Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
For Your Consideration
"reality" imitates "art"
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 5, 2015 21:24:27   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Apropos of the discussions about what is "real" in photography, and what is "the truth", I took this today and thought it looked for all of the world like it were a composite image created in post-processing. I am happy with this shot of Blue Vervain. A storm had blown the plant over shortly before bloom, and all of the flower heads grew up vertically in a massive clump. That gave me a chance to get several flower heads more or less in the same plane of focus and closely bunched together. Am I "cheating" by looking for an unusual plant that had been damaged by a storm, or is that "the truth?" If I had in fact put this image together in post processing, would that make any difference?

Mike


(Download)

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 21:26:15   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Cheating is all relative.

We all look for the best angle when we capture a scene. This is not different. Mother nature gave you a boost? All the better.

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 21:50:53   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Cheating is all relative.

We all look for the best angle when we capture a scene. This is not different. Mother nature gave you a boost? All the better.


Thanks. That is how I see it.

Mike

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2015 21:57:44   #
Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Apropos of the discussions about what is "real" in photography, and what is "the truth", I took this today and thought it looked for all of the world like it were a composite image created in post-processing. I am happy with this shot of Blue Vervain. A storm had blown the plant over shortly before bloom, and all of the flower heads grew up vertically in a massive clump. That gave me a chance to get several flower heads more or less in the same plane of focus and closely bunched together. Am I "cheating" by looking for an unusual plant that had been damaged by a storm, or is that "the truth?" If I had in fact put this image together in post processing, would that make any difference?

Mike
Apropos of the discussions about what is "rea... (show quote)


Makes no difference to me. You could have gotten those plants in five pots and lined them up for your shot if you wanted to. To me cheating only comes into play if you try to deceive someone if they ask about the photo and you lie.

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 22:01:47   #
minniev Loc: MIssissippi
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Apropos of the discussions about what is "real" in photography, and what is "the truth", I took this today and thought it looked for all of the world like it were a composite image created in post-processing. I am happy with this shot of Blue Vervain. A storm had blown the plant over shortly before bloom, and all of the flower heads grew up vertically in a massive clump. That gave me a chance to get several flower heads more or less in the same plane of focus and closely bunched together. Am I "cheating" by looking for an unusual plant that had been damaged by a storm, or is that "the truth?" If I had in fact put this image together in post processing, would that make any difference?

Mike
Apropos of the discussions about what is "rea... (show quote)


It's lovely. When I first looked, it did look like it could have been a composite, true. But I don't care. It is a pleasing image and that is what matters to me.

That whole "cheating" thing gets tiresome, doesn't it? Who is being cheated? Out of what? If someone doesn't like an image, can they just not look at it? Not buy it? Not even think about it?

I don't have any interest in model photography, so I just don't pay any attention to it. I don't agonize over whether they had on makeup, or whether their skin or dimensions were "enhanced" or whether they were really outdoors or the background added later. Why on earth do some folks worry about whether one flower or six went into a flower photo, or whether a bird got duplicated? It is a mystery to me.

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 22:25:53   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
Cheating?
No.

Would it make a difference if it had been done with composites in post?
Yes.

Why?
Because you would know.
Even if no one else did.

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 22:37:30   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
minniev wrote:
It's lovely. When I first looked, it did look like it could have been a composite, true. But I don't care. It is a pleasing image and that is what matters to me.

That whole "cheating" thing gets tiresome, doesn't it? Who is being cheated? Out of what? If someone doesn't like an image, can they just not look at it? Not buy it? Not even think about it?

I don't have any interest in model photography, so I just don't pay any attention to it. I don't agonize over whether they had on makeup, or whether their skin or dimensions were "enhanced" or whether they were really outdoors or the background added later. Why on earth do some folks worry about whether one flower or six went into a flower photo, or whether a bird got duplicated? It is a mystery to me.
It's lovely. When I first looked, it did look like... (show quote)


Thanks.

Yes, the whole cheating thing gets very tiresome. I think it is about jealousy - "well sure it looks good, but that is only because of all of the post processing work you did on it. It isn't real." A variation on that is "you have a great lens, lucky you, no wonder you get great shots." Those are ways to dismiss, trivialize or diminish someone else's work, and that can only be because of jealousy, and the jealousy comes from insecurity. One is not insecure if it is the subjects that are important, and how they are portrayed. People are only insecure when they make it all about themselves. I know what I want to do with photography, and I do what I do because I think it is worth doing, and I don't worry about competing with anyone else. If others get better shots - great! I am not jealous, I am gratified to see great work by others. The work that is worth doing is what is important, not who does it. There is a vast shortage of people following their own vision and focusing on the work, work that is worth doing. There are lots of people trying to "get it right," whatever that means, trying to impress others, copying the work of others, obsessing over the right equipment, etc.

There are so few people pursuing their own creative vision, actually trying to communicate something meaningful with photography. When I see the images from someone who is, I am not going to find fault, I am going to applaud.

Mike

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2015 22:42:06   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
lighthouse wrote:
Cheating?
No.

Would it make a difference if it had been done with composites in post?
Yes.

Why?
Because you would know.
Even if no one else did.


Understood. Had it had been done with composites in post, I would say so.

Mike

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 22:42:30   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Frank2013 wrote:
Makes no difference to me. You could have gotten those plants in five pots and lined them up for your shot if you wanted to. To me cheating only comes into play if you try to deceive someone if they ask about the photo and you lie.


Agreed.

Mike

Reply
Aug 5, 2015 22:49:01   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Understood. Had it had been done with composites in post, I would say so.

Mike


Mike this is where a lot of people misread me.
I don't think you have to say whether it is done with composites in post.
It may be polite to say yes or no if asked, or if it is a requirement of acceptance or something.
But "have to"? No, probably not.

A lot think I am against composites as well.
I am not.
There are quite a few type of composite images that do not generally get thought of as composites. eg stitch, exposure blend ... and more.

Reply
Aug 6, 2015 00:52:12   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
lighthouse wrote:
Mike this is where a lot of people misread me.
I don't think you have to say whether it is done with composites in post.
It may be polite to say yes or no if asked, or if it is a requirement of acceptance or something.
But "have to"? No, probably not.

A lot think I am against composites as well.
I am not.
There are quite a few type of composite images that do not generally get thought of as composites. eg stitch, exposure blend ... and more.


I wasn't clear. I would say how I created an image when asked because I enjoy the process of discussing how we create images, not because I feel that I "have to."

I thought it was an interesting twist on the other discussions going on about this. People are arguing that only SOOC is "real" and "true," and implying that images created in post are somehow "cheating," because they present an image that "looks real" but isn't "real." Then I noticed an image of mine from today that looked (to my eyes) like a composite created in post, though it wasn't.

Mike

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2015 06:14:04   #
Billyspad Loc: The Philippines
 
Why do you or others feel it is necessary or indeed achieves anything to discuss quite a simple image in such depth?
The conversation can only and probably will go around in a large circle with the same faces commenting with some desperately trying to impress with their artistic viewpoint. You are never going to convince the SOOC guys that pictures created in post are valid photographic images.
Ill keep it simple my man you have posted a rather nice image which looks good and appears technically sound.

Reply
Aug 6, 2015 08:37:40   #
Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC
 
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, let me tell you I wished I'd taken that photo. Not to imitate you, but because it's just plain attractive. I now give credence to the fact that a diagonal orientation attracts attention. I like the rich colors and the DOF which displays each blossom so distinctly. This was very well done Mike.

Reply
Aug 6, 2015 09:45:36   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Apropos of the discussions about what is "real" in photography, and what is "the truth", I took this today and thought it looked for all of the world like it were a composite image created in post-processing. I am happy with this shot of Blue Vervain. A storm had blown the plant over shortly before bloom, and all of the flower heads grew up vertically in a massive clump. That gave me a chance to get several flower heads more or less in the same plane of focus and closely bunched together. Am I "cheating" by looking for an unusual plant that had been damaged by a storm, or is that "the truth?" If I had in fact put this image together in post processing, would that make any difference?

Mike
Apropos of the discussions about what is "rea... (show quote)


The image is the image, and should be judged as such. It may be interesting to know how it was created, but that is not really important

Reply
Aug 6, 2015 10:24:27   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
boberic wrote:
The image is the image, and should be judged as such. It may be interesting to know how it was created, but that is not really important


...and it is a very pleasing image. (Thank you boberic for reading my mind).

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
For Your Consideration
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.