| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2006 08:56:37 AM · #176 |
| By the way, even with post processing my images still are generally flat. Anybody out there who is willing to mentor me to give me guidance on how I can create a more vibrant image? I can only do it via e-mail because I have no portfolio. If you have the time, I can get the images. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:16:37 AM · #177 |
Do you notice the word "art" in "artifice"? It's not a coincidence.
There is something to be gained from purism, but you're not even close to purism. I remember an artist who would use a variety of containers: boxes, garbage cans, etc., put a pinhole in them and use them as cameras on treated paper(or film?). But keep in mind, this "purism" is as arbitrary and artificial as anything else. Photography began its life as a magic trick, and so it shall remain.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:21:04 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Try this guy. He hates post processing too! |
aye,
but Joey is a pioneer of the digital art revolution. he's already developed his own digital style. so I don't take any points off him for using his PS skills to give photos a boost.
and his vision and composition are amazing, you can't 'post-process' natural talent.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:29:15 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
awwww...... I am just stirring the pot.... I really don't give that rat's hind-end what others think..... I just had a few hours free and thought I would rake up a mess.... |
'nuff said
OP has managed to contradict himself all over the place on his arguments, and has cherry picked his way in who he would respond to.
Hope he responds to ladymonarda.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:33:55 AM · #180 |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 09:39:18 AM · #181 |
| Is zooming/telephoto lenses evil too, cause I am making the camera see what I cannot? And what about manipulating the WB to make the camera see what I see? Cause if I don't then most photos will be crap, and if I set the WB I will be the devil's right hand ;-) |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 10:03:56 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by mk:
I bet black and white is out then, huh? |
What's black and white? I only shoot in color. ;) |
I just turned every which-way in my chair... didn't see B/W anywhere.... yep... B/W is out..... If you want to be "artsy" or "noir" write the piece.... or paint it.... and don't even give me the Adams crap reply..."So, Ansel Adams work is worthless?" It has it's place....
but he would have shot in coloUr if he had the tech. or the talent. |
Buy what about that black & white stuff they make for film cameras? Black & white film is still used today (even though they have the tech. for colour film), to give a photo a specific feel. A digital sensor can actually only capture the intensity of light hitting it, and not the colour. The colour is recorded by using sensors with different colour filters and intepolating the data.
On that note is there also only one colour film that is acceptable to you? Different types of film will give different look to a scene. If I want high contrast and rich saturated colours, I'll break out a roll of Velvia. If you want low contrast and accurate colour rendition, then you can use Astia.
Various colour filters can be put in front of the lens to give it a different tint, or even to remove an existing tint.
It is impossible to capture exactly what the human eye sees, not only because of the massive dynamic range that the eye has, our brain can also adjust the colour of what we see (WB balance). |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 10:08:53 AM · #183 |
Jim Loy Photography
Since Jimmie wants attention, I thought I'd help him out.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 10:15:06 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
First off, I appreciate the superfluous U in the word colour.
Secondly...how is it more natural if my camera does it versus doing it on my computer? a little processor inside or a big processor outside. I dun get it. |
Eh, don't worry about it. Go take some nekkid pics and post them for us girls. :) |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 10:58:04 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Your Human eyes see the world one way. Other creatures do not.
For example: a dog only sees in black and white. Are you saying that black and white is still out? |
Actually, the belief that dogs can only see shades of grey is outdated. More recent studies suggest they can see in color, but not the full spectrum. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 11:07:46 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
Originally posted by jprezant:
So is post processing ok? If you saw a sunset with really warm tones in your minds eye, is it ok to adjust the hue/saturation so that you can create what your mind saw? |
only if you set your camera to capture it as so. Once it leaves the camera... all bets are off. Learn the camera... make it so on the first shot. (I almost said, 'Make it so on your first go' but that was a hokey rhyme.) Good question... and borderline clever.....I like you! |
If you're shooting jpeg you're actually throwing away about 1/3 of what the camera can capture. RAW images are 12 bits/channel. Jpeg is only 8.
Maybe your camera doesn't have a way to capture the RAW image. So be it.
The idea is to get the best 'out of camera' image as possible and enhance it (just like film processing is used for). |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 11:52:54 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
If you want it the way god and nature intended then please - throw away your camera and travel. Your eyes and you mind are the only things able to create such a thing - certainly not a digital camera. What, you think god shoots Nikon?
Personally I think you're stirring the pot just to stir it. If not then I honestly don't know why you're on this site because it's clearly the wrong audience for you're preaching.
You're making a lot of bold statements about things that simply come down to personal preference and jumping to a lot of conclusions about skill levels based upon technology used.
It seems you are confusing processing with photography. They are not one in the same and they are separate talents. To say someone (who in your opinion) uses too much processing therefore they are a bad photographer is ignorant. Often times in professional environments the processing isn't even done by the photographer (I used to process images for Allsport photography - but I never shot anything for them).
I think you are taking a very limited view of photography and photographers. |
I'd agree with this... You're just trying to start trouble by being dumb and I thank you for bringing the DPC community together, even if it is just to shoot you down and laugh. I'll try to refrain from further bashing and personal attacks. Next time, you might try using a more credible and/or useful debate topic, such as, "Which is better; Canon or Nikon?"
Now, let me say the same thing for the 53rd time in this thread, lol (don't count, because I didn't)
Photography is art, and art is not bound by reality. If that were the case, nobody would photograph, paint or create anything; we would all have to travel to the location of the subject and view it for ourselves. As soon as you use anything to create something, that is no longer "real" in the sense that you're using. As soon as you snap a picture of something, it is no longer real, you have already ruined it; it is now a flat interpretation of an image that your brain thought it saw or would have liked to have seen.
I challenge you to create any of these images, that you say are altered and unreal, without a camera. If you can't do it, and you need a camera, oops sorry, that is photography, no matter what you do to the image. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 11:55:24 AM · #188 |
Let me re-iterate:
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by Jimmie:
awwww...... I am just stirring the pot.... I really don't give that rat's hind-end what others think..... I just had a few hours free and thought I would rake up a mess.... |
'nuff said
OP has managed to contradict himself all over the place on his arguments, and has cherry picked his way in who he would respond to.
Hope he responds to ladymonarda. |
But since this is still going...
What if someone is on mushrooms or is otherwise hallucinating somehow? What the camera captures isn't what they are seeing through their own two eyes... This goes bakc to Pedro's example...
Message edited by author 2006-07-28 11:55:35.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 11:56:39 AM · #189 |
beeeeh...
Message edited by author 2006-07-28 11:57:41.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 11:57:26 AM · #190 |
To play devil's advocate here...I think he was half serious, he never once had a go at anyone, just put his point forward with a generous hint of humour.
In his honour I will now take all challenge entries with my niece's Fisher Price camera and present them upside down, with no processing whatsoever and a side serving of cheese and curried goat:) |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:02:49 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by amber:
To play devil's advocate here...I think he was half serious, he never once had a go at anyone, just put his point forward with a generous hint of humour.
In his honour I will now take all challenge entries with my niece's Fisher Price camera and present them upside down, with no processing whatsoever and a side serving of cheese and curried goat:) |
hmm... are our eyes doing too much processing? what does the world look like without anyone's eyes messing it up? |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:05:36 PM · #192 |
Change is change, not good or evil, just an opportunity.
New technologies blur the boundaries of all disciplines.
Should we un-blurr it with our narrow-minded Depth-of-Field restriction?
Where is the double-yellow line? (in US roads, it means no-passing)
I understand…
your point, but with new technology, it blurs the distinct areas of disciplines. Many types of paintings evolved, each in it's own category, are beautiful. Many people hated Impressionism and considered it not art, a cheap shot. To a person with bad eyesight, that may be precisely real/natural.
We will only know in the future if this is progress or just a natural evolution. Eons ago many things were done differently. Your ideas are of utmost value to learning, mastering, and honing a photographer's natural talents. But after that is is the Photographer/Artist's interpretations, that may or may not appeal to the masses, and sometimes, even make money.
Yes it is true when we "over-process" a picture it is not a real depiction. But Photography is more than just "Journalism-Photography". Now there are many Sub-Categories of types of Photography, and each appeal to different groups. Your view-group is just one-type.
Some PP is many times necessary because of the limits on the current abilities of a DSLR, the amount of time available (outside our dayjobs), and amount of money available for equipment, to adequately capture the views as we see them with our eyes and in our heads.
In the same fashion, sometimes faces look better without too, much makeup, Some like natural hairy armpits. For motion-pictures/theatres, extra-processing of makeup is a requirement. Unfortunately, or not, soon, all that "fake-stuff" you hate will replace a lot of the Raw-talent of motion picture actors/actresses, and then reality may only be available on a fee/subscription basis.
Think of the many technologies that are converging.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:14:23 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
Originally posted by amber:
To play devil's advocate here...I think he was half serious, he never once had a go at anyone, just put his point forward with a generous hint of humour.
In his honour I will now take all challenge entries with my niece's Fisher Price camera and present them upside down, with no processing whatsoever and a side serving of cheese and curried goat:) |
hmm... are our eyes doing too much processing? what does the world look like without anyone's eyes messing it up? |
Close your eyes:)) |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:15:18 PM · #194 |
cheese and curried goat.... sounds kinda good...lol
I hope the goat was cooked over an open flame :-)
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:16:40 PM · #195 |
god made the person who invented photoshop, so obviously he wanted us to use it :p
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:18:21 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by amandalore:
Originally posted by amber:
To play devil's advocate here...I think he was half serious, he never once had a go at anyone, just put his point forward with a generous hint of humour.
In his honour I will now take all challenge entries with my niece's Fisher Price camera and present them upside down, with no processing whatsoever and a side serving of cheese and curried goat:) |
hmm... are our eyes doing too much processing? what does the world look like without anyone's eyes messing it up? |
Close your eyes:)) |
haha, but then I see much more unusual stuff that my PSing skills just can't come close to at this point. Once I find a way to PS images to look like my dreams, is that wrong too? |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:19:03 PM · #197 |
[/quote]
I do believe the new cameras are going great guns when it comes to coloUr and detail... and they are getting closer and closer to what the eye actually sees. [/quote]
Yup. The new crop of cameras are amazing.....
but.. Never will the camera capture what the eye actually sees. Unless the camera exists in the mind of the photographer.
Message edited by author 2006-07-28 12:19:34. |
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:23:46 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
...it is not in taking the shot... it is in changing and altering to when it is beyond what was originaly presented... when you put the taken shot side-by-side with the posted shot...and the two are not even similar, that is where the problem lies... and I post on other sites, also... I only put up a few here to see how the thing works.Minor tweaking is not the root of the problem... full-blown alterrations..... |
But you say if I even adjust the levels just a tad makes it no longer a photo but digital art and that is a minor tweak...very minor.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:24:24 PM · #199 |
the problem jimmie is that my photos from camera suck, they really do NOT look like i saw them in real world with my beautiful blue eye :-) , get it ? so this means it has t obe done something with them, right ? or simply ditch them away ? ... no no ...
/off for a beer
|
|
|
|
07/28/2006 12:30:23 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
cheese and curried goat.... sounds kinda good...lol
I hope the goat was cooked over an open flame :-) |
Yea, provided by Art, can you smell it?:) |
|
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: 04/25/2024 04:09:24 AM EDT.
