The Truth about Post Production
Aug 27, 2017 20:37:17 #
THE TRUTH ABOUT POST PRODUCTION.
Terms like “post production, editing, special FX” that we currently apply to still photography are adopted from the motion picture industry. In cinematography after the “shooting” or production is completed the next stage is called, appropriately enough, post production. In motion picture production this is a very multifaceted and complex process, oftentimes carried out by many specialists and specialized sub-contractors that are brought in by the main production organization. If you stay in the theater or stay tuned to a TV movie long enough to read the closing credits you will see a long list of individuals and companies that were responsible for film processing and printing, editing, sound production and mixing, titles and graphics, musical coordination, special effects, and so much more. We usually don't see exactly what comes directly out of the cameras. Even documentary and journalistic film making, there is significant post production involvement.
Back in the film era, we just used to call it “darkroom work, processing and printing, lab work, or developing”. Except for the Polaroid process, our imagery never came right out of the camera- there were always an intermediate steps. Some sort of chemical process was always necessary to convert the latent image, caused by silver halides in the film emulsions reaction to light, to metallic silver and then fix the image so that it can be seen and subsequently printed. For the occasional family snap-shooter, the process was simply bringing or sending the exposed film to a photofinishing establishment and receiving the negatives and prints in an envelope. For the serious amateur, aspiring professional or professional, however, the darkroom and all that was involved in , was always part and parcel of being a photographer. For top level workers, all the technical, chemical and aesthetic controls, procedures and manipulations, within the domain of the darkroom were important paths to high quality photographic results. Fine photography is a combination of science/technology and artistry.
Nowadays, in the digital imaging era of photography, not all that much has changed. Of, course, we can instantly see the images we make on a small LCD screen at the back of the camera. The occasional snap-shooter can, with very the aid of simple built-in or accessory software, plug the camera or it's memory card or even a smart phone, into a home computer and enjoy the images on the monitor, save them in the computer's system, burn a CD or even make acceptable prints on a modest home or office printer. Supermarkets, camera shops and photo-kiosks in retail stores are other resources for prints and other consumer grade media. The serious workers and pros still demand more quality and aesthetic control and thus, the advent of incredible software like PhotoShop, Lightroom and a world of plug-ins, hardware, very sophisticated printers, and an infinite number of accessories- all that money can buy!
Here's where some of the myths and misconceptions come in. Many photographers equate finite darkroom work and more refined digital post-processing as somehow altering reality in photographic imagery- in some manner creating unnatural, fake or even kitsch results. This can happen if the photographer wishes to create such imagery, over uses any number of actions or applications or applies an effect that calls attention to itself and thereby visually overpowers the motif of the image. Used with artistry, technical savvy and a high level of craftsmanship, theses techniques can help us create
photographs with the utmost realism, technical excellence, and artistic merit as well as abstract interpretations, wonderful fantasy motifs and an unbounded array of striking or subtle and delicate special effects. You are the artist and technician and you are entitled to express yourself as you wish. If you are a commercial photographer, a portraitist or wedding photographer, you may need to master many styles of photography in order to appeal to and satisfy a wide scope of markets and clientele. If you work in the advertising field, you may be called upon to visually realize the creative and conceptual ideas of art directors, editorial persons and the ultimate clients themselves. Oftentimes this calls for effects and manipulations that go beyond a straight out of the camera images. The tools are there at you disposal in post production.
Another misconception is that photographers who employ post production editing have a tendency to shoot sloppily and the spend hours “re-shooting” the image or the assignment on the computer. We used to call that “re-hooting the job in the darkroom” and most quality conscience photographers think of that as a bad methodology. There is no substitute for precise camera work and image management at the time of shooting. Whether a negative or a digital file is destined for routine media display or printing or is going to require, by the nature of the project, a good deal of special effects work, a basic image that is well exposed, composed, perspective controlled- a basically CLEAN shot, is going to yield a better final result. It is going to process more quickly and efficiently and require significantly less remedial actions. Even “mass production” work like high volume portraits, wedding album prints and high quantity print orders can be produced more efficiently, economically and with a high level of quality if exposures, contrast levels, compositions and other basic technicalities are more consistent.
As I read through many of the posts on this forum, I notice there is a good deal of preoccupation with images that are made “straight out of the camera”. Well- it's a good concept, challenge or principle to achieve. Even if you insist on no post production actions and want to show every subject and scene as authentically as possible- exactly as seen by the naked eye- you may have a problem. There are many instances where, for any number of reasons, that our camera's. films, sensors and systems do not always SEE or render images exactly as we see them. Many of the post production actions that we take are simply to NORMALIZE images that, not withstanding even the most judicious camera work, still need to be somewhat tweaked to bring in certain details, color accuracy and contrasts. Time honored “darkroom” procedures like dodging, burning-in, contrast selection and color or image-tone variations are all still available to us in digital post production software. I dare say, that accessing and preforming all of theses tasks are allot easier, simple, convenient, economical and the results more predictable when carried out on a computer screen than in a conventional wet chemical darkroom.
Even the best and most experienced photographers make mistakes or have to deal with shooting condition beyond their total control, so it's great to have all of the remedial actions. Sometimes we just have to “make a silk purse out of a sow's ear”! Doing that kinda salvage operation in the old darkroom could get very involved and very messy- lots of tests, burning. dodging, bleaching, rubbing in concentrated developer, pushing film in “dynamite” developer until they become reticulated or nearly dissolve- using nasty, poisonous and sometimes unpredictable intensifiers and reducers, lots of material in the trash can! UGH! It's a heck of allot easier nowadays.
As far as authenticity or accuracy of images are concerned, our eyes are the best “cameras”. Just in the area of dynamic range, we can see detail is stuff even under bad lighting conditions. Our eyes scan a scene and our brains “lace it together”. I know this sounds very unscientific but our built in optical systems- eyeballs, irises, cones, lenses, corneas, retinas and the optic nerve are great processing systems and all the “information” gets filtered through our brains. We have kinda “automatic white balance” so grandma seems pink, white, brown olive or whatever color she is under a wide variety of lights sources. The camera, film or sensor may “see” as green under florescent lights, that is with out filtration or white balance correction, but our brain tell us she pink, white or brown, olive or whatever color she is so unless we are very observant and can see slight nuances in light we don't necessarily see the differences. We see the warmth in sunrises and sunsets but sometimes not as deep orange as our equipment and materials see it. A non-stereo or non-holographic camera has no depth perception or can supply the illusion of dimension- we need to create theses illusions with the use of lighting. Then there is the matter of perspective. OK- These are topics for another post.
Think of dynamic range this way; our eyes have the greatest range, viewing a negative or a transparency, being trans-illuminated, or images on a monitor screen shows a greater range and may show more detail, especial in the darkest shadows, than a print. A print, being viewed by reflected light has the least range. A print made on a matte surface or matte lacquered paper has comparatively less perceptible range, especially in terms of shadow detail than a print made on a high gloss material which has a grater range. The degree of detail in refection prints also varies with the intensity of the viewing light source. The controls in post production assists us with compression or expansion of contrasts, retention of detail, color bias and saturation issues. It is up to each individual photographer as to how they wish to apply their post production potential.
Name dropping, prejudices and a bit of history: Some photographers insist that black and white photography is a superior art form than color photography. Personally, I like and practice both-I think there is a time, a subject matter, applications and a place for both mediums and prefer to judge or appreciate each image on its own merits. When we get into discussion of black and white work, authenticity, fantasy and masters of their craft, names like Ansil Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Mortensen and a number of notable photojournalists like David Douglas Duncan, and W. Eugene Smith come up in the conversations.
Adams is associated with and was certainly one of the early pioneers of the ZONE SYSTEM which does entail a goodly degree of darkroom work. The zone system is rather complex but in its simplest form it means assigning a specific zone or step of the gray scale to each and every part of a scene. It entails multiple exposure readings and very precise processing and printing techniques. The hours spent in the darkroom are not remedial tasks as Adams and many of his followers and decides were master cameramen and woman. Every effort was made to produce the “PERFECT NEGATIVE”. In his book “The Camera” Adams explains his masterful approach to every facet of camera work; the finest lens and focal length selections, the use of filters, the
custom making of very deep lens shades to absolutely minimize any chance of flare, the meticulous attention to exposure measurements, depth of field, maximum performance at certain apertures, lighting direction as to times of day, artful and balanced composition and perspective, and every aspect of image management that can be applied, especially in the area of landscape photography. The concept of pre-visulization is another essential part of the method. Some advanced workers have adopted parts of the ZONE SYSTEM to digital work and color photography as well.
Each large format film was then processed in such a manner so as to control tonal range. Very basically, film were somewhat overexposed and under developed to compress contrast or slightly underexposed and overdeveloped to increase contrasts. This, of course is an over simplification of a process that entailed many steps such as per-soaking of the film prior to developer a allot more. His resulting negatives were as perfect as they were gonna get and yet, they still required quite a bit of printing savvy to produce the prints that he became famous for.
Some years ago, I had the honor, pleasure and experience of a lifetime of attending an Ansil Adams workshop. I watched in awe as he just about did a dance in the light path of a horizontally oriented track mounted enlarger to dodge and burn an image from a gorgeous 8X10 negative- he was producing a photo-mural. It took him two attempts to achieve the exact tonalities that he wanted. My point is merely that the great imagery of Adams, that we still enjoy today, came as a result of a marriage of virtuoso camera work and highly disciplined darkroom work. Call it great shooting and well coordinated post production if you will. Adams was the leading member of his f/64 group adhering to a school of though dedicated to sharp, acute, very realistic imagery.
William Mortensen and his Picatorialist followers were the ANTITHESIS of Adams and his f/64 folks. I understand that he became known among the REALISTS as the “Devil's Photographer”. There was quite a bit of abhorrence and disdain between the two men and their factions. Even by today's special effects and post production standards and shenanigans, Mortensen would have given new meaning to the concept of POST PRODUCTION manipulations and fantasy photography. Mortensen was one of the most renowned Hollywood photographers of he era. He created a unique melodramatic and dramatic style combining dynamic posing, soft focus and spectacular lighting. In my own opinion, this guy just about INVENTED special effects and darkroom chicanery- magic- craziness or what ever you want to call it. None of this was easy! We are talking about paper negatives, texture screens, matrix printing, lead pencil and etching retouching. I don't think he ever made an non-manipulated or unadulterated print! I always thought of his work as high art with some of it a bit off the deep end but there was always amazing craftsmanship. Adams and his crew though of it as “distorted, disingenuous and gaudy”. Well- special effects were not born with PhotoShop. Mortensen's book “Monsters and Madonnas” is a must have and read for anyone interested in photographic manipulation and its history! Gotta admit, I am a big fan of texture screens!
Please see part 2.
Terms like “post production, editing, special FX” that we currently apply to still photography are adopted from the motion picture industry. In cinematography after the “shooting” or production is completed the next stage is called, appropriately enough, post production. In motion picture production this is a very multifaceted and complex process, oftentimes carried out by many specialists and specialized sub-contractors that are brought in by the main production organization. If you stay in the theater or stay tuned to a TV movie long enough to read the closing credits you will see a long list of individuals and companies that were responsible for film processing and printing, editing, sound production and mixing, titles and graphics, musical coordination, special effects, and so much more. We usually don't see exactly what comes directly out of the cameras. Even documentary and journalistic film making, there is significant post production involvement.
Back in the film era, we just used to call it “darkroom work, processing and printing, lab work, or developing”. Except for the Polaroid process, our imagery never came right out of the camera- there were always an intermediate steps. Some sort of chemical process was always necessary to convert the latent image, caused by silver halides in the film emulsions reaction to light, to metallic silver and then fix the image so that it can be seen and subsequently printed. For the occasional family snap-shooter, the process was simply bringing or sending the exposed film to a photofinishing establishment and receiving the negatives and prints in an envelope. For the serious amateur, aspiring professional or professional, however, the darkroom and all that was involved in , was always part and parcel of being a photographer. For top level workers, all the technical, chemical and aesthetic controls, procedures and manipulations, within the domain of the darkroom were important paths to high quality photographic results. Fine photography is a combination of science/technology and artistry.
Nowadays, in the digital imaging era of photography, not all that much has changed. Of, course, we can instantly see the images we make on a small LCD screen at the back of the camera. The occasional snap-shooter can, with very the aid of simple built-in or accessory software, plug the camera or it's memory card or even a smart phone, into a home computer and enjoy the images on the monitor, save them in the computer's system, burn a CD or even make acceptable prints on a modest home or office printer. Supermarkets, camera shops and photo-kiosks in retail stores are other resources for prints and other consumer grade media. The serious workers and pros still demand more quality and aesthetic control and thus, the advent of incredible software like PhotoShop, Lightroom and a world of plug-ins, hardware, very sophisticated printers, and an infinite number of accessories- all that money can buy!
Here's where some of the myths and misconceptions come in. Many photographers equate finite darkroom work and more refined digital post-processing as somehow altering reality in photographic imagery- in some manner creating unnatural, fake or even kitsch results. This can happen if the photographer wishes to create such imagery, over uses any number of actions or applications or applies an effect that calls attention to itself and thereby visually overpowers the motif of the image. Used with artistry, technical savvy and a high level of craftsmanship, theses techniques can help us create
photographs with the utmost realism, technical excellence, and artistic merit as well as abstract interpretations, wonderful fantasy motifs and an unbounded array of striking or subtle and delicate special effects. You are the artist and technician and you are entitled to express yourself as you wish. If you are a commercial photographer, a portraitist or wedding photographer, you may need to master many styles of photography in order to appeal to and satisfy a wide scope of markets and clientele. If you work in the advertising field, you may be called upon to visually realize the creative and conceptual ideas of art directors, editorial persons and the ultimate clients themselves. Oftentimes this calls for effects and manipulations that go beyond a straight out of the camera images. The tools are there at you disposal in post production.
Another misconception is that photographers who employ post production editing have a tendency to shoot sloppily and the spend hours “re-shooting” the image or the assignment on the computer. We used to call that “re-hooting the job in the darkroom” and most quality conscience photographers think of that as a bad methodology. There is no substitute for precise camera work and image management at the time of shooting. Whether a negative or a digital file is destined for routine media display or printing or is going to require, by the nature of the project, a good deal of special effects work, a basic image that is well exposed, composed, perspective controlled- a basically CLEAN shot, is going to yield a better final result. It is going to process more quickly and efficiently and require significantly less remedial actions. Even “mass production” work like high volume portraits, wedding album prints and high quantity print orders can be produced more efficiently, economically and with a high level of quality if exposures, contrast levels, compositions and other basic technicalities are more consistent.
As I read through many of the posts on this forum, I notice there is a good deal of preoccupation with images that are made “straight out of the camera”. Well- it's a good concept, challenge or principle to achieve. Even if you insist on no post production actions and want to show every subject and scene as authentically as possible- exactly as seen by the naked eye- you may have a problem. There are many instances where, for any number of reasons, that our camera's. films, sensors and systems do not always SEE or render images exactly as we see them. Many of the post production actions that we take are simply to NORMALIZE images that, not withstanding even the most judicious camera work, still need to be somewhat tweaked to bring in certain details, color accuracy and contrasts. Time honored “darkroom” procedures like dodging, burning-in, contrast selection and color or image-tone variations are all still available to us in digital post production software. I dare say, that accessing and preforming all of theses tasks are allot easier, simple, convenient, economical and the results more predictable when carried out on a computer screen than in a conventional wet chemical darkroom.
Even the best and most experienced photographers make mistakes or have to deal with shooting condition beyond their total control, so it's great to have all of the remedial actions. Sometimes we just have to “make a silk purse out of a sow's ear”! Doing that kinda salvage operation in the old darkroom could get very involved and very messy- lots of tests, burning. dodging, bleaching, rubbing in concentrated developer, pushing film in “dynamite” developer until they become reticulated or nearly dissolve- using nasty, poisonous and sometimes unpredictable intensifiers and reducers, lots of material in the trash can! UGH! It's a heck of allot easier nowadays.
As far as authenticity or accuracy of images are concerned, our eyes are the best “cameras”. Just in the area of dynamic range, we can see detail is stuff even under bad lighting conditions. Our eyes scan a scene and our brains “lace it together”. I know this sounds very unscientific but our built in optical systems- eyeballs, irises, cones, lenses, corneas, retinas and the optic nerve are great processing systems and all the “information” gets filtered through our brains. We have kinda “automatic white balance” so grandma seems pink, white, brown olive or whatever color she is under a wide variety of lights sources. The camera, film or sensor may “see” as green under florescent lights, that is with out filtration or white balance correction, but our brain tell us she pink, white or brown, olive or whatever color she is so unless we are very observant and can see slight nuances in light we don't necessarily see the differences. We see the warmth in sunrises and sunsets but sometimes not as deep orange as our equipment and materials see it. A non-stereo or non-holographic camera has no depth perception or can supply the illusion of dimension- we need to create theses illusions with the use of lighting. Then there is the matter of perspective. OK- These are topics for another post.
Think of dynamic range this way; our eyes have the greatest range, viewing a negative or a transparency, being trans-illuminated, or images on a monitor screen shows a greater range and may show more detail, especial in the darkest shadows, than a print. A print, being viewed by reflected light has the least range. A print made on a matte surface or matte lacquered paper has comparatively less perceptible range, especially in terms of shadow detail than a print made on a high gloss material which has a grater range. The degree of detail in refection prints also varies with the intensity of the viewing light source. The controls in post production assists us with compression or expansion of contrasts, retention of detail, color bias and saturation issues. It is up to each individual photographer as to how they wish to apply their post production potential.
Name dropping, prejudices and a bit of history: Some photographers insist that black and white photography is a superior art form than color photography. Personally, I like and practice both-I think there is a time, a subject matter, applications and a place for both mediums and prefer to judge or appreciate each image on its own merits. When we get into discussion of black and white work, authenticity, fantasy and masters of their craft, names like Ansil Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Mortensen and a number of notable photojournalists like David Douglas Duncan, and W. Eugene Smith come up in the conversations.
Adams is associated with and was certainly one of the early pioneers of the ZONE SYSTEM which does entail a goodly degree of darkroom work. The zone system is rather complex but in its simplest form it means assigning a specific zone or step of the gray scale to each and every part of a scene. It entails multiple exposure readings and very precise processing and printing techniques. The hours spent in the darkroom are not remedial tasks as Adams and many of his followers and decides were master cameramen and woman. Every effort was made to produce the “PERFECT NEGATIVE”. In his book “The Camera” Adams explains his masterful approach to every facet of camera work; the finest lens and focal length selections, the use of filters, the
custom making of very deep lens shades to absolutely minimize any chance of flare, the meticulous attention to exposure measurements, depth of field, maximum performance at certain apertures, lighting direction as to times of day, artful and balanced composition and perspective, and every aspect of image management that can be applied, especially in the area of landscape photography. The concept of pre-visulization is another essential part of the method. Some advanced workers have adopted parts of the ZONE SYSTEM to digital work and color photography as well.
Each large format film was then processed in such a manner so as to control tonal range. Very basically, film were somewhat overexposed and under developed to compress contrast or slightly underexposed and overdeveloped to increase contrasts. This, of course is an over simplification of a process that entailed many steps such as per-soaking of the film prior to developer a allot more. His resulting negatives were as perfect as they were gonna get and yet, they still required quite a bit of printing savvy to produce the prints that he became famous for.
Some years ago, I had the honor, pleasure and experience of a lifetime of attending an Ansil Adams workshop. I watched in awe as he just about did a dance in the light path of a horizontally oriented track mounted enlarger to dodge and burn an image from a gorgeous 8X10 negative- he was producing a photo-mural. It took him two attempts to achieve the exact tonalities that he wanted. My point is merely that the great imagery of Adams, that we still enjoy today, came as a result of a marriage of virtuoso camera work and highly disciplined darkroom work. Call it great shooting and well coordinated post production if you will. Adams was the leading member of his f/64 group adhering to a school of though dedicated to sharp, acute, very realistic imagery.
William Mortensen and his Picatorialist followers were the ANTITHESIS of Adams and his f/64 folks. I understand that he became known among the REALISTS as the “Devil's Photographer”. There was quite a bit of abhorrence and disdain between the two men and their factions. Even by today's special effects and post production standards and shenanigans, Mortensen would have given new meaning to the concept of POST PRODUCTION manipulations and fantasy photography. Mortensen was one of the most renowned Hollywood photographers of he era. He created a unique melodramatic and dramatic style combining dynamic posing, soft focus and spectacular lighting. In my own opinion, this guy just about INVENTED special effects and darkroom chicanery- magic- craziness or what ever you want to call it. None of this was easy! We are talking about paper negatives, texture screens, matrix printing, lead pencil and etching retouching. I don't think he ever made an non-manipulated or unadulterated print! I always thought of his work as high art with some of it a bit off the deep end but there was always amazing craftsmanship. Adams and his crew though of it as “distorted, disingenuous and gaudy”. Well- special effects were not born with PhotoShop. Mortensen's book “Monsters and Madonnas” is a must have and read for anyone interested in photographic manipulation and its history! Gotta admit, I am a big fan of texture screens!
Please see part 2.
Aug 27, 2017 20:41:35 #
Post production is OK until it starts to look unnatural. You have all seen them, photographs that look like paintings or modern art.
Aug 27, 2017 21:07:09 #
Sorry but post production was disgraced at the turn of the century(1900) when it was all the rage to alter photos in any way that would enhance sales. The world got so fed up that the purist movement banished most bad shooters by not buying their work!
The truth is that even the Pueblo moon rise was re-done over 2500 times; only the negative was not altered and Bill Gates owns it now and the reproduction rights to it.
Post-production is not a new thing.
The truth is that even the Pueblo moon rise was re-done over 2500 times; only the negative was not altered and Bill Gates owns it now and the reproduction rights to it.
Post-production is not a new thing.
Aug 27, 2017 21:42:00 #
MLAnderson wrote:
Post production is OK until it starts to look unnatural. You have all seen them, photographs that look like paintings or modern art.
Part of the OP's point is that some photographers have a different vision in mind than making their photographs look as "natural" as possible. I do a lot of work with infrared faux color, and the whole point is to make images that look different than the way the eye sees things. I'm proud that they look "unnatural". It's a perfectly valid approach.
Aug 28, 2017 00:30:18 #
Art is in the eye of the beholder. If my vision is to take an image and manipulate it into a final result that is closer to a painting than a photograph, then that is what I will do as an artist.
If somebody prefers doing it "all in the camera," that that is their vision.
If somebody prefers doing it "all in the camera," that that is their vision.
Aug 28, 2017 05:51:51 #
Aug 28, 2017 06:07:35 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Part of the OP's point is that some photographers have a different vision in mind than making their photographs look as "natural" as possible. I do a lot of work with infrared faux color, and the whole point is to make images that look different than the way the eye sees things. I'm proud that they look "unnatural". It's a perfectly valid approach.
Exactly. I do some IR too with a converted camera! Possibly Art, yes. Natural, no.
Aug 28, 2017 06:51:02 #
Aug 28, 2017 06:59:46 #
Aug 28, 2017 07:33:58 #
Processing is a normal part of making a photograph. It's that simple. I expose to obtain the maximum amount of information provided by the subject, whether shooting film or digital. Processing the image afterwards is an inherent necessity. That's photography.
--Bob
--Bob
Aug 28, 2017 07:44:54 #
I am noted for having a short attention span, but I did manage the first four paragraphs before I scrolled down to see how many there were in total. For other's with short attention spans, there were 16, then a note to go to "Part 2". I couldn't find part 2, but honestly, I was done after the first 4 paragraphs anyway. If someone could summarize this for me it would be great. I never finished War And Peace, either.
Aug 28, 2017 07:47:54 #
If you want to be a photographer, processing is part of photography. If you want to be a button pusher, SOOC is for you.
I don't think part 2 has been posted yet, but if you'd like I'll summarize that one for you too.
--Bob
I don't think part 2 has been posted yet, but if you'd like I'll summarize that one for you too.
--Bob
wteffey wrote:
I am noted for having a short attention span, but I did manage the first four paragraphs before I scrolled down to see how many there were in total. For other's with short attention spans, there were 16, then a note to go to "Part 2". I couldn't find part 2, but honestly, I was done after the first 4 paragraphs anyway. If someone could summarize this for me it would be great. I never finished War And Peace, either.
Aug 28, 2017 08:01:53 #
MLAnderson wrote:
Post production is OK until it starts to look unnatural. You have all seen them, photographs that look like paintings or modern art.
Sure have, and mine are known for that. I am a photographer, camera only one step in a series of tools.
Take Snap Shot here in UHH for example. His flowers are always the same treatment, it is his signature. I get board with it, but can not argue with 4 or more pages of praise by other UHH people. I have stated an number of times that he could hold a one man show of just those flowers with that one treatment. The price tag would go up as people flocked to buy one of his photos signed in ink. A friend who was a professor of Art in Richmond VA painted only bull frogs and lily pads, boring... huh... ya but they sold and for mucho$$$ people love sameness, like the characters in Cheers sitcom. Each character could be replaced by a random phrase generator as long as the phrase was in keeping with the formula of the character.
SOOC stopped when people like Ansel Adams became priests interpreting gods SOOC description of a mountain.
Aug 28, 2017 08:12:07 #
rmalarz wrote:
If you want to be a photographer, processing is part of photography. If you want to be a button pusher, SOOC is for you.
I don't think part 2 has been posted yet, but if you'd like I'll summarize that one for you too.
--Bob
I don't think part 2 has been posted yet, but if you'd like I'll summarize that one for you too.
--Bob
Great! Thank you. I agree completely with the original post, and if and when part 2 is posted, another summary would be welcomed.
Aug 28, 2017 08:19:36 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Part of the OP's point is that some photographers have a different vision in mind than making their photographs look as "natural" as possible. I do a lot of work with infrared faux color, and the whole point is to make images that look different than the way the eye sees things. I'm proud that they look "unnatural". It's a perfectly valid approach.
Bravo. There's room for everyone, both purist and "faux-ist".
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.