Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Art
Page <<first <prev 15 of 17 next> last>>
Jan 13, 2019 21:37:19   #
Bipod
 
Longshadow wrote:
What about saturation, sharpness, etc. settings when you go manual? Camera is still doing that. No matter what mode you set the camera to, if you are saving a JPEG, the camera will run a recipe, that is default or you modified, against the RAW information to create the JPEG. The camera will not change the RAW info.
(I'm not one for caring about SOOC. To me SOOC is simply what I get before I work on it. I certainly do not strive to get the final image SOOC. I almost always tweak something.
What about saturation, sharpness, etc. settings wh... (show quote)


Yup: SOOC means processed-in-the-camera if you shoot in .jpg mode.
RAW lets the photographer chose what's done to the image (and avoids
the lossy compression that JPEG almost always inflicts).

But SOOC is a straw man. Nobody ever did SOOC exccept snapshotters.
And they took their rolls of film to PhotoMat, where it was stuffed into
a automated developing machine, which did things like adjust exposure
during printing (rather well, actually, if he machine was maintained).

Serious photographers have always processed their images: but in a very
different way than todays's automated processing.

Darkroom technqiues such as dodging and burning were done by people
who knew exactly how the techniques worked and what they did. And
they were "hands on".

PhotoShop is a lot closer to PhotoMat than it is to darkroom work.
Nobody understands what the algorithms actually do to the image except
the programmers who wrote them. Some of these digital filters
degrade your image without warning you.

One lossy filter might be OK. But several of them may seriously
degrade the image. And given the limited contrast and resolution
of most computer monitors, you may not notice until you go to print
the image.

Automation always takes control away from a person and gives it to
a machine. That's what the word "automation" means. That's fine for
making widgets, not good for making art.

Reply
Jan 13, 2019 22:25:57   #
srt101fan
 
Bipod wrote:

Yup: SOOC means processed-in-the-camera if you shoot in .jpg mode.
RAW lets the photographer chose what's done to the image (and avoids
the lossy compression that JPEG almost always inflicts).

But SOOC is a straw man. Nobody ever did SOOC exccept snapshotters.
And they took their rolls of film to PhotoMat, where it was stuffed into
a automated developing machine, which did things like adjust exposure
during printing (rather well, actually, if he machine was maintained).

Serious photographers have always processed their images: but in a very
different way than todays's automated processing.

Darkroom technqiues such as dodging and burning were done by people
who knew exactly how the techniques worked and what they did. And
they were "hands on".

PhotoShop is a lot closer to PhotoMat than it is to darkroom work.
Nobody understands what the algorithms actually do to the image except
the programmers who wrote them. Some of these digital filters
degrade your image without warning you.

One lossy filter might be OK. But several of them may seriously
degrade the image. And given the limited contrast and resolution
of most computer monitors, you may not notice until you go to print
the image.

Automation always takes control away from a person and gives it to
a machine. That's what the word "automation" means. That's fine for
making widgets, not good for making art.
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)


If I could find my lyre I could provide music for your "travels to antiquity" monologues....

Reply
Jan 13, 2019 23:07:03   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
Its just Expression vs Information. SOOC would be information, good for News, Family snap shots etc.
SOOC can be Expressions too but those are rare on-of-a-kinds shots.

Doing post is Expression (artistic or otherwise) where sky is the limit.

Some pictures need to be As-is, some images are better if polished on post.

Reply
 
 
Jan 13, 2019 23:18:19   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Wallen wrote:
Its just Expression vs Information. SOOC would be information, good for News, Family snap shots etc.
SOOC can be Expressions too but those are rare on-of-a-kinds shots.

Doing post is Expression (artistic or otherwise) where sky is the limit.

Some pictures need to be As-is, some images are better if polished on post.



Reply
Jan 14, 2019 00:00:23   #
O2Ra
 
Bipod wrote:
I don't ignore cogent arguments and evidence. I do ignore baseless insults.

I think the majority of well-known photographers would agre that this is not a golden age of photography,
and that since the 1980s there has been no new movement or shared vision, as there was in straight photography
from the 1920s though 1970. Most art historians agree with that.

There are always fine individual artists. I posted the work of one here--not that you cared, tdekany.
But there are somet things that only a art movement -- such as Impressionism -- can accomplish.
A movement captures the imagination and the spirit of the times, and it can change public taste and
leave a lasting legacy. But when a lone artist dies, that's it.

These are serious issues, and deserve to be seriously considered, not bandied about.

Show me the "new vision". Show me the iconic phtographer of today--the one's who have eclipsed MATHEW BRADY,
EDWARD STEICHEN, ALFRED STIEGLITZ, ANSEL ADAMS, EDWARD WESTON, PAUL STRAND,
MINOR WHITE, DOROTHEA LANGE, HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON, YOUSUF KARSH, ELIOT PORTER, etc., etc.

We've got all this computer technology, but only about a dozen photographers in the world are
working in dye transfer process. Kodak stopped makig the materials. But nothing else looks
like dye transfer color print. Dye Transfer is the Rolls Royce of color printing. But not of
interst to Joe Consumer thereefore it is going extinct.
http://ctein.com/dyetrans.htm

There are in fact hundreds of B&W and color processes. But only inkjet and laserjet computer
printers are of interst to Joe Consumer. So the rest exist only in industry and to photographers
willing to become a cottage industry.

I know how difficult that is. Obviously, you do not. Go make your own process, then come
back and talk to me.

There is only room in Joe Consumer's world for digital color, minature format, two processes and
three types of cameras. What an huge impoverershment of photography.

You may think this is a golden age of painting---but painters don't: There is no painter alive today who
who even claims to be as good as Vermeer, Caravaggio or Cezanne. You may think this is a golden
age of classical composition, but there is no composer alive today who even claims to be as good
as Mozart. Suggest that someone is, and you'll get a laugh. They KNOW.

You flatter your generation, your region, your favorite technology, and so yourself. But history is a
harsh judge.
I don't ignore cogent arguments and evidence. I d... (show quote)


Many great things are lost . It is sad to see great things go . They come and go as a constant flow . Everything is evolving constantly. There were times in history where the quality of something will be never equaled like in the times of Leonardo da Vinci . Artists and sculptors were in such competition they were never equaled again. But this doesn’t mean artists were and never will be as good .
We are in an era of new times and new ways of creating that have never been equaled. We are in a new era and it’s evolving. It’ll come to a peak of what it is then a new one of some type will start.
Look back to appreciate, be in the moment of now and create what you can . Look forward to seeing what others are creating and enjoy.
As a side note : I used to always look back and held some type of anger in . Nothing was ever going to be as good in my mind or the mind of others. Others who looked back at the greats of this or that. Looking forward to creating and enjoying the things to come . Enjoying the joy of what others create. Sharing .
Our lives are too short to carry anger and hate that nothing will ever be great again.
Breath and look at things in a positive light . They might look more beautiful than you realize.

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 00:11:04   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
G Brown wrote:
I am sure that Artists scream 'Rubbish' at art work they dislike, just as photographers do.

Sure they do LOL. The truth is that a lot of people think themselves are artist but in reality, they are just b*llsh*tting to benefit themselves.


G Brown wrote:
With only a little bit of knowledge you can make out you are a qualified critic.
Even with no knowledge, everyone has opinions.

HOW things are made isn't really relevant....self made critics abound everywhere.

Have fun doing what you do - who knows... 50 years after your death what you produce now might well become the latest trendy work of Art..

Critique is one of those where little knowledge becomes really dangerous, most specially when spoken by prominent figures of society.

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 00:37:45   #
sloscheider Loc: Minnesota
 
I know several people who make knives. One of them layers different types of metal together into a billet and then forge welds it all together to be drawn out, folded up, drawn out again, folded again, etc and he produces beautiful knives. I have a different friend who purchases knife blanks, thin rectangular pieces of steel, and uses a grinder to find the knife hidden within that chunk of steel, he also produces beautiful knives. They both do something I’m no good at and they are both knife makers. I applaud people who “get it right” in the camera and are comfortable walking away with their finished product. I choose to do pp. I think we are all artists in the craft however we get to the end result.

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2019 00:40:21   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
srt101fan wrote:
Larry - I find this comment of yours bothersome: "...I don't have patience for is those who maintain that if you shoot and save your images in raw, camera controls have no effect". I have been led to believe, and still believe, that the picture controls (as Nikon calls them) have NO effect on the RAW file! This has been stated and repeated by many UHH members. And here you emphatically claim the opposite! This issue is too important to let go, can someone please post the definitive answer?

I wonder if the disconnect isn't in the language we use. You say that you can see the effect of camera controls such as saturation and sharpness in your RAW files. But how can this be when, as I understand it, you cannot see a RAW file, i.e., it has to be processed in camera or on a computer before it becomes a visible image file. So I believe that the camera control effects you are seeing are NOT because the RAW file has been affected but are rather a part of the process you used to make the RAW data visible. The RAW file (data) remains unchanged and is NOT affected by the picture control settings.

Am I wrong? Somebody please comment!
Larry - I find this comment of yours bothersome: ... (show quote)


:-) RAW is how the camera saw the image and saved it. But we can not see raw files. we need to interpret those files to something in the monitor for us to see. That process of interpretation is what some judge as "manipulation". The difference is, that interpretation is subjective and only temporary. Done for the sole purpose of enabling us to view the digital data.
Different soft wares and settings can change how that interpretation will appear even without our intent or control.
On the other hand, JPG or other file images are the saved interpretations. Many of the data still available in the RAW file would be lost when we save the interpreted images. That is why these file sizes are smaller in comparison.

Thus it is indeed true that the raw files are unchanged and not affected by settings, it is also true that whatever you see is affected as it is already an interpreted data.

On the other hand, intentional editing and modification is the crux of manipulation and is totally another matter.

:-)

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 03:32:43   #
Bipod
 
srt101fan wrote:
If I could find my lyre I could provide music for your "travels to antiquity" monologues....

You should have no trouble finding a liar on this site.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 06:17:04   #
srt101fan
 
Wallen wrote:
:-) RAW is how the camera saw the image and saved it. But we can not see raw files. we need to interpret those files to something in the monitor for us to see. That process of interpretation is what some judge as "manipulation". The difference is, that interpretation is subjective and only temporary. Done for the sole purpose of enabling us to view the digital data.
Different soft wares and settings can change how that interpretation will appear even without our intent or control.
On the other hand, JPG or other file images are the saved interpretations. Many of the data still available in the RAW file would be lost when we save the interpreted images. That is why these file sizes are smaller in comparison.

Thus it is indeed true that the raw files are unchanged and not affected by settings, it is also true that whatever you see is affected as it is already an interpreted data.

On the other hand, intentional editing and modification is the crux of manipulation and is totally another matter.

:-)
:-) RAW is how the camera saw the image and saved ... (show quote)


Thanks Wallen!

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 10:04:16   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
larryepage wrote:
Where I would differ is that I would say that you do not have to use "Auto" anything to use the camera's capabilites. That's where I think some of the misconceptions are. If I know that the lighting on my church's platform is close to 2700K, I can set to that when I am shooting, or I can do it later in post processing. I am not ceding any control to the camera if I do it before shooting nor anything to my PP software if I do it later. The difference, though, is that if I do it first, I can give much better "proofs" to my music director much more quickly. And that is a big deal, especially to him.
Where I would differ is that I would say that you ... (show quote)

I'm simply saying when you use Auto mode the camera is making all processing decisions. As soon as you change from auto, you are usurping the cameras decision making responsibilities. You can do it before taking the picture, say adjusting iso, aperture, speed, white balance etc. or you can do it in post. Most rewarding is doing both.

Those that insinuate doing post work is fake, or, not photography or whatever is lame, and in my mind is the same as saying only taking pictures in AUTO mode is photography. A photographer today controls both camera software and post software to produce the pictures he wants.

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2019 11:14:23   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Bipod wrote:
Yup: SOOC means processed-in-the-camera if you shoot in .jpg mode.
RAW lets the photographer chose what's done to the image (and avoids
the lossy compression that JPEG almost always inflicts).

But the lossy compression rarely effects the end results, that's why jpg compression has been the defacto standard in photo compression since about day one. This is particularly true today where almost no pictures are printed.
Bipod wrote:
Serious photographers have always processed their images: but in a very
different way than todays's automated processing.

Different but same results
Bipod wrote:
Darkroom technqiues such as dodging and burning were done by people
who knew exactly how the techniques worked and what they did. And
they were "hands on".

PhotoShop is a lot closer to PhotoMat than it is to darkroom work.

Balderdash!
Bipod wrote:
Nobody understands what the algorithms actually do to the image except
the programmers who wrote them. Some of these digital filters
degrade your image without warning you.

Only chemists understood how the toxic developing fluids did there thing. So what?
Bipod wrote:
One lossy filter might be OK. But several of them may seriously
degrade the image. And given the limited contrast and resolution
of most computer monitors, you may not notice until you go to print
the image.

That might be true to some extent, but only .000001% of photo's are actually printed today. And unless you have no clue what your are doing, editing will only enhance your prints, not hinder them. You could more easily screw up prints using chemicals in the old days.
Bipod wrote:
Automation always takes control away from a person and gives it to
a machine. That's what the word "automation" means. That's fine for
making widgets, not good for making art.

Photo editing is not automation. If you think it is automatic then you haven't compared my editing to someone like PHLEARN, PiXimperfect or a ton of other Youtubers with on line editing tutorials. The art of photo editing is at least an equal part of photography, (I think more), than taking the picture. It always was, even in the old days.

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 11:37:39   #
O2Ra
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Photo editing is not automation. If you think it is automatic then you haven't compared my editing to someone like PHLEARN, PiXimperfect or a ton of other Youtubers with on line editing tutorials. The art of photo editing is at least an equal part of photography, (I think more), than taking the picture. It always was, even in the old days.


Editing is an art form in and of itself. It is like learning to paint or take a picture and many other things .
When I take a picture I see certain things that catch my eye . It’s usually the light and shadows and how the (lay) upon the subject. Be it whatever. When I edit I do so like I’m enhancing the light and shadow. Other see other things some edit in or out things their mind sees or do or don’t like . This is the creative process of being an editor. In movies and or video there are people who their whole job is the edit the look of the video captured . This sets up the whole look of the whole show we view. This is an art for all in its self.
What makes we wonder about things is why this discussion has gotten so large ? Then you realize how passionate people are about this newish art form . How it’s actually just in it’s infancy . The great discussion of is it or isn’t it. Or what constitutes whether it is art or not . People create to express passion, feelings or to convey something . It could be as simple as Real estate photography . Is it just a picture of a room . Or is it a creation using lighting, color , color of lighting, on and on . In the end you decide if it’s your are or just capturing a moment in time .
Peace y’all I’m out of this and it’s been so fun seeing how diverse our thought process is and how others create.

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 11:41:26   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
BigDaddy wrote:
... A photographer today controls both camera software and post software to produce the pictures he wants.

Exactly. And both are valid means to accomplish the end goal. I have taken the time to understand how my camera works. I am using that to my advantage. I am learning how Lightroom works. I am also using that to my advantage. In the end, both do the same thing...they provide adjustments to the image caught by the camera. I am finding that in most cases, for me, it is quicker ans easier to do most things in the camera, if they can be done there. As always, there are some exceptions.

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 18:11:02   #
Bipod
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Photo editing is not automation. If you think it is automatic then you haven't compared my editing to someone like PHLEARN, PiXimperfect or a ton of other Youtubers with on line editing tutorials. The art of photo editing is at least an equal part of photography, (I think more), than taking the picture. It always was, even in the old days.

The lossy compression always affects the end result--but whether or not you
can see it depends on how you display or print the image, and on subject,
and on the particular algorithm.

You may think you are controlling what PhotoShop does to your image file,
But digital filters peform very complex numerical transformations--which
may or may not lose information.

And you are viewing the results "though a glass, darkly" -- a very imperfect
monitor. And what-you-see is never what-you-get when making a print.
All often, probelms aren't spotted until the print is drying.

When you look at a final image (e.g, a print), you only care about subjective
impression. But when processing an intermediate image (a negative or an
image file), you need objective information.--an accurate assessment of image
qualtiies: tonal values, acutance, resolution, gradation, global contrast, etc.
It's impossible to do that using only the naked eye and an image displayed on
a montor.

We didn't hold our negatives up and peer at them. "I like that one--it's
pretty!" We put them on a light table and examined them with a high
quality loupe and a densiometer. (I also use a binocular microscope
with a reticle)

Can you tell black from gray by looking? No, you can't. What looks pure black
to the eye may contain three or four tones. If you scan the negative or lighten
the image file in processing, you can print those tones. This is as true of
image files as it was of negatives.

There are other problems with "seeing is believing":

* The eye is easily fooled into thinking tones are different that are in fact the same:
http://www.illusions.org/

* It is easy to miss changes that are gradual. If you apply five different filters and each
degrades your image a little bit, it may not be obvious. But if you compared the
original to the last revision, you might be shocked.

* Viewing size matters. Anything that increases acutance (at the price of gradation and
resolution) will look good (sharper) on a small display. But when you go to print, the loss
of gradation and detail will be glaringly obvious.

* Background lighting matters. Process a phtoto in a dimly lit room and it will look
very different than if it is processed in a brightly lit room.

* A monitor is brighter than any paper. What looks luminous (and is luminous!)
on a monitor may look murky on paper.

* Maximum black on paper is much blacker than black on any montior (except a CRT).
though OLEDs come pretty close. But you should be aware that there can be
much more contrast in your image file than you can see on a particular montior
(e.g., an LCD/LED screen).

* Or you may be assuming there is more conrtrast in the image file, and there isn't! You
can't tell by looking at an LCD/LED screen. But global contrast is important in deciding
how best to print the image.

* Any digital filter such as "sharpen" that increases acuance (at the cost of gradation and resolution)
will a small image look better. But when you print it, the loss of gradation and detail will be glaringly
obvious.

Some "sharpen" filters are better than others. When you shop for processing software, how do you
compare the filters between one package and another? There are hundreds.

Only the final image matters. Your subjective eye can judge the final image--but not a
negative and not an image file.

An image file is not a photograph--it's a table of numbers an encoding of an image.
Digital filtes operated upon the number--not upon an optical image. So just about
any sort of transformation is possible.

It might, for example, increase the redness of every prime-numbered pixel by 1.
How you gonna spot that?

A playful programmer my chose to encode his initials -- or face! -- into your image,
so it could only be seen with a colored filter. Wouldn't that be a laugh!

There are "concealment ciphers" the encrypt a text message into an image file
(not the header or EXIF -- the image itself) in such a way that it can be extracted
with the right software. (This is a big problem for the NSA.)

A digital filter algortihm may perform a dozen steps. You don't know what's done
to the numbers, and you can't control it.

You wouldn't develop film by dipping your finger into the developer to judge the temperature,
then counting "one-Mississipi, two-Mississipi...". You'd use a thermometer and a timer!
Photographer used to be scientific instruments. Everyone knew that a desniometer saw things
the eye cannot see.

And because dodging and burning were optical, you knew exactly was and wasn't being
affected. In any optical processing, we know what kinds of degradation are possible, so
we know what to look for.

But a digital filters is a secret algorhitm -- it can do anything. Nobody is going to pan all
over their image on the montior, magnifying every part and looking for every possible kind
of degreation. (And some -- like loss of contrast -- may be invisible on a paricular monitor.)

Your photographic results are now limited by extremely complex algorithms that you didn't write,
haven't read, and don't understand. And you have substituted your eye for a densiometer, making
the whole process erratic.

If that isn't a loss of control, I don't know what is.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 15 of 17 next> last>>
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
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.