ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 84
  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    705

    Re: A little rant #2

    my line in the sand is a simple one.. my photographic tool is my camera.. not my desktop PC.. photographically speaking the main purpose of my desktop PC is viewing the images my photographic tool.. my camera.. produces..

    my camera contains it own built in image processing hardware/firmware.. it has its own darkroom it does not need another one.. it produces if use properly very nice complete images that simply need viewing..

    the viewing can be done either by print or by an lcd viewing device..

    ####

    my line as regards graphics artistry.. the camera ceases to be the main tool and the desktop PC takes over.. it takes the base product and alters it to produce something the camera could not on its own produce..

    so far no problems...

    its when these two seperate arts get muddled up that the confusion starts.. or more correctly when one art is passed off as another art..

    its not just about cloning in fake witches either..cropping causes me problems.. an example.. perhaps not a good one but two are real images that would print A3 sized and are pretty much ruined by the neccessary down sizing for web critique and two are mickey mouse crops not worth anything except perhaps a more favourable critique..









    the bottom line here being i could produce dozens of such small crops all from the one photograph..

    trog

    ps.. and Brent (1determined kid) i am not knocking your hybrid art of blending good photography with good graphics artistry.. it requires two talents and is good.. it also quite clearly.. is what it is..
    Last edited by trog100; 02-14-2007 at 08:53 AM.

  2. #52
    Nature/Wildlife Forum Co-Moderator Loupey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    7,856

    One final comment...

    This has been a great topic for discussion, Mike.

    I distinctly remember watching a documentary on the National Geographic magazine a few years ago. When they got to the work of the photo editors, I watched in horror as they showed how images were stitched together and, yes, distracting elements were cloned out. I guess in my na´vetÚ I had thought that such a prestigious magazine known for their documentary style would not prescribe to such major alterations so early on in the digital revolution.

    I've never looked at the images in their magazines the same way ever since.
    Please do not edit or repost my images.

    See my website HERE.


    What's a Loupe for anyway?

  3. #53
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Stiegler
    I think that Henri Cartier Bresson fellow did okay without resorting to a darkroom.
    HCB didn't do his own printing, but the prints I've seen haven't all been "straight" prints. There has been some burning and dodging that I've seen (some things just don't look like that in straight print) but obviously nothing to the level of Ansel Adams. HCB may have had a particular darkroom expert he worked with that got to know what he was looking for, but I don't know that for sure.

    I haven't been there in a couple of years, but Milwaukee Art Museum had 13 of his prints on display last time I was there. I've also seen a couple at The Met and The Oswald Gallery in Austin TX. The prints don't look the same - you know they're hand crafted and his and/or the darkroom person's tastes changed a bit over the years. It's really incredible to see things like that.

    I had seen the Ansel Adams centennial exhibit in Chicago close to the time I was in Austin TX at The Oswald Gallery. They had Moonrise Over Hernandez, and there was a big difference between those to prints as well - the one in Austin (for sale, too) was much better.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    Trog, what you are failing to realize is that a digital image produced in-camera is not intended to be a finished image - that's a manufacturing design. Pro level digital cameras all produce soft photos because sharpening is better left until after the shot enters the PC. Dynamic range and contrast are also sacrificed by the camera in order to capture detail and preserve highlights and shadows - the default levels are usually not the same levels that a professional photo will be displayed at. The camera companies are NOT producing cameras that produce finished images. Some are better than others, of course, but I've never seen an image that wouldn't benefit from AT LEAST sharpening.

    For instance - the histogram on your snow photo shows about a stop of underexposure - a safe bet for the capturing detail in snow, but the shot would look considerably better with a curves (contrast) and levels (white point and grey point) adjustment. It would also print better. You've already lost about a third of the total image dynamic range because you underexposed the shot, why not reclaim that in post processing? With film, you would just let it develop a bit longer before the stop bath, why is that so wrong with digital? Just because it isn't the shot the camera thought it was? Why not just shoot in full auto then, if the camera is now making all the decisions for the photograph?

    I understand what you are getting at with the photo/graphic art dichotomy, but a photo is NOT reality and is a form of graphic art, just as any other graphic art is. Whether or not a photo is straight from the memory card or is edited in photoshop is moot: a photo is a lie to begin with, it cannot become more of a lie. Same way that people don't get a little bit pregnant.
    Erik Williams

    Olympus E3, E510
    12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 f/2 macro, EX25, FL36's and an FL50r.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    705

    Re: A little rant #2

    somehow i feel some just dont want to see the point i am trying to make..

    i have a camera that will produce reasonable jpegs.. reasonable.. good.. acceptable.. are all relative terms.. i am also fully aware that the image examples (grabbed and quickly resized from my image folder) i just posted could quite easily be made "better".. please give me some credibilty..

    i am talking about fake witches and the like not how to improve my own images.. i am fully aware of how to do that..

    please sushigaijin.. do not insult my intelligence my telling me what i do or do not realize.. u assume too much my friend..

    trog

    ps.. i have said enough on this issue to know the point i am trying to make isnt being heard.. time to shut up and leave the "photo" critique forum to its own devices and devote my time to a more worthwhile less frustrating pursuit i think..

  6. #56
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by readingr
    Glamour photography is probably the worst culprit in all this (manipulation) as women (Stick insects) and lately a load of men (Rippling muscles) try and imitate what they see in magazines and on screen, totally unhealthy and impossible to achieve without grief.
    Roger
    I think however, it is necessary to differentiate between glamour photography and professional portraiture. Some photographers are way off track in their attitudes toward setting up and post processing portraits. They seem to forget that the objective is to take a flattering portrait of the person, not to visually emphasize skin problems, bad hair colouring, a pudgy face, poor choice of clothing, bad judgement in jewellry, bloodshot eyes, wrinkles, etc.

    The best pros set up these shots by looking closely at the person, sometimes hiring a make-up person, chosing clothes to match an appropriate look, deciding on jewellry, making sure hair is properly combed and_or styled etc. They set up the pose and the lighting to emphasize positive features as well as using filters and backdrops.

    In the end, some postprocessing or Photoshopping is necessary as well. It is just NOT respectful or professional to provide a client with a portrait that shows bloodshot eyes, a cold sore and a shiny nose, just because that was reality at the time that the portrait was taken. If this is considered faking, then it is again what top photographers have been doing for decades and is a basic part of our craft.

    Ronnoco
    www.photoinf.com

    Accepted photo standards in technique and composition are the tools used to judge photo quality.

  7. #57
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: A little rant #2

    trog .. you aren't alone in your vision of this! There is room for all of us.

    Cheers
    Mike

  8. #58
    Senior Member readingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Basingstoke UK
    Posts
    4,564

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by trog100
    somehow i feel some just dont want to see the point i am trying to make..
    Trog, Hearing you loud and clear its just that you and I will have to agree to disagree.

    In photography there never has been "Purity" as even in film post processing is essential to develop the film (slide or negative) The closest we ever got to Purity was the Polaroid.

    Digital is close and if you were going for "purity", you would have to turn off sharpening, colour effects, saturation... in camera, and capture RAW, then view using computer and nearly all become unusable images.

    However, I agree that all camera's produce decent images using the available processing in camera and the formats for capturing the images just like the Polaroid, but then when you print all that colour management will finally alter the captured image when printed.

    Personally I would never crop to the level you have demonstrated and if this is the argument you have with post processing then I totally agree with you 99.9999% of the time. However, if there was a shot that I wanted and had the wrong lens then I would still take the shot with the knowledge that the final image would be "Rubbish" and unprintable in anything bigger that 6x4 if lucky.

    Most of my photos are generally uncropped possible a sliver here or there if I have to. However, levels are adjusted along with a curves, contrast, or hue and saturation adjustments and then sharpened before printing. I very rarely clone things out. This to me is what I did in the darkroom of bygone age, I am now getting nostalgic and perhaps I'll set up the darkroom again. The smell of those chemicals never really leaves you.

    I am listening and in a previous post I stated that "Honour is due" for not using all these tools and it does make you look and take better pictures.

    Roger
    "I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders; and the Golden Rule will never be found etched on our ground glass." from The mind's eye by Henri Cartier-Bresson

    My Web Site: www.readingr.com

    DSLR
    Canon 5D; EF100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM; EF24-70 F2.8L USM 50mm F1.8 II; EF 100 F2.8 Macro
    Digital
    Canon Powershot Pro 1; Canon Ixus 100


  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by trog100
    somehow i feel some just dont want to see the point i am trying to make..

    i have a camera that will produce reasonable jpegs.. reasonable.. good.. acceptable.. are all relative terms.. i am also fully aware that the image examples (grabbed and quickly resized from my image folder) i just posted could quite easily be made "better".. please give me some credibilty..

    i am talking about fake witches and the like not how to improve my own images.. i am fully aware of how to do that..

    please sushigaijin.. do not insult my intelligence my telling me what i do or do not realize.. u assume too much my friend..

    trog

    ps.. i have said enough on this issue to know the point i am trying to make isnt being heard.. time to shut up and leave the "photo" critique forum to its own devices and devote my time to a more worthwhile less frustrating pursuit i think..
    Didn't mean any disrespect, only working with the information you have given me.

    And I agree with Readingr, I understand what you are saying and I still disagree. It's great that you want to do what you think is right. I respect that. Post processing, witches and all, is still a part of the photographic process. In an inch, in a mile.
    Erik Williams

    Olympus E3, E510
    12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 f/2 macro, EX25, FL36's and an FL50r.

  10. #60
    To Capture the Mind! MarcusK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lebanon / The World
    Posts
    686

    Re: A little rant #2

    What i simply do not understand is why this has turned as such!

    We have all made very interesting points that we each could back up, but we haven't REALLY listened to each other...

    I will try to make this clear (and trog correct me if i'm wrong) by using Brent's Devil Hands, and the Cloned Witch Project...

    The devil's hands was a mix of 2 arts... and was presented as such.... the CLoned witch Project, was shot, and then, after realizing how dull the image was, or relatively so, a witch was added in order to make a photo....what i earlier addressed as moment...

    As such, a photojournalist taking a specific angle, and using available light to show their "view" of an event is one thing (which is not being discussed directly here).... but a photojopurnalist, Photoshopping a nuke, behind protesters, is NOT journalism and NOT photography....

    The photo critique here, when you present images, is judging what? that is the main question brought upon, by mike's unfortunate run with the judge... We are supposed to judge what is being presented....as it is presented....

    Ronnoco, in many of your arguments in the critique section, you would argue according to WHAT the author of the image said about it....if he/she says it is lifestyle, and everyone compliments the effort, you would jump in saying it is not a lifestyle image (just an example coz i cant find the threads i wanted) You would scrutinize the photo according to its title, and type....

    Therefore, no one argues when you present the image accordingly...so i can not judge brent's Devil's hands by saying you should have lit the eyes better.....but i would judge his photographic abilities at the right place....the model only....then talk about the added elements....His was presented for what it was...

    As for the Cloned Witch Project, that is simply saying judge my photographic abilities.... no mention of added elements (i do understand the reason to want to judge your PS abilities..and the best way to do that is remain silent about them).... Although the vision of the photographer is better (if the added elements work) THAT is not photography...or at least could not be judged as such!

    As for the National Geographic, well that just goes to say....they are supposedly reporting, documenting, and they should bring things as they are.... On the other on could argue, that since they showed this information, they were being honest with you....and therefore their effort i believe is to make the magazine or nature as appealing as possible to the world! And i think many organizations that try to make the world a better place should try to make their image better by indulging in some "plastic surgery"

    I again insist on making the distinction of "Knowing What You Are Judging" v/s an attempt at deceiving the world and win approval....

    Trog, there is one more thing i must categorical disagree with here, and that's you saying that the image ends in the camera just because it got digital... An image never ended IN the camera... and for THAT particular style of images, i believe you are referring to Lomography which has its appeal for people (myself included)....

    There are limits to what you can do to an image, and still call it photography, as opposed to collage, or visual art or whatever else you want to call it....Or to say it better... at a certain point it ceases to be "just photography" and is referred to differently....depending on what is being done, and therefore, A collage can not be judged in the same fashion as a Photojournalism picture...

    Therefore, and since the photocritique is open to all categories, the author needs to specify what category their particular image belongs to in order to be assessed properly!

    Marc
    Marc

    "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but rather, when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de St-Exupery

    Kindly do NOT edit my photos - I would rather try and apply your advice and learn...

    My Ramblings....

  11. #61
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: A little rant #2

    I have been listening Marc. I think that we are just all set in our ways. I feel Trog does make a point that some photographers have probably gotten lazy and rely to much on PP.
    But I also feel that if Trog looked into the history books and checked out what early photographers had to do to achieve their goals, he would lighten up some. PP is what seperates the good from the average, 40 years ago and still today. In my mind a true "Purist" wouldn't even own a digital camera much less a computer...
    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    You know, I've thought a lot about this topic over the last few days, and I think I have identified the Line in the Sand - believability.

    Perhaps it is one thing to clone out a stick or clone in a gondola - those are plausable images that COULD have happened in reality. National Geographic isn't trying to hoodwink us into believing that UFOs landed in Zurich, or that the Sarengeti is full of witches on broomsticks.

    Maybe this is the point of contention - a believable photoshop versus an unbelievable one. I'd argue that they are both photography, assuming that the basic capture tool was/were cameras...perhaps one is a photographic collage, but that is still a segment of the broader concept "photography."

    Of course, I know there ARE people out there who DO think that the image is finished in the camera - probably 90% of people who shoot snapshots have no idea of the possibilities, so they might concieve photoshoping to be a form of "faking it." I do have a hard time believing that Trog, or any autonomous photographer, believes that the camera is the be-all end-all.

    Maybe I am mistaken. If I am not, then I too am a "purist," as my particular preference is to keep the shot believable - since I shoot primarily nature and wildlife, that is an important consideration for me.
    Erik Williams

    Olympus E3, E510
    12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 f/2 macro, EX25, FL36's and an FL50r.

  13. #63
    To Capture the Mind! MarcusK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lebanon / The World
    Posts
    686

    Re: A little rant #2

    Greg, Erik:

    I believe that the reason this discussion is popping up all over the world, (most pros dont argue about it...but then again.....) is simply because by being set in our ways, we are unwilling to look at things for what they are....(me included until recently...)

    We are all trying to fit photography into our category...or our description... by choosing the categories about photography that we like and saying THIS is photography.... In other words, it is like saying that PR.com is JUST about the photo critique section, which is obviously false, or at least, incomplete....

    Photography, as has been already mentioned, IS NOT and WAS NOT the image of reality.... but a copy of the photographer's vision...if we go into psychology just a wee bit, and if we try to remember how we felt when we developped the image we thought was great, and it turned out crap, we realize that a person's vision or "view" is selective....far more effectively than any DOF managed.... Which by default, sets the fact, that the camera TRIES to capture what we want it to capture....

    Now....again.... I have not met, so far, any professional photographer, who even remotely complained about the issue at hand.... there was never an argument at the pro levels, the only mention about it is SPECIFICS.... when they see an image, they know what has been done with it....All assignment photography, will not have enough time to allow for "Faking"... and the only fixing will be the Adjustments....and the cloning out (cloning in is more time consuming when you are passing it off as part of the image)...As such these are still within the realm of the Darkroom process....

    The issue rises, when the masses, holding their P&S, snap away, and then through PP come up with an image that is awesome, and pose it as a pro's image.....THAT is also not a problem for any of the pros....since not only is that image un-printable A3 size....but will almost always contain photographic mistakes.....

    The debate here, is purely a debate between the Professional and the Semi-Pro, or hobbyist.... It is frustrating, on a consumer level to have to compete with people who have almost zero "camera" knowledge, and alot of time on their hands to learn and perfect their PostProcessing abilities....furthermore, when many Newspapers and/or magazines are starting what they so happily call "Citizen Journalism" there are many photojournalists that find themselves needing to cut prices in order to get the jobs....or start looking for other ways to make ends meet.... Then yes... this issue becomes a lot more serious....

    As Photography is concerned its definition in the dictionary is very simple and precise:
    The art or practice of taking and processing photographs
    A photogrpah is: A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film, or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

    Obviously we can skip the chemical treatment in this discussion....And therefore, according to these 2 definitions it becomes pretty clear that this is not a matter of relativity, or one side wrong one side right... but a matter of BOTH sides having to join their definitions....

    The image MUST start by being taken by a camera onto light-sensitive material, and then it will undergo processing to become a complete image....

    Are there, then, any limits to processing?? why should there be?.... but! Are you then allowed to go use elements that you yourself did not take with a camera?? You could, but then you are no longer "the photographer who took this image"....

    Simple and Clear....

    As for the "Purist" type of photography, well again that falls under the category of LOMOGRAPHY, which take pictures as they are...no changing them, no fixing colors even.... of course they do not follow the usual photographic techniques, but....that is another story by itself!

    Marc
    Marc

    "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but rather, when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de St-Exupery

    Kindly do NOT edit my photos - I would rather try and apply your advice and learn...

    My Ramblings....

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    Marcus:

    Lomography has its witches too - I had half of my wedding shots taken with lomo cameras, and let me assure you that not a single exposure looked "natural" or "realistic." They do, however, convey the feeling of the event very well, which is why I had it done in the first place. In fact, a lot of the lomos that have been produced in the last 20 years have been trick cameras - the action sampler comes to mind immediately, which takes a burst on one frame of film from four different colored lenses, a fraction of a second apart. neat stuff.
    Erik Williams

    Olympus E3, E510
    12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 f/2 macro, EX25, FL36's and an FL50r.

  15. #65
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusK
    What i simply do not understand is why this has turned as such!

    We have all made very interesting points that we each could back up, but we haven't REALLY listened to each other...

    I will try to make this clear (and trog correct me if i'm wrong) by using Brent's Devil Hands, and the Cloned Witch Project...

    The devil's hands was a mix of 2 arts... and was presented as such.... the CLoned witch Project, was shot, and then, after realizing how dull the image was, or relatively so, a witch was added in order to make a photo....what i earlier addressed as moment...

    As such, a photojournalist taking a specific angle, and using available light to show their "view" of an event is one thing (which is not being discussed directly here).... but a photojopurnalist, Photoshopping a nuke, behind protesters, is NOT journalism and NOT photography....

    The photo critique here, when you present images, is judging what? that is the main question brought upon, by mike's unfortunate run with the judge... We are supposed to judge what is being presented....as it is presented....

    Ronnoco, in many of your arguments in the critique section, you would argue according to WHAT the author of the image said about it....if he/she says it is lifestyle, and everyone compliments the effort, you would jump in saying it is not a lifestyle image (just an example coz i cant find the threads i wanted) You would scrutinize the photo according to its title, and type....

    Therefore, no one argues when you present the image accordingly...so i can not judge brent's Devil's hands by saying you should have lit the eyes better.....but i would judge his photographic abilities at the right place....the model only....then talk about the added elements....His was presented for what it was...

    As for the Cloned Witch Project, that is simply saying judge my photographic abilities.... no mention of added elements (i do understand the reason to want to judge your PS abilities..and the best way to do that is remain silent about them).... Although the vision of the photographer is better (if the added elements work) THAT is not photography...or at least could not be judged as such!

    As for the National Geographic, well that just goes to say....they are supposedly reporting, documenting, and they should bring things as they are.... On the other on could argue, that since they showed this information, they were being honest with you....and therefore their effort i believe is to make the magazine or nature as appealing as possible to the world! And i think many organizations that try to make the world a better place should try to make their image better by indulging in some "plastic surgery"

    I again insist on making the distinction of "Knowing What You Are Judging" v/s an attempt at deceiving the world and win approval....

    Trog, there is one more thing i must categorical disagree with here, and that's you saying that the image ends in the camera just because it got digital... An image never ended IN the camera... and for THAT particular style of images, i believe you are referring to Lomography which has its appeal for people (myself included)....

    There are limits to what you can do to an image, and still call it photography, as opposed to collage, or visual art or whatever else you want to call it....Or to say it better... at a certain point it ceases to be "just photography" and is referred to differently....depending on what is being done, and therefore, A collage can not be judged in the same fashion as a Photojournalism picture...

    Therefore, and since the photocritique is open to all categories, the author needs to specify what category their particular image belongs to in order to be assessed properly!

    Marc
    I would try and comment, but I am not at all sure what you said above and I don't wish to misinterpret you.

    Ronnoco
    Last edited by Ronnoco; 02-17-2007 at 05:16 PM.
    www.photoinf.com

    Accepted photo standards in technique and composition are the tools used to judge photo quality.

  16. #66
    To Capture the Mind! MarcusK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lebanon / The World
    Posts
    686

    Re: A little rant #2

    Ron - I was simply trying to elaborate on a point that would have been better served short (sorry about that...) My point was simply that the issue is: when you claim to have captured a moment, when in fact you created that moment on the PC...I would still call them photography though.... When i referred to your input in the Photo Critique, I was referring to how you critique according to what the author has Titled his/her photo, and what they are passing it as!

    So if someone posts a lifestyle image, and you know it does not fit, you also comment on that.... You are judging according to what was presented...not just looking at the image and saying this is nice....

    Hence my point, that Cloning In for balance or adding a bit more mood to the image, i personally have no issues with, but cloning in something to pass the photo off as a rare capture of a rare moment I do....

    Photojournalists, choosing from where and how to take a picture and focus on what they like (although on many occasions has distorted the truth) is photojournalism...but Cloning in a Nuke behind a group of actors dressed as terrorists is not....


    Erik - my reference to lomography was not in the true sense of capturing reality (although i realize it may have been understood that way)... I meant it was an "As Shot" capture and the camera is the final decision maker....well there is the traditional processing of course.. but that is different... And i did have my run at a lomo camera.... they are truly fun...
    Marc

    "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but rather, when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de St-Exupery

    Kindly do NOT edit my photos - I would rather try and apply your advice and learn...

    My Ramblings....

  17. #67
    Poster Formerly Known as Michael Fanelli mwfanelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    727

    Re: A little rant #2

    Well, I have read through all the posts and see a few problems. Allow me to ramble on a bit.

    Photojournalism can not, under any circumstances, report the "truth" or "reality". The staging of that famous World War II "rasing the flag on Iwo Jima" is no less powerful or real just because it was staged and posed after the fact. The choice of film, focal length compression or exapansion, the limited FOV, the two dimensional reality of a three dimensional scene, the limited dynamic range... All photographers have made personal choices, choosing Velvia instead of Ektachrome for example, in their work. The use of digital just expands those options and makes it more available to a larger number of people.

    So, when you take a portrait of a beautiful woman, you never smooth out the imperfections? I'm sure women want to see every wrinkle and blemish! But hey, the way it comes out the camera is best. You've never used a saturated film for those flowers to pop the colors? Ansel Adams, cited a few times, was a very heavy darkroom manipulator. There are thousands of ways that we change things in photography, many of them without realizing it.

    I think that another problem is lurking behind the scenes here. Let me throw it out to y'all. Digital cameras have made it so much easier to get photographs. Even simple skills in a low end editor can greatly increase the quality of a snapshot. In effect, the "rabble" can now do things that only years of study and experience were required not that long ago. People are no longer as impressed with our work as they used to be.

    The same thing happened when Microsoft introduced Visual Basic many years ago. Projects that took a couple of years could not be done in a couple of weeks. You didn't even have to know the nitty-gritty of what was happening in the background. That infuriated programmers. What about hard work, what about "paying your dues", what about overall quality, what about understanding cryptic commands?. Fact was, and fact is, that visual tools raised the bar and made software development less godlike and produces better quality. There are still some who "draw the line in the sand" and insist on using a text editor and compiler. They are a dying breed.

    Photography is open enough that it allows all of us to choose the way we want to work. There are no extra points for doing things the hard way, for digging in our heels to slow down technological adavances, or for being able to brag "I let the camera manufacturer make my decisions for me." Why can't we all just enjoy the images we see and not get carried away in the age old, and ultimately losing, argument of "what is real"?
    "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." --Mark Twain

  18. #68
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sushigaijin
    You know, I've thought a lot about this topic over the last few days, and I think I have identified the Line in the Sand - believability..
    I am inclined to agree that "believability" is a reasonable criteria for judging a lot of postprocessing. Unnatural duotones with a pink cloudy sky in the middle of the day for no apparent photographic or compositional reason do not work, whether intentional or not.

    On the other hand, there are things like Kirilian photography which is photographing the electromagnetic field around human, animal and plant life. Colourful and unique as well as proven not to be fake, since it was started well before the advent of digital. Makes it difficult to define believability.

    Ronnoco
    www.photoinf.com

    Accepted photo standards in technique and composition are the tools used to judge photo quality.

  19. #69
    project forum co-moderator Frog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    wa state
    Posts
    11,195

    Re: A little rant #2

    So, if there is one coke can, its ok, but if there are two I should clone one out?
    Keep Shooting!

    CHECK OUT THE PHOTO PROJECT FORUM
    http://forums.photographyreview.com/...splay.php?f=34

    Please refrain from editing my photos without asking.

  20. #70
    To Capture the Mind! MarcusK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lebanon / The World
    Posts
    686

    Re: A little rant #2

    Or clone one in

    All in all we are getting wrapped up with rules and definitions.... and like has been mentioned by a few in other sections of this forum, if it serves the purpose, then it fits....

    As to defining what photography is or what art is...that is something that will never be agreed upon internationally...

    the only thing i would say is a reminder: It is those who break the rules who define the new ones!

    Picasso's cubism was not considered anywhere close to being art...yet now it is (i dislike cubism..but can not deny it as art) Dali was considered weird and nuts....all of the great artists were considered outcasts (most anyway) because they were not following any of the available rules.... but they were doing it to serve a purpose.... It is ok to break the rules....but not ok to break them thinking THAT makes you an artist!

    Marc
    Marc

    "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but rather, when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de St-Exupery

    Kindly do NOT edit my photos - I would rather try and apply your advice and learn...

    My Ramblings....

  21. #71
    Ghost
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Crystal Lake, IL
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: A little rant #2

    All these judges are saying is "it would look better if ...".

    The fact that the circumstances you were in when you took the photo didn't allow for anything better isn't really relevent. "It would be better if ..." is still true.

    Judge: "It would be better if that scene had an odd number of trees."
    Photographer: "Yeah, but it didn't have an odd number of trees, it had 6!".
    Judge: "Then find a better composition somewhere else."

    Can't we be happy with a flawed photo knowing that we did our best given the circumstances? Or do we need others to show us our self worth via critiques of our photos?

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Ash
    Can't we be happy with a flawed photo knowing that we did our best given the circumstances? Or do we need others to show us our self worth via critiques of our photos?
    A word on the soul of a craftsman and photographer:

    absolutely not! Good enough is never good enough! good enough HAS to be PERFECT. As craftsmen and artists we cannot be lazy, perfectionism is everything. Capability is different, doing your best is expected and the bare minimum - nothing I did last week will be as good as I did this week...but if that ever stops happening, i should give up the hobby! When we show an imperfect shot here, we are airing problems with it before it hits our target audience - a beta test, so to speak.

    A word on photo critique:

    If the viewer has valid criticisms, there might be something wrong. The most important person in photography is the viewer. The best photographs are the best because the viewer gushes about them - "I LOVE this print," or "This is GREAT!" and not for any of the photographers personal feelings on the print. It doesn't matter if I think it is great, if it isn't great to the audience, it isn't great. It's just like music, art, food, and appliances. (professional) Photography is an exercise in appealing to your audience. Otherwise we would be happy not showing them at all.
    Erik Williams

    Olympus E3, E510
    12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 f/2 macro, EX25, FL36's and an FL50r.

  23. #73
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Ash
    Can't we be happy with a flawed photo knowing that we did our best given the circumstances? Or do we need others to show us our self worth via critiques of our photos?
    I think that even in looking at your own photos there tends to be a balance involved. You caught the lighting, colour and focus just right but the angle is slightly off or there is something on the edge of the frame that should not be there or the hair blends in with the background in one area. When you balance the good versus the bad in the photo, it may end up in terms of overall quality and effectiveness as anywhere from very good to very mediocre or a throw-away.

    If you are the photographer then, if you are not objective, you may tend toward the good evaluation and if you are objective, you may simply not know where it fits in evaluation-wise overall. This is really where critique can fit in, if it is really done well and as the photographer you have the experience and_or knowledge to recognize a good suggestion for improvement.

    Ronnoco
    www.photoinf.com

    Accepted photo standards in technique and composition are the tools used to judge photo quality.

  24. #74
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Ash
    Can't we be happy with a flawed photo knowing that we did our best given the circumstances? Or do we need others to show us our self worth via critiques of our photos?
    I say yes. Not every day and every location will have the ingredients for an excellent photograph. You do the best you can with what you've got. If you travel a long distance only to have high overcast skies (which show up as white skies, of course), then look down at the ground and do some macro stuff. Maybe you'll get a great shot, maybe not - but probably not what you intended to do.

    Are we better off just leaving the cameras in the bag? That way we wouldn't have any photograph to worry about getting a bad critique...

  25. #75
    project forum co-moderator Frog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    wa state
    Posts
    11,195

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Trevor Ash
    Can't we be happy with a flawed photo knowing that we did our best given the circumstances? Or do we need others to show us our self worth via critiques of our photos?

    I think a trillion highly valued family photos would have to be thrown away if we needed perfection in every shot.
    Perfection is subjective of course and I honestly believe that sometimes it is the imperfections that make many things and not only photos great.
    We do, after all, spend a good part of our life taking pictures of imperfect things and that's why photos of old dilapidated buildings are more interesting than those of new ones.
    Keep Shooting!

    CHECK OUT THE PHOTO PROJECT FORUM
    http://forums.photographyreview.com/...splay.php?f=34

    Please refrain from editing my photos without asking.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •