| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2010 06:47:10 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
When I press the shutter, I generally have a good concept of what the image that I am about to capture will look like on the screen after I process it. I sort of feel that most of us here are on the same page about that.
The discussion about processing preferences and how each person would process differently remind me of the old quip, "A camel is a race horse designed by a committee."
 vawendy mentioned how one comment about processing had helped her a lot. There would be no point in having a comment box if we didn't want to learn more about shooting and processing. DPC users comments have helped me greatly in learning how to get from what I see in the real world to creating what I want it to look like on the screen, and I appreciate the sharing of the huge body of knowledge here.
There would not be Photoshop and all the other processing programs if no one wanted those tools. |
Clearly, and not disputed in the OP, in a community of photographers the conversations about process, technique, equipment will be naturally occurring and beneficial. But, these conversations, these learnings are still in the category of a means to an end in mind, and not the end in mind themselves if one is attempting to produce imagery that will speak or sing to viewers.
If the purpose of the image is a simple demonstration of a new lens's sharpness, or a before/after hdr tutorial, etc, then those images fall within the realm of technique for technique's sake. And clearly in a contest/rule based voting site like DPC, these things are important as a part of mutually agreed-upon rules and purpose.
If the purpose is to compete to win (and retain) a contest ribbon at DPC, then, yes, Of Course the processing steps matter. If the purpose of the image is to demonstrate a technique, process, or piece of gear, then yes Of Course the employed methods matter.
But the OP link is about a separate purpose for the image, one where the camera brand, lens length, file format, processing are irrelevant to the viewer. They only mattered during the creation of the image, to the extent they helped or hindered the photographer in achieving the desired image. The general "consumer" viewer of the image will react to it without any consideration for technique, process, camera type--only the impact or lack thereof of the image itself.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:51:17 AM · #2 |
as the only member of artist sans frontier
i would say
whatever you do POST it |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:47:59 AM · #3 |
When I press the shutter, I generally have a good concept of what the image that I am about to capture will look like on the screen after I process it. I sort of feel that most of us here are on the same page about that.
The discussion about processing preferences and how each person would process differently remind me of the old quip, "A camel is a race horse designed by a committee."
vawendy mentioned how one comment about processing had helped her a lot. There would be no point in having a comment box if we didn't want to learn more about shooting and processing. DPC users comments have helped me greatly in learning how to get from what I see in the real world to creating what I want it to look like on the screen, and I appreciate the sharing of the huge body of knowledge here.
There would not be Photoshop and all the other processing programs if no one wanted those tools.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:40:54 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
In that case, the rules of the competition required that wild animals be shot, not trained or posed animals. |
Have you ever noticed how much there is in common between photography and hunting? |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:37:31 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I read the OP and the responses and I wonder -- So, if the final image is all that really matters, does it matter if the wild animal picture is truly in the wild or a nature preserve or if the awe-inspiring "candid" was really posed?
Or does it just apply to post-processing "stuff." |
In that case, the rules of the competition required that wild animals be shot, not trained or posed animals.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:09:17 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Also, I agree with the posts that want the processing to not change the integrity of the original capture. I see no reason why you can't enhance it to make it better, but I still want it to be true to the original capture. |
The "integrity of the original capture" is a very narrow concept, IMO. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to consider that concept central to your own work, and many would applaud you for that. Nevertheless, many of us are not interested in replicating "reality" (whatever THAT is) but, instead, using it as a starting point for our explorations of the world-as-perceived.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:07:49 AM · #7 |
I think we'll get far better art if we follow our heart and create using the tools we decide, and not according to the dictates and desires of others.
I had an ex-BIL that told me since I put cream and sugar in my coffee I couldn't call it coffee any more. After restraining myself from telling him to STFU and mind his own business, I got to thinking about it. It opened my eyes a lot to the silly BS people want to wrap you up in just to make themselves feel powerful.
But, agreed on rules of contests (such as this) MUST BE OBEYED! |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:49:27 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Also, I agree with the posts that want the processing to not change the integrity of the original capture. I see no reason why you can't enhance it to make it better, but I still want it to be true to the original capture. |
Sometimes when I`m shooting a photo, I have the final result in my mind. What the original photo looks like is irrelevant to me, as long as it give me enough to be able to create the desired product. So, if it ends up looking completely different, I don't think that robs it of any integrity, nor will it be false to the original. The original image is just a step along the way to creating the final product.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:47:25 AM · #9 |
| When you choose to display your images here, you're opening them up to all the riff-raff and their halfbaked ideas about what you should have done differently. If it puts you off that badly, don't check the Helpful box. I'd much rather get a comment along the lines of a technical quibble than "Way cool!". I learn something from all of the comments. I don't think we need to discourage people from leaving specific types of comments -- especially constructive ones. If I want a circle jerk, I'll go to Flickr. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:33:36 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It only matters if it matters to you. It certainly does to me. Wthout manipulation, I cannot produce my vision of the image. I see things differently than they are. I have specific notions about how I see things, and consquently, my images generally are not accurate to the actual scene.
But that's the way I want to render my vision......as *I* see it in my mind's eye; the part of me that is the photographer, and artist if you will, that I am.
I recently received a comment on a particular shot, and the commenter said "I noticed that you used X aperture......did you try Y aperture as it would produce this result?".
Umm, no.....I didn't. I shot it the way I wanted it, and had I wanted that result, I would have used Y aperture. I do look for feedback, and I am genuinely interested in people's impressions, but I'd rather have your impressions than to have you tell me what you'd do differently.
It's funny that this discussion would have some momentum 'cause this place always seems so bi-polar to me. You get the "Over-processed!" gripes and the "That leaf is a huge distraction." gripes on the same image sometimes. What's a photog to do???? LOL!!! |
Haven't read the whole thread, but came across this and wanted to respond.
I leave those types of comments a lot. Simply because Andrewt once gave me that type of comment -- I tried it, and it improved my shot immensely. I am extremely grateful that he didn't assume that I knew what I was doing, and assume that I chose to have it that way. I just didn't notice. Because of this, I'll leave the same type of comments, even though I realize that I may be insulting someone because they had a reason for doing it the way that they did. If that's the case, I'm hoping that they'll just ignore the comment and move on. But I'm still hoping that I can make a difference to someone else's photography, the way that Andrewt did for me -- so I continue to try -- just on the off-chance. :)
Also, I agree with the posts that want the processing to not change the integrity of the original capture. I see no reason why you can't enhance it to make it better, but I still want it to be true to the original capture.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 12:46:26 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I was pondering this some more and I think that when we say "The Final Image matters most" doesn't mean we're saying the process to get to the final image doesn't mean anything at all. |
Actually, that's exactly what the author of the linked article in the first post IS saying; he doesn't care. It makes no difference to him whatsoever how the image was created, he's involved entirely with the image-as-is. So in a very real sense the technical steps ARE "meaningless" to him, and he's fairly scornful of technique-obsessed photographers who spend their time nattering about f/stops and software when they should be creating art, which of course is a very large percentage of us here at DPC, me not least of all :-)
R. |
Actually I got that out of the article I just meant in my own opinion. (Which isn't what I said...I know)
One of your lines actually hit home pretty well too though:
"He's fairly scornful of technique-obsessed photographers who spend their time nattering about f/stops and software when they should be creating art"
Funny, because lately I've spent a heck of a lot more time watching behind the scenes videos of how OTHERs make their images than putting a view finder to my eye and creating my own images.
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 00:46:52. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 11:56:31 PM · #12 |
Yeah I know but..... for me the programs you use are irrelevant.... and it's not even about the process for me. My problem is when it goes too far from what a person present would see.... that is subjective and maybe that is where the line is for craft vs. art maybe... dunno. FOR ME... It's the same reason I don't like the heavy HDR images but I am fine with using it a tad to bring up the shadows.
I have no issue when others see the line differently.... |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 11:51:16 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I was pondering this some more and I think that when we say "The Final Image matters most" doesn't mean we're saying the process to get to the final image doesn't mean anything at all. |
Actually, that's exactly what the author of the linked article in the first post IS saying; he doesn't care. It makes no difference to him whatsoever how the image was created, he's involved entirely with the image-as-is. So in a very real sense the technical steps ARE "meaningless" to him, and he's fairly scornful of technique-obsessed photographers who spend their time nattering about f/stops and software when they should be creating art, which of course is a very large percentage of us here at DPC, me not least of all :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2010-08-28 23:51:37.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2010 11:21:57 PM · #14 |
| I was pondering this some more and I think that when we say "The Final Image matters most" doesn't mean we're saying the process to get to the final image doesn't mean anything at all. The concept of focusing on the final image is appealing to me. This is the image I want to end up with. These are the steps I am going to take to get there. The first step is (or should be) pre-visualizing what the final image is going to look like. The path to get there is up to you. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 11:18:45 PM · #15 |
For those of us who come from a B/W darkroom background, this discussion of how "faithful" an image is to the actual scene makes no sense at all. We just don't see that way, usually not even when we're working in color. Speaking for myself, I actually stopped doing photography for a while, sold the business and went cheffing and designing, because my business was becoming exclusively color-dominated and it just wasn't interesting to me.
I didn't get back into photography until digital sensors matured and I could explore color as creatively as I did B/W.
It's beyond my understanding, really, why anyone in the real world would get hung up on how an image is created, rather than what the image *IS*. This is distinct from the DPC rules, which I Understand and accept as arbitrary criteria designed for specific competitions.
But I've never, ever had anyone who bought, or even admired on the wall, any of my work ask me "What program did you use? Are those colors enhanced?" or anything like that. Never once. It's not a real-world concern.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2010 11:10:58 PM · #16 |
If we don't care about the process then lets drop all the rules... would save some of the longer threads :-)
To me it's subjective.... I have no real issue with the post that does not change the integrity of the orig capture.... but I cannot help but feel disappointed when I see some of the origs vs. the final cause it's just not the same image (que the discussion of it matched my vision here... or what my eyes saw e.t.c.). Catch is that what keeps the integrity is different for each person, even the one that agree with that (and most will not) :-) |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 10:31:40 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by keenon:
When I see an image accompanied by the proud statement - straight out of the camera - I think, why? Why would you not process this photo and create an image? There's no pride in displaying raw material. |
I take plenty of pride in displaying "raw material" -- little to no processing at all. And I don't mind sharing the fact. If you don't care, you don't care. To that, I don't care. But I think we do care. The forums are filled with how-to's and how-did-you's and minutia related to what lens/f-stop/ISO/filter/USM parameters/etc. did you use. Images show up with complete step-by-step workflows, and if they don't, often someone will ask. Share your process -- that's fine! But if I share that I've done (next to) nothing, please don't crucify me for it. Not that I'm any sort of threat here. I'm not winning ribbons and rarely do I even break a five anymore. But I don't think it's because I'm not running my images through the requisite Photoshop wizardry. And if it is, too bad. I have to be happy with what I produce and present. If it resonates with you. wonderful. If not, the loss is no one's.
If we agree that it's the final result that matters, then you necessarily don't care if I did or didn't process it.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2010 10:22:55 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Umm, no.....I didn't. I shot it the way I wanted it, and had I wanted that result, I would have used Y aperture. I do look for feedback, and I am genuinely interested in people's impressions, but I'd rather have your impressions than to have you tell me what you'd do differently. |
All people have to go on is there own preferences. I got an expected comment on my b/w still life suggesting that the screw in the bull's head should have been turned the other way to hid this flaw. In fact, that aspect was what I liked about the object and I would not have photographed it any other way. I PM'd the commenter after the challenge, because4 it was an interesting comment, and it made sense to him why I liked it that way. That does not change his initial perceptions. It's impossible to please everyone. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 09:21:54 AM · #19 |
It only matters if it matters to you. It certainly does to me. Wthout manipulation, I cannot produce my vision of the image. I see things differently than they are. I have specific notions about how I see things, and consquently, my images generally are not accurate to the actual scene.
But that's the way I want to render my vision......as *I* see it in my mind's eye; the part of me that is the photographer, and artist if you will, that I am.
I recently received a comment on a particular shot, and the commenter said "I noticed that you used X aperture......did you try Y aperture as it would produce this result?".
Umm, no.....I didn't. I shot it the way I wanted it, and had I wanted that result, I would have used Y aperture. I do look for feedback, and I am genuinely interested in people's impressions, but I'd rather have your impressions than to have you tell me what you'd do differently.
It's funny that this discussion would have some momentum 'cause this place always seems so bi-polar to me. You get the "Over-processed!" gripes and the "That leaf is a huge distraction." gripes on the same image sometimes. What's a photog to do???? LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
08/28/2010 09:15:51 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I read the OP and the responses and I wonder -- So, if the final image is all that really matters, does it matter if the wild animal picture is truly in the wild or a nature preserve or if the awe-inspiring "candid" was really posed?
|
Thank you. It matters to me. I do care. |
It mattered in this situation:
Wildlife Photo of the Year Stripped of Prize
I still think that it shouldnt matter how the photo was post processed, whether it was film or digital, lit with natural light or artificial etc. etc.
But I also dont think that a photographer should falsely mislead their audience. I think it would be unethical to try an sell a photo of a zoo animal, but say it was wild. Or to say a photo is straight out of the camera after having spent 5 hours photoshopping it. |
Apples & oranges. If you're entering a "contest" you need to follow the rules of the contest. Period. If you're making art for art's sake (or taking pictures for a calendar for that matter), then all that matters is what your final image looks like. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 02:16:00 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I read the OP and the responses and I wonder -- So, if the final image is all that really matters, does it matter if the wild animal picture is truly in the wild or a nature preserve or if the awe-inspiring "candid" was really posed?
|
Thank you. It matters to me. I do care. |
It mattered in this situation:
Wildlife Photo of the Year Stripped of Prize
I still think that it shouldnt matter how the photo was post processed, whether it was film or digital, lit with natural light or artificial etc. etc.
But I also dont think that a photographer should falsely mislead their audience. I think it would be unethical to try an sell a photo of a zoo animal, but say it was wild. Or to say a photo is straight out of the camera after having spent 5 hours photoshopping it.
Message edited by author 2010-08-28 02:19:06. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 12:10:34 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I read the OP and the responses and I wonder -- So, if the final image is all that really matters, does it matter if the wild animal picture is truly in the wild or a nature preserve or if the awe-inspiring "candid" was really posed?
|
Thank you. It matters to me. I do care. |
I think it is a separate concept: in the article, he even addresses the issue of intent--if the intent is to appear as though a situation is real/accurate/documentary, then the choices matter. Cloning out the zoo fence to make it seem as if it was taken in the wild, etc. was not under the umbrella of "I don't care". The context of the article is different than a discussion of deliberately fooling the viewer.
So, to your point, I do care about that. But I don't care otherwise. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 12:05:36 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I read the OP and the responses and I wonder -- So, if the final image is all that really matters, does it matter if the wild animal picture is truly in the wild or a nature preserve or if the awe-inspiring "candid" was really posed?
|
Thank you. It matters to me. I do care. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 10:37:04 PM · #24 |
great post! great article! thx for sharing!
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 09:15:56 PM · #25 |
I totally agree with the original poster but allow me to play devil's advocate for a second. Remember folks...I am still on your side when I am done this post! =)
There are digital artists who are capable of creating photo-realistic images in Photoshop that look like photographs. Every single pixel was created on the computer and nothing comes from a camera at all.
for example: //www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm
Now Bert Monroy doesn't try to pass his stuff as photography but what if he did? What if he digitally manipulated a punch of pixels to create an image and claimed it was a photo? now harm in that is there? I mean he got a pretty picture and who cares how he did it.
And another notion:
If I take a picture of a guy and place him digitally in another scene and make him look buff and straighten his teeth and clone out those god awful socks he was wearing with his sandals and heck why not put in a nice looking model for extra eye candy since he doesn't have girlfriend (you can't tell but he doesn't even have a nice personality). There's no harm in any of that is there? I mean I got a pretty picture out of it didn't I?
now back to your regularly scheduled programming....
eta: Didn't see this on his home page but its an interesting quote under the context of this thread
As a photo-realist painter, I have often been asked why I don’t just take a photograph. Good question, when you consider my paintings look like photographs. Well, for one thing, I’m not a photographer. To me, it is not the destination that is important—it is the journey.
The incredible challenge of recreating reality is my motivation. —Bert Monroy
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 21:18:53. |
|
