Digital Enhancement?
Aug 4, 2015 18:40:41 #
TonyP wrote:
If you and wrangler are suggesting I think anyone should be ashamed of any photo the take because of how its treated in your computer, you havent read or maybe understood a word I said.
Likewise, I have tried to discriminate between Post Processing and Manipulation.
In my mind, they are two entirely different things.
Anyway . . . :(
Likewise, I have tried to discriminate between Post Processing and Manipulation.
In my mind, they are two entirely different things.
Anyway . . . :(
My comment was in no way directed at you. Simply making a generalization on Purists. When there are comments to the effect that a "true" photographer doesn't use PP it has a tendency to rile some of us who believe the end product is what matters and the bejesus with how it's done by the photographer to their photograph.
Aug 4, 2015 18:46:50 #
If photography is nothing more than what the camera saw, then we are nothing but button pushers with little talent. The quality of our image is dictated by the quality of our camera. I don't know about you, but I am much more than that when it comes to photography and my camera is only one of the tools I use to help me create an image.
Aug 4, 2015 18:52:03 #
Shoot Happens wrote:
If photography is nothing more than what the camera saw, then we are nothing but button pushers with little talent.
I respectfully suggest you read my large response, posted earlier.
Aug 4, 2015 18:57:02 #
TonyP wrote:
Adams was a fanatic at his attempts to create perfect reality in his photo's. ....
I wasnt aware of any published photo's of his that would meet the definition of manipulated tho.
I wasnt aware of any published photo's of his that would meet the definition of manipulated tho.
No,no,no. Ansel Adams ALWAYS pointed out that his images were his version of the scene. All of his prints were manipulated with the technology available at the time. As I wrote in an earlier post: if Ansel Adams were alive today, he would be teaching Photoshop classes.
Aug 4, 2015 19:05:16 #
TonyP wrote:
Adams was a fanatic at his attempts to create perfect reality in his photo's.
...I wasnt aware of any published photo's of his that would meet the definition of manipulated tho.
...I wasnt aware of any published photo's of his that would meet the definition of manipulated tho.
Never seen an ansel print that wasn't highly manipulated.
Thats what he is noted for and the instructions for dodging and burning one of his prints sometimes went on for pages.
Aug 4, 2015 19:07:35 #
oldtigger wrote:
Never seen an ansel print that wasn't highly manipulated.
Thats what he is noted for and the instructions for dodging and burning one of his prints sometimes went on for pages.
Thats what he is noted for and the instructions for dodging and burning one of his prints sometimes went on for pages.
And he manipulated the image in the camera with heavy filtration that resulted in unnaturally dark skies.
Aug 4, 2015 19:19:18 #
TonyP wrote:
...I wasnt aware of any published photo's of his that would meet the definition of manipulated tho.
He was quite willing to wait a year if thats what it took to get the moon in the right position between the rocks and the light the right intensity and direction.
And i can't think of any photographic technique more manipulative than the Zone System.
Lord knows my life was hell when dad decided it was time for me to learn it.
Aug 4, 2015 19:27:55 #
Howard5252 wrote:
I respectfully suggest you read my large response, posted earlier.
Respectfully, I did read your large post. Prior to digital there were positives in the way of slides, by the way.
Anyway, why come up with different names and titles for anything. A painter is an artist, a sculpture is an artist and in my opinion, a photographer, who creates an idea, is an artist. There are many different genres of art and they can all be depicted in oils, water colour, pastels, clay, bronze or photographs. They would include landscape, cityscape, waterscape, abstract, portrait, botany, zoology, macro, altered reality and dozens more. We don't need any other names or titles to classify art, we have enough.
Some people like what looks real, some want to take poor images and make them look real and some like to take real images and make them look surreal. Really who cares what people want from their photography.
I have seen the work of many people on this site and many of them are very talented and many take images that I would call snapshots. Nothing is wrong with that but photography is so much more than one thing and if a person ignores all of the other genres, they are depriving themselves of a wonderful creative world with endless possibilities all starting with a camera. Again, there is no problem with that unless they say theirs is the only true way of looking at it. But that is once again, only my opinion.
Aug 4, 2015 19:33:19 #
TheDman wrote:
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.
Agreed. But one can manipulate camera settings and/or post process to bring the image closer to the actual reality as seen by the photographer. It seems to me this is the type of thing the OP laments when he mentions the blurred line between a photograph and digital art.
Aug 4, 2015 19:39:48 #
Jim Bob wrote:
Agreed. But one can manipulate camera settings and/or post process to bring the image closer to the actual reality as seen by the photographer. It seems to me this is the type of thing the OP laments when he mentions the blurred line between a photograph and digital art.
I have seen photographs of falling water that looked like I was watching it fall. Not like a stream of smooth, featureless white something.
Aug 4, 2015 19:43:15 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Jim Bob wrote:
Agreed. But one can manipulate camera settings and/or post process to bring the image closer to the actual reality as seen by the photographer.
Which is what I did with my photo. I'll post the originals when I get home.
Jim Bob wrote:
It seems to me this is the type of thing the OP laments when he mentions the blurred line between a photograph and digital art.
Why would anyone lament bringing the photo closer to what you actually saw?
Aug 4, 2015 19:43:46 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
neilds37 wrote:
I have seen photographs of falling water that looked like I was watching it fall. Not like a stream of smooth, featureless white something.
Them please, show us.
Aug 4, 2015 19:46:40 #
After carefully applying photographic techniques to the creation of my images I almost always enhance them digitally.
Even the greatest photographers spent many hours in the darkroom modifying their work.
However I list that type of my work as photo-art as opposed to photo-graphy.
This is a personal thing to clarify what the viewer is seeing.
Even the greatest photographers spent many hours in the darkroom modifying their work.
However I list that type of my work as photo-art as opposed to photo-graphy.
This is a personal thing to clarify what the viewer is seeing.
Aug 4, 2015 19:54:49 #
TheDman wrote:
Them please, show us.
If you can recall the location of every photograph you have seen and admired you're a hell of lot better than I am. National Geographic, Smithsonian, countless years worth...no, I cannot show you. Open your eyes and look; they exist. Or, just say I have a lousy memory of what I have seen and discount it as not being possible.
Aug 4, 2015 19:55:38 #
oldtigger wrote:
Any image which has passed through an editing program should have a 'PP' automatically watermarked on it.
Of course any in camera jpg would have to be marked also.
Of course any in camera jpg would have to be marked also.
So RAW files also?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.