Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Have you noticed? Technique has disappeared
Page <<first <prev 3 of 25 next> last>>
Oct 16, 2020 22:27:55   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
Maybe for some photographers. For me, the purpose of post processing is to further enhance images that were as good as they could have been out of the camera. Ansel Adams developed his zone system to get the best possible negatives, but he still did extensive post processing. The burning and dodging he did was to selectively lighten or darken sections of his photos, which can't be done in the camera. It's the same with digital - you can mask and enhance different parts of the photo, not just lightening and darkening but adjusting color, saturation, sharpening, noise reduction. That's not to say I've never "fixed" an image I had made an error shooting, but it's not the best use of post processing.
Maybe for some photographers. For me, the purpose ... (show quote)


Not arguing that, but the better it is in camera the less it needs to be fixed.

AA didn’t obsess on adjusting sharpness or fixing gross under/over exposure.

Reply
Oct 16, 2020 22:47:33   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
LWW wrote:
Not arguing that, but the better it is in camera the less it needs to be fixed.

AA didn’t obsess on adjusting sharpness or fixing gross under/over exposure.


Actually Adams did obsess about these types of things, that's what made him such a great photographer. For him, it was all about creating the image he saw in his mind, not necessarily in front of his camera. People were often disappointed when they visited Yosemite and it did not look like the photos that Adams created. For Adams, as with many digital photographers today, it was about the entire package, seeing the composition and subject, seeing the final image in his mind, and knowing how to use the technology of his day in processing and developing to create what he saw in his mind. He was not about journalism and he saw his work as art, not the simple documenting of a subject.

Reply
Oct 16, 2020 22:57:21   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
It is impossible in today's digital world to not process an image taken by our cameras. The only choice we have is to 1.) let the camera process the image, or 2.) we process the image the way we want using software. This does not mean that we don't use care or good technique when photographing an image, most of us, I think, do try to do that with our shots (at least I hope so). But we have so much more opportunity with digital photography to take and create a shot that is outstanding in so many ways if we want to do that. Processing an image is not about "fixing" problems, it's about creating a beautiful piece of art that is pleasing to view, assuming that the photographer is not a journalist or a documentary photographer. But even journalists and documentary photographers process their digital images in some ways, it can't be helped as that is the nature of digital photography.

Reply
 
 
Oct 16, 2020 23:06:21   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
LWW wrote:
Not arguing that, but the better it is in camera the less it needs to be fixed.

AA didn’t obsess on adjusting sharpness or fixing gross under/over exposure.


Again, I don't think of post processing as "fixing" but "enhancing". Of course AA hardly ever made exposure/developing errors. That's what the zone system was for. But in the case of Moonrise, Hernandez he had to guess the exposure and came up with a less than ideal negative. He was still able to come up with a great print in the darkroom. Photographers who are expert at post processing know very well that it is best to start with an image with impeccable technique.

Reply
Oct 16, 2020 23:24:19   #
Stesichorus Loc: Portland Oregon
 
New to the forum, and new to photography. All for technique discussions—here to learn :) glad to be a part of this

Reply
Oct 16, 2020 23:42:27   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
Well processing is technique is it not?

So there are various techniques. All worthy of discussion in more detail.

Reply
Oct 16, 2020 23:44:08   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
LWW wrote:
Not arguing that, but the better it is in camera the less it needs to be fixed.

AA didn’t obsess on adjusting sharpness or fixing gross under/over exposure.


Agreed! The better it is in camera the less is needed after. Sometimes nothing is needed depending on the intended use of the image and taste of the photographer.

And if it is a commercial image the better it is in camera the less work it is for the graphic artists, and that saves your clients $.

Reply
 
 
Oct 16, 2020 23:46:58   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
Perhaps there is no much of an appetite for delving into technique on this forum. I say this because I dish out a lot of technical responses to questions and usually they did get very much traction. That's alright I figured out that I have a small audience but there is not much feedback.

There are just lots of folks that just feel the answer to most of their photographic aspirations, questions, challenges and solutions are equipment based. Someone will post an image and ask which lens the should have used or purchased to improve an image or improve this type of image in the future. If I answer and imply or suggest that the lens they used is perfectly fine but perhaps they are no using it correctly- that does no go over well. Some folks want o know what flash to buy but there is little or discussion of the dynamics of lighting- which, by the way, could fill an encyclopedia or at least constitute a special forum section.

This thread is too typical. The OP wants to know why there is not more discussion of technique but the discussion turns into a post-processing pro and con thing. Post-processing is nothing more than a methodology based on many techniques- it's part and parcel of digital imaging and should be discussed in detail rather than argued as means of fakery or fixes for poorly crafted photography.

Automation in photography precludes thechique?- that's nonsense! Nor does film photography require more technical skill than digital photography- it's just a bit different. Most of the same theory applies- just different tools.

To the OP: If you want to discuss technique- just ASK. Pose a question, write an article, and guess what? There are many talented and knowledgeable folks in this forum that will provide conversation, answers and solutions.

Reply
Oct 17, 2020 05:37:05   #
John Sh Loc: Toronto, Australia
 
I just wish the kid with the Santa hat wouldn't ask so many convoluted questions. It's quite disconcerting when a six or seven year old comes out with such astute observations.

Reply
Oct 17, 2020 05:56:44   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
SteveR wrote:
Years ago, technique of various kinds was a big part of the discussions in this section. Now it seems it's all about equipment, software or problems relating to the two.


I'd be willing to bet if you posed a question(s) the topic come to the forefront.

Reply
Oct 17, 2020 06:16:37   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
Again, I don't think of post processing as "fixing" but "enhancing". Of course AA hardly ever made exposure/developing errors. That's what the zone system was for. But in the case of Moonrise, Hernandez he had to guess the exposure and came up with a less than ideal negative. He was still able to come up with a great print in the darkroom. Photographers who are expert at post processing know very well that it is best to start with an image with impeccable technique.


I agree with all that, but many people use it as a crutch for never developing proper skills.

Reply
 
 
Oct 17, 2020 06:19:05   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
LWW wrote:
....The purpose of post processing is to ‘FIX’ a photo which could/should have been taken properly in the first place.


That does happen but you're preaching to a minority. Most of us see PP as a way to enhance and optimise. How willing the individual is to depart from reality is their choice and it's their prerogative. Fakery is another possibility but the same thing applies - most of us aren't trying to deceive with our PP.

Reality rarely provides us with ideal circumstances, and if we can visualise what a photo would have been like in ideal circumstances, we're perfectly entitled to use PP to nudge our photos in that direction. No deception involved, just a desire to optimise.

Reply
Oct 17, 2020 06:21:32   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
R.G. wrote:
That does happen but you're preaching to a minority. Most of us see PP as a way to enhance and optimise. How willing the individual is to depart from reality is their choice and it's their prerogative. Fakery is another possibility but the same thing applies - most of us aren't trying to deceive with our PP.

Reality rarely provides us with ideal circumstances, and if we can visualise what a photo would have been like in ideal circumstances, we're perfectly entitled to use PP to nudge our photos in that direction. No deception involved, just a desire to optimise.
That does happen but you're preaching to a minorit... (show quote)


Well said.

Reply
Oct 17, 2020 06:23:25   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
SteveR wrote:
Years ago, technique of various kinds was a big part of the discussions in this section. Now it seems it's all about equipment, software or problems relating to the two.


I see the same thing happening with post processing. Instead of "How do you achieve that effect?" we're heading towards a world where the question is "Which AI software is the best to use for that effect?".

Reply
Oct 17, 2020 06:23:47   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
pithydoug wrote:
Well said.


Thanks.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 25 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.