coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

The question may be---what is it you didn't like about the original and what can be done to improve on the specific details you didn't like. I say this because although the original photo seems to lack pop it is not enhanced that much in #2 and as mentioned you lost the right side of the photo in the process..............

Coker Loc: Havana, IL

Love it!

ShakyShutter Loc: Arizona

Normally steelhead fishermen post pictures of the fish they caught. Where are yours?
:thumbup:

hartmanr1

His are "on Film"

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Agreed.

I do not perceive giving up highlight and shadow as desirable to rendering a picture as a photograph aimed at being faithful to what was inherent in the subject and visible to the observer present. Exaggerating pictorial various elements is more an approach appropriate to some graphic arts techniques, as in where the lighting is flattened, and all visual information depends on color differences.

Admittedly some scenes have subjects and lighting that comes out flat when photographed without any fiddling. But, the flat looking photographs of that scene are only being faithful to what the human observer would more or less see.

As a photograph is susceptible to treatment towards differing purposes, one being an attempt at faithful representation of the photographer's scene or the other containing some degree of deliberate distortion, a lot of commentary at cross purposes comes out of us, as these different intents get entangled.

I observe that our fellow members here vary greatly as to their committment to photographic purposes, as well as in the purposes themselves, some being more strictly classic photographers, some favoring jazzing up the way the pictures come out, and others either still working out their preferences or having some mixture of approaches.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Could you explain what a "strictly classic photographer" is? I used to think that Ansel Adams was a classic photographer, but recently we've been learning more and more about how he "created" his photographs with all of his darkroom techniques.

Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a "strictly classic photographer."

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

Bobber, this is by far your most diplomatic and as my wife would say: to the point post to date.

Good Job! Articulating a very basic difference of intent and perception amongst us all!!

As for me, I long ago gave up trying to record some more than less "true" representation of "reality." So put me in that camp.

Oh, and did I say - well stated?

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

After discarding a long reply, I'll let go on your observation in this way, I think you think correctly, and add the following.

We parade around a lot of useful concepts, which are underlain by shaky foundations, like x can represent a number, when x is obviously not a number. But, it works. That is the nature of language; if it works, use it.

This concept is useful because, whether people use the term or not, some in so many words and actions perform in character with the role. In the terminology of the theater, there is a wilful suspension of disbelief.

Acting in that fashion, a person can achieve a great deal, as the character portrayed is well connected with a lot of what is of great utility in photographic pursuits. The same can be achieved out of character utilizing the same connections, but it is not the same kind of fun.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Oh, doc! Here you are working hard to cause me to have to discard all of my old comfortable hats. Well, I am reminded that we are what we eat, and hopefully not what we discard. However, in what I have discarded here, if there is in it some service aiding the production of future nourishment, then perhaps the indiscretion will be forgiven.

The preceding is translatable, but plainly stated, it might get thrown out.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Whoa. My head hurts, and I still haven't a clue what you said. :)

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

That is probably to your credit.

Lets try for a paraphrase, maybe a second effort is a charm.

There is an image of what is classic photography with a lot of agreement of what constitutes examples. You referenced Ansel Adams. Behind that image is a lot of down to earth practical photographic technique. But as an image. it has become a sort of notion, a useful fiction we can call classic photography. As you pointed out, the practical details, can sometimes be something surprising and contrary to the common image held by some of what made up all of classic photography. So the term classic photography has a reality behind it and a mythology as well. *

Now is it surprising, that the practical side of the art might become for some a formularized program to be strictly followed, even required for photographic work to be considered "real" photography, and other approaches to lack validity? The patterns of the past become strict and fixed for them. So the "strictly classical photographer." That he follows a strict notion of what constitutes real photography does not preclude an admirable effectiveness in what he achieves. Indeed, it goes a long way towards insuring it.




*(My use of the mathematical example is based on the myth that x = anything but x. x is x. If it is not, then why not call a horse a dog? But, the function of myth is to organize thought into the selected pattern, and apply it elsewhere, like a blue print, hoping the pattern works equally well whether using brick, wood or steel. If the pattern works in a more universal way, then it is in effect a useful myth. The Greek fables set patterns of behavior in example stories, and people found them useful for urging the clueless into acting in more rational patterns according to the structures established.)

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

Bobber's elegantly worded responses of myths and archetypes reminded me of a statement Minor White made as editor of Aperture Magazine.

"When I looked at things for what they are I was fool enough to persist in my folly and found that each photograph was a mirror of my Self. So I turned the camera 180 degrees and looked the opposite way at things for what else they are......I learned that while the camera records superbly, it transforms better!....Then I finally admitted that the documentary photograph, the literal image, is the ultimate illusion, the dangerous illusion because the documentary perpetuated the illusion that life itself in the only reality."

Chew on this with breakfast - personally everytime I read Minor I find some new gem for reflection....

cheerio

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

The necessary data is in the original file for what you want, I think. Post Processing is able to bring it out. But, it requires some doing.

I am including a downloadable pair, which on the left includes Flyguy's original post processed version on the left and what is fairly close to it, but with the shadows still holding quite a bit of detail over on the right.

The difference is kind of on the subtle side, but I think it retains a lot of the extra pop desired without giving up, what the shadows contribute as compositional support still keeping their detail.

hartmanr1

I agree -- the original had too much shadow

Candy

I think like a lot things in our lives that enough is enough, I certainly believe in this, I beg to differ!:)