Digital Enhancement?
Aug 4, 2015 14:39:58 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
neilds37 wrote:
Falling water doesn't look like nice smooth milk. It has texture and contrasts. Slow shutter water looks as fake as you can get it.
That's what came out of the camera though, so it must be real. Falling water doesn't look like droplets frozen in the air either. There's really no one true way to shoot waterfalls.
Aug 4, 2015 14:41:25 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Delderby wrote:
the pic as a whole (IMHO) does not give an impression of reality. In other words it is too good to be true.
Might I suggest visiting Iceland then, because it absolutely is true! Just because you can't believe a scene exists doesn't mean it does not.
Aug 4, 2015 14:42:23 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Collie lover wrote:
I don't do a lot of PP as I prefer to show what I saw
More often than not your camera can't capture that, though.
Aug 4, 2015 14:43:12 #
Yes. This is still a photograph. You just eliminated the unwanted and unneeded. this is still what the photographer shot. My Father always told me the lab could ether MAKE or BREAK a photographer! I still believe this.
If you made this look like a painting are put them outside, that would be ART. Good job...
If you made this look like a painting are put them outside, that would be ART. Good job...
Aug 4, 2015 14:47:31 #
Delderby wrote:
Have you asked them?
Have you?
If you were ever to have your car professionally detailed, would you wonder what type of polisher, type of polish etc.. were used?
Of course not. you just want to see it shiny.
Aug 4, 2015 14:49:24 #
Delderby wrote:
Photographers of today create the "creamy waterfall" look because they don't like the "frozen waterfall" look. In fact the camera can see the "frozen waterfall" look. Try blinking your eyes in reverse, and as your eyes close remember what you saw. :)
How about shallow depth of field? Your eyes don't see that way.
Aug 4, 2015 14:49:28 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
tdekany wrote:
If you were ever to have your car professionally detailed, would you wonder what type of polisher, type of polish etc.. were used?
Of course not. you just want to see it shiny.
If you were ever to have your car professionally detailed, would you wonder what type of polisher, type of polish etc.. were used?
Of course not. you just want to see it shiny.
That's exactly it!
Aug 4, 2015 14:50:05 #
tdekany wrote:
Have you?...If you were ever to have your car professionally detailed, would you wonder what type of polisher, type of polish etc.. were used?...Of course not. you just want to see it shiny.
type of polish and polisher are the first questions you ask of anyone who touches your paint job.
Aug 4, 2015 14:51:14 #
Again, why must photography be held to reality. No other artistic media is held to this limitation or standard.
Perhaps, it is because photography is also used for documentation. Painting used to be used for this purpose too but photography freed painting to move away from documentation. Why should photography not be free as well to expand beyond simple documentation?
Perhaps, it is because photography is also used for documentation. Painting used to be used for this purpose too but photography freed painting to move away from documentation. Why should photography not be free as well to expand beyond simple documentation?
Aug 4, 2015 14:52:40 #
TheDman wrote:
That's what came out of the camera though, so it must be real. Falling water doesn't look like droplets frozen in the air either. There's really no one true way to shoot waterfalls.
The way moving objects are shot is up to the preference of the photographer, whether still or movie. What comes out of the camera in both cases does not mean that's what it looked like to human eye. I had the impression that the "purists" here want it out of camera as it appears to the eye, "reality". Not slow motion, or speeded up. Yes, the camera can lie. How much bokeh do you see with your eyes? If so, then you need corrective lenses. (OK, so I have two pair of tri-focals).
Aug 4, 2015 14:53:37 #
oldtigger wrote:
type of polish and polisher are the first questions you ask of anyone who touches your paint job.
Funny that you say that. I AM a pro detailer. Only one person have ever asked me that. Of course he didn't know anything about what was good except what the person would find at a retail store.Are you well versed in the detailing department?
How about at a dentist? Do you ask what brand of tools your dentist uses? Like would you really care?
Aug 4, 2015 14:54:02 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Toby wrote:
I guess if I want to be honest I will have to quit using my flash if don't want to alter what I see with my eye.
Bingo. That's why all this talk of "I want to capture what I see" is so much nonsense, because even the biggest purists shoot with flash, change their aperture, use extreme shutter speeds... all of which capture something very different than 'what we see'.
Aug 4, 2015 16:14:54 #
TheDman wrote:
That's what came out of the camera though, so it must be real. Falling water doesn't look like droplets frozen in the air either. There's really no one true way to shoot waterfalls.
In other words, no camera can capture what the human eye sees the way it sees it? Interesting position that is definitely worthy of debate, assuming, of course, that is the true meaning of your post, at least as it relates to capturing waterfalls.
Aug 4, 2015 16:22:36 #
If photography is ART, then it is all in the eyes of the beholder. If it is not ART, then I am at a loss as to what it is.
Just like any art, some like portraits, some like surreal, some like abstract, landscape or realism. That is your preference and good for you.
I have never seen a painting where the artist wrote that the painting depicted what their eyes saw. Who cares what their eyes saw. People only know if they like it or not; period.
If it makes someone feel better about their photography because they actually believe they are not manipulating what their camera saw, then give them that satisfaction. Again, it is all in the eyes of the beholder.
Just like any art, some like portraits, some like surreal, some like abstract, landscape or realism. That is your preference and good for you.
I have never seen a painting where the artist wrote that the painting depicted what their eyes saw. Who cares what their eyes saw. People only know if they like it or not; period.
If it makes someone feel better about their photography because they actually believe they are not manipulating what their camera saw, then give them that satisfaction. Again, it is all in the eyes of the beholder.
Aug 4, 2015 16:31:01 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Jim Bob wrote:
In other words, no camera can capture what the human eye sees the way it sees it? Interesting position that is definitely worthy of debate, assuming, of course, that is the true meaning of your post, at least as it relates to capturing waterfalls.
Yes, especially with moving subjects. Capturing motion with a still medium is as flawed as trying to capture 3 dimensions in a 2-dimensional medium. You're going to have to compromise in some way or another.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.