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 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84
  1. #1
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    A little rant #2

    Hi all ... just another little thing that bothers me somewhat (and I appreciate the opportunity this forum gives me to get these things off my chest!)

    So here goes: We all know that photoshop allows us to clone bits and pieces into or out of pictures. Indeed, this is one of its most useful features. My problem is this: the extent to which this is becoming expected in the name of composition or a "tidy" photograph. A judge at my camera club recently marked down a photo of a line of trees because it had 6 trees in it. "An odd number of trees is compositionally stronger" he said, and suggested that one of the trees be cloned out. He was serious and it didn't seem to matter that there were 6 trees there on a rather lovely French landscape. What is wrong with photographing what is THERE, instead of what we would prefer to be there for compositional reasons?

    I have seen it in one of my own recent posts where some folk have suggested cloning out museum signs. Now I DO understand what they are saying from a compositional point of view (I really do, and I appreciate them taking the time to comment). I am not in the least calling their judgement into question - maybe they are right. The point I make here is not whether the picture might have been stronger without them, but whether it is really wrong to show what happens to be really there?

    It seems that nobody sees value in a photograph half the time unless the power lines/mud splatters/discarded coke cans/etc (delete as applicable) have been cloned out in the name of art. And if that woman in the red had isn't exactly on the thirds point - just move her!!

    Now, I am as guilty as anyone in this, but it does sometimes make me wonder: What are we photographing? Reality as we perceive it? Or a sanitised version of it?

    I really don't have the answers to this one. I wish I did!

    Cheers (and only party tongue in cheek!)
    Mike
    Last edited by Didache; 02-12-2007 at 09:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Not-so-recent Nikon Convert livin4lax09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    2,776

    Re: A little rant #2

    Mike,

    I'm with you on this one. Whenever I am trying to capture a scene as how I see it, I feel a bit weird cloning something out. That's why I shoot more abstract now I'm interested in hearing other peoples' opinions on this issue.

  3. #3
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: A little rant #2

    Thanks Brent. Imagine in 10,000 years time and some future archaeologists have only "art" photographs to assess what life was like in the 21st Century. They would assume that the images represented the way things really were. They would conclude that no street ever had any litter. No flower ever had any little brown spots or caterpillar holes. No teenager ever had a pimple or a spot. Unsightly telephone wires didn't exist. And there were never any awkward tree branches intruding into the corners of landscapes!

    Mike

  4. #4
    Love + Music + Photography = Life CLKunst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    2,035

    Re: A little rant #2

    Here's my two cents ~ Art imitates life, not the other way around.

    I am an in the moment capture kind of gal ~ what I saw is what you get. That's why it says photojournalist on my website, not Fantasy photography.
    C.L. Kunst - CLicKs Photography
    Asheville Photographer
    www.clicksphotography.net



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

    Re: A little rant #2

    people are no longer judging photogrpahs based on real life reality.. they are judging them based on a perceived photoshop achievable reality..

    they are not judging them based on what a camera can achieve..

    they are judging them based on what photoshop can achieve..

    this is all way way wrong in my oppinion.. but if photoshop can get the correct number of trees.. a so called photograph will be expected to have the correct number of trees..

    how many trees there actually were no longer seems to matter..

    and "teachers" can be wrong.. its graphics artistry and image manipulating software that governs the quality of so called photograph today.. not the photographer or the camera..

    my term for this is "desktop photography"..

    try dropping the term in your "teachers" lap and see what he/she makes of it.. use it as if its an excepted term not one u have just invented.. be prepared for a surprize..

    trog

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    This really depends on the type of shot you are taking. I've never seen a digital image that wouldn't benefit from post processing. What's the difference between adding fill flash on the camera and adding fill flash via photoshop? Photography is about capturing what the photographer wants to capture - not just anything that falls into the frame. If that means cloning out a branch, so be it. Maybe we should all stop taking studio shots too, if we are worried about manipulating the outcome. Posing shots? no more, since that is manipulation as well. Regardless of which side of the photograph the manipulation is done, it is still manipulation. There is no difference between using a flash and adjusting the exposure in photoshop, except that one happens before the shutter is pressed and one happens after. You can always just get that sixth tree out of the shot by parallax - just move over a few feet and reshoot - oh wait, that's manipulation too.
    Erik Williams

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

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

    Re: A little rant #2

    Erik: I was talking specifically about cloning, not lighting or the angle of shooting. Of course we all try to find the best position to shoot from, and we also use lighting to illuminate our subject. We also, of course, play with levels etc in order to produce a well balanced image. However, none of those things alter reality: they merely enhance it.

    Cloning (whether in or out) is another kettle of fish altogether. Far from enhancing what the camera "sees", it actively changes it. In that sense it becomes a "lie". Indeed (and I know these are ultra extreme examples) cloning in and out (or their darkroom equivalent) have been used for decades in order to change reality. Remember how Stalin's photographers would "clone" out of group photos those party members who had fallen out of favour? Or that recent case where a photographer was fired from Reuters for cloning in more smoke to make an explosion look worse than it was?

    I am not claiming, of course, that cloning a coke can out of a photo is that same as those examples. That would be ridiculous. In any case, that wasn't quite my point which was that photos are not "acceptable" any more unless they have the more unsightly elements cloned out or moved. If you don't believe me, go to any camera club competition and see how well photos do which record what was there, as opposed to a sanitised version of it.

    Thanks though for responding: I am of course being slightly tongue in cheek about all this, although I do really and truly think there is an important issue underneath all this.

    Cheers
    Mike

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    TN!
    Posts
    124

    Re: A little rant #2

    If you're doing documentary photography, or photojournalism, it's a big deal.

    If you're talking about artistic photography, it seems to me a lot like complaining if a painter left one of the trees or the power lines out of the picture.

  9. #9
    Poster Formerly Known as Michael Fanelli mwfanelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    727

    Re: A little rant #2

    Complaining that an odd number of trees is somehow better than an even number is just silly. The guy was just showing off.

    But this entire problem with "purity" keeps repeating itself. I do clone out elements I don't like. I'd have no problem cloning in something that made the image better. This is no different, just more powerful, then the analog techniques used by people such as Adams.

    The example I usually give is taking a landscape of a trail down in a deep valley. When I get the image home, it looks flat and boring, there is no point to draw the eye, nothing to give the viewer a sense of the scale that was there when the shot was taken. Nothing in camera can get around the basic fact that photography is two dimensional.

    So, I use an editing progrm to clone in a hiker to scale on that far-below trail. Now the photograph "pops", the sense of scale, that was always there, returns. Was this evil because a camera couldn't do it? Was Ansel Adams, and others, wrong to "clone in" the moon when needed?

    Once again, for many its the image, not the process. For some, the process is more important than the image itself. Nothing about photography has ever been "real" since the day it was first invented.
    "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

  10. #10
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    So here goes: We all know that photoshop allows us to clone bits and pieces into or out of pictures. Indeed, this is one of its most useful features. My problem is this: the extent to which this is becoming expected in the name of composition or a "tidy" photograph. A judge at my camera club recently marked down a photo of a line of trees because it had 6 trees in it. "An odd number of trees is compositionally stronger" he said, and suggested that one of the trees be cloned out. He was serious and it didn't seem to matter that there were 6 trees there on a rather lovely French landscape. What is wrong with photographing what is THERE, instead of what we would prefer to be there for compositional reasons?
    The judge seems to have gone too far, since counting trees is not what any viewer does to an image either consciously or unconsciously. On the other hand, photography has never been about duplicating reality either. It simply can't be done. The simple act of making a 3 dimensional superwide image that we can see with our eyes into a limited two dimensional flat image falsifies reality. Our mind also tidies up the image by prioritizing what we see and often ignoring garbage or wires etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    I have seen it in one of my own recent posts where some folk have suggested cloning out museum signs. Now I DO understand what they are saying from a compositional point of view (I really do, and I appreciate them taking the time to comment). I am not in the least calling their judgement into question - maybe they are right. The point I make here is not whether the picture might have been stronger without them, but whether it is really wrong to show what happens to be really there?
    It really doesn't matter "what is really there", in that a photographer can never include everything that he can see with his_her eyes anyway. The photographer needs to be SELECTIVE in chosing from what is really there, what to emphasize and build his_her photo around. Is it the museum statue that you want the viewer's attention to be on, OR the museum donation boxes? Do the museum donation boxes destroy the possible mood you are trying to create with your image?....as in Oh, it is just a boring museum, or do you want to create the mood of an actual temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    It seems that nobody sees value in a photograph half the time unless the power lines/mud splatters/discarded coke cans/etc (delete as applicable) have been cloned out in the name of art. And if that woman in the red had isn't exactly on the thirds point - just move her!!
    But, that is what photography is, and photographers have been doing it for decades. Even before Photoshop, we picked up garbage, changed angles to avoid power lines, waited until a woman moved more into, or out of the picture. Sometimes we even asked her to move.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    Now, I am as guilty as anyone in this, but it does sometimes make me wonder: What are we photographing? Reality as we perceive it? Or a sanitised version of it?
    When you really think about it, we sanitize reality when we see it anyway. If all you saw was the garbage and the coke cans in a scene, you would not take a photo of it at all.
    You take a photo because you see the beauty in the scene and in your mind you ignore the garbage. The viewer of a small 2 dimensional print however will be DISTRACTED by the garbage, so you take it out to centre the attention on the beauty in the scene.

    Ronnoco
    www.photoinf.com

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

  11. #11
    Seasoned Amateur WesternGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alberta, Western Canada
    Posts
    1,253

    Re: A little rant #2

    So I am only allowed an odd number of trees in my photos...does this hold for flowers? :blush2: What about people? Didache, I have to agree with you - this is utter nonsense and the fact that he was serious is even more astonishing .

    I must admit I use Elements to do a few things in post processing, and I do tend to use it to make composites, but everyone who sees it knows that it is a composite because I tell them, and I usually only do it for fun and not to pass it off as serious artistic photography.

    Cheers,

    WesternGuy

  12. #12
    Senior Member Ronnoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by WesternGuy
    So I am only allowed an odd number of trees in my photos...does this hold for flowers? :blush2: What about people? Didache, I have to agree with you - this is utter nonsense and the fact that he was serious is even more astonishing .

    I must admit I use Elements to do a few things in post processing, and I do tend to use it to make composites, but everyone who sees it knows that it is a composite because I tell them, and I usually only do it for fun and not to pass it off as serious artistic photography.

    Cheers,

    WesternGuy
    Let's not go overboard here! A shot of two flowers, exactly the same, side by side would certainly NOT be good composition. The concept is therefore certainly NOT "utter nonsense", just the exageration of it by the judge to counting trees.

    Post processing is also necessary and appropriate, often to just get the colour right in a lot of digital photos. And by the way, composite, experimental, and other kinds of creative photography if well-done can certainly be serious artistic photography.

    Ronnoco
    www.photoinf.com

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

  13. #13
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: A little rant #2

    I agree with Ron. Photographers have been manipulating photographs in the darkroom since the invention of the camera. Post processing is what seperates the good from the average. All PhotoShop has done is leveled the playing field for all. Photography is a form of art and expression, where there are no boundarys or rules, so don't live your life in a box constrained to only what your camera can do.
    If you want to document life then get a job at the local paper, but me, I just want to create a beautiful image that makes one think outside that box....
    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    705

    Re: A little rant #2

    well its clear i have completely the wrong idea about photograghy.. a large part of the achievement to me is being in the right place at the right time.. seeing something thats worth taking a picture of and being able to capture that image..

    being "lucky" perhaps.. now i know i dont need to do any of this just clone in whatever i need or missed afterwards the whole thing somehow loses its point to me..

    whats the point of entering the lions cage to capture a close up shot of its jaws when all u have to do is stand outside point your large mega pixel count camera in the general direction of the cage and crop and clone in the "impression" of a real photograph in afterwards..

    sorry guys but all u internet destop photographers really have lost the plot..

    and the fact that cheats and con artist type photographers have always been around dosnt justify things either..

    trog
    Last edited by trog100; 02-12-2007 at 08:33 PM.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: A little rant #2

    Just to reinforce the idea that odd numbers are important, art and craft forms across the globe rely on odd multiples. A chef (I am one, so I know) would never put an even number of something on a plate, unless that was the point. A bonsai tree will never have an even number of branches, or leaves, or trunks, unless that is the point. Why would a photograph be any different? Good composition is often reliant upon odd numbers, they are just more aesthetically pleasing.

    And Trog, I hate to say it, but photography has little to do with the process, only the result. Same as any static artwork. Situationist art is different, but for the most part the process of creating the piece is not as important as the finished piece. A crappy photo from inside a lion's cage is not as good as a good photo from outside the lion's cage, period. The Darkroom/photoshop is just as much a part of the photographic process as the camera is - you cannot have one without the other. "Purity" in photography is a myth - the process of photography isn't finished until the print is framed, and that includes post processing. It may seem contrary, but post processing is indeed pure.
    Erik Williams

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

  16. #16
    Not-so-recent Nikon Convert livin4lax09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    2,776

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by trog100
    whats the point of entering the lions cage to capture a close up shot of its jaws when all u have to do is stand outside point your large mega pixel count camera in the general direction of the cage and crop and clone in the "impression" of a real photograph in afterwards..

    the point is that yes, you can do this. But you won't get nearly the same results. First off, most fairly experienced photographers can tell a tight crop apart from a tight shot. Secondly, the image quality will be seriously reduced. even with 22mp, you don't have THAT much of an ability to crop in a ton and blow back up to normal size. the fact is that you are still cramming all those megapixels into the same size camera. Third, the bokeh / focus will easily show who has made the effort to get the shot and who hasn't.

    The point to this is that yes, you can do it. But the experienced photographers will be able to tell who has taken this laid back approach to photography and who hasn't.

    As someone said before, you can fake a lot of things in PS, but the best and usually easiest way to do it is get it right in the first place.

  17. #17
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: A little rant #2

    Quote Originally Posted by trog100
    well its clear i have completely the wrong idea about photograghy.. a large part of the achievement to me is being in the right place at the right time.. seeing something thats worth taking a picture of and being able to capture that image..

    being "lucky" perhaps.. now i know i dont need to do any of this just clone in whatever i need or missed afterwards the whole thing somehow loses its point to me..

    whats the point of entering the lions cage to capture a close up shot of its jaws when all u have to do is stand outside point your large mega pixel count camera in the general direction of the cage and crop and clone in the "impression" of a real photograph in afterwards..

    sorry guys but all u internet destop photographers really have lost the plot..

    and the fact that cheats and con artist type photographers have always been around dosnt justify things either..

    trog
    Trog, take a look at what early photographers did....


    http://www.artsmia.org/get-the-pictu...itz/index.html

    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  18. #18
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: A little rant #2

    I thought this subject would generate some discussion

    I have said that this thread was just a little tongue in cheek, and so it is. If I were putting an image in for a club competition, of course I would "tidy" it up a little. I attach a case in point. It's an image I have put before on the critique forum: a painter on a bridge in Venice. There were some cig butts on the ground and a bright blue pop bottle was floating in the canal. So out they went!! The image would have been just a little unsightly without them. (whether the image is any good is another matter of course!!) In that sense I do agree with Ron, Greg, Trog, et al.

    But where does that end? (and this is where I get serious) Putting someone in there who wasn't there to get a sense of scale? I can understand why it might be done, but I personally would regard it as "cheating" a little. I would rather be patient until the elements were really present. (In that one I am with Brent)

    Erik says "photography has little to do with the process, only the result" - I think it is that which bothers me. Surely the process and the result should go hand in hand, without one over-riding the other? That would mean integrity in both the final image AND the process by which the photographer gained his result.

    In terms of my attached image, I COULD have put in a gondola (I have lots of suitable gondolas from my 5 days in Venice) and cloned out the static boats. That would have made it more Venice-like! But I didn't - because, to me, that would not have had integrity.

    I am not implying in the slightest that someone else would have less integrity as a photographer because THEY decided differently - but I know that whenever that image went on public view it would not have been the image I saw, composed, and shot. And that is my point.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails A little rant #2-painter-jpg.jpg  
    Last edited by Didache; 02-13-2007 at 12:31 AM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member readingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Basingstoke UK
    Posts
    4,564

    Re: A little rant #2

    I'm with Ron and Sushigan.

    Personally I believe there are two styles in photography, the photojournalist and the artist and the half way house where photographers move from one end to the other and back again.

    Greg pointed to a really good site showing what the photo artist did in days gone buy and I buy into that form completely. Photoshop just makes it easier to do.

    Today - Photojournalists should not manipulate the photo other than for contrast and composition to emphasis what they are targeting whereas the artist - its a free for all - examples are modelling shots, and Brent's Devils Hands (May have the title slightly wrong).

    Photography is all about what the photographer wants to show not what the camera can do. It was from the day the camera and photo processing was invented. Trog - even you must agree that you take a photo containing what you want with elements excluded which is a form of manipulation. And I have seen what you can do with manipulation and it is excellent (honour is due for not using it.)

    To me this argument has merits but pointless as there is no real answer as we are all individuals and see photography differently - but we all appreciate the results. and the effort people go to for the enjoyment of their hobby, e.g. Trog's trip into the Derbyshire hills in bitterly cold conditions, and Ron's trips in -40 (NUTS )

    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.

    For me the end results if I like the picture is what counts, as I recognise photography as an art form.

    Just my humble opinion and I really appreciate all who critique and contribute to the forums on here, because all of your opinions regardless of you philosophy helps me become a better amateur photographer.

    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


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

    Re: A little rant #2

    Mike, nice little rant, it does give a twist to another thread posted...

    Regarding your last post, the butts should have been noticed before taking the shot, a photographer starts by seeing...in his mind... the final image.... and based on that you decide from where and how to compose the shot!

    As for the cloning in or out of elements, in "sanitizing" reality if you will, that pretty much remains relative:

    1- Photojournalism is about reporting reality, not only has this rarely if ever been done, but has been manipulated beyond belief...not necessarily in darkrooms....they take an image of someone, they ask them to pose in a particular way, to look in a particular direction, and manipulate the image on site (i know...i been there and saw the true versions) Does that count? no, because according to your statement, it was caught by the camera....

    2- There are Guidelines, i insist on Guidelines and not rules....in photography....and they usually work, and make what could have been an ok picture, into an amazing one! As such, they are best when followed, unless you intentionally mean for something else!

    3- As for saying it is week because it has 6 instead of 5 is simply ridiculous....even if there is such a guideline, does not mean a pic is weak bcoz it broke it!

    4- Back to your last post...if you were taking a photo of the painter alone, those butts would have been better in the pic rather than out! Cleaning up "your mess" (since you forgot to remove them while there) is called generating the photo that was in your mind!

    What i am trying to say is, when you try to pass off something as true or a replicate of reality, then you are not allowed to retouch it in any way (except the colors and stuff) but not even crop or cloning.....

    However, If you are showing the work as art....as a photo...well then anything falls into place! If you are drawing a portrait...painting a portrait and you fine tune the features...is that considered not art, or not painting!???? Of course it is Art....and painting...

    Now...in the end....you are free to take the image as you want and not alter anything in it... but do not expect the criticism not to include the things that need to be removed from it... you can remove them in post, or decide to reshoot without them..... that will be totally up to you!

    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. #21
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: A little rant #2

    Marc .. surprisingly perhaps I pretty well agree with you - I DID say that I did this little rant in order to raise (for me!) some pretty important issues. I don't necessarily believe all my own rhetoric!

    But I do make a distinction between removing the butts and putting in gondolas. One is "tidying up" .. the other is changing the image entirely. I think that was my point. There is a thread on Critique of a crane flying near the moon. The photographer says he took it just as it was, and I believe him. But you will have noticed the number of people who have digressed into whether the crane was inserted in PS or not.

    The bottom line, for me, is that if I put an image in, say, a club event, that even if it looks like I COULD have inserted something, that people would say "No, that's Mike's work and he doesn't manipulate things like that". I would regard that as a compliment!

    Thanks for taking part
    Mike

  22. #22
    To Capture the Mind! MarcusK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lebanon / The World
    Posts
    686

    Re: A little rant #2

    hehehe!

    Well the only thing i would add then in this case is, that there is nothing wrong with adding as long as you specify that you did it.... do not claim to have taken the real thing if you haven't!

    that's all....

    And you should take it as a compliment!

    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....

  23. #23
    Nature/Wildlife Forum Co-Moderator Loupey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    7,856

    Re: A little rant #2

    Mirroring the fast paced society, I see photographers who seem always in a hurry to shoot. Some shots take me hours to do as I wait for a scene to develop in order to get precisely what I want. In the meantime, other photographers are coming and going - just snapshooting really. Images to be altered later. Who is right and who is wrong? Only I can say what is right for me.

    All images in my website (except for the recent water drop colorized one) and most of what I post here are without any selective alterations. No dodging/burning, no cloning (except for dust marks), no blurring. Of course I use global adjustments such as curves, levels, and color balance. But for me, getting the scene in-camera is what fuels the drive and yields the satisfaction of photography.
    Please do not edit or repost my images.

    See my website HERE.


    What's a Loupe for anyway?

  24. #24
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: A little rant #2

    Loupey - I think patience does have a lot to do with it, at least in some kinds of photography. The best photographer I know is a guy called Roy. He's the president of my camera club, a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society, and he's been taking amazing pictures since I was a wee lad. The thing is: he wouldn't know one end of PS from the other! He does mainly street photography and his secret (apart from having a great eye for the possibilities) is just to wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and (snore!) ... until the light is right, the passers-by are in just the right place, wearing the right colours, and in the right postures. Quality shows.

    Cheers
    Mike

  25. #25
    Senior Member readingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Basingstoke UK
    Posts
    4,564

    Re: A little rant #2

    I forgot to mention in my little contribution. I don't do a huge amount of advanced post processing because I'm not that good at it. Levels, convert to B&W, small amounts of cloning if its obviously easy and that is about my limits.

    I do very little cropping of the pictures out of the camera, but I do play with effects such as Orton...

    Often takes me ages to take a photo and I normally take it from many angles to see what works. Thank god for digital

    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


Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •