DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Starting to hate Dodge and Burn...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 84, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/04/2005 09:29:04 PM · #1
Maybe I'm alone here but I'm getting a bit tired of seeing photo's that don't even remotely resemble reality. Ain't diggin it. The shot is getting less important...not a good thing.

Does anyone else feel that D&B is being pushed way over the top to the point of overkill?
 04/04/2005 09:32:18 PM · #2
Dun & Bradstreet? Oh, er, Dodge & Burn, yes... well, everything goes in cycles, and currently the darling technique is drama via D&B. In time another fad will replace it. D&B has had quite the run tho...

edit: cantt spel.

Message edited by author 2005-04-04 21:32:51.
 04/04/2005 09:33:12 PM · #3
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Maybe I'm alone here but I'm getting a bit tired of seeing photo's that don't even remotely resemble reality. Ain't diggin it. The shot is getting less important...not a good thing.

Does anyone else feel that D&B is being pushed way over the top to the point of overkill?


I agree. However I'm not sure if the bad examples you're seeing are a result of overdoing it or just poor technique. Post processing should be about restoring a photo to the image that the photography sees and nothing more.
 04/04/2005 09:33:23 PM · #4
yes, but i used D&B in the cemetary challenge

James
 04/04/2005 09:38:01 PM · #5
Originally posted by virtuamike:
I agree. However I'm not sure if the bad examples you're seeing are a result of overdoing it or just poor technique. Post processing should be about restoring a photo to the image that the photography sees and nothing more.


Well, they seem to be winning. NOT IN ALL CASES but the allure, in general seems immeasurable.

I'm not sure if I can compete not having any desire to do it.

James-You used it in a delicate manner. No issue there. Very nice shot BTW.

Message edited by author 2005-04-04 21:40:00.
 04/04/2005 09:40:58 PM · #6
Originally posted by virtuamike:
Post processing should be about restoring a photo to the image that the photography sees and nothing more.


I disagree. Post processing should be about making the photo into what the photographer wants it to be.
 04/04/2005 09:44:06 PM · #7
Nothing but trendy now.. I've sought other ways to bring out the drama in photos.. Most of my recent entries have used alternative methods to achieve a (black and white) D&B'd look.

Wish I could figure out the color versions though.. Keep on truckin' I guess.
 04/04/2005 09:47:25 PM · #8
Well, at least D/B is more in the spirit of real photography ("capturing light") than selective desaturation which annoys me in almost all cases (was a fad here before, but seems to be fading away lately)

Message edited by author 2005-04-04 21:48:09.
 04/04/2005 09:47:38 PM · #9
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by virtuamike:
Post processing should be about restoring a photo to the image that the photography sees and nothing more.


I disagree. Post processing should be about making the photo into what the photographer wants it to be.


Err, I got twisted up in the play on words. What I meant was that it's fine for a photographer to use post processing to meet his or her vision of what the photo should be. What I don't like seeing is when the post processing is overpowering to the point where it becomes more of a digital work than an actual vision.
 04/04/2005 09:50:26 PM · #10
I just hope that taking a great photo will always supercede the post processing. Outside of advertising or stock where it's almost necessary I'm quickly becoming less of a fan.

Message edited by author 2005-04-04 21:52:44.
 04/04/2005 09:52:14 PM · #11
Originally posted by virtuamike:

Err, I got twisted up in the play on words. What I meant was that it's fine for a photographer to use post processing to meet his or her vision of what the photo should be. What I don't like seeing is when the post processing is overpowering to the point where it becomes more of a digital work than an actual vision.


Post processing doesn't bother me when it integrates well with the actual image. I think some of the photos in question in this particular thread have, what I like to call, 'visible' post processing in them. You are right. When I look at some of these images, the post processing is the first thing I see for various reasons. The main reason is poor technique. IMO, when post processing is done well (especially dodge and burn) the image may seem somewhat surreal, but it could be reality as well. When I see traces of the editing dominating the image, I don't usually like it...
 04/04/2005 10:04:33 PM · #12
In my opinion "capturing light" is different from creating light.

I don't think I'd mentioned any pix in particular that I was referring to but I have a few in mind for sure. More important, when it comes to blending is where does it start and where does it end?

My head is starting to tilt at the dodge and burn shots as if they were shiny objects for little children.

Not to be disputacious but there are so many images that I don't feel closely relate, to much that I've seen in real life.

Outside of the obvious cases which lead to my actual point, I'm not sure what I'm looking at on occasion.
 04/04/2005 10:19:34 PM · #13
Your camera is a tool. Your lense is a tool. Your flash is a tool. Your lighting setup acts as a tool. Photoshop is a tool.

If photography was not an art, and it's main purpose was to just linearly replicate reality as the human eye sees it, then a dodge/burn criticism would fit - because you're right, it absolutely looks "unreal".

But that's exactly what's great about it, and there are some amazing photographers on this site who have been able to use ALL of their available tools to create incredibly powerful and dramatic shots. heida comes to mind..
 04/04/2005 10:20:23 PM · #14
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Maybe I'm alone here but I'm getting a bit tired of seeing photo's that don't even remotely resemble reality. Ain't diggin it. The shot is getting less important...not a good thing.

Does anyone else feel that D&B is being pushed way over the top to the point of overkill?


I was very glad to see someone make a post like this. I really agree with you 100%. I used to score the dodged and burned shots very high. But lately...especially in the cemetary challenge, I found myself not giving the overprocessed shots high marks like I used to. I still score them high but I am becoming tired of seeing them. Ive been shooting now for 4 months without editing my photos, with the exception of basic touch ups such as sharpening and Level adjustments. I Don't think I can see myself becoming the type of photographer that relies on programs to make the image.
 04/04/2005 10:34:40 PM · #15
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Post processing doesn't bother me when it integrates well with the actual image.

exactly. just like you can't tell when someone gets a good haircut...because it looks good! on the other hand, without a master's touch, well, we all know what clint looked like in unforgiven...
 04/04/2005 10:42:10 PM · #16
At any rate, our own reality can be what we want it to be via post processing. There are some who want to see exactly what the camera saw and there are some who want to make it fit their own vision. The two schools don't integrate well either.
 04/04/2005 11:23:35 PM · #17
If that's true, can I go back in time (say...20 years) and Photoshop my life...well, come to think of it, I'd like to Dodge and Burn last week a little, just help along my reality a dash. AND not to be too greedy, maybe I could settle for a little help with Hue and Saturation, even today.

It's all good within limits. On a personal note, I'm trying to capture straight through camera without any post processing or as little as possible.
 04/04/2005 11:34:21 PM · #18
Even if the goal is to reproduce a scene "as you saw it"...

1.) Your perception of the scene is colored by the time between when you saw it and when you process the pic. What you really are working to is the scene that you remember, whick could be significantly different than "reality." Which is a more valid target?

2.) From a technical perspective, there are times when "shooting for as close to the final result as possible" is not advisable. Case in point, If you are going about creating a rather dark image, don't expose it low-key, expose it normally (expose to the right per the histogram) and reduce the exposure in post. This will greatly reduce noise, and give you far nicer detail in the darker areas of the image. Not to mention giving you far more flexibility in processing it.
 04/04/2005 11:41:31 PM · #19

I hate to open the debate again but every image is processed to some extent. You either set your camera up so that you get what you want out of camera or you do what you need to in post processing.

To bring up the ugly subject again (film) all images are post processed, some more than others. If you ever have a roll of print film processed ask for it as is and see what you get. Slide film has a lot less leeway but still can be tweaked a little in processing.

In any case, processing can be taken too far (subjectively that is). The person doing the post processing doesn't usually feel that it's overdone.
 04/05/2005 12:08:21 AM · #20
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
I was very glad to see someone make a post like this. I really agree with you 100%. I used to score the dodged and burned shots very high. But lately...especially in the cemetary challenge, I found myself not giving the overprocessed shots high marks like I used to. I still score them high but I am becoming tired of seeing them. Ive been shooting now for 4 months without editing my photos, with the exception of basic touch ups such as sharpening and Level adjustments. I Don't think I can see myself becoming the type of photographer that relies on programs to make the image.


This is what I don't understand very much. Why does it need to be all one way or the other? Other then some sort of self satisfaction or learning assignment I don't really see the logic in deciding to limit ourselves on the editing tools we use. I can understanding not wanting most photos to look overprocessed, I feel that way too, but I think each photo needs its own type of editing to look its best. I have many photos where a great deal of editing was involved but you wouldn't know it because each editing process was subtle but necessary and I have many others where I fealt almost nothing was needed. So when someone speaks about how a certain amount of editing is too much and is really an attempt to save photos I think they are missing the point. I think there are no steps of lesser importance when it comes to creating a great photo whether it is the initial image capture, file format, file size, image editing or printing processes used. Sometimes you can make up for some poor techniques in certain areas but, in most cases, poor techniques in one or more areas will degrade the final product to some degree. I will be the first to admit to taking plenty of shortcuts (like not using my tripod when I need to) and I usually realize my bad habits later in my editing. I can get away with this for my own use because it is mainly just for fun but if I were a working pro photographer you can bet that I would be treating every step with much more importance. Sorry for the ramble but that's what I think.

T

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 00:11:00.
 04/05/2005 12:37:20 AM · #21
Originally posted by crank2o:
... If photography was not an art, and it's main purpose was to just linearly replicate reality as the human eye sees it, then a dodge/burn criticism would fit - because you're right, it absolutely looks "unreal". ...

If the main purpose of photography is not to replicate what the eye sees, but rather to transform it acording to our own artistic vision, why do we pay the most money for the cameras and lenses that best replicate what our eyes see? Photography is not art, only a part of photography is art.
Adjusting contrast, white balance, saturation, sharpness, and dust removal are methods to make our images more nearly replicate what the eye sees, to fill in for the shortcomings of our cameras and our technique in using them. Dodge and burn does not replicate but rather substitutes what the photographer's vision thinks the image should look like for what was actually seen, and thus departs from the main of photography and puts an image into the sub-category of photographic
art.

Please stop trying to make all photographers be artists.
 04/05/2005 12:44:59 AM · #22
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by crank2o:
... If photography was not an art, and it's main purpose was to just linearly replicate reality as the human eye sees it, then a dodge/burn criticism would fit - because you're right, it absolutely looks "unreal". ...

If the main purpose of photography is not to replicate what the eye sees, but rather to transform it acording to our own artistic vision, why do we pay the most money for the cameras and lenses that best replicate what our eyes see? Photography is not art, only a part of photography is art.
Adjusting contrast, white balance, saturation, sharpness, and dust removal are methods to make our images more nearly replicate what the eye sees, to fill in for the shortcomings of our cameras and our technique in using them. Dodge and burn does not replicate but rather substitutes what the photographer's vision thinks the image should look like for what was actually seen, and thus departs from the main of photography and puts an image into the sub-category of photographic
art.

Please stop trying to make all photographers be artists.


No one is saying that you have to use tools that you don't want to use. But it sounds like you are saying that using dodge/burn makes a photograph less.....I don't know......worthy or something.

The reason I invested in the camera I did (the same one you did...hehe) is that I want to have the best possible image to take into the "darkroom."

Studio lights are a tool...to use them is to NOT faithfully recreate the scene....the same is true with reflectors and filters.....all of which are acceptable in "the main of photography."

I think we all need to accept that different people work in different ways and stop implying (or outright stating) that one way is morally or artistically superior to another.


04/05/2005 12:48:19 AM · #23
I was gonna post the same thing a few days ago, but I chickened out..
I respect what people can do in Post-Production, and its all part of the presentation, but I am also a little sick of Dodging and Burning.
 04/05/2005 12:53:05 AM · #24
I was going to click back to the home page after reading this thread, but I can't help myself.

I think a "photography challenge" website should be focused on photography. Photoshop is not part of photography. It is part of the post-processing of a photograph, and not a requirement. As soon as you begin changing that image with applications like Photoshop, you begin heading toward digital art.

That said, I also have to say that I like digital art, in its place. While the images we are seeing so frequently here are beautiful in many cases, I also feel that they are inching farther toward digital art, and away from photos.
 04/05/2005 12:58:15 AM · #25
Originally posted by sfboatright:

Studio lights are a tool...to use them is to NOT faithfully recreate the scene....the same is true with reflectors and filters.....all of which are acceptable in "the main of photography."

Stephen, I have to respectfully disagree with you here. When you turn on those studio lights, you change the scene. Reflector, filters, etc., all do the same. I don't argue that they are accepted, and even necessary to achieve the effect we want, but they are specifically intended to change the scene.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:41:21 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/19/2024 07:41:21 PM EDT.