zit removal (or removal of minor abstracts). All that can be done at film wash or developing stage, also on the negative with brush and knife.
We should keep creativity from human eye to paper (in very basic way). Photography is art, and should not be mixed too much with another.
"Settings, angle, fit", I think those three simple facts of photography what make one different from another.
By the way, I understand the ratio thing. If you try to crop in view finder as fit as possible so post process you crop little more instead of two thirds of the captured image. |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 10:05:27 AM · #11 |
It used to be Film v Digital.
Now it's Pure v Post.
There is no right answer for everyone, and no one is wrong in their choice of how much editing they do (except for news photojournalists).
|
|
|
|
12/19/2010 10:33:12 AM · #12 |
I submit that "pure photography" is an oxymoron and actually does not exist.
Here's the thing, photographers have always altered reality when capturing photographs. If you chose B&W film, you are altering reality - the world is color. If you choose certain color films, such as Velvia, you are altering reality with highly saturated colors.
If you choose a lens other than 50mm on a 35mm camera, you are altering perspective, not just cropping.
If you add or subtract lighting, you are altering the photo at it's core.
Even the fact that you are capturing only one frame of an event that happened in real-time only tells the part of the story that you as the photographer wants told.
That said, if you really think PS is something new, sit down with a copy of "Darkroom Cookbook" for about five minutes and I think you might rethink how "basic" darkroom work is.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2010 10:43:19 AM · #13 |
| Right on, Leroy. With all of those options available to the photographer before the shutter is even released, why bother with Photoshop at all? |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 11:32:59 AM · #14 |
Well, this post was quite effective in getting people out of the "Gut instinct vs technicals" thread.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2010 02:03:36 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I submit that "pure photography" is an oxymoron and actually does not exist.
Here's the thing, photographers have always altered reality when capturing photographs. If you chose B&W film, you are altering reality - the world is color. If you choose certain color films, such as Velvia, you are altering reality with highly saturated colors.
If you choose a lens other than 50mm on a 35mm camera, you are altering perspective, not just cropping.
If you add or subtract lighting, you are altering the photo at it's core.
Even the fact that you are capturing only one frame of an event that happened in real-time only tells the part of the story that you as the photographer wants told.
That said, if you really think PS is something new, sit down with a copy of "Darkroom Cookbook" for about five minutes and I think you might rethink how "basic" darkroom work is. |
I kind of understand we can't go "pure" enough for the photography and there is always editing need to be done... That's why I put basic enhancements in "Pure photography"
In this example, from minimal editing rules, what makes this photo is what photographer sees in viewfinder.
same as this one (from same challenge)
My objection using PS is, what if I put that rock on second image from another photo, thinking it would enhance my work.
Or, take out a mirror and some toothbrushes from the first one and make it a different photo from the original.
Cropping, lenses, colors are not actually what I am talking about but the photo itself as original it gets.
Idea here is to be creative from the viewfinder, as a photographer, more than post process creativity. As I mentioned, PS is an art itself, depending on your talent and what you want to call yourself, one should be less attached to the other. |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 02:06:38 PM · #16 |
Question...
Can you call this "Photography" art or "Photoshop" art.
This is going extreme, however, it is based on a photograph! |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 02:42:19 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
...that is the question.
As a photography enthusiast, I understand to make enhancements to our photo such as cropping, sharpening, brightness and contrast... and then "some" cleanup such as dust, pixels, zits etc. However, going extreme and changing the whole thing and making it a different product is what I am kind of against.
I put us into three categories:
Pure photographer : Which is an artist who uses still cameras and captures his or her end product through the viewfinder. Even from film days, there were film enhancements, as I mentioned above, and nothing more applied for this level. I would like to consider myself a pure photographer for the most.
Photographer with some PS level enhancement : That's what most of us do. Enhancing above options plus HDR, replacement of major objects, enhancing some of the techniques such as blur, glowing etc.
PS artist : This is a new level of art came after photography (obviously) and pretty much took over some excitement from original photography itself.
As a photographer, I am against heavy PSing, and keep myself away as much as possible. Maybe you have noticed from my latest Side Challenges, I feel kind of sorry to loose "Viewfinder" photography, a vision of a person through the lens, but not through a digital enhancement program (if photography concern)
Even though we are members of "Digital" Photography Challenge website, I encourage you to learn and practice following things and try to see if you can avoid some of the PS stuff more and more each time.
1-Crop your photo through the view finder as much as possible
2-Take your time and position yourself to see the best perspective from your viewfinder.
3-Learn your three simple settings on your camera, F stop, Shutter speed and ISO
...and the rest is your creativity with just your camera on the middle. |
You obviously don't know much about the history of photography, do you? |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 02:56:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... You obviously don't know much about the history of photography, do you? |
No... enlighten me (us) please. |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 03:05:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
...that is the question. |
You obviously don't know much about the history of photography, do you? |
You obviously don't know anything about the art of constructive criticism, do you?
Message edited by author 2010-12-19 15:12:58. |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 03:08:14 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
[quote=FocusPoint] ...that is the question.You obviously don't know much about the history of photography, do you? |
You obviously don't know anything about the art of constructive criticism, do you? |
Not when it would just fall on deaf ears anyway :) |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 03:18:23 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
[quote=FocusPoint] ...that is the question.You obviously don't know much about the history of photography, do you? |
You obviously don't know anything about the art of constructive criticism, do you? |
Not when it would just fall on deaf ears anyway :) |
What? |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 03:21:58 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
[quote=FocusPoint] ...that is the question.You obviously don't know much about the history of photography, do you? |
You obviously don't know anything about the art of constructive criticism, do you? |
Not when it would just fall on deaf ears anyway :) |
Meh, this is a forum, as such you read it - not hear it.. Therefore I propose that deafness isn't a factor here..
;). |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 03:23:49 PM · #23 |
| I probably skipped reading something here! |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 03:59:13 PM · #24 |
Anyways,
When we see a great photograph from old days, we say "What a wonderful work, this can be seeing only through a master's eyes"...
"Perspective" of a photographer and "detail check" of a photographer is the main talent of a photographer for me. with all that "patience of a photographer" also one of the talents. How? Old days, photographers took their time to adjust their settings and adjust themselves to get the right angle and perspective for the best shot. They adjusted their subject to make things work from their viewfinders. It is now easy to say "I can fix that" and capture a shot without stepping right or left a foot, or walking a few more yards... which makes it "not too original" anymore.
If Photography is an art... Art of what?
For me "Capturing a view through our eyes" is. After all, we wanted to freeze not only time, but what we see in that time... and I also think history of photography starts with that concept? |
|
|
|
12/19/2010 06:44:06 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
They adjusted their subject to make things work from their viewfinders. |
\
Yeah, like sawing-off an annoying tree limb which interfered with the desired composition ... |
|
