Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is a Photoshop user just a chef?  (Read 14314 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2006, 01:32:00 am »

Quote
Bernard,
If what you mean by 'released to the public' is a finished print, then of course that work cannot be overwritten. In a sense, a print can be considered as either a finished stage of a work in progress, or the final stage, never to be reworked.

I don't see any finality in either my prints or unprinted (but processed) images in file format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray,

For me a web image posted on Photosig, Flickr or whatever site... is just as released as a paper print. The release process transforms a blue print into a work or art that takes some place in history, would it be only our own little history.

I use "released" in the engineerig sense of the word. A part is released when its design is finished, it is given a part number, and is then manufactured and used in a finished product somewhere.

Parts in cars are modified as well by engineers who think of new ways to improve them. Each company deals with this process differently, but generally speaking an improved part gets a new part number. It doesn't over-write the previous one.

Cheers,
Bernard

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2006, 03:52:19 am »

Quote
By the way, I don't think that Tim's substractive approach is incompatible with what we are saying. He speaks process while we speak end product. The substractive dimension of photography is definitely part of my process as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, and cropping the image to its bare essence not only is forgivable, but, to most of us at least, preferable. It maximizes the strength of the image. (thus it does affect the real self of an image).

I'm not sure though whether this is true for all re-applications of technique, technology, or skill. If it doesn't affect the real self of the image, then it defines the perfect metaphor for extraneous effort. That is not to say that one can not learn from this effort as an individual, but releasing such an additional version to the public other than for didactic purposes, would simply reduce the effectiveness of the image for the audience at large... There is no new information revealed which basically reduces the strength of the original intent.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://daystarvisions.com
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2006, 10:43:36 am »

Ray wrote:

Quote
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a lot of images that don't quite make it into the master portfolio (or even into the second tier master portfolio), but (one thinks to oneself) they might after some extensive reworking.
Now this is an entirely different aspect of the matter and one that concerns me very directly. I am constantly working with image files that are flawed, unrepeatable, yet greatly enticing. (A similar issue is the occassional image that looks great on screen but is very difficult to print.) Just last week I had not one but two image files from the same shoot that contained small areas (around 20% of the frame) that I really wanted to develop into something more than a miniature but had very few pixels to work with.

In the past I've struggled with problem images for many hours during my first pass, then made a print, then moved on. Then each time I happen to see that print I find the potential equally compelling but the flaws increasingly unacceptable. Finally, I'll pull it up again in Photoshop either because I've learned a specific new technique that might help or because I feel that over a year or two I surely must have become a better technician. The problem is that in more than half of such instances, even though I put another huge effort into a new version, I end up with something no less flawed than the first effort. Nevertheless, after some number of such marathons I have so far managed to rescue most of these dustbin delinquents.

With that as background, what I have found is there comes a point at which I do get an image into a final state - whether from the first editing session or the tenth - such that I have no quarrel whatsoever with the portfolio print. In this case I have invariably found that no future re-edit - even if I've since learned a relevant new technique - has ever resulted in an improved image. The new technique might get me to the same place much more quickly or more elegantly, but never seems to get me to a farther place. So I've learned to put these finalized portfolio images to rest and am more than happy to do so. It is rather different for a paint&pencil artist. The tendency there is, if you come across an earlier canvas or drawing and, seeing it with fresh eyes, are struck by some inadequacy (usually an embarrassing immaturity), you don't paint over the original - instead you paint a new canvas of the same scene/subject.

Quote
Now, sometimes it's better to revisit the location and take another batch of shots.
In similar vein, there are certain locations near home that I mined over the course of many visits. There comes a point at which I feel I've exhausted such a place at least until I've changed enough as a person to bring something new with me to the "old" locale.

Quote
Now, I'm not trying to say that the original shot is any great work of art
Well, I can't speak to great or not great, but I definitely like it; and if it were mine I would definitely have persisted in working it if it proved problematic.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2006, 10:44:24 am by Dale Cotton »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2006, 12:48:17 pm »

Quote
Below on the left is the original scene, dragged from my archives. It needs some work. On the right is the modern day scene, unfortunately taken with a wider lens. The original shot would have been taken with a 135mm lens, probably from a hotel balcony.

Now, I'm not trying to say that the original shot is any great work of art, but it's all I've got and it's unique and irreplaceable. I therefore feel compelled to make the most of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great example of a situation where you "can't go back" --  IMO the older image is far superior to the newer one for a number of reasons and definitely warrants the efforts of a good scan and post-processing time.  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: August 14, 2006, 12:49:02 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2006, 07:54:24 pm »

Jack and Dale,
Thank you for your kind comments. Are you two amongst the few still using Internet Explorer? I get the impression I'm largely wasting my time posting thumbnails on this site since most readers appear to be so security conscious they are using any browser except IE.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2006, 08:07:49 pm »

I use IE, but there were those few folks that got burned on this very site by clicking on an embedded thumb a while back, so maybe the masses are leery?   I don't ususally open anything unless I know the poster -- and I figure your thumbs are pretty safe
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2006, 12:57:17 pm »

Ray -
I've been out of town (nothing interesting) and coming in late to this discussion, but I wanted to tell you that I love your 40-year-old image.   To me, the content ("is the place interesting in some way?") is far more important than the technical quality.  The atmosphere of the old Pokhara, as successfully communicated in your photo, is wonderful.  I wish I'd seen it then.  That image is definitely worth the work to make it as good as possible, and, if it's not up to your modern DSLR technical standards, then so be it.  Keep it anyway!

Lisa
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 12:59:08 pm by nniko »
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Bobtrips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2006, 01:12:08 pm »

Quote
Jack and Dale,
Thank you for your kind comments. Are you two amongst the few still using Internet Explorer? I get the impression I'm largely wasting my time posting thumbnails on this site since most readers appear to be so security conscious they are using any browser except IE.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I, for one, am very disappointed in this site's non-support of Firefox.  Firefox now has about 15% of the browser market.  It's a heck of a bigger player than is Apple in the computer business.  

Those of us who would rather avoid the problems associated with IE are frozen out of images on these forums.

I can't see your Pokhara shots and would love to do so.  (I didn't visit that street until 20 years after you.)  Would you please post links?
Logged

Rokcet Scientist

  • Guest
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2006, 09:35:29 pm »

"Is a Photoshop user just a chef?"

Of course he is.
And real chefs create masterpieces.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2006, 11:27:37 pm »

Quote
I've been out of town (nothing interesting) and coming in late to this discussion, but I wanted to tell you that I love your 40-year-old image.   To me, the content ("is the place interesting in some way?") is far more important than the technical quality.  The atmosphere of the old Pokhara, as successfully communicated in your photo, is wonderful.  I wish I'd seen it then.  That image is definitely worth the work to make it as good as possible, and, if it's not up to your modern DSLR technical standards, then so be it.  Keep it anyway!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Lisa,
Thanks for your kind encouragement. Is Pokhara interesting in some way? I guess so. It's the second largest town in Nepal, nestled in a valley with views of the Annapurna range. When I was there 42 years ago there were only two methods of getting there. You either flew or you walked. I walked, from Kathmandu. It took me 2 or 3 weeks, although I can't remember the precise number of days. But I flew back   .

I was very surprised when visiting the place a few months ago to see paragliders soaring above Machupichre like birds. If I'd had my 20D with me, a 500mm lens and a couple of extenders, I might have been able to catch the expression of excitement, joy and wonderment on these guys' faces. Unfortunately, a 5D with a 24-105 zoom was the best I could manage. I was travelling light. The following image is heavily cropped.

[attachment=901:attachment]

Of course, there's a bit of optical illusion going on here. That's a 23,000 ft peak and those guy are not above it.

I'm really impressed with the longevity of my 42 year old Kodachromes. They are faded a bit for sure, but not seriously.

[attachment=902:attachment]    [attachment=903:attachment]    [attachment=904:attachment]


Apologies to those who do not use Internet Explorer. I've tried downloading images from my workspace at photo.net (which I subscribe to), but for some reason, the images appear in the post at the time of download, giving me the imression that everything has worked okay, but the nex time I visit the LL site, the images refuse to appear. What's happening here?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #30 on: August 19, 2006, 01:53:02 am »

The following shot was an enormous scanning challenge. I'd just cashed a travellers' cheque in a bank in Kathmandu (1964) and noticed some activity going on behind the building. I walked around to the rear of the building and the scene below is what I saw.

The guys in the background having a smoko were in direct sunlight (this was November). I'd adopted a policy, with my newly acquired Pentax Spotmatic, of underexposing by at least 1/2 a stop below whatever the through-the-lens exposure reading was. Someone told me this was a good thing to do with slides. With negative film, I took the opposite approach.

The Kodachrome slide shows a good exposure for the sunlit background, just below clipping of the highlights. But the foreground where all the activity occurs, was in significant shadow.

Bringing out this shadow detail satisfactorily was beyond my capabilities and apparently beyond the capabilities of all my scanners till I came across the combination of Silverfast and the KM Dimage Elite 5400 ll scanner. (Although, maybe in this scan I used Vuescan software. Geez! I'm disorganised.)

Anyway, this slide became my test slide for all scanners. The image below is the result of a lot of experimentation. Maybe I haven't got the balance right between highlights and shadows. What do you think?

[attachment=905:attachment]
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2006, 03:18:07 am »

Quote
Bringing out this shadow detail satisfactorily was beyond my capabilities and apparently beyond the capabilities of all my scanners till I came across the combination of Silverfast and the KM Dimage Elite 5400 ll scanner. (Although, maybe in this scan I used Vuescan software. Geez! I'm disorganised.)

Anyway, this slide became my test slide for all scanners. The image below is the result of a lot of experimentation. Maybe I haven't got the balance right between highlights and shadows. What do you think?

[attachment=905:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

A very nice image and a good scanning job.

I could only check the image on the screen of my non callibrated work thinkpad, so that my comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if I were to risk a comment I'd say that the image should perhaps be made a little bit darker overall?

The mid-tones of the shadows appear perhaps to be a little to bright for my taste, while the dark areas are probably OK?

Some of the sunlit parts, appear to me to be somewhat more washed out that they probably were. I am for instance thinking about the bricks in the middle part of the image? Or was the dusk plenty enough that those bricks looked like that?

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2006, 10:24:42 am »

Bernard,
Thanks for the suggestion. You've made a valid point which I could see immediately. The image is too flat or 'washed out' as you said. It lacks 'pop'. But never mind! Unlike a chef I can uncook what has already been cooked.  

I think the following is an improvement in this regard?

[attachment=906:attachment]
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2006, 12:57:20 am »

Quote
I am for instance thinking about the bricks in the middle part of the image? Or was the dusk plenty enough that those bricks looked like that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73823\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
This is a good question that needs expanding upon. Dale mentioned that a time period of a couple of years after the shot was taken, can give one a new perspective on the composition/ image/ interpretation etc.

In this instance, there's a 42 year gap between the intitial experience and the current rendition. The first scan of this slide was by Kodachrome about 12 years ago. so there was then a 30 year gap. Unfortunately, the standard Photo CD process was completely inadequate to render detail in the shadows of this slide.

As regards the emotional impact of this scene, I was fairly fresh out of an English educational system, and counting coins on the dirt floor was a very unusual and rather mind-boggling sight.

I have no recollection of the details of this scene, other than what the slide provides. But I remember the occasion.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2006, 02:00:13 pm »

Quote
I understood Jonathan's comments perfectly. But his situation is very different from mine. For example, I get the impression that Jonathan has taken more photos than the combined sum total of all the photos taken by all the photographers who have ever visited this site in the past 5 years. Perhaps a slight exaggeration   , but the consequence of such prolificacy is that one can't spend more than 5 minutes processing a single image. You have to move on, especially when you might have clients impatiently waiting for their wedding photos.

That's going a bit beyond what I said. There are some images that materially benefit from reworking, and many others that don't. All I'm suggesting is to apply one's experience and maturity to distinguish the difference between coaxing a masterpiece out of its shell and applying yet another layer of lipstick to a pig. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?) And that no matter how great the image, there comes a point where one needs to quit fiddling with it and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is a Photoshop user just a chef?
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2006, 05:44:22 pm »

Quote
And that no matter how great the image, there comes a point where one needs to quit fiddling with it and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay! Fair enough!  
« Last Edit: August 23, 2006, 05:46:17 pm by Ray »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up