The magic of digital photography.
Jun 5, 2018 08:51:50 #
We, old timers, never thought when we were using film that photography will come to what it is today. The optical darkroom, at least for me, was a great experience but when using color we were limited especially when it came to contrast. Contrary to b&w there were no papers that could improve on our low contrast images. Correcting perspective and trying to substitute or replace something was near impossible.
Digital has changed all that. Now we are not at the mercy of a technician who in the past had his own interpretation of our images on film. Today we use our calibrated monitors to edit a file and by the time that file is printed that print represents what we saw or our feelings about the subject. We recreated our subject in that print, not the technician.
I have been learning Affinity Photo to the point that today it is my main photo editor. There is so much information in the Internet about it and so many tutorials that we have with it practically a fix for everything we want to do so to speak. I strive to keep my files as natural as I saw my subjects but at times my "artistic" instincts betray me and I do those tricks that make the files perhaps better than the originals although I know manipulations of an image is not for everyone.
These three files are examples of what I have been talking about. All images made with the Olympus EM-10 Mk II and the Zuikos 12-40 f2.8 Pro and 40-150 f4-5.6 ED kit lens.
In the first image I made the moon slightly larger than it was.
The second image shows the Catedral de Mallorca, Spain, with a superimposed previous shot of the Milky Way.
The third shot of the Palacio de Albudaina, also in Malliorca had a sky substitution using a shot I made the night before of the moon.
Is this cheating for the purist? Yes, it is but what cannot be denied is that artistically speaking it makes a different, perhaps a better photograph.
Digital has changed all that. Now we are not at the mercy of a technician who in the past had his own interpretation of our images on film. Today we use our calibrated monitors to edit a file and by the time that file is printed that print represents what we saw or our feelings about the subject. We recreated our subject in that print, not the technician.
I have been learning Affinity Photo to the point that today it is my main photo editor. There is so much information in the Internet about it and so many tutorials that we have with it practically a fix for everything we want to do so to speak. I strive to keep my files as natural as I saw my subjects but at times my "artistic" instincts betray me and I do those tricks that make the files perhaps better than the originals although I know manipulations of an image is not for everyone.
These three files are examples of what I have been talking about. All images made with the Olympus EM-10 Mk II and the Zuikos 12-40 f2.8 Pro and 40-150 f4-5.6 ED kit lens.
In the first image I made the moon slightly larger than it was.
The second image shows the Catedral de Mallorca, Spain, with a superimposed previous shot of the Milky Way.
The third shot of the Palacio de Albudaina, also in Malliorca had a sky substitution using a shot I made the night before of the moon.
Is this cheating for the purist? Yes, it is but what cannot be denied is that artistically speaking it makes a different, perhaps a better photograph.
Jun 5, 2018 09:02:18 #
Like other film photographers, you have found digital photography liberating and versatile. Yes, you have far more control, too, with digital photography. In fact, digital photography surpassed film photography years ago.
Jun 5, 2018 09:07:17 #
Jun 5, 2018 09:20:08 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
camerapapi wrote:
We, old timers, never thought when we were using f... (show quote)
There are no rules. Do whatever satisfies you.
Jun 5, 2018 09:30:36 #
Jun 5, 2018 09:59:31 #
Thanks for the comments. I have been learning Affinity Photo and I have learned a lot from the tutorials in You Tube. As a matter of fact I learned these tricks from those tutorials.
Manipulating an image in ways we could not imagine in the past is what digital has brought to photography. If those manipulations satisfy our needs I see nothing wrong with them. There is an artist inside all of us!
Manipulating an image in ways we could not imagine in the past is what digital has brought to photography. If those manipulations satisfy our needs I see nothing wrong with them. There is an artist inside all of us!
Jun 5, 2018 10:44:31 #
camerapapi wrote:
Thanks for the comments. I have been learning Affinity Photo and I have learned a lot from the tutorials in You Tube. As a matter of fact I learned these tricks from those tutorials.
Manipulating an image in ways we could not imagine in the past is what digital has brought to photography. If those manipulations satisfy our needs I see nothing wrong with them. There is an artist inside all of us!
Manipulating an image in ways we could not imagine in the past is what digital has brought to photography. If those manipulations satisfy our needs I see nothing wrong with them. There is an artist inside all of us!
Jun 5, 2018 11:18:25 #
I enjoyed them all, just as I also enjoying exploring creativity in pp. My only comment re sharing manipulated photos "out of context" on a forum such as this, is to please provide the information like you have. If this was an exhibit or a personal website where you mentioned fine art interpretation as one (or all) of your interests, then I say, Let the viewer decide.
But here I could envision someone wanting to know how you achieved the exposure for #2 and #3, camera gear - on and on. Just a different setting and mindset, and any significant* changes I appreciate knowing upfront.
*What's "significant" IMO? Admittedly, it changes with every subject and situation. An imperfect system, I know
But here I could envision someone wanting to know how you achieved the exposure for #2 and #3, camera gear - on and on. Just a different setting and mindset, and any significant* changes I appreciate knowing upfront.
*What's "significant" IMO? Admittedly, it changes with every subject and situation. An imperfect system, I know
Jun 5, 2018 16:26:56 #
Linda, thank you for your interesting comments. You already know me and you know that I always document not only the gear I used but also the technique when appropriate.
In one occasion a gentleman here in the forum made comments about mentioning the gear used to make a photograph. His interpretation was that the mentioning of the gear was merely some kind of a show off. I did not agree with him but I can understand this is a free country and each one of us has the right to his or her own opinion.
I use a Linhof ball head for my shots. Do that means someone else needs a Linhof? Surely not. What was done with a Canon or a Nikon means you have to own one of those cameras to post technically and artistically speaking good images? Not again. Can we do with a mirrorless what we do with a dSLR? Absolutely although for action and wildlife not all mirrorless were created equal.
What we use is important but not more important than our technical expertise and our artistic drive. Nobody needs the best and the latest to photograph and come up with works of art and that is one of the reasons I have always advised those in need of "updating" to make sure the new camera has the features he or she needs in his or her work that are absent in the model they own. I always make reference to the ancient D200, one of the cameras made by Nikon with the most beautiful pastel colors, similar to those of the flagship of those times the D2X.
I seldom receive a request about any of my photographs to ask me how it was made, perhaps all of the information needed is supplied by me when I post.
In one occasion a gentleman here in the forum made comments about mentioning the gear used to make a photograph. His interpretation was that the mentioning of the gear was merely some kind of a show off. I did not agree with him but I can understand this is a free country and each one of us has the right to his or her own opinion.
I use a Linhof ball head for my shots. Do that means someone else needs a Linhof? Surely not. What was done with a Canon or a Nikon means you have to own one of those cameras to post technically and artistically speaking good images? Not again. Can we do with a mirrorless what we do with a dSLR? Absolutely although for action and wildlife not all mirrorless were created equal.
What we use is important but not more important than our technical expertise and our artistic drive. Nobody needs the best and the latest to photograph and come up with works of art and that is one of the reasons I have always advised those in need of "updating" to make sure the new camera has the features he or she needs in his or her work that are absent in the model they own. I always make reference to the ancient D200, one of the cameras made by Nikon with the most beautiful pastel colors, similar to those of the flagship of those times the D2X.
I seldom receive a request about any of my photographs to ask me how it was made, perhaps all of the information needed is supplied by me when I post.
Jun 5, 2018 16:43:08 #
camerapapi wrote:
My reference to gear might have been misleading. I was thinking only of cases such as a composite that is not disclosed as such. Someone might be wondering how to do that exposure, when in fact, it may not be possible in reality. Linda, thank you for your interesting comments. Yo... (show quote)
I've seen the discussions you mention and understand both sides, such as with the oft-quoted comparison, "Delicious meal; you must have a good stove." But I also see why someone would ask about settings if shutter speed were an important aspect, or depth of field. The fixation with expensive cameras and lenses (and sharp at 100%) for the hobbyist is beyond my capability to understand. In fact, I was just lecturing someone in photo analysis about all the aspects of photography that are more important than a little "noise issue"
Jun 6, 2018 07:03:29 #
Jun 6, 2018 19:15:17 #
OneShot1
Loc: Wichita, KS, USA
I like your shots and I'm not being snooty...just weighing in...
If it's represented as art, do what you like. If it's represented as a photo, there is etiquette involved. I listened to a podcast featuring Royce Bair. As long as the tripod does not move you can make a "composite" of as many shots as you want and it's considered a single image. Piecing together other photos is a "blend" and should be noted. For instance if you could never really see the milky way over the cathedral, you don't want someone to fly to Spain expecting to get that shot.
If it's represented as art, do what you like. If it's represented as a photo, there is etiquette involved. I listened to a podcast featuring Royce Bair. As long as the tripod does not move you can make a "composite" of as many shots as you want and it's considered a single image. Piecing together other photos is a "blend" and should be noted. For instance if you could never really see the milky way over the cathedral, you don't want someone to fly to Spain expecting to get that shot.
Jun 6, 2018 22:19:48 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.