| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2005 11:27:16 AM · #1 |
After seeing alot of Photoshoped Photos, i am begining to wonder what are the elements of an Outstanding Photo:
- Good Eye
- Lighting
- Composition
OR
- Cropping
- Levels
- Contrast
- and other photoshop enhancements.
Is this the new Digital Photography??? |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:33:07 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by frozensun:
- Good Eye
- Lighting
- Composition
OR
- Cropping
- Levels
- Contrast
- and other photoshop enhancements.
Is this the new Digital Photography??? |
I'd say it's a mix of it all.
Cropping, resizing, working the levels, saturation, contrast, any other tweak on the image itself, won't help out that much if the ORIGINAL image doesn't help either!
A good RAW image already has it's benefits from been "good by nature", straight out of the camera! Making use of photoshop to enhance it, will make it look even better (understand by that if u really don't end up messing it by adjusting, tuning it that much).
Put it all together in the blender and u might end up having a cool image! |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:35:45 AM · #3 |
| The best photo is one that doesn't need any photoshop. In older terms a straight print. If you treat photoshop like your darkroom, then you can do more with a photo than in the darkroom. But the photo still has to stand on it self. Once you get into composite photos you no longer have a single photo. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:36:21 AM · #4 |
When you take a picture often (most times) what your eye sees isn't what the camera sees. Being able to use editting software to bring out what you saw is a talent a lot of us are working on.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:36:34 AM · #5 |
An outstanding photograph comes from an artist with a Good Eye, uses superior lighting (whether studio or natural) and excellent composition, is post-processed for optimum cropping, levels and contrast, and is presented professionally to the viewer.
Why are you separating these elements? Even in the film days post-processing was the norm for great images. All of us who were "serious" became excellent B/W darkroom technicians and cultivated close relationships with the color lab of our choice.
The art is in being able to coax from the camera, by whatever means, what the eye sees.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-02-09 11:37:18.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:36:44 AM · #6 |
You need to take into account that even film work involves "chemical photoshopping". Read Ansel Adam's series and you'll be surprised at how similar digital and chemical photography are...
The answer to your question is, all of the above.
Good eye, lighting, and composition provide a solid base for a good image. To turn it into an excellent print you also adjust the image for its intended output. In addition, there are subtle things which can be done to make the digital interpretation more connected to the *intended* visual experience.
There are just as many "aggressive" darkroom tricks as there are photoshop ones. No matter what your medium, all photographers need to decide for themselves what's in and out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:49:19 AM · #7 |
Good Eye
Lighting
Composition
Sure, obviously those are required.
Cropping = A standard photographic technique
Levels = Push processing
Contrast = Dodging & Burning
other photoshop enhancements = Special films, masking, processing chemistry...
So what's new?
Message edited by author 2005-02-09 11:49:45. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:56:51 AM · #8 |
| I would include subject, idea and style. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 12:09:42 PM · #9 |
| All other considerations aside, a good photograph is one that evokes an emotion. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 12:13:16 PM · #10 |
| Am I the only one who thinks one important element is a attractive woman in it :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 12:19:11 PM · #11 |
Isn't it the end produce that makes a good photo? If it is pleasing to the eye and sparks emotion in the viewer then is it not good. It is true that some people go to extremes in photoshop, but then again is it not the veiwer or creator that makes that decision. We all have different tastes and opinions and that is way we don't all vote the same photo a 10. I think we need to be more tolerant and open minded of this medium and all art work. Impressionism was not taken well when it was first presented either, but know look at all the great impressionistic art that we have. If you do not like certain photo's that is your opinion and you have the right to it, but to say a photo is not good because it was created from a differnet view point is not correct either.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 12:35:24 PM · #12 |
After give a rather flippant post on this I thought I should do a real one.
There are many things that can make an outstanding photo, sometime it is the subject sometime the lighting sometimes the emotion. The verity between outstanding photos is so great that I don’t think you can really say what it takes to make one.
I can however say what make a poor photo, this after voting on a lot of photos. A poor photo is often one where such things as cropping, levels and contrast have been ignored. I have see what could have been good photos turned to junk because the person did not take the time to adjust the exposure. This is like shooting the negative making one print and even if the print is not exposed right not re-printing. So yes doing PhotoShop kind of things will not make a poor photograph good, but not doing your PhotoShop work can take what should be a great photo and make it a poor one.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 03:32:20 AM · #13 |
After being here for a while (dpc.com) i have found that one of the most powerful tool to use is the tool. With only this tool, you can take a regular foto, and give it so much more power and depth.
What makes a great foto for me, is the ability of the photographer to convey an emotion. Being said, that quality is unfortunatly also very Subjective, especially in contests like dpcs challenges, where a lot of different people vote for different reason and with different taste.
This is why a place like this is so important in a learning process. With practice, you get to train your eye into capturing those very special things no one else sees.
Like it was said earlier, using photoshop is key, and must be used and threaded as a darkroom, not as a multimedia editing center. This is another thing that dpc has thought me a lot this past year... how to edit a foto at best my abilities (still working on that), but without changing the picture itself (no removing of objects, no addition of objects...), only adjusting it. (i think im repeating myself here).
also, what makes for a great foto is for its ability to catch the eyes quickly. If your picture has great composition but doesnt convey anything, and people looking at it (untrained eyes) go ... that generally is all it is.
All this is what makes a great foto!
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 12:58:11 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
All other considerations aside, a good photograph is one that evokes an emotion. |
hit it on the head. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 01:03:32 PM · #15 |
I didn't read all the responses, but it really depends on what the purpose of the photograph is.
Is it to evoke emotion?
Perhaps just pure eye candy?
Is it for practical documentation?
Are you selling a product, an idea or an opinion?
There are so many ways that photography can (and is) used, that one size doesn't fit all.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:02:39 PM · #16 |
An outstanding, remarkable work, to me, is a photo which stimulates awareness, exhilarates, encourages dissociation or kindles resentment against evil. A truly 'great' photo would be one with one or more of these attributes and one which extends over the greater imaginable 'range' than the next image with similar attributes. I call the sum of these qualities its 'energy'.
Whether or not a picture like this is 'taken', 'made' or 'found', matters little. Whether it has come to itself predominantly via the camera or post-processing also does not concern me. The only thing I ask is that I be credibly convinced, that the thing 'cohere'.
If the work is sincere, if sufficient skill matches the sincerity, we have, I have no doubt, the elements of a great photograph.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 17:03:17.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:17:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
An outstanding, remarkable work, to me, is a photo which stimulates awareness, exhilarates, encourages dissociation or kindles resentment against evil. |
Who/what informs your understanding of 'evil'? Honest, curious question.
I agree wholeheartedly with your paragraph.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 17:17:40.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:20:10 PM · #18 |
How long is a piece of string?
Tow truely great photos:
The Afgani Girl - Steve McCurrry
Vietnam Girl - Nick Ut (Scroll downa wee bit)
One is a technically stunning portrait, with excelent light, and a wonderful subject.. The other a pretty average snapshot quality image of a terrible moment.
A few other people have already posted quite good answers. I'll just let these two photos explain the what I think makes an outstanding photo... :-)
Cheers, Me.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 17:20:48.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:45:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
An outstanding, remarkable work, to me, is a photo which stimulates awareness, exhilarates, encourages dissociation or kindles resentment against evil. |
Who/what informs your understanding of 'evil'? Honest, curious question.
I agree wholeheartedly with your paragraph. |
I don't think it's 'my' understanding which counts. I was relying on a universal perception of all the attributes I listed.
If you asked me personally, as an aside, I'd say that, to me, 'oppression' is an evil, 'injustice' less absolutely so, just to give an example. Ethics is a long topic. Yet, any simple man or woman who has lived for a while will have a sense of it, and it is this sense (not a sophistry) I was hoping to appeal to.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 17:46:12.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:48:39 PM · #20 |
I just want to know why so many people have these two things in their photos.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:56:10 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
I just want to know why so many people have these two things in their photos.
|
And now to bring the conversation to a new low! But really what are those thingy’s. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 06:01:20 PM · #22 |
The opposite of this |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 06:02:11 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
The opposite of this |
You mean the thing coming out from the backside? |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 06:03:15 PM · #24 |
| I did'nt think of that! OH MY. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 06:44:29 PM · #25 |
| I'm sorry,did I kill another thread? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 01:33:00 AM EDT.
