Opinions: Question for everyone: What do you think of all the enhancing of photos that software and cameras are capable of now? Things like HDR, Photoshopping the bejeebers out of a...

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

Question for everyone: What do you think of all the enhancing of photos that software and cameras are capable of now? Things like HDR, Photoshopping the bejeebers out of a shot etc.. I like to see what can be done without help myself. Just the camera, the right light, and the photographer. But, that's just my opinion. Anyone else have any thoughts? Don't get me wrong, some beautiful stuff is being produced, but where should it end before it gets to be more computerizing than photographing?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

wrightwrjr wrote:

Question for everyone: What do you think of all t... (show quote)

W, I have no problem whatsoever with any amount of manipulation.
But a prize winning photo is a prize inning photo, before any manipulation.
The problem is, there are a lot of photographers(I use the term very loosely), that think they can make a crap photo better with embellishment. The problem IS, they just don't understand photography.
You can't change what you took. ;-)
SS

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

wrightwrjr wrote:

Question for everyone: What do you think of all t... (show quote)

Most of the enhancement is overdone, IMHO. There are some that use it much like a chef uses spices, just enough to flavour without having any particular spice stand out. In most cases, a lot of the HDR/tone mapped images don't really need to be done that way. Here's a link to one I did, which was not HDR'd at all. Simply burn and dodge, but start with a correct exposure first.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-128345-1.html

--Bob

dugole Loc: Matawan, New Jersey

I had a B&W darkroom in the 70s & 80s - when developing negatives and turning them into pictures I always used various techniques to enhance the final picture. Dodge & burn, using tricks to soften portraits, using toners such as sepia to ad warmth and to make skin tone more realistic. In the end it is all art and art is always evolving. Whatever is needed to enhance and complete an artist's perception is okay with me.

amehta Loc: Boston

wrightwrjr wrote:

Question for everyone: What do you think of all t... (show quote)

It seems like it is all digital art, and there is no hard line defining digital photography within that.

My biggest frustration is when I think I see a photograph which "realistically" represents a scene, but then realize that it was completely altered from reality.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

wrightwrjr wrote:

Question for everyone: What do you think of all t... (show quote)

Just be careful that you don't make the mistake of assuming that straight out of the camera means the same as the scene appearing as it is.
The camera is incapable of capturing the scene as it is in many many instances.
Your straight out of the camera effort may be a lie to how the scene was, and that perfect rendition of the scene may have had the bejeesus shopped out of it.
Tell me, how pasty are your skies?

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

rmalarz wrote:

Most of the enhancement is overdone, IMHO. There are some that use it much like a chef uses spices, just enough to flavour without having any particular spice stand out. In most cases, a lot of the HDR/tone mapped images don't really need to be done that way. Here's a link to one I did, which was not HDR'd at all. Simply burn and dodge, but start with a correct exposure first.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-128345-1.html

--Bob

Nice pic.

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

I hate instagram for that very reason.

wrightwrjr wrote:

Question for everyone: What do you think of all t... (show quote)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

wrightwrjr wrote:

Nice pic.

Thanks, wrightwrjr. I appreciate your compliment.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

nakkh wrote:

I hate instagram for that very reason.

:thumbup:

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

rmalarz wrote:

Thanks, wrightwrjr. I appreciate your compliment.
--Bob

Here's a couple I took this afternoon with nothing done to them. Of course flowers are just beautiful in their own right, they don't need much help.

Orchid

Bromeliad

elf

W. Straight out of the camera is the cameras interpretation of the scene. No matter what, there is going to be interpretation. I shoot RAW so I can adjust it and jpeg at the same time in case I don't need to.
Ed

Selkii Loc: Oakland, CA & Vancouver Island

I see digital photography as I do art through the centuries, with styles time compressed and mashed together - every "artist/photographer" looking for "their style," and those styles are all over the place.

If a photo elicits a positive reaction, I don't care if it has been manipulated or not. As I told my art prof at university why I hated a particular modern artist (got an A+ for that oral report), "1) I like what I like, will defend it with a reasoned argument, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion; and, 2) I will not paint myself into a corner by saying I will never like a particular art style, even if I hate it today, as tomorrow, who knows?"

amehta Loc: Boston

elf wrote:

W. Straight out of the camera is the cameras interpretation of the scene. No matter what, there is going to be interpretation. I shoot RAW so I can adjust it and jpeg at the same time in case I don't need to.
Ed

You are usually allowed to adjust how the camera will interpret the scene. :-)

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

elf wrote:

W. Straight out of the camera is the cameras interpretation of the scene. No matter what, there is going to be interpretation. I shoot RAW so I can adjust it and jpeg at the same time in case I don't need to.
Ed

Yeah Ed I understand making adjustments, but I am talking about more than that. I shoot RAW a lot also, and I use Elements on a lot of my shots to maybe clear up a spot here and there, but a lot of what I see today looks plastic. Not real if you will. That's when I start wondering whether it's photography or transforming.