Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Bro.Luke on April 21, 2007, 04:12:29 pm
-
Hi,
I was admiring the cover of National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography by Tim Fitzharris. You can do a search for it elsewhere, it's a great photo on the cover but my point is:
Is it TOO good? Is it TOO perfect?
I want to preface this with giving Mr. Fitzharris all the benefit of the doubt. I make no claims to this particular image other than to state it is FANTASIC! I'm sure he used the best of his skills to capture it. Right place, right time, right gear, right approach etc... Results speak for them selves. I have absolutly no suspicisions it's its altered in anyway and just use it as an example of a perfect image captured with skill.
But Are we now at a place where TOO good could be a hindrance to our craft? Was the cloud perhaps "moved" more to center to enhance the compisition? I'm not saying it was but I'm sure this is done.
How soon before stunning images like this are doubted on merit as PS pros are creating simlar images with libraries of sunset files? I guess for me it's right now!
Sure we all enhance the lighting, spot out a camera artifact but I'm sure most of us would think twice before altering the image, say in moving a tree, or a piece of litter not noticed at the exposure.
Stephen Johnson touches on this in "SJ on Digital Photography" wher he took a prairie type image and later found a paper cup in the image. He may have removed it had he seen it but now it's part of the image, he left as is for publication.
Of course we see the debate rage in photojournalism circles about ethics and how pyramids are moved by NGeo but what about the average landscape photographer?
Will things being a little bit askew be the mark of a straight image? Kinda like the defects on real leather as opposed to perfect naugahyde????
Once again I want to make clear the image of Mr. Fitzharris I refer to is used for an example only. I'm sure it's as straight an image as one can make.
Comments welcomed,
Bro.Luke
-
Hi,
I was admiring the cover of National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography by Tim Fitzharris. You can do a search for it elsewhere, it's a great photo on the cover but my point is:
Is it TOO good? Is it TOO perfect?
I want to preface this with giving Mr. Fitzharris all the benefit of the doubt. I make no claims to this particular image other than to state it is FANTASIC! I'm sure he used the best of his skills to capture it. Right place, right time, right gear, right approach etc... Results speak for them selves. I have absolutly no suspicisions it's its altered in anyway and just use it as an example of a perfect image captured with skill.
But Are we now at a place where TOO good could be a hindrance to our craft? Was the cloud perhaps "moved" more to center to enhance the compisition? I'm not saying it was but I'm sure this is done.
How soon before stunning images like this are doubted on merit as PS pros are creating simlar images with libraries of sunset files? I guess for me it's right now!
Sure we all enhance the lighting, spot out a camera artifact but I'm sure most of us would think twice before altering the image, say in moving a tree, or a piece of litter not noticed at the exposure.
Stephen Johnson touches on this in "SJ on Digital Photography" wher he took a prairie type image and later found a paper cup in the image. He may have removed it had he seen it but now it's part of the image, he left as is for publication.
Of course we see the debate rage in photojournalism circles about ethics and how pyramids are moved by NGeo but what about the average landscape photographer?
Will things being a little bit askew be the mark of a straight image? Kinda like the defects on real leather as opposed to perfect naugahyde????
Once again I want to make clear the image of Mr. Fitzharris I refer to is used for an example only. I'm sure it's as straight an image as one can make.
Comments welcomed,
Bro.Luke
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's a fantastic image and a fantastic book. But I disagree that it's somehow too good. He shot it on medium format. He possibly used ND grads to handle the dynamic range. He applied his skills to capture a great lenticular cloud in great light. It's comparable to all of the other excellent work he has in the book. And I don't see any indication he used any exotic or special post processing. Just a nice, very well executed exposure with a super high resolution camera.
-
It's a fantastic image and a fantastic book. But I disagree that it's somehow too good. He shot it on medium format. He possibly used ND grads to handle the dynamic range. He applied his skills to capture a great lenticular cloud in great light. It's comparable to all of the other excellent work he has in the book. And I don't see any indication he used any exotic or special post processing. Just a nice, very well executed exposure with a super high resolution camera.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=113590\")
I agree!!!
It just struck me that in this age how the thought could occur to me. Admiring that photo made me think..."it's too nice.."
But if you hadn't heard of this.....read on: (from [a href=\"http://www.rleggat.com)]http://www.rleggat.com)[/url]
"Gustave Le Gray created a sensation in 1856 when his picture "Brig upon the Water" was exhibited at the Photographic Society of London's annual exhibition. Up till that time, because photographic materials were not sensitive to red and highly sensitive to blue, landscape pictures tended to have over-exposed skies which appeared white. Le Gray's picture showed a pleasing representation of sky and sea on one print........ this was the first example of combination printing."
I recall from photo history class there were examples of the same cloud formations appearing in multiple images.
So it's nothing new..but certainly easier now.....
Bro.Luke
-
Looking at the cover photo, I'm guessing he used filtration; not only an ND grad but probably a warming or magenta filter as most film shooters do in these situations. The giveaway is when the blue parts of the sky have a magenta cast and/or shadow areas aren't as blue as they would otherwise be. Maybe the filtration is a bit strong for my taste, but I don't think it's dishonest or "too good". I seriously doubt Tim would ever move clouds or permanent features of the scene. He might have waited for the cloud to move into the perfect spot on its own though.
Sure we all enhance the lighting, spot out a camera artifact but I'm sure most of us would think twice before altering the image, say in moving a tree, or a piece of litter not noticed at the exposure.
Actually I wouldn't hesitate to clone out a piece of trash/debris from an image. I would not alter a permanent feature of a scene such as a tree, boulder, etc; but something transient like a piece of trash is not fundamentally a part of the landscape IMHO. I don't see any difference ethically between picking up the trash before shooting versus cloning it out afterwords. One or the other approach could be better depending on the situation. For instance maybe going off-trail to pick something up might mean trampling delicate foliage, or having to cross some boundary/fence you're not supposed to cross. In that case I would leave it be and remove it in post.
Of course, the rules are different for a photojournalist, but given the forum we're on I'm assuming we're discussing the context of fine art photography.
-
You must understand that this is The Age of Photoshop. Henceforth, every photo is suspicious; photographers are guilty without trial. Every evidence of skill and/or luck will be discounted by suspicion based on possibility. Nothing you can do or say will change it. Anything you say may be held against you. You have no rights in the matter. Welcome to the 21st Century.
-
Take a look at two columns written here on LL by Alain Briot, a noted fine art photographer. "Cameras and Art" and "Just say Yes". They touch on this issue of what "making" a photo means and the issue of manipulation or enhancement of the image.
Interesting thoughts on what he is trying to do as an artist and how he discusses it with clients.
-
You must understand that this is The Age of Photoshop. Henceforth, every photo is suspicious (...)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=113825\")
Which is exactly why I am totally open regarding what I do to my photographs.
I approach photography as art. Kim Weston, Grandson of Edward Weston, said it best:
The great thing about this thing we call art is that it has no rules.
Kim Weston
Here is the link to my essay on the subject of manipulation and disclosure, Just Say Yes:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml[/url]
-
Yes... it's an open question, with no easy answers. If someone were to set up an easel with a blank canvas and use the scene before them as the basis for whatever flights of fancy their mind and their talents took them on, no one would question whether or not the scene depicted was 'accurate'. It's considered art, after all, and tastes aside, the possibilities are endless.
But as photographers we're faced with a perception that the photograph MUST be an accurate rendition of what was there. Each person has to decide for him or herself whether it's appropriate to adjust the colour, contrast, saturation, whether it's okay to clone something out or add something in... in short, where to 'draw' the line.
Mike.
-
... as photographers we're faced with a perception that the photograph MUST be an accurate rendition of what was there...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My goal is to change this perception by making it totally clear that my photographs represent my emotional response to the scene rather than a "universal reality" if such a thing exists, and that my work includes enhancements made on the basis of art.
-
My goal is to change this perception by making it totally clear that my photographs represent my emotional response to the scene rather than a "universal reality" if such a thing exists, and that my work includes enhancements made on the basis of art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a pretty good statement of an estimable goal. Communicating this a priori (i.e. without attaching an explanatory label) may be more difficult, particularly if the resulting work has the general appearance of verismilitude. Possible strategies for communicating that the work does not intend to represent an objective "reality" could include making alterations more apparent (including overt collaging or overlaying, deliberately "clumsy" alteration, etc.) This is a mindset that differs, I would think, from that of most of the practitioners who visit the LL.
-
This is a pretty good statement of an estimable goal. Communicating this a priori (i.e. without attaching an explanatory label) may be more difficult, particularly if the resulting work has the general appearance of verismilitude. Possible strategies for communicating that the work does not intend to represent an objective "reality" could include making alterations more apparent (including overt collaging or overlaying, deliberately "clumsy" alteration, etc.) This is a mindset that differs, I would think, from that of most of the practitioners who visit the LL.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The way I communicate this is through my openess and my essays. I also think it is clearly visible in my work. I am not interested in doing "collaging or overlaying, deliberately "clumsy" alterations, etc." as you suggest. Doing so is not part of my vision.
"This is a mindset that differs, I would think, from that of most of the practitioners who visit the LL."
It depends on what you consider to be enhancement. Furthermore, the whole point of developing a style, a vision, is creating work that differs from other work.
-
The way I communicate this is through my openess and my essays. I also think it is clearly visible in my work. I am not interested in doing "collaging or overlaying, deliberately "clumsy" alterations, etc." as you suggest. Doing so is not part of my vision.
"This is a mindset that differs, I would think, from that of most of the practitioners who visit the LL."
It depends on what you consider to be enhancement. Furthermore, the whole point of developing a style, a vision, is creating work that differs from other work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I'm out photographing....I have no idea what will happen. I try to remain open to the possibilities. When confronted with a scene I photograph it if it moves me or presents a challenge. I don't snap away and oddly find me shooting no more than I did with film. ( I shot a LOT with film though!) When I've tried to say too much or get too excited about a scene it usually falls flat. I tend to get blind sided by my better images, they find me more often than I them.
Take a Brett Weston clump of seaweed or Minor White abstract. There was always "more" to the image. More than could be manipulated by an artists with brush. The images I have in my minds eye could have been slightly "manipulated" before the shutter was released...but I'm left with a feeling of "authenticity", an honest feeling that these photographers had a feeling, probably like mine, that couldn't be expressed in words and in fact couldn't be concretely expressed by anything, only discovered....
I suppose I'm questioning my own ethos more than others. Perhaps doubting my ability or even talent to edit a photograph. Or once again the legitimasy of doing so.
All this brings to mind a friend of mine who won a 1st prize at a prestigeous photo show for photojournalism. He got a shot of a person leaping out of a burning building! Right place at the right time! Only the right place at the right time was Universal Studios stunt show! The judges never bothered to ask the particulars so I guess it was photojournalism....
but why does he swear everyone who knows the truth to secrecy.....
G'night,
Bro.Luke
-
My goal is to change this perception by making it totally clear that my photographs represent my emotional response to the scene rather than a "universal reality" if such a thing exists, and that my work includes enhancements made on the basis of art.
This is quite clear in your writings and your work, and I agree with you. The bottom line is that ALL photographs are manipulated in some way, even if it's simply careful composition. Ten photographers shooting the same scene would render ten (or more) different results. It's a general perception that needs to be changed, and all we can do is be honest about what is represented, and as you so eloquently wrote, 'Just say yes.'
Those who are interested will ask more. Those who aren't won't buy anything anyway.
Mike.
-
This is quite clear in your writings and your work, and I agree with you. The bottom line is that ALL photographs are manipulated in some way, even if it's simply careful composition. Ten photographers shooting the same scene would render ten (or more) different results. It's a general perception that needs to be changed, and all we can do is be honest about what is represented, and as you so eloquently wrote, 'Just say yes.'
Those who are interested will ask more. Those who aren't won't buy anything anyway.
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mike,
Thank you. I appreciate your comments.
ALain
-
This is quite clear in your writings and your work, and I agree with you. The bottom line is that ALL photographs are manipulated in some way, even if it's simply careful composition. Ten photographers shooting the same scene would render ten (or more) different results. It's a general perception that needs to be changed, and all we can do is be honest about what is represented, and as you so eloquently wrote, 'Just say yes.'
Those who are interested will ask more. Those who aren't won't buy anything anyway.
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True enough..
Our medium for art has the handicap of looking a whole lot like reality by default. A refresher on Magrite's "The Treachery Of Images" may be in order.
So do you feel "cheated" if an image your drawn to ends up being a "collage" even though you can't tell even after told so?
How much does the beauty and surprize of nature make an image more exciting.
Have you seen the web film going around about the island being born? Small boat "stumbles upon a volcano in the middle of the sea...or does it...?
Treachery of Images indeed!
Bro.Luke
-
Came across this today:
"I don't photograph the world as it is. I photograph the world as I would like it to be."
-- Monte Zucker
-
Hi,
I was admiring the cover of National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography by Tim Fitzharris. You can do a search for it elsewhere, it's a great photo on the cover but my point is:
Is it TOO good? Is it TOO perfect?
I want to preface this with giving Mr. Fitzharris all the benefit of the doubt. I make no claims to this particular image other than to state it is FANTASIC! I'm sure he used the best of his skills to capture it. Right place, right time, right gear, right approach etc... Results speak for them selves. I have absolutly no suspicisions it's its altered in anyway and just use it as an example of a perfect image captured with skill.
But Are we now at a place where TOO good could be a hindrance to our craft? Was the cloud perhaps "moved" more to center to enhance the compisition? I'm not saying it was but I'm sure this is done.
How soon before stunning images like this are doubted on merit as PS pros are creating simlar images with libraries of sunset files? I guess for me it's right now!
Sure we all enhance the lighting, spot out a camera artifact but I'm sure most of us would think twice before altering the image, say in moving a tree, or a piece of litter not noticed at the exposure.
Stephen Johnson touches on this in "SJ on Digital Photography" wher he took a prairie type image and later found a paper cup in the image. He may have removed it had he seen it but now it's part of the image, he left as is for publication.
Of course we see the debate rage in photojournalism circles about ethics and how pyramids are moved by NGeo but what about the average landscape photographer?
Will things being a little bit askew be the mark of a straight image? Kinda like the defects on real leather as opposed to perfect naugahyde????
Once again I want to make clear the image of Mr. Fitzharris I refer to is used for an example only. I'm sure it's as straight an image as one can make.
Comments welcomed,
Bro.Luke
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One problem with naugahyde is it takes twice as many Nauga's to create the same item as leather. This is causing quite a stir in the enviromental circles
-
What I dislike about "digital" landscape photography these days is the use of unrealistic, overly saturated colours. Its an epidemic!!
-
What I dislike about "digital" landscape photography these days is the use of unrealistic, overly saturated colours. Its an epidemic!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114450\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, because the colors that slide shooters got with Velvia were soooo realistic! Or how about those shots where the lake reflection is actually brighter than the sky, or the trees sticking above the horizon are unnaturally dark due to ND grad use.
I hear you on poorly edited digital files that show obvious sings of clumsy editing. But that's a problem of craft/technique, not purism/honesty. Just don't try to tell me that film photography is pure and true because film shooters have been "cheating" in their own ways for decades. The fact that it's done with film emulsions and glass filters doesn't make it any more honest than the current digital techniques.
-
Yeah, because the colors that slide shooters got with Velvia were soooo realistic! Or how about those shots where the lake reflection is actually brighter than the sky, or the trees sticking above the horizon are unnaturally dark due to ND grad use.
I hear you on poorly edited digital files that show obvious sings of clumsy editing. But that's a problem of craft/technique, not purism/honesty. Just don't try to tell me that film photography is pure and true because film shooters have been "cheating" in their own ways for decades. The fact that it's done with film emulsions and glass filters doesn't make it any more honest than the current digital techniques.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My feeling exactly! Cibachrome belonging to the same category.
We could then go over B&W and the endless tone manipulation done by the masters on their prints.
What I find totally amazing is that people still discuss these obvious things so many years after the apparition of photography. It speaks a lot about its power of making us believe that it captures the truth.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, because the colors that slide shooters got with Velvia were soooo realistic! Or how about those shots where the lake reflection is actually brighter than the sky, or the trees sticking above the horizon are unnaturally dark due to ND grad use.
I hear you on poorly edited digital files that show obvious sings of clumsy editing. But that's a problem of craft/technique, not purism/honesty. Just don't try to tell me that film photography is pure and true because film shooters have been "cheating" in their own ways for decades. The fact that it's done with film emulsions and glass filters doesn't make it any more honest than the current digital techniques.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My feeling exactly! Cibachrome belonging to the same category.
We could then go over B&W and the endless tone manipulation done by the masters on their prints.
What I find totally amazing is that people still discuss these obvious things so many years after the apparition of photography. It speaks a lot about its power of making us believe that it captures the truth.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.mobypicture.com/user/littletonhairsalon/view/17414018
http://www.last.fm/user/littletonsalon
http://www.kiva.org/lender/botox
http://denver-colorado.weebly.com/
http://littleton-juvederm.weebly.com/
http://plancast.com/p/lrw9
http://www.salonandspa.services/component/tags/tag/17-juvederm-in-littleton
http://www.salonandspa.services/our-services/juvederm-littleton
http://botox.flavors.me/
-
What I find totally amazing is that people still discuss these obvious things so many years after the apparition of photography. It speaks a lot about its power of making us believe that it captures the truth.
Or about our desire, as a culture, to believe that photography is designed to reproduce reality...
-
One problem with naugahyde is it takes twice as many Nauga's to create the same item as leather. This is causing quite a stir in the enviromental circles
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Naugas are nocturnal, hairless, aquatic mammals of many colors that live in the Naugatuck River, and can be made to come to the surface at night by shining a flashlight into the water. The Naugas are then captured and sorted by color to be made into the various colors of Naugahyde. Allegedly, when rolled together on a mechanical press, the seams between the Naugas disappear, resulting in a seamless, leather-like product. It is common knowledge that it takes seven and a half Naugas to make a standard sized couch.
-
Tim Fitzharris is surely a talented landscape photographer, and judging by his prodigous output of published books he apparently never sleeps. However...I believe he leans toward the "anything goes" school of image editing. A few years back he published a book on digital nature photography that included all sorts of composites and faked images, for example painted-in wolf's breath in a cold weather shot of a captive wolf. For a lot of purists it was way over the top.
While I surely "optimize" many of my landscape images to match the subjective all-five-senses experience of being there, I think the ease with which landscapes can be made "better than reality" is a trap. Turning every sunset photo into a neon orange alpenglow extravaganza can cheapen the reality, draining away a bit of the magic by buffing the image into an idealized simulacrum that has less and less connection to the landscape itself.
I think Steven Johnson is onto something here; he writes passionately and convincingly about using digital capture simply to overcome the limitations of film and reveal nature's beauty as accurately to our own perception as possible, rather than "perfecting" it. Johnson's images have a genuine and subtle beauty I greatly admire. In contrast, consider Joseph Holmes's photos, which are exquisite images of brilliant color perfectly rendered—yet their hypersaturated, "Velvia on steroids" appearance quickly cloys, like gagging on too much candy.
Just my 2¢.
-
....I think Steven Johnson is onto something here; he writes passionately and convincingly about using digital capture simply to overcome the limitations of film and reveal nature's beauty as accurately to our own perception as possible, rather than "perfecting" it.
There's no simple answer, or we wouldn't be having this debate. Honorable people can have widely differing views on what is acceptable, and what isn't. Regarding using digital capture to ..... reveal nature's beauty as accurately .... as possible, where does that leave polarizers, or warming filters, or tilt-shift lenses, or levels and curves. The list goes on and on. All of those tools "enhance" reality, but I doubt too many people would have any qualms about using them.
I personally think that any adjustments in tonality, contrast, and color are artistic choices, not ethical choices. Such choices selectively accentuate aspects of reality, and deemphasize others. These choices are mine to make as I see fit. You can question my artistic judgement, but that's the way art has always been. But when it comes to changing the "content" of an image, I get a little more persnikety. I won't ever, under any circumstances, add something to a photo (for example, I would never add a nice big full moon shot with a 500mm to a wide angle landscape shot). I am willing to remove things, but that's a slippery slope. For example, I'm perfectly OK with cloning out a contrail. And I don't have any qualms about removing a power pole. But obviously the question becomes "where do you draw the line".
I do reject the notion, which you seem to suggest above, that Photography is nothing more than simply recording as accurately as possible what is before the lens. That may be OK for journalistic photography, but even then it's too strict an interpretation (some of the best journalistic photography accentuates drama - is that ethical, or is it good journalistic photography?). Anyway, it seems a much too limiting view of photography, in my mind at least. In other words, is photography simply a means of recording the here and now, or is it a vehicle for artistic expression? If you're a journalist, then you'll answer the question one way. If you're a fine art photographer, you'll answer the question another way. Neither answer is inherently wrong.
-
I think the question is difference between a photographer's intent to simply make a picture better by simple enhancements of colour and contrast and sharpness and a deliberate intent to hoodwink the people who see the photo. A photograph, first and foremost,"records". So there is purity there that you simply cannot dismiss. How far should that purity be tampered with,really comes down to personal ethics. It's like I paid the clerk 5 bucks as a bribe to do my work.
It's just 5 bucks. It is still a bribe. And I will never be okay with it.
Regards
-
Naugas are nocturnal, hairless, aquatic mammals of many colors that live in the Naugatuck River, and can be made to come to the surface at night by shining a flashlight into the water. The Naugas are then captured and sorted by color to be made into the various colors of Naugahyde. Allegedly, when rolled together on a mechanical press, the seams between the Naugas disappear, resulting in a seamless, leather-like product. It is common knowledge that it takes seven and a half Naugas to make a standard sized couch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I sent the discussion onto a friend of mine well-versed in naugas, and here's her reply:
Well, your friend on this photo board doesn't have all the
facts, as is so common with those liberal environmentalists with which
you fraternize. Yes, it does take multiple naugas to make a sofa, but
the meat is nutritionally dense, though relatively low in fat and very
adaptable to most recipes that call for poultry. And contrary to your
friend's assertions regarding their hairlessness, naugas do in fact
have hair, a very fine and downy substance that can be woven on a
common loom to create a lightweight, yet waterproof fabric with a
texture similar to silk, which accepts both natural and chemical dyes
exceedingly well.
In the not-so-distant future, I see certain clever meat-packers and
textile artisans becoming quite wealthy raising these creatures. They
are rather gentle, despite their impressive incisors (which may appeal
to jewelry makers, though that market has not yet been explored), and
they can thrive on a limited diet of kudzu and other invasive plants.
I have even heard reports from researchers in Louisiana that certain of
their organs may be compatible with those of homo sapiens, so as you
can imagine, naugas have captured the interest of certain scientists
studying the fields of organ transplants and cloning.
In fact, if I ever do decide to make the break from travel publishing,
I am almost certain to pursue nauga ranching as my next career. The
future looks bright indeed.
Yours in industry, Lori
I did let her know that Texas A&M is studying crossing naugas with feral pigs in hopes of finding a new, improved solution to an old problem. ..
-
I am also in the camp....I do not remove ANYTHING from my images that was there (and also implies dont add anything that wasnt). I also take great care to see if there is anything I DONT want in my images.
Photoshop is a wonderful tool....but my concepts are it is to be used like bondo....not to fill in ugly gaps or gaping holes....that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to fill in the minor imperfections.
I think there is a gap that needs to be filled between what the human eye can see...and what the limited camera can record. I have NO problems with filling that gap with a nice curves layer...or some CMYK editing...or even color balancing.
The cloning tool (For me) is for dust on my sensor...etc.
Plus it makes us not only a little more diciplined in looking for what is in our frame before tripping the shutter....but if I see a cup in the scene....I make sure it is cleaned out...crushed and thrown in my backpack. (I have some ziplock bags for just such a problem)
Roman
-
Photoshop is a wonderful tool....Its purpose is to fill in the minor imperfections.
Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So we're only allowed to use Photoshop to correct "minor" imperfections?
And who decides what's "minor"? Knoll? Schewe? Cheney? You?
What's next? The cloning tool has a pop-up warning dialog?
Use of adjustment layers is grayed-out unless you click on "yes" to agree to the EULA tag prohibiting curve moves of more than 1/3 stop?
(except in ACR 3 and above, as permitted under subsection 1.03.4.223)
Saturation sliders are limited to plus 25 unless you agree to a metadata entry?
In my opinion, politically limiting any tool's use for any reason other than safety is just plain silly.
I'll continue to amaze and delight myself by using every tool in my possession to do whatever I like to my photographs, from first framing the subject in the viewfinder to hanging the print on the wall.
-
So we're only allowed to use Photoshop to correct "minor" imperfections?
And who decides what's "minor"? Knoll? Schewe? Cheney? You?
What's next? The cloning tool has a pop-up warning dialog?
Use of adjustment layers is grayed-out unless you click on "yes" to agree to the EULA tag prohibiting curve moves of more than 1/3 stop?
(except in ACR 3 and above, as permitted under subsection 1.03.4.223)
Saturation sliders are limited to plus 25 unless you agree to a metadata entry?
In my opinion, politically limiting any tool's use for any reason other than safety is just plain silly.
I'll continue to amaze and delight myself by using every tool in my possession to do whatever I like to my photographs, from first framing the subject in the viewfinder to hanging the print on the wall.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting you snipit my quote and trim it down to look like I think that it applys to everyone....if you REALLY want to quote me...include the first part that says:
"but my concepts are it is to be used like bondo...."
Which clearly lables it as MY dicipline and my weight into the forum discussion.
Are you LOOKING for a fight?!? Do you always take people words and twist them to your agenda?
Your the one that is just plain silly.
Roman
-
So we're only allowed to use Photoshop to correct "minor" imperfections?
And who decides what's "minor"? Knoll? Schewe? Cheney? You?
What's next? The cloning tool has a pop-up warning dialog?
Perhaps we need to define or create new terms. Photography is "light-writing" Photoshop manipulation would be pixelography; "pixel writing". Both capable of making "pretty pictures".
I would rate my PS skills as advanced intermediate. I was a commercial photographer for a few years. None of these skills make me a better photographer. I tend to use only those PS tools which I "mastered" in film photography. Adjusting contrast, color balance, cropping, spotting etc...Image size sharpening.
Heck I feel guilty if I move a rock to improve a scene before I photograph. See I always want a sense of organization acording to what I deem organized. God has different ideas and tend to be better when all is said and done.
I guess it's just a mind set and no right or rwrong but to my original post how can one tell a master of light and timing as opposed to a master of PS?
And more importantly does it matter?
Bro. Luke
-
You know the reality of this is Digital and digital manipulation is here and the public is full aware of it.
I have done art shows in the past and had a few comments about punching up the colors in photoshop (it was a Cibrachrome photograph).
I don't even bother defending my purist philosophy anymore. I just ask if they like it. If they are interested in more I might then tell them how it was made and printed.
I think the general public now assumes that most great images have been manipulated.
The cat is out of the bag and he ain't going back in.
It is amazing to me as I watch film photographers get into digital (including some well known large format photographer) and the tendency is to over saturate to the point it no longer looks real.
For sure portrait, wedding and commercial photographers have a license to do what ever they can to make their subject look their best. (using whatever tools they have available).
-
Interesting you snipit my quote and trim it down to look like I think that it applys to everyone....if you REALLY want to quote me...include the first part that says:
"but my concepts are it is to be used like bondo...."
Which clearly lables it as MY dicipline and my weight into the forum discussion.
Are you LOOKING for a fight?!? Do you always take people words and twist them to your agenda?
Your the one that is just plain silly.
Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I snipped your quote (and included the ellipsis to so indicate) for brevity. I don't think I changed the meaning of what you said. I did eliminate the fact that you said it was your dicipline (sic) That may have been unfair.
Me, I don't have much discipline. I just like making good images, no matter how I do it. I have thirty years experience behind a movie camera - I know what it means to "cheat".
No, I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just expressing my opinion. That's what you do in forums.
I have been known to use Photoshop "like bondo" to fill ugly gaps and gaping holes. My images were better for it.
Sorry if you were offended, but I get do to have my point of view, as you do.
Your images are lovely, too.
Peter
-
I snipped your quote (and included the ellipsis to so indicate) for brevity. I don't think I changed the meaning of what you said. I did eliminate the fact that you said it was your dicipline (sic) That may have been unfair.
Me, I don't have much discipline. I just like making good images, no matter how I do it. I have thirty years experience behind a movie camera - I know what it means to "cheat".
No, I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just expressing my opinion. That's what you do in forums.
I have been known to use Photoshop "like bondo" to fill ugly gaps and gaping holes. My images were better for it.
Sorry if you were offended, but I get do to have my point of view, as you do.
Your images are lovely, too.
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks...I just thought it was pretty strong questions when I wasnt trying to impose my way on anyone else.....then with all the sarcasim about a warning dialog.....just thought it wasnt warranted is all.
Then to say "I'll continue to amaze and delight myself......(blah blah blah...lol)" as if you were telling me not to tell you what to do...
Little over the top if you realized I wasn't telling any one what to do....thats all.
My personal diciplines are ment to puts me to wring as much from my camera as I can....then polish it in photoshop.....just a little game I play to keep me on my toes.
It is my goal to eventually earn the title of master landscape photographer.....I have a hard path to walk if I am going to reach that goal....so it takes things like that to keep me moving forward and growing is all.
If I took your comments harder than you intended....then I appologize for my part in that.
And thank you for your kind comments on my work.
Roman
-
Most of my images are made with the G617 or Xpan systems. When selling these images , it seems I always get the SNOOTS and thier "How much time did you spend in photo shop to create this image". I keep a small light board handy and the original slides of each image I am selling in a binder. I simply lay the slides on the light board and flip the switch.
Problem is now I shoot digital as well. I have debated on displaying film images on one side of my space and digital images on the other under a sign that reads
"Digital Art". I get so tired of the" I just do level and curves adjustments". You either alter an image or you don't. And when you do alter an image-why not go all the way. I relate it to shooting some one once , verses shooting them 10 times. You've pulled the trigger, what differance does it make now. Digital Art is now part of our culture and I don't see it going away. I only see it getting better. I guess if your're all wrapped up in being mister integrity-shoot film and print what's thier, and keep the slides close by to prove your case. If deep down you are an artist, then create your vision. After all it's yours to do with what you want. Will the battle between artists and photographers continue...."YES".
Bill
-
Back to the OP and the cover of the Tim Fitzharris book:
I got blasted for similar reactions, some even saying I outright copied him; not like two photographers are ever in Yosemite at the same time.
Thought you might like a look at this:
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/portpg1/lentcloud1.htm (http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/portpg1/lentcloud1.htm)
Velvia 2 stop GND
I won't engage in a debate over post processing. The scan was made to look like the transparency.
-
enlightphoto
The universe expands by a billion miles in all directions... kind of reminds me a little about the Moon landing; the funny thing is, last time I looked, the stars seemed to be roughly the same distance apart as they always were. I have a feeling that the poor old speed of light just gets a bad press.
Ciao - Rob C
-
In MY DAY, we stared at a scene until our eyes dried up, then drew the scene in blood after cutting off our fingertips, and WE LIKED IT! Nyah!! LOL