| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2005 11:01:45 PM · #1 |
Greetings...
Comparison Image
This shows a comparison of my last challenge entry in its unedited and finished forms.
There have been some recent discussions about post processing and how it is more/most important to get the image as close to where you want it in camera. I haven't voiced my thoughts on this issue lately, so I thought I would do it again here...
Setting up your camera and clicking the shutter is only the FIRST step in a completed image in the realm of 'photographic art'.
To me, this means that the final image is not some sort of documentary science where what the camera sees is what you should show your viewer. I had an idea of what I wanted to show my viewer that was simply not possible to capture with the camera. The idea didn't exist in reality, but it does exist through my post processing.
This wooden statue stands in a foyer at my church. There is a dome shaped overhead skylight that lets light fall on the subject from the top. The rest of the surrounding area is relatively dark.
I exposed this photo in such a way to capture all the detail, knowing that I would post process it for black and white and make level adjustments that hid certain shadow detail and highlighted other high areas in the image. In my mind, my editing had purpose, and that was to create a mood that didn't really exist in the original scene. Whether or not this is 'right' or 'wrong' depends on what you think photography is all about.
There are regular threads around DPC asking for challenges where no editing is allowed and the image must be shown as the camera saw it. I have nothing against this idea, but I constantly ask myself why anyone would want to limit their creative input into their own photography? Make your image what you want it to be. You don't have to limit yourself to what your camera captures. If photography is considered an 'art' by the photographer, why should the art stop with what the camera sees? Why do we want to limit what our image can be?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 11:19:41 PM · #2 |
I completely agree.
Here is my entry for the Passing Time challenge, which got a yellow ribbon:
Vs. the unedited original from the camera, which probably wouldn't have been in the top 100:
Not a bad image....just not what I wanted the final presentation to be....but that wouldn't have been possible in camera.
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 23:20:19.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 11:25:03 PM · #3 |
| I agree with the content of your post, John (despite the fact that my editing generally makes the picture worse - I'm not very good at photoshop yet), but I actually like the original of your statute picture more than the b/w :) |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 11:31:26 PM · #4 |
Oh yeah....I forgot to say, John....I think the black and white is much better.
The difference is incalcclulclble. (That's for those of you who watched the American version of 'The Office' on Thursday night....hehe...)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 08:50:14 AM · #5 |
| Personal taste will always determine who likes which image better. The point is that exposing a photo in a way where you can post process it to what you want it to be is the goal moreso than trying to achieve it in camera, when it would be impossible to do so. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 09:48:51 AM · #6 |
John, I agree pretty much with all that you have said as long as you acknowledge that it applies within "the realm of `photographic art'". I think that we must give equal credence to that part of photography which is not photographic art, and try to refrain from valuing one part over another when that value stems from personal tastes. I don't know a good name for the part of photography which is not art, but photojournalism falls into that part. And I don't think the non-art segment is limited to absolutely no post camera editing, it can include at least minimal editing with basic techniques. In my way of thinking, the goal for the non-art part is to get as close as possible to what you want using the camera and to apply some minor finishing touches in post. And it entertains the possibility that sometimes, not often, what comes out of the camera can be what we want.
I don't see the need for one approach to devalue the other, they are not mutually exclusive in my mind.
The appeal of the no-edit challenge may be more for those who haven't developed their editing skills yet as well as to those who lean toward the non-art part. I think the requests for such a challenge are to be respected. It doesn't have to be viewed as valueing no edit over yes edit.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 10:30:35 AM · #7 |
Stephen,
Great use of advanced editing!
A description with step by step images of how this was done might make a good beginner tutorial.
Originally posted by sfboatright:
|
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 10:41:50 AM · #8 |
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. For years I only shot trans, (positives's, slides to some). With a 1/3 exposure latitude and no photoshop available, you had to get it right. It may have meant shooting a full roll to get one good shot. But you learned how to get the max on the film. I have no objection to using photoshop and I do, but I always start with the best exposure I can get. Then the final results work better. The problem with what I call miss use of photoshop is that too many people use it to fix a bad photo and they never learn to get it right. Photography is pre production, photoshop is post production. If you want ot call yourself a photographer, you need to learn how to make a great exposure, and a well framed image in the camera. Then the darkroom stuff can do there thing. But when shooting slides, there is not much post you can do. If it is not right it is trash. Next time you take a photo like the one you posted, why not take a dozen or more of different settings and learn something about photography. And you won't even have to pay for film or developing.
You might even find that your photoshop work will improve too.
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 10:42:32. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 11:59:01 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
... I constantly ask myself why anyone would want to limit their creative input into their own photography? |
Because the winner of that particular contest would have bragging rights to "best technical control of exposure" or some such subdivision of "best photographer" for the week. Other challenges designed to isolate particular skills might be a compositing challenge, where you must use elements from two images shot the same week, or a pure post-processing challenge where we each pick one of five or so provided images, and submit our own post-processed version.
Some challenges are designed to exercise our interpretive ability, some a particular technique or skill. The idea is to compare skills, not necessarily produce a "finished" piece. The few prints I have based on my entries don't look exactly the same as the submission either.
I think a challenge where you can't alter the framing or exposure is as valid an idea as one where you must submit a high-key photo, or duotone, or with any other restriction. I just wouldn't want to do it very often : ) |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 12:20:54 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. |
I take exception to that statement, actually. I was a working professional photographer (architectural photography) for 25 years, I taught photography at UCSD and in Zone System workshops, I have been exhibited in galleries and museums, all before digital photography entered the scene.
That's a very broad brush you're tarring me with. Unless you don't consider me a "photoshop wizard", but I assume you are referring to people like me who discuss PS techniques in these forums and help others with their images.
The thing of it is, "proper exposure" is a very malleable term. In processing BW film, for example, the proper exposure for "straight" processing is different than the proper exposure for push or pull processing. It all depends on how you're going to wotk witht he film after you shoot it.
The same is true in digital work; if you're going to do NO post-processing whatsoever, then this demands one exposure. But if you are capable of sophisticated post-production, then a different exposure altogether is called for. It looks like junk out of the camera, but all the information you need is there. The "properly exposed", "looks-good-out-of-the-camera" image does not have (say) the highlight details you need for the best possible print, so it's a "snapshot", not a well-exposed image.
WHY people insist that an image that has not been post-processed is somehow a amrk of superiority is beyond me. Since I have learned how to use PS properly, NONE of my pictures look "right" out of the camera, and that's entirely deliberate.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 12:40:27 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. |
I take exception to that statement, actually. |
Ditto. I took photography in college before Photoshop was invented (thanks for making me feel old). More importantly, I think better photographers tend to be Photoshop artists since they know what to look for, and how to work with lighting and color (in camera or out) to achieve the desired result. It would be difficult IMO to become a Photoshop "wizard" without knowing how to achieve a proper exposure. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:09:27 PM · #12 |
For myself, I think that the end result is what counts most, no matter how you achieved it. Digital or film, with or without post-processing in photoshop. But that's not all to photography in my opinion.
I am currently taking some photo lessons with people mostly shooting with film cameras and I am learning that I like photography not only for the end result, but for the act of taking the picture and going out to get the "one".
I definitely want to get better at choosing the right setting without taking dozens of pictures. I think that if I spend a bit more time before releasing the shutter, I will save a ton of time post processing my pictures. Which I also like, but as many of you I'm sure, don't have the time to do as much as would like to.
Seb |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:23:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by spaque99:
and I am learning that I like photography not only for the end result, but for the act of taking the picture and going out to get the "one".
Seb |
That is one of the keys for me. I think the happiest moments for me are the hunt, the taking of it and that first look at it. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:32:35 PM · #14 |
How about this before and after shot from the 'broken' challenge?
 
I'm slightly apprehensive about posting this here because it sails quite close to the wind as regards the burning away of elements not wanted in the image. At the time, I knew exactly the style of image I wanted. Was I right to let enthusiasm get the better of PS restraint? Nothing I've done before or after required so much processing work. Ben |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:35:25 PM · #15 |
| It just makes me wonder about what some people have actually been doing in the name of photography. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:36:29 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. For years I only shot trans, (positives's, slides to some). With a 1/3 exposure latitude and no photoshop available, you had to get it right. It may have meant shooting a full roll to get one good shot. But you learned how to get the max on the film. I have no objection to using photoshop and I do, but I always start with the best exposure I can get. Then the final results work better. The problem with what I call miss use of photoshop is that too many people use it to fix a bad photo and they never learn to get it right. Photography is pre production, photoshop is post production. If you want ot call yourself a photographer, you need to learn how to make a great exposure, and a well framed image in the camera. Then the darkroom stuff can do there thing. But when shooting slides, there is not much post you can do. If it is not right it is trash. Next time you take a photo like the one you posted, why not take a dozen or more of different settings and learn something about photography. And you won't even have to pay for film or developing.
You might even find that your photoshop work will improve too. |
and I'll be one of the first to admit to this. I think I have some great pictures...not in my portfolio though they are on my website. The problem is I have only shot digital and the camera will do most everything if you let it. Being able to see the shot immediately instead of taking notes then developing and trying to find the notes has helped me learn a lot about exposure, composistion, etc but I still rely on auto and post production too much. My wife and friends say I should become a photographer but I have NO knowledge of all the ISO's, and other technical stuff so I doubt I ever will, besides I stink at portriats of people. I want a DSLR but wouldn't know the first thing about using it to it's total ability. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:52:10 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by xion:
It just makes me wonder about what some people have actually been doing in the name of photography. |
I wouldn't "wonder" too long or you may lose your mind quickly. ;o) I see "art" and "photography" as two cateogires, and may or may not be combined. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:54:48 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
I want a DSLR but wouldn't know the first thing about using it to it's total ability. |
That's what this site is for. Get one and enter the challenges, and eventually you will. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 01:57:19 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
I want a DSLR but wouldn't know the first thing about using it to it's total ability. |
You aren't alone. I don't think I am ready, or maybe I am just too chicken! |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:17:20 PM · #20 |
To create 'photographic art' is one thing, to take a great 'photograph' is another in my eyes. When we take a photograph should not our goal be to capture the true image verses what we wish/want it would be.
Aside from turning an image to grayscale, I would view most other variations of the 'photographed subject' to something other than a true photograph, maybe call it photographic art. Nothing wrong with either version, but for me, I get a greater sense of accomplishment by 'plagiarizing' my subject (so to speak).
Just my six cents.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:22:06 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. |
This comment is also a bit ignorant of the skills of the original poster. John's been around for a long time and proven his knowledge of and skill in using a camera. I think its safe to say he knows very well how to get a proper exposure. In fact, I'm hopefully not speaking out of turn, but the example he posted probably displays that more than you might realize. A proper knowledge of digitial camera exposure shows that there is more information captured at the highlight end of the exposure than in the shadows. "Over" exposing as he did was probably intentional, allowing him to get more detail in those shadow areas, then do properly adjust it in Photoshop (or, possibly, whatever raw converter he uses).
There is some validity to what you're trying to say - it is important to understand your camera and how to properly expose a scene. But your comments in this case are misdirected.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:23:46 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
To create 'photographic art' is one thing, to take a great 'photograph' is another in my eyes. When we take a photograph should not our goal be to capture the true image verses what we wish/want it would be.
Aside from turning an image to grayscale, I would view most other variations of the 'photographed subject' to something other than a true photograph, maybe call it photographic art. Nothing wrong with either version, but for me, I get a greater sense of accomplishment by 'plagiarizing' my subject (so to speak).
Just my six cents. |
Exactly. Well said. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:25:31 PM · #23 |
| The way I see it is - I don't capture images to show the world what my camera is capable of. I capture them and turn them into what I want the world to see. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:31:06 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by xion:
The way I see it is - I don't capture images to show the world what my camera is capable of. I capture them and turn them into what I want the world to see. |
You are one of the true artisits, here. You use both the camera and your editing for a real vision. (Obviously a personal opinion.) And there are some who are simply showing the world what they found inpiration or beauty in, as it was, but through new eyes. I think both are gifts and wondrous when done well. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:36:48 PM · #25 |
Just one question: When we say "Out of cam" are we talking no in-camera processing, ie. sharpening, contrast etc.? if not then the shot has been manipulated in camera, am I correct? Would we also be saying post raw because raw conversion also has many editing options via sharpening,brightness,contrast!
Just wonderin.
|
|
