Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: the very old debate...  (Read 17359 times)

sgwrx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
the very old debate...
« on: June 30, 2015, 11:02:02 pm »

with reference to the article on website about manipulation.  i struggled for a few years as a casual newcomer to photography wondering why i had little rainbows around objects in my images and why i couldn't seem to get photographs "like i see on the net".

my eyes were opened in one of michael's videos when i caught a glimpse of a photo that was un-touched and later saw that same photo retouched on the website.

another video i happened to watch from another photographer happened to say 'buy the best equipment you can afford'.

in my case: better lenses got rid of the rainbows (CA) and not being afraid to manipulate the "you-know-what-out" of a raw photo has made this go'round a much more exciting, liberating and hopeful that i can start moving towards photos that satisfy me and my creativity. creativity that will grow and morph over time.

perhaps manipulation has been barely spoken of, or perhaps it's been blatantly spoken of (i see more talk about it this time around than last time) and it's not registered in my brain until seeing before/after photos (extremely rare).

if someone were to ask me for advice on photography i'd say those two thing: 1. get the best equipment you can (presuming things like CA bug you enough) and 2. manipulate the heck out of the images until it satisfies you and your vision.
Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2015, 11:35:05 pm »

Most cams produce decent work nowadays.

Yes, PP can make or  break a pix

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sunlit-slipper-silver-print-vs-inkjet-print-copyright-2013-daniel-d-teoli-jr.jpg?w=1070&h=624

But sometimes too much PP can mess it up. It all boils down to personal taste. Just please yourself.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 11:38:30 pm by Iluvmycam »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2015, 06:49:22 am »

if someone were to ask me for advice on photography i'd say those two thing: 1. get the best equipment you can (presuming things like CA bug you enough) and 2. manipulate the heck out of the images until it satisfies you and your vision.

Hi,

No. 1. won't make you a better photographer, but it may benefit the further processing of the image.
Some equipment is also an enabler, without which the shot could not even be taken.

No. 2. Requires a vision first. Processing is then there to get the final result closer to the vision. Manipulation for the sake of it, rarely makes a better image, different yes, but not necessarily better...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

sgwrx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2015, 10:41:39 pm »

it's just surprising how little talk there is of vision and using tools to get there.  i mean, i've seen it here and there, but never realized it was as dramatic as the samples shown in this article or, in the video i mentioned. and, in that video it was literally like a 1/10th of a second flash on the screen of the original captured image. 

i even had a professional review of my images and though it was said my black and white was good, i only walked away with "my color needs work".  nothing like the color examples in this article, or for example in the phase one news letters.

i realize this is an advanced forum so it's probably not discussed a lot.  but at least it's worth having a thread so that some day a beginner might stumble upon this and realize it's all about "cranking" on a photo until you get what you like, what you want to bring out and highlight.  how you want to convey what you saw - which really may not be at all like the image the camera captured.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2015, 10:49:02 pm »

I have written a whole mini introduction to photography course based on developing and executing a vision.

It is... well, it's not setting the world alight.
Logged

sgwrx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2015, 12:16:09 am »

browsed some of your blog. very interesting stuff.  i'm still in thinking mode, so i don't want to disrupt that with too much external input and look forward to reading it more thoroughly later.  but for now, i just had a new thought as i was looking at some photos i took recently at the race track.  that is, there's really two photos: the one that looks like it looked and the one that looks like it felt. 

the photo that sparked this idea felt like hovering above the track. it is a part of the track that heretofore has never been open to the public as there was no trail through the thick wooded steep hillside. so it felt like a secret photo. it also felt old because it's an historic track. but make no mistake these were modern cars going very fast and on the fastest part of the track.

some time ago, i was quite pleased with a photo of an old abandoned gas station in small-town rural america.  i tried do a standard color treatment, crank it up a bit. then i cranked it down a bit. then a bit more and finally quite a bit. not black & white, not almost black & white, but definitely less color. all i could think of was that the photo became like a color newspaper print and that led me to think it was 'photo-journalistic'. i realize now, that's how it felt. old. abandoned. faded. yet still there clearly.

so i think i'll amend what i said above on advice. 1. get the best quality you can afford (assuming things like CA, noise/grain, sharpness bother you) 2. make one copy of how it looked and one copy of how it felt - which may require manipulating the heck out of it; color, exposure, sharpness or blurriness etc... free to do whatever you want.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2015, 05:45:44 am »


if someone were to ask me for advice on photography i'd say those two thing: 1. get the best equipment you can (presuming things like CA bug you enough) and 2. manipulate the heck out of the images until it satisfies you and your vision.

My advise would be completely different: read a lot of anything.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2015, 12:51:12 pm »

how you want to convey what you saw - which really may not be at all like the image the camera captured.

The camera raw won't be like "what you saw", and the way you look at a photograph will be different than the way you look at the scene.


a beginner might stumble upon this

If you're fortunate enough to have a local library, there's probably shelf-loads of appropriate books -- like, Digital Photography Handbook and Digital Photography Masterclass.

I've listed others.
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2798
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2015, 10:12:12 am »

some time ago, i was quite pleased with a photo of an old abandoned gas station in small-town rural america.  i tried do a standard color treatment, crank it up a bit. then i cranked it down a bit. then a bit more and finally quite a bit. not black & white, not almost black & white, but definitely less color. all i could think of was that the photo became like a color newspaper print and that led me to think it was 'photo-journalistic'. i realize now, that's how it felt. old. abandoned. faded. yet still there clearly.

What "pleased" you about it?
Why did you stop to make the photograph in the first place? What is it that caught your eye?
What's our vision for this scene? How will it look in the final photograph hanging on the wall?

Answer these questions first (in fact, they should be answered before you even trip the shutter). Don't do anything to the resulting photo until you have thought back to your original answers.

If you do things correctly in the field (correctly = composition and tech to match the vision you have of the photograph), then that's what drives your post-processing.

BTW - Art directors and movie directors have used this "forever". Ansel Adams is credited with bringing it photographic education in his 1980 book The Camera – he called "visualizing the photograph". (Watch this and this - scrub in to 1:00.) Since then, just about everyone has written about it. Some find it essential to producing consistently great photographs, others find it a burden to their free-thinking.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2015, 05:51:24 pm »

"You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter" is a line I heard from a make-up artist once.
Though it was originally about photographing subject that weren't quite supermodels, it also fits well with modern digital photography.  ;)

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2015, 12:52:27 am »

Quote
if someone were to ask me for advice on photography i'd say those two thing: 1. get the best equipment you can (presuming things like CA bug you enough) and 2. manipulate the heck out of the images until it satisfies you and your vision.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2015, 06:46:23 am »

Garbage in, garbage out.

Not necessarily, Alan. This is a general platitude that applies mainly to the automated processes of computer programs which are not under the control of the operator.

There are many processes in human affairs which turn garbage into useful and even wonderful products. One can burn the garbage and produce electricity. One can recycle many waste products to produce completely new products. Food waste from the kitchen can be turned into fertile compost.

In the case of image processing, programs like Photoshop offer an enormous degree of operator control, therefore the 'garbage in, garbage out' platitude doesn't necessarily apply, although it might still apply in relation to another person's subjective opinion of what constitutes garbage. It seems reasonable to deduce that anyone who spends time manipulating an image, does so with the purpose of improving it, in some way and to some degree, according to his own opinion.
Logged

sgwrx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2015, 07:17:50 pm »

thanks everyone for the input, hopefully there will be some more, although i've found some other threads with many thoughts too.

some good points and yes, i can't forget to look at what it is i want to photograph and ask questions.  also look at composition, focus, and i think i'll try to imagine what it is about the scene that i might want to modify in post - a better way to say that would be imagine the end result and then make i capture it all properly to help get there.

it now seems that a lot of photos i've browsed recently, immediately look like they have been "very" manipulated.  some, look like it could be strait out of the camera or slightly manipulated.  what's interesting here is, i think i'm beginning to understand and therefor see differently - more critically? and i'm not saying this in a negative way.

i think i'm better understanding the references in this thread and others.  and as far as the idea of not limiting yourself based on rigid rules and guides, well i like that idea best.  don't pollute your own original ideas of creativity with those of others - don't try to be someone you are not!

speaking of that, it's hard to not immediately use a new technique because lightroom has a new feature and suddenly everyone is making similar looking photos.  but i guess in the end we can't avoid the pollution and ultimately add our own to the mess :)  but i think i cover that in #2 as long as we adhere to what "we" or "you" like about a scene. add your own creativity and if someone else doesn't like it that's their right!
Logged

CASpyr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
    • Online portfolio
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2015, 08:11:02 am »


and as far as the idea of not limiting yourself based on rigid rules and guides, well i like that idea best.  don't pollute your own original ideas of creativity with those of others - don't try to be someone you are not!


I would subscribe to this only in reference to not imposing rigid rules of style and vision on oneself. With regards to 'polluting' ones own creativity with ideas of others, I'd argue the other way around - that one can (temporarily) get caught in the boundaries of one's own creativity and that seeking inspiration from the work of others can be liberating and lead to new creative heights - without losing your own creativity or vision. I've had periods (especially in the beginning) in which I felt that 'something' was missing in my pictures, which could feel like trying to utter a sentence but not finding the necessary words. Seeing concepts, approaches or even specific post-production techniques of other photographers have helped me more than once in overcoming such dry spells and have made me a better photographer. Progress could be achieved in total creative isolation but would take immensely longer - at least that is my personal experience.
In this context, I'd replace 'wariness of pollution' with 'openness for pollination'!
Logged
Christian Spyr - cspyr.zenfolio.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2015, 11:07:03 am »

Ecclesiastes 1.9:
All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2015, 11:38:39 am »

...and why i couldn't seem to get photographs "like i see on the net".

And in the days of film I used to wonder why why i couldn't seem to get photographs "like i see in magazines"


http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/
Logged

sgwrx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
Re: the very old debate...
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2015, 08:31:21 pm »

CASpyr - that's something i overlooked!  it's sometimes common knowledge that to get out of a rut you have to look for inspiration, sometimes we (meaning, i) forget that! also, i did use the word pollute on purpose, but not as a judgement more a sterile reality.  in the end, everything is polluted and then from that we seem to get something new.  apropos  - alan's post :)  it's really quite a depressing cycle isn't it.

spidermike,  ;D
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up