Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Eadweard Muybridge - expert Photoshopper
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jan 9, 2017 00:04:56   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the American West from the 1870s and 1880s, which included plenty of shots from Eadweard Muybridge, Carelton Watkins, William Henry Jackson, and others. The exhibit often pointed out how Muybridge would blend two exposures together to get sky detail in his prints, and even kept a collection of skies in his library to add to shots that needed it. It amazed me how people today look down their noses at such processing as "not a real photograph" when it's a method as old as photography itself. Those guys would have loved Photoshop.

Reply
Jan 9, 2017 02:01:17   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
TheDman wrote:
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the American West from the 1870s and 1880s, which included plenty of shots from Eadweard Muybridge, Carelton Watkins, William Henry Jackson, and others. The exhibit often pointed out how Muybridge would blend two exposures together to get sky detail in his prints, and even kept a collection of skies in his library to add to shots that needed it. It amazed me how people today look down their noses at such processing as "not a real photograph" when it's a method as old as photography itself. Those guys would have loved Photoshop.
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the America... (show quote)


Well said, Sir.

Reply
Jan 9, 2017 12:55:04   #
G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK
 
Those that say "you shouldn't do" generally can't

There are very few truly original ideas - But lots of new takes on old ways My guess is Photoshop simply started out replicating old techniques for a new digital medium. Since sales of digital cameras have rocketed have you noticed how many 'new' post processing systems have also been developed. All that Adobe does seems to be available from other sources now. You just need to use 'bits' of many rather than the one or two.
Have fun

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2017 17:33:35   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
G Brown wrote:
My guess is Photoshop simply started out replicating old techniques for a new digital medium.


Correct, started out and still does. But while technology keeps moving forward, people's attitudes toward it keep moving backward. "Photoshopped" is being used in a derogative tone by people who are simply uneducated about the history of photography, people longing for some "more real" era that never was, and it's to the detriment of our art form.

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 06:49:09   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
TheDman wrote:
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the American West from the 1870s and 1880s, which included plenty of shots from Eadweard Muybridge, Carelton Watkins, William Henry Jackson, and others. The exhibit often pointed out how Muybridge would blend two exposures together to get sky detail in his prints, and even kept a collection of skies in his library to add to shots that needed it. It amazed me how people today look down their noses at such processing as "not a real photograph" when it's a method as old as photography itself. Those guys would have loved Photoshop.
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the America... (show quote)


Yes, good observation.

That wasn't his real name - not too surprising.

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 07:00:22   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Sure, one can photoshop whatever they'd like, better skies, better water, etc. It's been done for years. However, it's far more satisfying to me, as a photographer, to capture a "real" scene with the ideal skies, clouds, light/shadow, etc. I'd rather come back from a photo trip with few or no photos then to spend time creating a scene that didn't exist.

Do I enhance scenes? Yes. Burning / dodging vignetting, etc. Can I do more? Sure I've created scenes that didn't exist in the real world. They were fun rainy day projects. I'd still rather capture what I wish to capture, not create it.
--Bob


TheDman wrote:
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the American West from the 1870s and 1880s, which included plenty of shots from Eadweard Muybridge, Carelton Watkins, William Henry Jackson, and others. The exhibit often pointed out how Muybridge would blend two exposures together to get sky detail in his prints, and even kept a collection of skies in his library to add to shots that needed it. It amazed me how people today look down their noses at such processing as "not a real photograph" when it's a method as old as photography itself. Those guys would have loved Photoshop.
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the America... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 07:46:57   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Yes, good observation.

That wasn't his real name - not too surprising.


Thanks for illustrating the very unenlightened mentally that I'm talking about.

Reply
 
 
Jan 10, 2017 07:50:51   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
rmalarz wrote:


Do I enhance scenes? Yes. Burning / dodging vignetting, etc. Can I do more? Sure I've created scenes that didn't exist in the real world. They were fun rainy day projects. I'd still rather capture what I wish to capture, not create it.
--Bob


Yes there is more satisfaction in capturing that one extraordinary moment when all the elements of Nature seem to co-operate to make the perfect picture. Much better for the soul than putting everything together piecemeal.

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 07:51:57   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
rmalarz wrote:
Sure, one can photoshop whatever they'd like, better skies, better water, etc. It's been done for years. However, it's far more satisfying to me, as a photographer, to capture a "real" scene


His scene were"real", as far as photography gets. Do you think people couldn't see the sky when they were standing there? Do you think it looked blown out white to them? Muybridge was overcoming the limitations of his camera, just as we do today, to create scenes that more closely represent what he saw and felt while he was standing there. For some reason people today think overcoming camera limitations is bad, but back then people loved it.

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 11:20:08   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
TheDman wrote:
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the American West from the 1870s and 1880s, which included plenty of shots from Eadweard Muybridge, Carelton Watkins, William Henry Jackson, and others. The exhibit often pointed out how Muybridge would blend two exposures together to get sky detail in his prints, and even kept a collection of skies in his library to add to shots that needed it. It amazed me how people today look down their noses at such processing as "not a real photograph" when it's a method as old as photography itself. Those guys would have loved Photoshop.
Just came from an exhibit of photos of the America... (show quote)


"Aint" that the truth!

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 11:40:47   #
mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD
 
There's nothing wrong in correcting for a camera's limitations, but it's lazy and unethical to replace one sky with another unless you're calling it " photo art" cause it sure ain't photography.

Reply
 
 
Jan 10, 2017 12:04:13   #
mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD
 
I mean, too lazy or too cold to get out of the tent to catch that amazing sunrise on Rainer, just paint some fake light on the mountain with Landscape Pro and replace the sky with one I took from my frontporch in Maryland.

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 12:21:21   #
mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD
 
Not to babble on, but I'm certainly no purist and maybe I'm hypocritical to an extent. I tweak things in PS, do some cloning, in camera multiple exposures, etc. I realize "Moon over Hernandez" didn't come out of the camera looking like the final product, but I just gotta draw the line at replacing skies. Didn't catch that grizzly while in Alaska, just clone in one I took at the zoo.

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 12:32:43   #
G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK
 
mflowe wrote:
There's nothing wrong in correcting for a camera's limitations, but it's lazy and unethical to replace one sky with another unless you're calling it " photo art" cause it sure ain't photography.


Ethical ? strange thought for an artistic medium. A camera records luminance which is different to what we see as saturation. We use infra red and monochrome which in the main we cannot see. We express ourselves by looking for the unusual setting within the mundane landscape: Beauty which is individual and Patterns which are often accidental, purposefully requiring a special light or a single viewpoint (man made) or too small to be enjoyed by the naked eye.
If you are merely recording 'what is there' as your camera records it then that is a snapshot of time and space (History)- but surely not photography, as designated by many, as being an 'Art' in itself (the doing of it).
Perhaps you are a historian?

Reply
Jan 10, 2017 12:37:40   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
mflowe wrote:
There's nothing wrong in correcting for a camera's limitations, but it's lazy and unethical to replace one sky with another unless you're calling it " photo art" cause it sure ain't photography.


You're not replacing one sky with another, you're adding the sky to what would otherwise be a blown out white space.

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.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.