julesannb wrote:
I am new to this forum and fairly new to photography, but finally have the time to learn and enjoy photography and maybe sell some prints. I always wonder and marvel at the beauty of the images on this forum, but I am curious. Why do photographers need to edit or manipulate images to look so much more colorful and sometimes almost unworldly? Well, not sure what words to use. Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say. I realize the need to crop or correct under exposure or other flaws, but should we manipulate the image to look far superior to what we actually see through the viewfinder? For instance, like most people, I love seeing stunning magazine images of the Grand Canyon, but they always look more vividly colored and have more contrasts and shadows verses what the canyon looks like to the naked eye. I’m just curious as to how other photographers feel about this. Please go easy on this newbie if this is not a proper topic for here.
I am new to this forum and fairly new to photograp... (
show quote)
Post processing on a PC is a 'new' thing in photography - you used to either send off your images to be printed, and learned that Kodak gave great colours red and yellow or Fugi gave better greens and blues...or learned how to use a dark room and could alter your images. The vast majority of people simply put their film in the post. Altering images was for the few who were 'serious' photographers.
Adobe Photoshop allowed journalists to send their scanned images to the publisher to meet deadlines - it was a very expensive program but it allowed a lot of snap happy people to get pictures of people in a 'certain' pose if they wished. It also allowed them to play with the background and 'improve' ladies looks. It opened up photography for the 'serious' photographer and the richer amateurs.
Digital gave the great unwashed the same 'ability'. The internet will show you 'how to' create an image - with or without a camera.....
And there lies the rub....Publishers and art houses had standards (as such) The images they wanted had to abide by their rules. They had to be able to by cropped around the printed article or showed a 'Political' person in a good or bad light. They followed trends such as advertising train trips to the sea-side or mountains. You trained as a photograher....and pretty much produced what you were told.
A basic digital camera far outshines the professional cameras of the past.....! at a fraction of the cost in real terms. Today newspapers and the TV publish cell phone coverage of events..much of TV documentaries are 'filmed' using a medium priced digital camera.
There are several million images posted daily......So you will now see a huge variety of photographs as well as a huge amount that you do not think are particularly well made.
People of all ages 'think' that they can interpret the post processing visually....usually to how they 'like' it. Where once you would study a certain Genre and how others did it successfully - now you just post it and see how many 'likes' you get.
It is called either progress or the destruction of 'values'.
Conversely it allows Joe Public to become more artistic....There are some incredible images out there. You can now afford to 'take' a thousand images on the off chance that ONE will come out fantastic. You can take your snap shot and recreate it in as many ways as your imagination will lead you. There is greater interest in 'taking photo's' and money to be made teaching or blogging.
Photography has moved from the rich and famous, The trained Photographer, the nerdy amateur, to the 'everyday'. Better than a diary.....we have facebook.
As a beginner - where do you want to take your camera and how do you want to view and document your world.
Have fun