Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Landscape Showcase => Topic started by: rgs on January 15, 2021, 04:10:41 pm
-
Since it's now become so easy to do, I hope to get some thoughts about changing a sky. Here is a Red-tailed Hawk running away from my car as I pulled up. The one with the bare blue sky is the original. I added the clouded blue sky just to balance the bird and make a better shot. The sunset sky adds a bit of drama but is not so true to the original. I'd like thoughts on the specific images as well as general comments about changing a sky.
-
Good job on the sky replacement. I have no reason to oppose such digital interventions. I did my first one many years ago.
My vote is for the middle one. The third one incorporates a distracting element with the sunset. The hawk is the subject, not the sky.
-
At first your question made me a bit uncomfortable. A whole-sky replacement seems a bit extreme. But then I realized that I almost never leave an image unchanged, but my usual changes are smaller and thus probably sneakier.
Now, looking at your three images, I feel the original is indeed a great catch, but the plain blue sky is rather boring. So I would pick the second image, and for the same reason as Peter. The sky livens it up without being distracting in any way, while the colors in the third sky are definitely distracting.
Good work! I'm impressed.
-
The only thing that strikes me is colour of the light on the feathers doesn't seem to match up to the light in the sky, particularly in the last frame.
-
Since we are not doing scientific research here but "art", IMHO almost anything goes as long as the final picture is good. I use Content Aware or the Clone Stamp Tool every time something unwanted stays in the way without any scruples. Others use photographic tricks to make silky waters where there was none to see in the real world. Etc etc...
This said, I like the second picture most
-
If it is OK to change out the sky, then surely it must also be OK to change out the foreground, or even the mid-ground, or perhaps the foreground, mid-ground and even the main subject itself? In fact, why don't we just download other peoples images from the internet and call them our own?
I know, I came in with all guns blazing there didn't I? But seriously folks, where do we draw the line with this kind of thing? And if it becomes acceptable to swap bits and pieces around from various other different images that we have either taken previously, or bought as part of a package from the internet and that someone else took, then where is that line? In fact is there even a line at all anymore?
Here is a good video by Nick Carver that discusses this topic and well worth a watch - Is it OK to Manipulate your photos? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJCGu3EVEE)
I wrote the above with a wry smile on my face and that I am not upset or anything and as there isn't a wry smile emoticon on Lula, I will try to indicate this by using the wink emoticon instead ;) ;) so do not flame me please, as I am only trying to put the opposite side of this argument for the sake of the debate...
Dave
-
I like nr3 best; since it is already on the edge of fake+cliché - too good to be true- nr 3 fits best with the warm colour.
-
The original: the best.
The rest: 🤢
Sky changing: 🤮
-
I know, I came in with all guns blazing there didn't I? But seriously folks, where do we draw the line with this kind of thing? And if it becomes acceptable to swap bits and pieces around from various other different images that we have either taken previously, or bought as part of a package from the internet and that someone else took, then where is that line? In fact is there even a line at all anymore?
Dave
Hi Dave. Why should it there be a line? Looks like putting limits to creativity to me.
Anyway, why care how others are making their images?
From this forum I usually like most of the pictures. But on my walls I hang only MY fotos.
From other people I learn technicalities, take cues, probably modify inconsciously my way of seeing.
But what I care for is MY photography, even if I like other people's work a lot.
Maybe it is different if one is thinking in terms of competition and/or being judged by others. Then probably there are rules.
In this forum (and maybe others) or at exhibitions I just show my work. When others like it, I'm happy. If not, then they like something different. That's all.
Nota bene: Personally I try to interpret nature as I saw and felt it when I was there. I don't change skies nor do I use ND filters to make silky waters. But if the effect is good, I enjoy them (from others) too.
-
There is the “purist” viewpoint of “it is there I show it”. There is the “art” viewpoint of anything goes to express their vision. I would like to put forward a slightly different take on this. This is a good image of a hawk shot against a plain blue sky but why do I prefer the 2nd one with the clouds. I have seen that the more successful nature images have a diffuse background and I know that many experienced bird photographers believe that the difference between a so-so image and a good one is the quality of the background as well the type of “stick” that the bird is perched on. I can see that a very busy background can drag the eye away from the main subject but I do not know why I prefer the clouds which must distract, even if only a little, to the plain sky. Is this “learned behaviour” having been told many times that a diffuse background is best? Could the plain sky in a nature shot be a hangover from the landscape photography world where plain blue skies are frowned upon? The harsh, cold light on a blue sky day may explain why landscapes with plain blue skies don’t do well. As an experiment I could always clone in blue skies onto images with beautiful cloudy skies and see the reaction. Ken
-
The manipulation begins when the photographer first brings viewfinder to eye.
-
The line is between photography & digital compositions. I'm a photographer. YMMV
-
If painters were as puritanically "purist" as some photographers here, they would have to exhibit nothing but blank canvases. After all, each brush stroke is a distortion/corruption of that pure, blank canvas.
Here is a photo I posted in another thread recently. It is, of course, Absolutely Pure, in that I did NOT replace the original sky!
And, since the car had been abandoned many years ago, I was unable to get the owner's permission to photograph it.
-
The original: the best.
The rest: 🤢
Sky changing: 🤮
I can recommend- Bird-changing and Tree-changing software ;)
But i think the photographer/ image-maker just should do what he/she wants. That is their freedom and they should use it.
-
So as I asked before and which no one has been willing to answer yet - if you are someone who thinks it is quite acceptable to change out the sky, then do you think it is also acceptable to change out the foreground or the mid-ground etc?
And if not, why not?
Dave
-
Dave, it seems to me that we’re free to do whatever we like with our images.
Assuming, that is, that we’re not forensic photographers.
-
So as I asked before and which no one has been willing to answer yet - if you are someone who thinks it is quite acceptable to change out the sky, then do you think it is also acceptable to change out the foreground or the mid-ground etc?
And if not, why not?
Dave
I don't understand what do you mean exactly with "acceptable" (satisfactory and able to be agreed to or approved of)
Say acceptable to whom? Photographers, artists, general public, press photographers, luminouslandscapers...
A difficult question, at least for me
-
ok Dave I will try and answer but only from my standpoint. In the past I have replaced whole skies, so I must think that is ok although I haven't done it for quite a long time although I sometimes clone in a tiny piece of sky over a blown part, covering up my poor metering. Foregrounds I have removed distracting elements and sometimes nudged a few element around. Replacing the object of the image seems like a total waste. I came here to photograph this tree but decided that this other tree looks better is definitely a step too far. If I can go back and take the image again from a sightly different position that means that I don't have to clone or move distracting elements then I will. My main problem occurs when I capture an image that has a stunning part but is spoiled by something that I didn't notice at the time, do I delete the image or remove the offending elements? Up till now I have removed them but as I improve as a photographer I hope that I will not have to. Ken
-
I think it boils down to your intent when taking the original photograph. Did you come out here to photograph this particular tree the best way you could? Or did you come out here with some other idea in mind, and you saw that this tree might fit your idea, but it would require significant tweaks to do so?
Do any of you want to guess why I "produced" the image I posted a few steps back?
Serious "historic" photo? Or just being silly?
Do you find it deeply profound, or terribly evil?
-
The difference is simple:
Being a Time Magazine Person of the Year or compositing yourself into the Time Magazine Person of the Year template.
-
The difference is simple:
Being a Time Magazine Person of the Year or compositing yourself into the Time Magazine Person of the Year template.
Disagree.
Is more like being the girl next door whith her cell phone and some photo apps or being Goya
The result is what counts
-
The difference is simple:
Being a Time Magazine Person of the Year or compositing yourself into the Time Magazine Person of the Year template.
Very clear analogy, Slobodan. Thank you. In this case, I had modifying the sky in mind when I made the photograph because I could only get the bird positioned where I wanted in the frame by leaving that large, blank sky to the right - and Red-tailed Hawks are notorious for not sticking around long so you have to move quickly. Adding a sky was part of the original plan - maybe a bit like planning to reduce or extend development in the zone system.
-
In my architecture work sometimes i was asked to make the photographs not too perfect looking.
The reason was that it would look more real and stand out from the all too perfect rendering they made beforehand.
-
... The result is what counts.
If so, a real Goya would be worth exactly as much as any forgery of it.
-
... I had modifying the sky in mind when I made the photograph...
So you are saying that, when taking a selfie, you already had in mind to composite it into the Time Magazine Person of the Year?
;)
-
I particularly enjoyed listening to Nick in this video link, as he discusses image manipulation and especially at 15:30 minutes in, Is it OK to Manipulate your photos? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJCGu3EVEE) where Nick begins to discuss the veracity of the work by Peter Lik and one of his images as attached to this post below via a screen grab.
So what do you think of this image of Peter Lik's? I mean if changing the sky is acceptable to you, then surely this image should also be acceptable to you as well shouldn't it?
And if it is, then are you also OK with the fact that this image is showing clouds that go around the back of the moon ::) ::) ::) ::)
I don't understand what do you mean exactly with "acceptable" (satisfactory and able to be agreed to or approved of)
Say acceptable to whom? Photographers, artists, general public, press photographers, luminouslandscapers...
A difficult question, at least for me
Hi Rabanito - I am not saying we as a group should arrive at an agreement as to what is and what is not acceptable, I am simply posing the question to you and to each one of us individually - so would you (and by this I mean all of us individually) find it acceptable to change out the foreground if you already find it is acceptable to change out the sky and if not why not???
I also have to agree with Slobodan, who always seems able to wrap up the answer to a complex argument in a simple sentence.
Dave
-
The answer to the "should you do it" depends on what you're trying to do. If you're doing photojournalism or street photography, modifying the result is a very strict "no no." But if you're doing landscape or something similar you can try to be Albert Bierstadt, and paint with Photoshop. You probably won't come even close to Bierstadt's results, but you can play with it.
-
Why waste your time with the sky? If you're going to clone things, insert a squirrel in its talons. Now that would make it dramatic. Of course, a lot of people would object, that your shots aren't "honest". So there's that.
Personally, I'm against that sort of thing all though I have cloned out debris and stuff.
-
If painters were as puritanically "purist" as some photographers here, they would have to exhibit nothing but blank canvases. After all, each brush stroke is a distortion/corruption of that pure, blank canvas.
Here is a photo I posted in another thread recently. It is, of course, Absolutely Pure, in that I did NOT replace the original sky!
And, since the car had been abandoned many years ago, I was unable to get the owner's permission to photograph it.
But everyone understands the artist is painting from his head. It's not a snapshot of a moment in time in God's universe. It's a composite of the artist's mind and vision. Most people believe or use too, that a picture was the former, a fraction of a second in time never to happen again.
I guess the way to handle it is as follows. If the viewer looks at you strangely and asks, "Did you Photoshop it?" and you feel queasy by his question, then you've gone too far.
-
Personally, I'm against that sort of thing all though I have cloned out debris and stuff.
If that's regarded as OK (and it certainly is, in my book), then all we're talking about is the practice, not the principle. It reminds me of the story of George Bernard Shaw and an actress:
Shaw: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Actress: My goodness. Well, I'd certainly think about it.
Shaw: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
Shaw: Oh, we've already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.
Jeremy
-
Which reminds me of the joke about the guy who went to a party. So he sees this pretty girl and wanders over to her to strike up a conversation.
She yells out in a voice to be heard by everyone in the room, "No. I won't go to bed with you. What kind of girl do you take me for?"
Embarrassed, the poor lad retreats to the other side of the room. About ten minutes later, the same girl meanders over to him and with a sheepish grin apologizes, " I didn't mean to embarrass you. This party is so dull. I was trying to liven it up a bit."
Whereupon the lad responded in a voice to be heard by everyone in the room, "$100. No. I won't pay you $100."
-
So you are saying that, when taking a selfie, you already had in mind to composite it into the Time Magazine Person of the Year?
;)
:) Well, when you say it like that...
-
This is turning into a very interesting discussion. Thank you all.
-
If so, a real Goya would be worth exactly as much as any forgery of it.
Depending on what you mean by "worth".
I'm told there are lots of forgeries around and not even the experts and critics notice, like the head of Modigliani * :-)
Even in museums
On the other hand there is a selfie by one "Andy Warhol" sold at Sotheby's once for 7.7 mio $ (!!!) Is that what it's "worth"?
One can be sceptical of the "art community with good reason :-)
*
Livorno in the summer of 1984: In the hometown of the artist Amedeo Modigliani, which is known for the biting humor of its residents, the joke of three students causes great excitement and unfolds unexpected effects. In a single night, the occasional artist had chiseled a head "à la Modi" with the help of a drill.
When the work was discovered the next day, critics and art historians were delighted with the extraordinary sculpture find. They believed they had discovered a real work by the master Modigliani. The news spread rapidly and drew masses of tourists and media representatives from all over the world to Livorno...
From ARD.de 28.8.2011
-
Hi Rabanito - I am not saying we as a group should arrive at an agreement as to what is and what is not acceptable, I am simply posing the question to you and to each one of us individually - so would you (and by this I mean all of us individually) find it acceptable to change out the foreground if you already find it is acceptable to change out the sky and if not why not???
Dave
Hi Dave
Again, I think I understand what you mean but to me the word "acceptable" has no meaning in this context.
What is acceptable to me might not be acceptable to others. The word per se is ambiguous IMHO
Why could it be unacceptable? Or the other way around?
I personally care for the image, be it done with only the camera, with some photoshop, with lots of photoshop, with some oil or tempera painting added or else.
This of course if you are making "art" ;) , not documentation, investigation, illustrations, journalism etc.
-
The difference is simple:
Being a Time Magazine Person of the Year or compositing yourself into the Time Magazine Person of the Year template.
Bravo.
Hmmm. I've got to try that. I bet nobody ever did it before... :D
-
Are we trying to produce an image that is pleasing to our eyes, in some cases will sell well, or are we trying to faithfully reproduce what nature puts in front of us?
-
Both objectives are legitimate, Ken, but not both at the same time.
-
Both objectives are legitimate, Ken, but not both at the same time.
+1.
-
I have to get into this conversation, though I know I should just read along and chuckle on occasion.
If you shoot an image and do anything to any slider in either your RAW editor or Photoshop/LR you are manipulating the image. Everybody does some work in PP. by the very nature of the 1's and 0's of digital imagery some manipulation is necessary. I rarely will do a whole sky changeout because it is so hard to recreate the lighting precisely and I am a stickler for that. The image I recently posted, The Fog Just Rolled On In, was manipulated in so much as to get better detail in the shadows of the land mass and to give a better emphasis to the foreground fog mass - and a bit of a blue channel bump.
So, did I change the original image...yes but only because the contrasts my eye could easily discern could not be properly exposed for given the time frame I was working in as the whole sequence from onset to burn off was less than fifteen minutes. So I exposed for the highlights and PP'ed for the shadows. I don't advocate manipulating to the extent that we fake everything in a shot unless it is clearly stated as such but not adverse to some cloning, healing or other tools to present the best image.
-
Exactly, Chris. We work with an image. It's an image, not the thing itself. The camera never will capture the image exactly as you saw the thing itself, so you always need post-processing. I suspect that if you line up three people and have all three shoot an identical picture, what you'll see after the three post-process the results is three slightly different images. There's a heavy load of subjectivity in how we see things. So in the end, an image always is an interpretation of the thing itself. But if your objective is reportage you don't get to make interpretive changes in things like the sky.
-
Agreed. I've changed one sky in 22 years of shooting digital. It was okay and really did enhance the image but as you state, it's cheating to the worst degree.
-
Authenticity is an important criterion for many. In this day when more and more people are skeptical about the truth of what they hear and see, PS just adds to that distrust. I don't think that's a good thing. It's also disheartening when someone looks at your photo, and asks suspiciously, "Oh, did you Photoshop it?" They're not ready to give credit to your work.
-
I'll say it again: There are two kinds of photography, reportage and what I'll have to call "art." If you're recording events or doing street photography you need to make sure your stuff is believable and unedited. "unedited" doesn't mean you can't do normal post-processing in something like Camera Raw to make sure colors and contrast are correct, but it does mean you can't change the meaning of the picture. With art, you're doing the same kind of thing a painter does. You're trying to produce something esthetically pleasing, not something historically accurate. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't try to pretend the second kind of photography is the first kind.
-
I'll say it again: There are two kinds of photography, reportage and what I'll have to call "art." If you're recording events or doing street photography you need to make sure your stuff is believable and unedited. "unedited" doesn't mean you can't do normal post-processing in something like Camera Raw to make sure colors and contrast are correct, but it does mean you can't change the meaning of the picture. With art, you're doing the same kind of thing a painter does. You're trying to produce something esthetically pleasing, not something historically accurate. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't try to pretend the second kind of photography is the first kind.
Those are fine points our photographic community might or might not agree with. But for the average guy looking at a photograph, PS has undermined the credibility of our work. Average people don't think they're real anymore. And it's getting worse with programs like AI. That they're just some creation done by an app in Photoshop. As far as they know, we just sit by our computers turning out images, which is true to a small or large degree. The fact is their cellphone shots may not be as pretty as ours. But they're more authentic.
-
Real photographers are fighting a losing battle against armchair "artists."
-
Real photographers are fighting a losing battle against armchair "artists."
If armchair artists produce better images than "real photographers", so be it :-)
-
I'll say it again: There are two kinds of photography, reportage and what I'll have to call "art." If you're recording events or doing street photography you need to make sure your stuff is believable and unedited. "unedited" doesn't mean you can't do normal post-processing in something like Camera Raw to make sure colors and contrast are correct, but it does mean you can't change the meaning of the picture. With art, you're doing the same kind of thing a painter does. You're trying to produce something esthetically pleasing, not something historically accurate. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't try to pretend the second kind of photography is the first kind.
I agree with this.
However, Eisenstaedts's "Kiss" is a fake but a great image IMHO
-
Thanks, again, for such an interesting discussion. I wanted to see various viewpoints and you have not disappointed. In real estate photography, I am commonly expected to change a sky. I also put fire in fireplaces and photographs on TV screens. The photographs are for advertising purposes and meant to make the place look its best. I DO NOT patch damaged walls, remove power lines, or anything else that will misrepresent the property. That is unethical and can even cause trouble for the agents. Recently I photographed a house that had damaged walls in the master bath - the damage was even marked with blue tape. A couple of weeks afterward, I got a call from the agent asking me to go re-photograph the bathroom. I asked if it had been repaired and he assured me it had, so I told him it was not necessary to return and fixed it in Photoshop - after I knew the repairs had been made at the property.
With regard to the hawk, it seems to me that the third shot with the sunset colors in the sky changes the photograph to the point of altering the subject while the second one is more neutral because it just fills the dead sky in a very normal way. It seems to me that, as a general rule, alterations that could have been done in a darkroom or help re-create what the photographer actually saw are OK (unless you are Jerry Uelsmann). Other changes are a bit more problematic and may well depend on the purpose of the photograph. I think that if I am asked if I changed the sky, I probably crossed the line.
Thanks, again, for the great discussion.
-
I agree with this.
However, Eisenstaedts's "Kiss" is a fake but a great image IMHO
Anyone who has photographed a wedding knows about setting up / re-creating a photograph.
-
If armchair artists produce better images than "real photographers", so be it :-)
It will kill photography shot with a camera. Why bother going out on an icy morning to capture a sunrise photo when you can do all the hard work sitting in your pajamas at a computer desk sipping your hot coffee?
-
It's also disheartening when someone looks at your photo, and asks suspiciously, "Oh, did you Photoshop it?" They're not ready to give credit to your work.
I don't understand this. Why care? It's your picture.
I remember many years ago while I was having some coffee with the person in charge of one famous gallery a couple came to us and asked the price of one Jean-Loup Sieff print being exhibited.
The answer was
"xy $" (well it was a different currency)
"Ah good!" said the man. "And limited to how many copies ?"
"Unlimited"
"Ah, no! In that case it's too expensive!"
OMG ::)
-
I don't understand this. Why care? It's your picture.
I remember many years ago while I was having some coffee with the person in charge of one famous gallery a couple came to us and asked the price of one Jean-Loup Sieff print being exhibited.
The answer was
"xy $" (well it was a different currency)
"Ah good!" said the man. "And limited to how many copies ?"
"Unlimited"
"Ah, no! In that case it's too expensive!"
OMG ::)
Then why are you showing it to someone else? Obviously, you're looking for "attaboys". The moment you show your picture to someone else or try to sell it to them, they want to know about its authenticity. A photo means you've taken it with a camera. Other than some minor exposure adjustments, they assume the view they're looking at bears some resemblance to what you shot at the time. If they want to buy some artwork from a computer, they should be told that.
-
What about photos for dating sites? 8)
-
It will kill photography shot with a camera. Why bother going out on an icy morning to capture a sunrise photo when you can do all the hard work sitting in your pajamas at a computer desk sipping your hot coffee?
Not what I mean.
I do photography MY way.
I like to go out freezing and capturing something I saw and interpreting it (or trying to) as I felt it at the moment.
I take this discussion in a more general way. I personally don't change skies, I don't use very slow speeds while photographing running water for an effect I didn't "see" in nature and so on.
For some people it's a point d'honneur to use 2x3 aspect, others may be proud for taking landscapes handheld instead of using a tripod etc. But if those others do this or that and the image is great, I enjoy it. Period.
-
Then why are you showing it to someone else? Obviously, you're looking for "attaboys".
Well no.
If I let you listen to some music I like, I'm not looking for attaboys.
If I call you to see some passing beauty you didn't see or to look at shooting stars you weren't aware of or bring you to a restaurant I enjoy eating in I am not looking for "attaboys". I'm sharing with you something I appreciate.
It's, say, kind of "friendship".
If you liked the girl, you were in awe of the stars or enjoyed the meal, I'll be happy, we have something in common.
And that's good.
If you don't, then we see things differently. Nothing wrong with that.
-
... I remember many years ago while I was having some coffee with the person in charge of one famous gallery a couple came to us and asked the price of one Jean-Loup Sieff print being exhibited.
The answer was
"xy $" (well it was a different currency)
"Ah good!" said the man. "And limited to how many copies ?"
"Unlimited"
"Ah, no! In that case it's too expensive!"
OMG ::)
What's the OMG for?
That was a perfectly legitimate reaction of the potential buyers.
-
Real photographers are fighting a losing battle against armchair "artists."
To qualify that Photoshop ad for the new feature (sky replacement): only less than 16% of Photoshop users are photographers. The vast majority are all kind of illustrators and graphic designers. So, if you are a real photographer, that feature is not really meant for you.
P.S. As Roger explained, for real estate photographers, it is a different thing.
-
Not what I mean.
I do photography MY way.
I like to go out freezing and capturing something I saw and interpreting it (or trying to) as I felt it at the moment.
I take this discussion in a more general way. I personally don't change skies, I don't use very slow speeds while photographing running water for an effect I didn't "see" in nature and so on.
For some people it's a point d'honneur to use 2x3 aspect, others may be proud for taking landscapes handheld instead of using a tripod etc. But if those others do this or that and the image is great, I enjoy it. Period.
Why don't you post your photos so we can see them. I bet they're great. I post mine. Especially the ones I've edited. ;)
-
To qualify that Photoshop ad for the new feature (sky replacement): only less than 16% of Photoshop users are photographers. The vast majority are all kind of illustrators and graphic designers. So, if you are a real photographer, that feature is not really meant for you.
P.S. As Roger explained, for real estate photographers, it is a different thing.
I've noticed that McDonald's Big Mac hamburgers I buy never look as good as they do on TV. The ones on TV probably taste better too. :)
-
What's the OMG for?
That was a perfectly legitimate reaction of the potential buyers.
Only if you approve of the validity of artificial scarcity.
-
If armchair artists produce better images than "real photographers", so be it :-)
same with wheelchair artists...
-
In my architecture photography i never changed skies, but always have to do some or more cleanup.
So i look at it and decide what is quicker?; a real cleanup or a photoshop cleanup.
On one occasion i ended up cleaning the floor of a theatre...
in an other occasion an earial view of a square was very nice, but there were many stains because of a weekly market... took hours...
and then we have the windows...
and often the building is not ready yet, so i have to make it ready... or the photo is useless.
-
Why don't you post your photos so we can see them. I bet they're great. I post mine. Especially the ones I've edited. ;)
Well Alan, actually I've posted some photos in this forum.
I don't think they are "great" but this is what I do and am satisfied.
Perhaps you missed them because you were mired in the "Bear Pit" wasting the time that was given to you? :(
Just a little joke... ;)
-
What's the OMG for?
That was a perfectly legitimate reaction of the potential buyers.
Speaks of the buyers and not of the photographs displayed.
I reccomend the lecture of authors like Susan Sontag or the essays by Robert Adams.
You may not agree with anything but it is food for thought
-
Is anyone willing to help me out by posting the things that a "real photographer" does and doesn't do? I have never come across the phrase, probably spending too much time cloning in skies ;). Ken
-
Is anyone willing to help me out by posting the things that a "real photographer" does and doesn't do?...
If you need to ask, you don't need to know ;)
-
Is anyone willing to help me out by posting the things that a "real photographer" does and doesn't do? I have never come across the phrase, probably spending too much time cloning in skies ;). Ken
"Real Photographers" don't eat quiche. That would be a beginning
-
Well Alan, actually I've posted some photos in this forum.
I don't think they are "great" but this is what I do and am satisfied.
Perhaps you missed them because you were mired in the "Bear Pit" wasting the time that was given to you? :(
Just a little joke... ;)
I waste my time in other sections too. ;)