Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
What is a “Photograph”?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 12 next> last>>
Jan 13, 2018 20:12:37   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
rehess wrote:
My goal is to record my world as it is today - not to "improve" anything. I was not trying to be "creative". I was not trying to make any thing "pop". I think like a journalist {or Joe Friday}


If that's your goal then I hope you're using liberal amounts of pp.

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:13:03   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Gene51 wrote:
However, given the constraints and limited creative possibilities for Kodachrome, it was not the first choice for creative expression. A Kodachrome still looked like a Kodachrome - with the exception of whatever the graphic artists were able to do with airbrush and other techniques. Frankly, I find SOOC images almost always lacking in visual interest, but by the same token almost always dead accurate. Accuracy does not make for interesting images. A photographer's creative treatment, when done skillfully and with sensitivity on the other hand does.
However, given the constraints and limited creativ... (show quote)

That is exactly what I want
* not creative
* dead accurate

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:13:42   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
rehess wrote:
In my case, it is purely automated predictable manipulation.


Predictable manipulation is still manipulation. I can predict how I'm going to manipulate each shot too.

Reply
 
 
Jan 13, 2018 20:14:07   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
TheDman wrote:
If that's your goal then I hope you're using liberal amounts of pp.

None needed - the image is what it is

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:15:36   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
TheDman wrote:
Predictable manipulation is still manipulation. I can predict how I'm going to manipulate each shot too.

I complete that before I press the button.
I adjust perspective, lighting, etc, then trip the shutter to preserve the final form.

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:18:08   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
rehess wrote:
None needed - the image is what it is


I can guarantee you it's not as close to what you saw as it could be.

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:20:21   #
Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN
 
As far looking what it looked like. Does it ever?

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - Rene Magritte

https://www.renemagritte.org/the-treachery-of-images.jsp

Reply
 
 
Jan 13, 2018 20:20:45   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
rehess wrote:
That is exactly what I want
* not creative
* dead accurate


The human eye has much greater dynamic range than any camera. If you do it right, manipulation can make the photo more "accurate" to the way the eye saw the scene.

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:22:56   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
TheDman wrote:
I can guarantee you it's not as close to what you saw as it could be.

You're entitled to your opinion. I will say nothing more, but I fail to see how I can do better when I'm no longer there than I did when I was there.

Reply
Jan 13, 2018 20:24:05   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
rehess wrote:
I complete that before I press the button.
I adjust perspective, lighting, etc, then trip the shutter to preserve the final form.


If you're shooting nothing but controlled studio lighting then that may work. If you're using daylight, that's pretty hard to control. Here's a sunrise scene that had very intense light pouring into the valley. Think either of the two initial exposures accurately represented what I saw, or does the processed version come closer?

http://www.ddphotos.com/quiraing_raws.jpg


http://www.ddphotos.com/quiraing.jpg

Reply
Jan 14, 2018 00:21:52   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Bill_de wrote:
I put up a link to the OP's Instagram snapshots. I guess he decided he didn't want anybody to see them as they are no longer public.

---

I was going to ask to see some of this perfect photographer's perfect work ... must be too good for us mere mortals?

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2018 01:48:40   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
zazendude wrote:
For me a photograph is an image that captures a moment in time. It’s that simple I go out with my Minolta SRT 201 take a perfectly exposed photo ( I only shoot B&W film) and I’m done. I don’t have to come home and waste time fabricating an image that was not there in the first place with hardware and software. If you have a digital camera you are always tweaking something in your image. I get it that you want to swap colors, change an image to sepia, soften the focus, have starry lights and all the other games you play with an image. When will a digital camera be made that we won’t ever have to do anything to the image? You expose the scene correctly take the photo and you’re done. You’ve captured the moment perfectly! (And yes I have had digital slrs and computers, software, scanners, printers etc... )
For me a photograph is an image that captures a mo... (show quote)

Digital cameras are just like film cameras, you do not have to do anything later on, only you do have the choice to do so! Just like good photographers did way back in the darkroom, some hundred years ago or so!

Reply
Jan 14, 2018 05:01:02   #
bebo98
 
It’s my hobby, it's fun, I am constantly learning and I control the results. Photography has given me joy. Like my little niece says “Don’t yuk my yum!”.

Baltimore MD
Baltimore MD...

Reply
Jan 14, 2018 05:04:10   #
bebo98
 
TheDman wrote:
If you're shooting nothing but controlled studio lighting then that may work. If you're using daylight, that's pretty hard to control. Here's a sunrise scene that had very intense light pouring into the valley. Think either of the two initial exposures accurately represented what I saw, or does the processed version come closer?

http://www.ddphotos.com/quiraing_raws.jpg


http://www.ddphotos.com/quiraing.jpg


I’ll have what you’re having, Dman. Breathtaking

Reply
Jan 14, 2018 05:41:15   #
waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li
 
zazendude wrote:
For me a photograph is an image that captures a moment in time. It’s that simple I go out with my Minolta SRT 201 take a perfectly exposed photo ( I only shoot B&W film) and I’m done. I don’t have to come home and waste time fabricating an image that was not there in the first place with hardware and software. If you have a digital camera you are always tweaking something in your image. I get it that you want to swap colors, change an image to sepia, soften the focus, have starry lights and all the other games you play with an image. When will a digital camera be made that we won’t ever have to do anything to the image? You expose the scene correctly take the photo and you’re done. You’ve captured the moment perfectly! (And yes I have had digital slrs and computers, software, scanners, printers etc... )
For me a photograph is an image that captures a mo... (show quote)

Hmmmm when I shoot film I begin tweaking it in my mind before I even load it. I'm deciding if it is fast or slow or high or low contrast and what developer I'm going to use at what temperatures and how long for both film and paper. And quite often I apply just about every tweak you mentioned. On the other hand, I shot a whole church outing some weeks ago with my digital and uploaded them for the group and didn't "tweak" a single one. Yup I deleted some bad ones but the stuff that got posted locally went straight out of camera. Just saying.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 12 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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.