Should we expect full disclosure of photographic and PP techniques?
Jun 22, 2021 08:20:22 #
Creating great photographs used to require an understanding of light and of composition. Mastering the functions of your camera was essential. For nature photography putting yourself in the right place at the right time, along with a measure of good luck, was also required. Sometimes the results were good, often they were marginal, and occasionally they were great. Great patience was required.
Now we have cameras that will automatically focus on the eye of an animal - even a bird in flight. Taking a 20-shot-per-second series of photos of a bird in flight allows the "photographer" to select the best of dozens of photos - perfect timing, the ability to keep the bird in focus, or good luck is not required. I see snippets taken from what is essentially a video or posts of a sequence of multiple photos of a bird landing or a bird taking flight and I think to myself: "If I wanted a video I would have gone to YouTube".
The last few days we have seen folks singing the praises of sky replacement. Maybe "bird replacement" or "model replacement" will be next (certainly done in the advertising world). But should such dramatically altered photos be posted here without disclaimer? This is a long way from dodging and burning.
Some Hoggers love to splice in a sunset or sunrise into a photo where none previously existed. This is frequently not acknowledged - I always look closely at the light and shadows in the rest of the photo and when I see light and/or shadow that are impossible given the angle of the setting/rising sun I cannot decide whether to laugh or be angry.
Call me a Luddite if you will. Maybe I am slightly envious of the final results of such deceptive skills. But I try to resist the lure (well... I admit that the eye-focus thing gives me a little GAS...)
Now we have cameras that will automatically focus on the eye of an animal - even a bird in flight. Taking a 20-shot-per-second series of photos of a bird in flight allows the "photographer" to select the best of dozens of photos - perfect timing, the ability to keep the bird in focus, or good luck is not required. I see snippets taken from what is essentially a video or posts of a sequence of multiple photos of a bird landing or a bird taking flight and I think to myself: "If I wanted a video I would have gone to YouTube".
The last few days we have seen folks singing the praises of sky replacement. Maybe "bird replacement" or "model replacement" will be next (certainly done in the advertising world). But should such dramatically altered photos be posted here without disclaimer? This is a long way from dodging and burning.
Some Hoggers love to splice in a sunset or sunrise into a photo where none previously existed. This is frequently not acknowledged - I always look closely at the light and shadows in the rest of the photo and when I see light and/or shadow that are impossible given the angle of the setting/rising sun I cannot decide whether to laugh or be angry.
Call me a Luddite if you will. Maybe I am slightly envious of the final results of such deceptive skills. But I try to resist the lure (well... I admit that the eye-focus thing gives me a little GAS...)
Jun 22, 2021 08:24:59 #
The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.
Jun 22, 2021 08:25:28 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
With black and white we did things in the darkroom like burn and dodge
Jun 22, 2021 08:26:56 #
A picture, IMHO, stands on its own. I don't care how the maker got there.
The only exception I make is if someone claims the image to be something it isn't.
When I look at a picture I can pretty quickly decide if I like it or not. If I like it I may look a little long thinking about why I like it. I don't care about post processing, unless it was done poorly.
---
The only exception I make is if someone claims the image to be something it isn't.
When I look at a picture I can pretty quickly decide if I like it or not. If I like it I may look a little long thinking about why I like it. I don't care about post processing, unless it was done poorly.
---
Jun 22, 2021 08:27:32 #
I simply view the person's end result.
I don't care how they arrived at it.
New tools just mean new abilities.
I don't care how they arrived at it.
New tools just mean new abilities.
Jun 22, 2021 08:30:35 #
If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.
Jun 22, 2021 08:32:16 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.
Very true - and certainly we see real art created with Photoshop. But generally those artists are not telling us: "look what I did with just my camera".
Jun 22, 2021 08:33:52 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.
But everyone KNEW that he dodged and burned, and used different papers. They would have been shocked to have learned that he cut out trees, mountains, and skies and that his photographs were actually collages of multiple photos.
Jun 22, 2021 08:35:03 #
Bill_de wrote:
A picture, IMHO, stands on its own. I don't care how the maker got there.
The only exception I make is if someone claims the image to be something it isn't.
When I look at a picture I can pretty quickly decide if I like it or not. If I like it I may look a little long thinking about why I like it. I don't care about post processing, unless it was done poorly.
---
The only exception I make is if someone claims the image to be something it isn't.
When I look at a picture I can pretty quickly decide if I like it or not. If I like it I may look a little long thinking about why I like it. I don't care about post processing, unless it was done poorly.
---
But isn't sky replacement (without disclosure) claiming the image is something it isn't?
Jun 22, 2021 08:35:34 #
Beauty is not in the eye, but in the mind, and knowing that others can't tell if PhotoShop was used.
Jun 22, 2021 08:37:46 #
sb wrote:
But everyone KNEW that he dodged and burned, and used different papers. They would have been shocked to have learned that he cut out trees, mountains, and skies and that his photographs were actually collages of multiple photos.
OMG!
You mean some aren't real?
The blasphemy!
Jun 22, 2021 08:39:33 #
A photo is like a painting that you like it or not and it may not necessarily reflect reality. But of course, if there are inconsistencies in the image, then the image is mishandled or the author wants to create a special effect (and 99% of the time it is not the case).
Jun 22, 2021 08:42:53 #
I don't shoot what it looks like. I process it until it looks like I want.
Jun 22, 2021 08:45:17 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I don't shoot what it looks like. I process it until it looks like I want.
What a concept!
Jun 22, 2021 08:49:40 #
While dodging, burning, etc. are all recognized darkroom techniques, the film era was very much limited by the dynamic range of existing films. Now, in the digital era, dynamic ranges are far broader, and they allow the photographer to capture images in the editing process, that were unheard of in the film era.
The editing feature algorithms are far more powerful than I ever dreamed of during my film days. And as an adjunct to that, I've been able to scan negatives and transparencies, getting far more pleasing images than I could ever get when I shot film.
Just yesterday, I was editing some Kodachrome (200) transparencies which had suffered a bit of color shift since they were taken in 1992. A trip through Photoshop Elements restored the images to what I'd originally seen.
I relish the thought of smart editing, actually increasing the dynamic range by bringing up latent images at both ends.
The editing feature algorithms are far more powerful than I ever dreamed of during my film days. And as an adjunct to that, I've been able to scan negatives and transparencies, getting far more pleasing images than I could ever get when I shot film.
Just yesterday, I was editing some Kodachrome (200) transparencies which had suffered a bit of color shift since they were taken in 1992. A trip through Photoshop Elements restored the images to what I'd originally seen.
I relish the thought of smart editing, actually increasing the dynamic range by bringing up latent images at both ends.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.