Integrity in Photography?
Dec 11, 2017 22:07:53 #
Shawak Parson wrote:
I didn't have NG's resources. I didn't do anything after pressing the shutter then, and normally I don't do anything after pressing the shutter now. Totally by coincidence, I follow the Getty workflow {previously I identified this as by Reuters, but reading more carefully I see Getty}even with reversal film (Kodachrome or Ektachrome ... (show quote)
https://www.popphoto.com/how-olympic-images-reach-your-eyes-in-two-minutes-flat
Dec 12, 2017 00:09:33 #
fine ...
and thanks, as i didn't know how the Getty image workflow is post-processed before going online for the public to see and enjoy ...
however, this last comment of yours here confirms my (and many other people's) saying yet one more time that how PP is so needed that Getty Images (as well as many other pro photo workshops of all kind i happen to know) has to come up with some quick solution to do the job otherwise they wouldn't let people see those fabulous JPG images unprocessed, would they?
you, or someone like you, as the 'clicker' of such photos (if you work for Getty Images that is) could pretty much be sitting in the image editors position btw, instead of holding the camera and shoot in the field ... that's pretty much so closely similar to what NG did back in the day, right?
morale: film or digital, no matter how 'great' the photographer, PP is an unavoidable stage IF we're after quality images!
maybe someday AI will be so advanced though, robots will replace those image editors (as well as the photogs) so people (other robots?) will see images of Olympics instantly!? ;-) (VERY UNLIKELY!)
and thanks, as i didn't know how the Getty image workflow is post-processed before going online for the public to see and enjoy ...
however, this last comment of yours here confirms my (and many other people's) saying yet one more time that how PP is so needed that Getty Images (as well as many other pro photo workshops of all kind i happen to know) has to come up with some quick solution to do the job otherwise they wouldn't let people see those fabulous JPG images unprocessed, would they?
you, or someone like you, as the 'clicker' of such photos (if you work for Getty Images that is) could pretty much be sitting in the image editors position btw, instead of holding the camera and shoot in the field ... that's pretty much so closely similar to what NG did back in the day, right?
morale: film or digital, no matter how 'great' the photographer, PP is an unavoidable stage IF we're after quality images!
maybe someday AI will be so advanced though, robots will replace those image editors (as well as the photogs) so people (other robots?) will see images of Olympics instantly!? ;-) (VERY UNLIKELY!)
Dec 12, 2017 09:02:42 #
rehess wrote:
I used Kodachrome; once I was done in the field, I was done ...
... unless you tried to print the images.
Kodachrome was designed for viewing the image projected from a slide viewer onto a proper screen in a dark room. The recorded dynamic range (DR) of density on the film was ideally suited to that process and it looked very realistic. It worked great - better than any other transparency medium.
But when you tried to translate the recorded density range onto a print medium you needed special papers and processes that were compatible. I used Cibachrome for several years. It required a good deal of attention to color balance, print exposure and dodging and burning. As good as it was it could not come close to the quality of the projected slide simply because any reflective medium, glossy or matte, could not reproduce the expected DR.
Scanned Kodachrome displayed on a computer or TV screen can accommodate the DR inherent in the slide but you have the same issue as with printing - you will probably have to do some post processing.
Dec 12, 2017 10:51:33 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
for a certain generation digital image making has become entranced with all the "post processing" programs available. you can read about many of them every day on this site. like any other tool or technique it all depends on the users sense of honor and integrity. as i use film, only, the negative becomes the referential point of my photograph. i am not in favor of unlimited manipulation unless performed by an artist who has something to say and uses the available tools to express and further her/his vision.
Dec 12, 2017 13:54:10 #
SierraP
Loc: Eastern Sierras
I agree with westj. If you don't get it right in the camera and have to "post-process" the image, I feel that you are a "lab tech" not a photographer.
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".
Dec 12, 2017 13:57:25 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
gary post wrote:
I agree with westj. If you don't get it right in the camera and have to "post-process" the image, I feel that you are a "lab tech" not a photographer.
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".
Let's not misremember slide film as some sort of truth in photography. Slides were post processing. The colors Fuji Velvia produced would look garish even next to the most outlandish HDR of today.
Dec 12, 2017 14:00:07 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
wj cody wrote:
for a certain generation digital image making has ... (show quote)
That's very noble of you. We should all strive to approach digital photography with the same honor, duty, and justice that film shooters do.
Dec 12, 2017 14:26:37 #
gary post wrote:
I agree with westj. If you don't get it right in the camera and have to "post-process" the image, I feel that you are a "lab tech" not a photographer.
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".
Let's not forget an overlooked aspect of being a photographer (unless you would call it a different critter called an artist), and that is composition. That is not the function of a "lab tech". A pity you would place AA and his ilk in the "lab tech" pigeon-hole.
Dec 12, 2017 14:43:01 #
SierraP
Loc: Eastern Sierras
AA was a great lab tech as most admirers know. But he was also a great photographer. I just have a problem with a lot of today's shooters that are spending hours trying to covert " snap-shots" into art and then taking a bow for being a great photographer. Call it what you want, but 1/125 of a second to grab an image and hours to apply the "artistic touch" is closer to being a computer tech than a photographer.
Dec 12, 2017 14:47:37 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
gary post wrote:
AA was a great lab tech as most admirers know. But he was also a great photographer. I just have a problem with a lot of today's shooters that are spending hours trying to covert " snap-shots" into art and then taking a bow for being a great photographer. Call it what you want, but 1/125 of a second to grab an image and hours to apply the "artistic touch" is closer to being a computer tech than a photographer.
Point some of those people out to us.
Dec 12, 2017 15:20:12 #
I think I know what he means. And he can find them, but still, even photographic post-processing gurus know that Garbage In, Garbage Out is still applicable to the Photography part.
TheDman wrote:
Point some of those people out to us.
Dec 12, 2017 15:22:52 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Fotoartist wrote:
I think I know what he means. And he can find them, but still, even photographic post-processing gurus know that Garbage In, Garbage Out is still applicable to the Photography part.
I don't, so maybe you can help us find them. I don't know of a single person that is respected as some sort of great photographer that starts with garbage shots and turns them into masterpieces.
Dec 12, 2017 15:36:03 #
The premise you just set includes too many hard to agree on definitions.
TheDman wrote:
I don't, so maybe you can help us find them. I don't know of a single person that is respected as some sort of great photographer that starts with garbage shots and turns them into masterpieces.
Dec 12, 2017 15:36:34 #
TheDman wrote:
I don't, so maybe you can help us find them. I don't know of a single person that is respected as some sort of great photographer that starts with garbage shots and turns them into masterpieces.
He is clearly not speaking of anyone who is, "respected as some sort of great photographer."
But there a couple of sections in UHH where you can find a lot of examples (no all of them) of images that are sow's ears that people want to turn into silk purses with post processing. It's not too hard to find the weak images. They are the ones where you see many posts about how to improve them with more post proessing.
The recommendation that you don't see often enough is to simply go back and do a better job of capturing the image in the first place.
Dec 12, 2017 15:40:33 #
gary post wrote:
AA was a great lab tech as most admirers know. But he was also a great photographer. I just have a problem with a lot of today's shooters that are spending hours trying to covert " snap-shots" into art and then taking a bow for being a great photographer. Call it what you want, but 1/125 of a second to grab an image and hours to apply the "artistic touch" is closer to being a computer tech than a photographer.
Ansel Adams was not ALSO a great lab tech. He was a great photographer. In a large part being a great photographer was BECAUSE of his ability as a lab tech.
Not much has changed in that respect either. To be a great photographer today you are either a great lab tech or you pay someone who is to do the processing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.