David Popham Loc: French Creek, British Columbia

Here's the background. The person in the picture is my beloved wife. I asked her to look at the shoreline and she grinned and did the opposite. I was intrigued with the dock carving out lots of negative space and wanted a subject just to orient the viewer to size. I took the picture anyway.

5,000km later I had a chance to look at and see that there was no joy in the picture. But after all the discussion of post-processing images, decided to play around with in. The second picture is the result. Nothing great, I admit, but this is not my point.

Now imagine that your an oil-painter or water colourist, and you were faced with recording this scene (you were commissioned to do so, for big bucks). I bet that you would make sure that the background would not interfere with the foreground subject.

Once upon time we used sticks and dirt to create images on the walls of caves. A long time later the artists painted on plaster, later moved on to wood, and more recently canvas. Traditions change with the technology that is available. And for many of us it has been a god-send. For an interesting take on the use of post-processing digital images I suggest that one take a look at the book, "Photoshop, Masking & Compositing (2nd ed.)" by Katrin Eismann, Sean Duggan, & James Porto, New Riders,487pp.

Face it, post-processing is not going to go away. So complaining about it or harping on about it won't make it go away. One might was well spit into the wind.

Finally, change does take place. After four years overseas we returned home and settled down in a new community. I joined the local camera club, and once a month the club would display the pictures taken by the members as part of a competition. It had two categories: colour or B&W. One could enter an image in each category. Mine happened to be a composite and was rejected, and I was told off never to do that again. A couple of months later the execs took a look at the program and made another category, "digital photography" meaning that it was wide open.

deej

Possibly this would fit in better at :
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-117-1.html
Photo critique and Analysis on UHH

David Popham Loc: French Creek, British Columbia

Not really,

Those members already have embraced or are starting to embrace the technology. Some here don't.

I'm just trying to provide a reason why digital post-processing is just a newer form (as opposed to making a print in a darkroom) of creating an image. And those who turn their backs on it might be missing other opportunities to be creative in their image-making.

I am not saying the using the digital computer with a lens in front of it is the best way of making a picture, but considering the number of forms that pairing exists, I think that is fair to say that we have seen a revolution in image-making.

in any case bad-mouthing or implied bath-mouthing other forms of image making can be so tiresome.

Annie_Girl Loc: It's none of your business

this sub forum is for talking about photography not showing actual photos or asking for feedback, I might suggest the sub forum on post processing:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

or the Photo Critique & Analysis Forum:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-117-1.html

Cameoblue Loc: British Columbia Canada

The subject matter of this post is actually about photo composition and the validity of PP which IMHO fits in with the Photography Forum. The two pictures are intended, as I see it, are examples of what can be done by post-processing. I think David is correct in implying PP is a new art form and we should embrace it.

I see PP as wizardry done by artists of all calibre's. (Fun too).

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

David, unfortunately, this has been beat to death. As you well know, there is a PP section, so somebody here must be into it. I don't hang out there but looks like you probably should.
PP is not gonna go away, we all know that, but that's hardly a revelation. Most pros don't use it to correct their work, but to creat it. They know exactly what the final product will be, to the point of precisely sketching it, not so unlike Ansel A, then executing the shots necessary to achieve that vision.
Most amatures are using PP, not to create, but to fix poor work practices. Unfortunately, that just reinforces that poor practices don't have to be improved, but that PP skills just need to get better.
Though there is a many millions of dollar market for this type of use, there are those that feel that PP'ing for that manner of use is for all the wrong reasons.
I think that the several camps are possibly divided between whether it's ok to sharpen, saturate, clone out a candy wrapper, vs overhauling poor work, to pass it off as better work. Those are also very different than creating a new brand of art, composited from one or more already very high level images.
David, enjoy your PP'ing.
SS

donrtaylor

David,
Just wanted to interject a note from an artist's standpoint regarding your photo. There are certainly good uses for PP in many photos as I routinely use Photoshop to help me create new images to paint from.
However, in your original photo, you are utilizing a well known art composition technique called "overlapping and interlocking" subject matter. In doing so, you have connected the foreground to the middle ground and then to the background. In your modified version, you have lost that connection and thus reduced the effectiveness of the composition. Note how the head is much more defined in the original photo due to the value changes.
Artists and photographers use the same rules of composition and design and you can see this in most award winning photos---they would make wonderful paintings because the photographer has already done the work!
Don

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

I don't unerstand the point you are trying to make, is this just a rant or do you have a specific question?

donrtaylor

Neither......just a comment on composition from an artistic point of view. Don't take it personal.

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

It is sitting on a table, in my queue of books to read, right now!

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

No, not personal just curious was all.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

It's just a fairly dull snapshot. No amount of post processing is going to make it a better photo.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I know you didn't want to post in the critique section but here comes my suggestions anyway...along the lines of your point, I think.

You might want to try going the other way and moving her head fully into the trees or even into the clouds. The intervening water isn't interesting anyway. Then you might consider cropping in to increase the size of your main subject...getting her head to the thirds power point.

Just some ideas for your consideration.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

Is it me or is there virtually no difference between the two photographs?

MtnMan Loc: ID

Look at where the woman's head is compared to the trees in the two images and you might get it.