Fake photos
Apr 19, 2019 18:05:54 #
wdcarrier
Loc: Eureka, California
Ansel Adams has been dead for 39 years and your just now deciding to bad-mouth his methods? A little late!
Apr 19, 2019 18:37:26 #
wdcarrier wrote:
Ansel Adams has been dead for 39 years and your just now deciding to bad-mouth his methods? A little late!
You should have used "Quote Reply" so we know whom you are gigging.
Apr 19, 2019 18:46:38 #
Apr 19, 2019 19:45:31 #
wdcarrier
Loc: Eureka, California
Longshadow wrote:
You should have used "Quote Reply" so we know whom you are gigging.
Still in the learning mode. Sorry!
Apr 19, 2019 19:48:55 #
wdcarrier wrote:
Still in the learning mode. Sorry!
That's fine, we all had to start with baby steps. But, who were you responding to?Apr 19, 2019 20:10:43 #
Photography is part Science (light transmission, etc), and part Art. The Art part is about showing, or manipulating, what the camera sees as the artist sees, or wants to see, it. Sculptors do not present a block of Marble as nature made it. Photography can be as Impressionistic as Oil Painting....IF the artist so desires. Do novelists publish books of wood with no printing, to present what Nature made? There is more non-life than life in nature. If you really love nature, why go on living? Every day you live, you destroy nature.
Apr 19, 2019 20:15:14 #
wdcarrier
Loc: Eureka, California
Rich1939 wrote: That's fine, we all had to start with baby steps. But, who were you responding to?
That's fine, we all had to start with baby steps. But, who were you responding to?I was merely indicating that photography has almost ALWAYS been subject to manipulation whether it was "burning and dodging" as Adams did in his day; increasing the ASA from 64 to 80 with Kodachrome to enhance the colors as I used to do; air-brushing or Photoshopping as is done now. I like my PhotoShop just like I like my Subaru that puts on the brakes for me if I fail to detect the car in front of me is stopping. I guess I could pull out the old Argus C-3 but it's unlikely I'll find film for it, as least locally.
Apr 19, 2019 20:53:11 #
wdcarrier wrote:
Still in the learning mode. Sorry!
No problem! Apr 19, 2019 21:23:36 #
Thanks Linda from Maine .., I’ve been waiting for your comment so that an intelligently directed answer can be posted .., in as few words as possible ....
Apr 19, 2019 21:32:19 #
Rich1939 wrote:
I think that for the most part the SOOC group believe they are more skilled because they only show images that aren’t a deviation from what was there when the shutter was squeezed. That doesn’t show skill, it’s a demonstration of a technical ability. What they do show (again for the most part) instead is a lack of imagination and post processing skills with a high tolerance for the boring.
Thnx Rich ...
Apr 19, 2019 21:38:20 #
Post processing has been going on for at least a hundred years.
The methodology has changed, and I can guarantee Ansel Adams would have taken to Adobe PS like a duck to water.
I believe National Geographic was the last hold out during the 'film' days of their magazine, but they have given that up completely.
Photography is ... art.
The methodology has changed, and I can guarantee Ansel Adams would have taken to Adobe PS like a duck to water.
I believe National Geographic was the last hold out during the 'film' days of their magazine, but they have given that up completely.
Photography is ... art.
Apr 19, 2019 22:41:53 #
I was lucky enough years ago to see an Ansel Adams proof (8x10 contact) of one of his many many half-dome shots. IF he had used LR/PS there would have been in excess of 50 - yes, fifty - actions, and perhaps as many as 100! There were so many "+1", "-2" and other marks done in grease pencil that it was almost impossible to determine the original subject. Even AA himself, in referring to "Moonrise ... " said that "over the years" his "interpretation" of the shot changed - and the way he printed it.
Now we are so lucky to be able to do the same thing, in one of the so many PP programs available now, that we can produce the print *we want* without spending 30 or 40 minutes in a dark room for each and every iteration. And, while every now and then, I get the urge to do some "wet darkroom" work, I am so glad for what is available now, and know that if I printed "SOOC" (meaning RAW, not JPEG!), this would be a rather dull looking world.
Now we are so lucky to be able to do the same thing, in one of the so many PP programs available now, that we can produce the print *we want* without spending 30 or 40 minutes in a dark room for each and every iteration. And, while every now and then, I get the urge to do some "wet darkroom" work, I am so glad for what is available now, and know that if I printed "SOOC" (meaning RAW, not JPEG!), this would be a rather dull looking world.
Apr 19, 2019 23:03:58 #
Apr 20, 2019 01:10:43 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Feiertag wrote:
SOOC works. I'm not saying it couldn't be better with some extra touch ups but I'm fine without it.
Very nice shot. With a very small set of adjustments and about one minute's work you can bring out more fine details to the feathers. Of course the results would have been far better if I had a raw file instead of a small jpeg to work with.
Apr 20, 2019 06:44:16 #
Exactly.
Photographers don't care. Most certainly non-photographers don't care.
So ... why not?
Photographers don't care. Most certainly non-photographers don't care.
So ... why not?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.