| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2007 07:36:35 PM · #26 |
I do what I want when I want it to make the end result that pleases me.
I've shot both ways and I would rather chew my arm off than give up the ease, convenience, and versatility of the art and science of digital photography.
There have been many times in the almost a year since I've had my digital camera that IMO, I would not have some truly exceptional captures had I not been able to "save" them with PS and the fine tuning of the RAW format.
If that makes me a poser and a heretic, so be it, but I've got the pictures to be admired and enjoyed that I wouldn't have if I only had the "real" way.
I don't put things in my photographs that weren't there originally, or take them out, I don't know how for starters, but if you want to do that, go right ahead, I'll admire the results if you're good at it.
Progress, ease, versatility, and convenience are perfectly okay in my book.....I can't wait to see what happens next!
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 08:14:12 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Brad:
My highest score of 7.8734 was done with very minimal editing,
and seems the more I know in PS, the worse I do. hmmm...... |
Well at ppchallenge.com you're the king! :P |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 08:46:56 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
hahaha.. man, you sure know how to take something to an extreme level don't you?
The fact remains from my original post. It's the END result. Doesn't matter if it would have been easier/cheaper/whatever. It's the END result. |
Just givin ya a hard time...
But yeah, I do agree that the end result is what's important.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 09:56:55 PM · #29 |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 10:30:43 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I do believe, however, that pre-visualization *IS* important, will remain important to those that realize it, and that post-processing is equally as important.
|
I think we are burning the same candle but from different ends...
The trouble comes up when folks don't put equal emphasis on both aspects. When one is neglected, you must give more to the other.
The more one is put off, the more you adhere to the other...eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns and the end result that we all seek suffers as a result.
To my mind, photography consists of 4 equally important segments.
1. Concept. The image is considered before it is created. The photographer has an idea of what he wants his/her photograph to look like with due consideration to medium, mood, light and composition.
2. Capture. this is the physical act of lighting the subject and composing the frame that is consistent with the original idea.
3. Post Processing/Printing. The image has been captured on whatever medium the artist chose, and is processed on your computer or printed in the darkroom with adjustments either subtle or drastic, again giving consideration to the original concept.
4. Marketing - posting a photo on DPC is just as much marketing as it would be to peddle a print at a gallery. At a gallery you're seeking cash rewards, here you are seeking approval or feedback. You have to pick a receptive audience to get either.
If any part of this chain is broken, then the photo will not be a success.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 10:37:37 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Efergoh:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I do believe, however, that pre-visualization *IS* important, will remain important to those that realize it, and that post-processing is equally as important.
|
I think we are burning the same candle but from different ends...
The trouble comes up when folks don't put equal emphasis on both aspects. When one is neglected, you must give more to the other.
The more one is put off, the more you adhere to the other...eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns and the end result that we all seek suffers as a result.
To my mind, photography consists of 4 equally important segments.
1. Concept. The image is considered before it is created. The photographer has an idea of what he wants his/her photograph to look like with due consideration to medium, mood, light and composition.
2. Capture. this is the physical act of lighting the subject and composing the frame that is consistent with the original idea.
3. Post Processing/Printing. The image has been captured on whatever medium the artist chose, and is processed on your computer or printed in the darkroom with adjustments either subtle or drastic, again giving consideration to the original concept.
4. Marketing - posting a photo on DPC is just as much marketing as it would be to peddle a print at a gallery. At a gallery you're seeking cash rewards, here you are seeking approval or feedback. You have to pick a receptive audience to get either.
If any part of this chain is broken, then the photo will not be a success. |
Ahh.. see, you're discussing *commercial* photography. (Or, in the case of DPC, success in the form of recognition)
For me, a photograph is a success if *I*, as a photographer, enjoy it and the moment it captures.
(which, granted, is completely beside the point of the original thread and OP. lol.)
Message edited by author 2007-05-05 22:41:57. |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 11:00:20 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ahh.. see, you're discussing *commercial* photography. (Or, in the case of DPC, success in the form of recognition)
For me, a photograph is a success if *I*, as a photographer, enjoy it and the moment it captures.
|
Actually I was referring to photography as a whole. The term market does not apply exclusively to commerce in this case.
Be it commercial, art, or hobby, if you show your work to anyone, even if it just to your mommy, you are seeking, or at least hoping for approval on some level.
Approval is a motivator just as much as a cash payment for selling the work. If you never show the photo to any other living person, then you have proven me wrong,and the shot is truly for self gratification, but I doubt that is the case with anyone here...unless there are stalkers here with photos of their neighbor's daughter plastered all over the inside of their closet doors....in that case, I could argue that you yourself are your own market.
But, I digress...
(edited for spelling)
Message edited by author 2007-05-05 23:01:54. |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 11:05:19 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Efergoh:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ahh.. see, you're discussing *commercial* photography. (Or, in the case of DPC, success in the form of recognition)
For me, a photograph is a success if *I*, as a photographer, enjoy it and the moment it captures.
|
Actually I was referring to photography as a whole. The term market does not apply exclusively to commerce in this case.
Be it commercial, art, or hobby, if you show your work to anyone, even if it just to your mommy, you are seeking, or at least hoping for approval on some level.
Approval is a motivator just as much as a cash payment for selling the work. If you never show the photo to any other living person, then you have proven me wrong,and the shot is truly for self gratification, but I doubt that is the case with anyone here...unless there are stalkers here with photos of their neighbor's daughter plastered all over the inside of their closet doors....in that case, I could argue that you yourself are your own market.
But, I digress...
(edited for spelling) |
Ok, you have me on the point of approval, but I was talking more about 'success'.
Although, I think I'm probably just arguing on general terms because the Sharks self-destructed today, and I'm in a pissy mood about everything :)
All I *ever* meant is that nobody should ever be made to feel inferior because of the methods they use to get what they want... and it somehow spiraled out of control. |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 11:14:33 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ok, you have me on the point of approval, but I was talking more about 'success'. |
But isn't approval of others a measure of success in and of itself? ;)
Originally posted by Artyste:
All I *ever* meant is that nobody should ever be made to feel inferior because of the methods they use to get what they want... and it somehow spiraled out of control. |
I concur. My main argument is that I believe that there is a specific formula for success that requires a balance of methods (see the afore mentioned steps). Too much emphasis on any one coupled with a dereliction of duty to another generally results in a lower quality of the final product.
Message edited by author 2007-05-05 23:15:12. |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 11:39:14 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Efergoh:
It is telling that photography as a whole has become "dumbed down."
This is not a condemnation of anyone or any process. But think back to the days of film before digital. Go way back to the time when the field camera was king. A shot could take hours to set up, and using sheet film meant only taking a handful of photos, or even one or two.
The notion of pre-visualization is becoming somewhat irrelevant not that we do not have to wait for film to be developed and printed to see how well or poorly we did. All we have to do is fire the shutter pull the camera away and look at the LCD screen for instant feedback. If you don't like the shot, you shoot it again until you get what you want.
I don't think this has reduced the overall quality of photography, but it has changed the way we think about the process.
I shoot both film and digital, and the manner in which I do it is quite different. If I am shooting 8x10 sheet film, I tend to fuss a lot more before I take the shot. I stress over composition and lighting. I only have 3 film holders for 6 sheets of film total. I only get 6 shots before I have to go develop the film and reload the holders.
As a result, I think my film photographs are of higher quality because I spend more time thinking of the concept before I take the photo.
Recently, I have begun to use my digital camera just to preview my film photos before I expose the film...again changing the way we use technology to conduct our craft. |
The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.
They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.) |
I agree with both of you, but...
In the days of the old filed types cameras, yes... we sometimes had to take a few pictures and pray that everything (and the darkroom technician ..normally myself) is done correctly. But I also know that when I was shooting 4X5s and 8X10s, I also took shots with a polaroid before exposing the sheet film. Not so much for alot of the technical things, but to alleviate the problems of the invisible-till-processed tree sticking out of the head and their cousins.
Even then, there was alot we could do in the darkroom to 'enhance' a shot. Mostly in the printing stage, but even the film could be manipulated in many ways during or even after the initial processing.
I wouldn't say that Photoshop 'dumbs' down photography, but it does make it easier in many ways to 'correct' a print to get better results. Example... while working as a ARMY Signal Photographer, I once had to take a picture of a Colonel and place him where he "should" have been instead of where he actually was...to save his butt. Wasn't difficult to do, but it was time taking. Photoshop now can have it done in a matter of minutes. No...not dumbing it down actually... just making PP as much of an art as the actual photography has always been.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 11:47:36 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Brad:
My highest score of 7.8734 was done with very minimal editing,
and seems the more I know in PS, the worse I do. hmmm...... |
Well at ppchallenge.com you're the king! :P |
And quickly being overthrown too!
:D |
|
|
|
05/06/2007 02:47:41 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
The notion that pre-visualization is any better than post-visualization is just inane.
They are merely different ways of achieving the same end. What matters, ultimately, is the *END* result, no matter what. If the end result makes the photographer, their clients, and/or the viewer happy, then anything else is just ego and self-justification, really. (That is, if someone acts like any one method is "better" than another simply because they use it.) |
Why is there the assumption that just because something is edited in Photoshop, that the photographer didn't "pre-visualize" what the final result would be, and shoot to obtain the "raw material" to obtain that end, even if the unmodified capture may not seem very special. Photography is primarily composition and lighting -- it seems relatively irrelevant to me whether those steps occur before or after pressing the shutter. Sometimes they must occur afterwards ...
The challenge was Without the Hand of Man
Original:  Entry:  |
|
|
|
05/06/2007 03:09:44 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I beg to differ :-)
|
Have you try to find out the ratio of PPed photos winning to non-PPed photos winning. |
|
|
|
05/06/2007 03:49:32 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Original: Entry: |
To be honest, I find your original to be a more compelling photo.... |
|
|
|
05/06/2007 10:33:37 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I beg to differ :-)
|
Have you try to find out the ratio of PPed photos winning to non-PPed photos winning. |
Nooooo....I'm not a math guy :-)
|
|
|
|
05/06/2007 11:04:11 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Efergoh:
To be honest, I find your original to be a more compelling photo.... |
Thanks, but I'm, sure it would have been clobbered for DNMC in that challenge, instead of ending up my highest-rated photo. Maybe I'll re-examine some of the other shots from that series... |
|
|
|
05/08/2007 01:07:07 PM · #42 |
| it is a matter of personal preference...whatever gives you the image you are seeking...I can use photoshop at max but can also use it minimally depending upon my mood and challenge restrictions. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 10:30:20 PM · #43 |
| i think "real" photos look much better in prints |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 11:06:42 PM · #44 |
Re film vs digital photography, I would guess that they had a very similar discussion when the first "roll" film cameras came out, and suddenly photography was catapulted from a "dedicated professionals only" art, into being a "snapshots by the general public" thing?
Good photos take a certain level of tech sense, but the imaginition factor is what seems to get my attention the most in an image. I feel that the PP is just using another tool to mold the initial image into what the artist/photographer is seeing, so I am ok with PP.
There is still great satisfaction if you can get it right straight from the camera in the first place. I feel that this is the reason that many of us still hang on to the notion of those "untouched" images being "better".
I must be middle of the road on all of this, as I like both straight and processed images. If I see what the creator of an image wanted me to see in it, then to me it is a good image.
As an example of early PP, I don't think the Mona Lisa was finished in one pass.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:04:23 PM · #45 |
  
  Sorry yanko, the selective desat threw you out :-P
looks like we got our self a little trend going on here.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:12:23 PM · #46 |
I used to spend hours in my darkroom just playing around and now I spend hours on the computer...same thing-it's still all about creativity to me, I just don't need to spend ages setting up all the chemicals!
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:14:45 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Natasha:
I used to spend hours in my darkroom just playing around and now I spend hours on the computer...same thing-it's still all about creativity to me, I just don't need to spend ages setting up all the chemicals! |
Not that I'm saying that PP is bad, I love to work on images. Some people here believe that they are losing DPC to digital art, which just isn't the case.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:38:53 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Natasha:
I used to spend hours in my darkroom just playing around and now I spend hours on the computer...same thing-it's still all about creativity to me, I just don't need to spend ages setting up all the chemicals! |
and no more fixer stains on my T shirts |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:49:54 PM · #49 |
can I add something?
Firstly I love the minimal and expert rulesets. I love the minimal especially as it helps you keep in touch with your camera, and to get the best result possible to start with
BUT sometimes when photography isnt your job, and you have other commitments, I simply do not have the time to set up, or wait for perfect light, events etc. So this is where sometimes photoshop can do this for you at home without the uncertainties.
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 12:50:03. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:59:13 PM · #50 |
And on the other side of things when a photo isn't good to begin with there's only so much you can do. I had an image in my head before going to the event where I could take it. I could barely get through the croud and was only able to shoot about 6-8 shots. Sometimes you just get what you get and the moment is gone. Then you hope that in todays advanced world that you can "save" it.
original
entry 
Although this one isn't anyone or anything sentimental, there are times when you get a shot of real life happening and you can't "set up" anything about the shot. You either stop time or you don't. And when you stop time for just a moment and immortalize your grandfather holding your baby for the first time two days before he dies then no matter how crappy the shot is, it will have meaning.
Sometimes you can't just go back and try a shot again so you do what you can with what you've got.
I guess bottom line is getting the shot in the first place is ideal. But if you screw up or you don't have time to set the shot up because life doesn't stop so you can get a better photo - then you need pp skills to make the best of the moment you captured. Because after all is said and done its the end product good or bad - enhanced or not - that stops time. |
|
