Post Camera manipulation
Nov 19, 2013 19:38:55 #
There are people who consider that any post camera manipulation of a photo removes the photo from reality and makes it a creation rather than a photo. I'm not talking about actually creating something from nothing. I'm talking about lighting adjustment, cropping, blurring, and other adjustments to improve the photo. I'd like to hear from both sides.
Nov 19, 2013 19:41:38 #
Nov 19, 2013 20:17:41 #
Nov 19, 2013 20:27:30 #
Howard5252 wrote:
There are people who consider that any post camera manipulation of a photo removes the photo from reality and makes it a creation rather than a photo. I'm not talking about actually creating something from nothing. I'm talking about lighting adjustment, cropping, blurring, and other adjustments to improve the photo. I'd like to hear from both sides.
The manipulation starts long before you see the photo in preview. The internal software in today's digital cameras manipulates in many different ways the product produced. Depending on the camera that manipulation can take many different forms. Also, one brands manipulation may be different than the next brand. This is especially true for jpegs even though raw files are subject to some in camera manipulation. As for your question, in the digital age the line between reality and interpretation has been blurred as never before. No getting around it and just something we have to live with. Like it or not.
Nov 19, 2013 20:55:49 #
Howard5252 wrote:
There are people who consider that any post camera manipulation of a photo removes the photo from reality and makes it a creation rather than a photo. I'm not talking about actually creating something from nothing. I'm talking about lighting adjustment, cropping, blurring, and other adjustments to improve the photo. I'd like to hear from both sides.
What do you think?
If you like the end-result, it was right to do it.
If you don't like end-result, it was wrong to do it.
Speaking strictly for myself, I like my photos to look as close to what I saw when I pressed the shutter button.
OTOH, I have seen some photos that *I* would consider over-processed, but that looked absolutely fantastic.
I've seen others that I would have liked to tear up, but that's a bit difficult when it is on a monitor AND belongs to someone else :-)
EstherP
Nov 19, 2013 21:03:00 #
As I've said before, I believe there's a difference between enhancing a photo thru pp work ie: lighting adjustment, cropping, blurring, and other adjustments to improve the photo and taking parts of 2 or more totally seperate photos merging them together, and passing them off to look real as possible ie: woman on bridge where in actuality the woman was cut from the beach and placed on the bridge. Or the castle from the inlands of Germany placed on a Maine cliffside. It might be art, but not photography.
Nov 19, 2013 22:08:56 #
Nov 19, 2013 22:37:59 #
Rip Tragle wrote:
The darkroom was full of manipulation.... and necessary!
:thumbup: :thumbup: I never seen a negative that did not have some processing done for final print!!! Very rare if it didn't. Of course I am talking film camera's.
Nov 19, 2013 22:50:46 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
charles brown wrote:
The manipulation starts long before you see the ph... (show quote)
I think it's more that the digital camera interprets the image inot digital format rather than manipulation of the image.
Nov 20, 2013 02:09:28 #
Rip Tragle wrote:
The darkroom was full of manipulation.... and necessary!
So much experience with film and the darkroom, was really bummed when digital hit. Really hated the idea that you could create pictures on a computer that never are really true-to-life(cut 'n' paste stuff). As I grew into computers, it finally dawned on me. Yesterday's darkroom is Today's
computer.
Nov 20, 2013 02:12:32 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
Racmanaz wrote:
I think it's more that the digital camera interprets the image inot digital format rather than manipulation of the image.
into*
Nov 20, 2013 02:42:23 #
Howard5252 wrote:
I'd like to hear from both sides.
Howard, if you want to know what I think, I just posted it in the thread, "head in the trees or not in the trees", check it out.
SS
Nov 20, 2013 05:17:54 #
Howard5252 wrote:
There are people who consider that any post camera manipulation of a photo removes the photo from reality and makes it a creation rather than a photo. I'm not talking about actually creating something from nothing. I'm talking about lighting adjustment, cropping, blurring, and other adjustments to improve the photo. I'd like to hear from both sides.
And then there are people like myself that believe that any manipulation or no manipulation is ok. Do as much as you like or none at all.
Believe what you like but don't condemn others that don't share your beliefs. That's my out look on all things period!
Nov 20, 2013 05:48:41 #
There is only one side-if you make photographs you will need to manipulate them-that's always been the way whether in darkroom, or by computer
Nov 20, 2013 06:00:08 #
nekon wrote:
There is only one side-if you make photographs you will need to manipulate them-that's always been the way whether in darkroom, or by computer
Great answer and Rod Sheppard, who was editor of Outdoor photography for a long time, just post an article about this on his blog http://www.natureandphotography.com/?p=1794
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.