Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: luxborealis on December 31, 2013, 04:19:18 pm

Title: Push-button photography
Post by: luxborealis on December 31, 2013, 04:19:18 pm
Beware...diatribe ahead...

I originally wrote this as part of a response to an earlier post by "dhancock (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85616.new#new)", but I felt that rather than highjacking his post regarding an image he made, this deserves it's own thread

I think we all appreciate it when a photographer is open and honest about how they achieve their result but dhancock's description of "I played around on HDR Darkroom until I came up with something pleasing" somewhat spoiled the show for me. I realize it's unfair to expect every photographer to "previsualize" every photograph - that is to have a clear view in one's mind of the final image when the exposure is made - and know how to achieve that result instantly in the darkroom or on a computer, and I undestand the importance of experimentation as well, and I also get that maybe I'm dwelling too much on semantics...but I suspect Daniel was doing more than simply "playing around" to get some random pleasing result.

I guess my concern arises out of what has become push-button photography in the sense that if one plays around long enough, something great will come of it even if one doesn't have a clue about what one is doing (like a roomful of monkeys typing Shakespeare). I've seen it happen, especially with all the presets and apps now available. And maybe this is why art critics are so critical of photography - photographs can be the result of random acts with no intention on the part of the photographer. Too many photographs are the result of button-pushing and not artistic or documentary decision-making, intent or forethought.

Cameras now shoot perfectly exposed and focused photos especially with the various "Scene modes" that make technical decisions for the photographer. Push-button apps now take those images and make them magically more alluring to fit a current trend, colour palette or "look". So, there is no longer any  "intention" by the artist like there is in putting carefully crafted words on paper or notes on staff paper or paint on canvas or paper. Shoot enough frames (or point a camera randomly) and sit at a computer long enough pushing buttons and one will produce something worth framing or publishing. Granted with some modern art, one must wonder if there was intent on the part of the artist or just random playing!

Perhaps the only pre-conceived decision someone with a camera has now is being at the right place, at the right time and choosing a focal length and a composition that "work". But even these can now be overcome with digital cameras that hold thousands of images - just keep shooting, zoom in zoom out, shoot, shoot, shoot - something will come of. Imagine hiking up mountains with only 20 sheets of film for a few days, or going on a trip with only two or three rolls of film. Have we lost the uniqueness of photography under a tidal wave of souped-up snapshots?

Believe me, Daniel, this comment is not directed at you, but rather to the photography community at large. You just happened to use a set of words that I'm hearing far too often now amongst "photographers" - so don't feel I'm dumping on you because I'm not. As 2013 comes to a close, I'm just being crotchety about the direction photography seems to be going. All the best and keep sharing!
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 31, 2013, 04:43:48 pm
For better or worse, and for what it is worth, I freely admit I am closer to "playing around" in post processing than pre-visualizing. I am much more selective in the capture phase though (I guess that is a remnant of my film days), and take something because it "speaks to me," although, at that moment, I am not exactly sure what it is saying. I often discover it in the post processing phase, playing around, until it again speaks to me, this time "loud and clear." But I sympathize with your view.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: luxborealis on December 31, 2013, 04:48:33 pm
I agree, Slobodan. I am experimenting far more with both seeing and processing with digital than I was with film - as I think many of us are. But when you are playing around, do you have a notion of the direction you are headed, or are you just pushing all available buttons in the hopes of just landing the plane? I suspect more of the former given your helpful comments and photos on this forum.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 31, 2013, 06:20:32 pm
... when you are playing around, do you have a notion of the direction you are headed, or are you just pushing all available buttons in the hopes of just landing the plane?...

Now, these days, I do have some notion where I am going. But that notion today is a result of accumulated experience from yesterday, when it was more of a happy accident and fooling around. Through experiment and playing comes the realization of what is it that I like, and then it becomes the "notion" of where I'd like to go in the future (otherwise known as "style," if I am not mistaken).

For instance, one of the first "happy accidents" was when I was using Canon's own RAW converter, Digital Photo Professional (DPP). Again, if I am not mistaken, DPP was (is?) the only converter that had a linear function, i.e., non-gamma corrected (and no, it was not the same as the Linear Tone Curve in Lightroom). Using it resulted in a distinctive look, rather unusable for normal processing, but giving a hint of an alternative esthetic approach. It was also a revelation to see what is lurking in a file, waiting to be discovered and freed, even if in a "happy accident." I later tried to replicate it in Lightroom 3, generating my own preset, which I called "gritty" or what some others call "grungy" look, or "Faux HDR."

Another example (below). Did I pre-visualize the use of a tungsten white balance and the rest of post-processing "tricks" when I took this Manhattan photo? No. But when I woke up and looked through the rainy window, and saw a gray, gloomy sky, the feeling was the same as I hope I ultimately conveyed in the final photo: blue (figuratively speaking).
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: James Clark on December 31, 2013, 06:45:04 pm
I like what Slobodon is saying, and I work in much the same way.  Sort of.  I think ;)

When I shoot I generally previsualize for composition and "feel" and then in postprocessing I use the variety of tools available to me to manipulate light, shadow, sharpness and detail to convey the idea that I saw in the composition phase, but I'm usually not shooting landscape work with a final, finished product in mind exactly.

That said, there are many times when my original intent with the photo gets supplanted by something that occurs to me when the processing is already started, and an idea is keyed by something in the original composition that I might have missed, or that was seemingly unimportant, at the time of capture but becomes more important within the limited framework of the image itself when the image itself is removed from the picture-taking environment/moment.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2013, 08:34:52 pm
You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 01, 2014, 03:20:23 am
You can when the sow was made of silk.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 01, 2014, 03:22:28 am
Now, these days, I do have some notion where I am going. But that notion today is a result of accumulated experience from yesterday, when it was more of a happy accident and fooling around. Through experiment and playing comes the realization of what is it that I like, and then it becomes the "notion" of where I'd like to go in the future (otherwise known as "style," if I am not mistaken).

OMG! Someone developing their Art!
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: 950 on January 03, 2014, 10:55:42 am
Great discussion topic, love the term "push-button"!

And after all, does vinyl really sound better than a digital mix?
Can't tell you how many times that I've seen kids take a photo on their phone, run it through various apps and Wah-La! "That looks so cool! You should be a photographer!"
Cracks me up every time. I've shot high school football for a few years now, and what I find interesting is that the parents love the traditional photograph, but the kids want theirs digitally modified somehow and consider that the "great shot". Hey- if it's not run through some app or look unique, it's just not cool!
Trend? Sign of the times? I'm just getting old?
I do look at subjects differently, consider software while composing, and keep in mind how that image can be manipulated.

Was the person that strayed from the written instructions on how to process film and start playing with dodge and burn the inventor of darkroomshop?   

Love the discussions, photos, and knowledge on this site, I thank each of you.
Ken


Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: churly on January 03, 2014, 11:05:19 am
Terry - Apologies for the slow reply.  I had to give your post some thought before I could respond.  Here's my view for what it's worth.

T - "I played around on HDR Darkroom until I came up with something pleasing" somewhat spoiled the show for me

I think that the process of creating an image is a personal matter (and often more important than the final result).  You can personally place value on specific approaches to the process for whatever reason but that doesn't change the final result that then has to speak to others.  In addition, all viewers see images through their own personal filters, so universal appeal of the final result is unlikely.   "Playing around" may suggest a certain amount of trial and error but we all know that experience with any tool is generally leads to more effective application of the tool.  From a parametric view point, scene modes and presets simply narrow down the potential arrangement of the various parameters.  Clearly some arrangements are more effective than others and that is evident to the software developers.  That said, I very rarely use either of those tools but that is a matter of my personal process.  My end result has no more  value than that reached by using the tools (except to me).

T - Perhaps the only pre-conceived decision someone with a camera has now is being at the right place, at the right time and choosing a focal length and a composition that "work". But even these can now be overcome with digital cameras that hold thousands of images - just keep shooting, zoom in zoom out, shoot, shoot, shoot - something will come of. Imagine hiking up mountains with only 20 sheets of film for a few days, or going on a trip with only two or three rolls of film. Have we lost the uniqueness of photography under a tidal wave of souped-up snapshots?


But you do still have to be at the right place at the right time and to make those choices about composition.  Whether you engage in contemplative "slow" photography or in "try it all" jackrabbit photography is again about personal process.  Maybe there is some intrinsic value in doing things the old and hard way (most folks that enjoy baking bread claim that there is), but I am yet to be convinced by the results.  Sure we are drowning in images of all sorts but I don't think photography has been unique for a long time.  We can all have our personal views on what we think is a good image but those views are far from universal.  It is a waste of time and energy to lament the fact that our personal view doesn't match that of others.  This forum is a clear demonstration of that, although some members are pretty persistent in their efforts to convince others that their view is the right view. So be it.

T - I'm just being crotchety about the direction photography seems to be going.

Yes, the 'craft' of photography is changing but that doesn't keep you from continuing you own personal process of making images.  The choices you make may or may not make you competitive in the professional world of selling images but the truth is that that happens in almost anything we do.  In my own personal case as a research scientist and professor, I'm not very happy about having to direct research based on where one can find funding to keep laboratories and graduate students funded rather than where the research takes you, but that is the way of it.

Take heart!  The light is coming back.  Also, remember as Slobodan points out, experience is a major ingredient in making the process work.  I don't think push-buttons have come close to replacing experience.

Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2014, 12:01:41 pm
I think what we are witnessing in this transition from film to digital is the shifting of our skills (craft) from being front-loaded to back-loaded. It has been dictated by the limitations of the medium. In the past, with film, we had to prepare many things right before we click the shutter. Why? Simply because we had no choice, we had a limited number of shots with us (especially true with large format) and we knew that in the processing stage we had much less options. If you were shooting transparencies, there wasn't any processing stage at all (bar push-pull processing within a limited range, and even that was not possible with all films, e.g., Kodachrome). What you did before pressing the shutter was it.

Enter digital. The choices and options in the latter stages, in post-processing, vastly outnumber what we had in the past, both in type and scope. Thus our focus, attention, knowledge, as photographers, shifted toward the end of the process. All I have to do today is to capture a moment and get a decent file. Sometimes I have to bracket, but even that is not always necessary with certain modern cameras. Which brings us to an interesting phenomenon how our required skills change even within the digital realm. Yesterday, you could not call yourself a competent photographer if your skill set did not include bracketing and subsequent exposure blending in post. Today, for the newest generation of photographers, which is starting with, say, D800 et al, the need to bracket is perplexing. So, who is a better photographer? We bracket, because we have to (limitations of the medium), not because it is somehow a badge of honor of a competent photographer. The kids today will just "push buttons" to extract all the info they need from a single shot. Our skill was in bracketing, their in "pushing buttons." Is our "trick" (what we like to call skill) inherently better than their "trick" (what we like to call "playing around")?
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 03, 2014, 02:37:42 pm
I realize it's unfair to expect every photographer to "previsualize" every photograph - that is to have a clear view in one's mind of the final image when the exposure is made - and know how to achieve that result instantly in the darkroom or on a computer...

Might you be in danger of making a fetish of a technique?


Too many photographs are the result of button-pushing and not artistic or documentary decision-making, intent or forethought.

If you cannot see any difference in the final body of work then I think the value you place on "artistic or documentary decision-making, intent or forethought" is illusory.


Have we lost the uniqueness of photography under a tidal wave of souped-up snapshots? ... As 2013 comes to a close, I'm just being crotchety about the direction photography seems to be going.

Quote
"So much of what photographic enthusiasts thought made up a ‘good photograph’ was bound into technical considerations (and art-world photographers still generally defend their identity and distinction from the mass through a display of technical virtuosity carried to a standardised and thus absurd extreme). ... I should probably confess to using a digital camera with traditional dials for setting aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation. I still like the restrictions imposed by a fixed lens. So some of those old bodily, behavioural and technical habits survive, and may mark me out as a specialist (or an eccentric). But perhaps they are no more than signs of mental rigidity on my part, of holding onto the illusion of the exceptional, aesthetic and autonomous self (http://photoworks.org.uk/are-you-a-photographer/)."
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2014, 04:40:01 pm
Interesting and light-hearted short on status quo and imagination.  Do you shoot inside-the-box, or outside?

\http://play.simpletruths.com/movie/paper-airplane
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Tony Jay on January 04, 2014, 09:35:30 pm
Terry, you do pose an interesting question regarding the relative merits of photography (read image-capture) as opposed to post-processing.

For what it is worth I regard both in-camera skill and post-processing skill as indispensable to the modern craft of photography.
However, the two are not interchangeable.
The term "workflow" so beloved in digital photography implies directionality.
The term "post-processing" also implies processing "after a prior event".
(I know that everyone reading this thread will be aware of the meaning of these definitions, however, in the context of the conversation they deserve highlighting.)
The camera has to be the start of the process (notwithstanding role of pre-visualisation and intent on the part of the photographer) and the skills of the photographer are at the fore.

In the last year or so I have had a lot of contact with individuals who shoot with equipment capable of shooting fantastic images who for several reasons are unable to produce noteworthy images. Sometimes the issue is an inability to control the exposure that the camera shoots at, sometimes an inability to compose an image, and not infrequently both issues are present.
Now, I am not casting aspersions at these individuals, since one one of my favourite sayings regarding photography is "It is easy to shoot rubbish, shooting well requires a bit more effort" and it was coined as a result of my own experiences with a camera.
I have only been shooting seriously for about eight years now.
Currently, in my Lightroom catalog, I only have a fraction of a percent of images shot in 2006, 2007, and 2008, remaining. Those deleted images were really not up to snuff. Since then the percentage of keepers has risen but the improvement has been hard won.
Currently, now that I have really good grip on the abilities of my equipment, any rubbish that I shoot is purely a result of my lack of attention to detail, poor shooting technique, or suboptimal framing.

Interestingly, recently on a trip to Botswana I happened to meet up with a Pro from Canada who had just finished leading an expedition to various locations in Namibia, and, who was in Botswana shooting for his own pleasure as well as scouting for future destinations for expeditions. We ended up shooting together for several days in the Okavango Delta. What was noteworthy was that we were shooting with very similar equipment and shooting essentially identical subject matter nearly all the time. Our ratio of noteworthy images shot to total captures was remarkably similar, but even more interesting was the differences in what we shot despite shooting with the same equipment and having the same shooting perspective. Comparing images we were equally impressed with the "moments" that the other had managed to capture. Nonetheless, only a few percent of the total images shot were top drawer and about 30% of the total images I shot on that entire trip were deleted the same day that they were shot. That percentage will climb too, once, in months to come, I review those images again. (I do appreciate that there are major differences between the bird and wildlife photography that we were engaged in compared to the, somewhat more reflective, process of landscape photography.)

As mentioned, I do value post-processing skills very highly, and most of my skills were developed trying, largely unsuccessfully, to turn poorly captured images into something passable. Currently, I find that if an image really does required extreme manipulation, it is really a reflection on the failure of my in-camera photographic skills. Much more usually, if I am struggling with an image in post-processing the problem has been what do to rather than anything tricky in the actual post-processing, once I have made up my mind what to do.
When I have a well captured image together with a solid idea of what needs to be done (revisualisation definitely plays a part) these days I can make an image really pop.

All my post-processing skills have been hard won. A lot of trial-and-error (mostly error) has been necessary to get a solid grip on the process. Experimentation has been absolutely key in the process. Sometimes, to even call what I was doing as "doodling", would not have been out of place.

Some may be feeling that this post is a bit longwinded but the mini-biography describing my own photographic journey incorporated several distinct stages that were dictated by my skills and abilities at the time. The equipment I shoot with has also influenced, at least to some degree, what has been possible. I remember been severely limited in my bird photography with a Canon 40D, despite having a Canon 500mm f4.0 and a tele-extender because of the noise issue when cranking up ISO. Focusing was also an issue. Fast forward to now, same lenses but now with a Canon 5D mark III ISO is essentially a non-issue in the range that I need, autofocus is a dream, and DR is much improved.

Nowadays, because I have a very good idea of what my camera/lens combination will produce, pre-visualisation is correspondingly much easier and the post-processing also becomes subsequently much easier. That was not always so.
In addition, despite the ability to pre-visualise, it not infrequently happens that once I have an image up on my monitor I find it telling me a much different story. In this regard I personally feel it is better to let the image communicate if you will rather than me imposing my preconceptions.

I went back to the post that stimulated this thread, and then subsequently to Daniel Hancock's website. In truth, he was playing around with that image because, it seems, he was getting to grips with a new version of HDR software. Having seen at least some his work I don't think that those images have come as a result of random doodling, either with a camera or post-processing software. However, I bet that sometime in his photographic journey he learn't an awful lot from doodling, both with camera and software.

As already alluded to, image making is a very personal process, and, the process of becoming a good image-maker is likewise a very personal one. I cannot be critical of anyone who engages in activities that will improve them as image-makers. The equipment we use, software included here, is rather sophisticated. Who amongst us completely understands, much less uses, every feature of their camera systems or software? The only way to learn those features is to play, to experiment.

However, it is VERY unlikely that many (any!) of us can consistently produce high quality images in a random "push button" type manner.
I am sure that most of us have had serendipitous experiences, particularly with camera in-hand, but also with post-processing software, that cannot be attributed to our skill. Nonetheless, these are the exception not the rule.

Merely, as suggested earlier, owning the best in camera equipment and software cannot substitute for ability and know-how. Consistent results mandate it. Monkeys randomly typing on typewriters have never managed to produce War and Peace. Yes!

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2014, 10:08:08 pm
... Monkeys randomly typing on typewriters have never managed to produce War and Peace. Yes!

You, however, are getting quite close, no? ;D
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Tony Jay on January 04, 2014, 10:15:46 pm
Actually, I was gunning for the Lord of the Rings!

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 04, 2014, 11:46:22 pm
Like the re-telling of The Hobbit - a novelette stretched to epic proportions :-)
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Tony Jay on January 05, 2014, 12:14:15 am
Aaabsoluutely!
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: ripgriffith on January 05, 2014, 02:35:21 am
Like the re-telling of The Hobbit - a novelette stretched to epic proportions :-)
I'm not sure which was post-processed the most: the novelette or the film.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Tony Jay on January 05, 2014, 02:38:51 am
I'm not sure which was post-processed the most: the novelette or the film.
Brilliant - I did need a chuckle!

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: churly on January 05, 2014, 10:33:45 am
Nowadays, because I have a very good idea of what my camera/lens combination will produce, pre-visualisation is correspondingly much easier and the post-processing also becomes subsequently much easier. That was not always so.

I agree Tony,  experience with your imaging system makes pre-visualization a natural part of the process rather than something that is forced on the process.
Now if I could just do it  :).
Chuck
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: luxborealis on January 05, 2014, 09:34:20 pm
I seem to have struck a nerve with you, Isaac (as always, it seems).

Might you be in danger of making a fetish of a technique?
Wow - that's a leap! A fetish, not even close; part of the discipline, yes, of course. Much like any discipline from martial arts to novel-writing to freestyle boarding, being able to visualize a final outcome allows one to work towards that goal, thus diminishing the potential for unnecessarily flailing about. It also allows one to tinker both intelligently and spontaneously.

If you cannot see any difference in the final body of work then I think the value you place on "artistic or documentary decision-making, intent or forethought" is illusory.

I don't believe the end justifies the means, but I understand I may be in the minority. Not to put too fine an edge on it, Isaac, but, there is a huge difference between random button-pushing and thoughtful experimentation.

Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: luxborealis on January 05, 2014, 09:50:41 pm
Brilliant, Tony. Great insights. I think what too many photographers try to do with post-processing is recreate what the camera saw, rather than creating an image that captures the essence of "being there": the taste of dust in your mouth or the feel of cold frost on your cheeks. Those things can never be captured by a camera, but they can be created through skillful use of a whole range of photographic "tools" including processing (wet or dry).

As you have pointed out, some get there by pushing buttons, but getting there on a regular basis requires a load of skill usually developed over years of practice. We all have photos that don't quite "work", but hopefully these are the "sketches" we learn from.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 05, 2014, 11:14:47 pm
I seem to have struck a nerve with you

Not in the slightest. Maybe I rolled my eyes :-)

I don't believe the end justifies the means, ... there is a huge difference between random button-pushing and thoughtful experimentation.

Well, if we were discussing moral philosophy...

As we're discussing snapshots, if you cannot see any difference in a final body of work created by "random button-pushing" then perhaps the artistic goal was understood but not exactly how that goal might be reached.

otoh --

Quote
"One of the greatest mistakes a photographer can make is to become wedded to an initial vision, no longer receptive to new opportunities along the creative path.
...
I was certain I wanted a ground-level action shot of Lewis springing to life, bolting out of the starting blocks. In my mind, I could see the stretch of his body, his incredible energy unleashed.
...
Later that night at the lab, ... I kept getting drawn to a single frame of him at rest, waiting to ready himself for the start. ... I honestly don't remember shooting that specific frame. It might have been one of the tests. Or it might have been a misfire that I accidentally exposed between starts. It was not an image I consciously made, nor was it the picture I had set out to do. ... It was a complete surprise, an unexpected detour, a gift that I was open to, even in the face of my expectations."

page 34 (http://books.google.com/books?id=q5hxY7zjC7kC&lpg=PT37&vq=One%20of%20the%20greatest%20mistakes%20a%20photographer%20can%20make&dq=gregory%20heisler%20portraits&pg=PT37#v=snippet&q=One%20of%20the%20greatest%20mistakes%20a%20photographer%20can%20make&f=false), Gregory Heisler: 50 Portraits: Stories and Techniques from a Photographer's Photographer
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: stamper on January 06, 2014, 04:39:56 am
Quote

As we're discussing snapshots, if you cannot see any difference in a final body of work created by "random button-pushing" then perhaps the artistic goal was understood but not exactly how that goal might be reached.

Unquote

discussing snapshots?

Isaac is this a put down or what you consider your level of photography? Russ has been criticised for asking about the possibility of you posting some images to back up your knowledge, or lack of it. He has a good point that has been backed up by this comment. How about getting off your high horse or using it to ride into the wilderness?  ::)
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 06, 2014, 12:26:39 pm
discussing snapshots? Isaac is this a put down or what you consider your level of photography?

Neither, just a contrast to weighty "the end justifies the means" questions.

I suppose Terry would add -- I seem to have struck a nerve with you, Stamper (as always, it seems).
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: churly on January 06, 2014, 12:43:49 pm
I don't believe the end justifies the means, but I understand I may be in the minority. Not to put too fine an edge on it, Isaac, but, there is a huge difference between random button-pushing and thoughtful experimentation.

Terry - I don't think anyone suggested that the 'end justifies the means' but it was indicated that there are clearly a variety of ways to get there.  Nor do I suspect that you are in a minority. 
I don't really understand your point.  Are you implying that before you can appreciate an image you have to have its pedigree or are you saying that you approach your own images with a personal certain set of restrictions?
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: luxborealis on January 06, 2014, 01:06:16 pm
Are you implying that before you can appreciate an image you have to have its pedigree or are you saying that you approach your own images with a personal certain set of restrictions?

Neither. When I walk up to an image and admire it, I admire it for its outward qualities. If it' same great image then it's a great image. The backstory, though, becomes meaningful in the long run... If the photo I've just admired was produced by monkeys pushing buttons, I'd say, "Wow - that's amazing!" and I might even buy it because of its inherent uniqueness.

If I learned the work was done by a person pushing buttons, I would admire it just the same, but wouldn't buy it and wouldn't be too interested in the body of work of that person and might be missing out on genius).

However, if, the photograph were made by a photographer who puts thought and effort into their work, then I would, in the long run, be interested in seeing more of their work as they have something beyond sheer luck working for them.

With respect to approaching my work with a set of personal restrictions, I try my best to be open-minded and not to be restricted by preconceived notions. I am however, human, and am aware of my strengths and weaknesses as a photographer. I tend to work to my strengths while, at the same time, strive to improve upon my weaknesses. What more can I do?
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 06, 2014, 01:14:43 pm
Chuck, I think the point is rather human. We all like to attribute our successes to skills and our failures to accidents.

When we succeed, we "knew it", we planned it, we pre-visualized it, we worked hard to get it, etc. We do not want to admit, even to ourselves, that our success could have been, and often is, a result of chance, luck, fluke, "playing around," etc. When we screw up, it was, of course, accidental, bad luck, due to unexpected circumstances, "who could have seen it coming," or somebody else's fault.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 06, 2014, 02:14:54 pm
If I learned the work was done by a person pushing buttons, I ... wouldn't be too interested in the body of work of that person...

When the body of work is good (not just a single photo) why wouldn't you think "they have something beyond sheer luck working for them"?
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 22, 2014, 04:50:52 pm
fwiw Previsualization heresy (http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=1858)
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Rand47 on January 22, 2014, 08:31:42 pm
Quote
Now, these days, I do have some notion where I am going. But that notion today is a result of accumulated experience from yesterday, when it was more of a happy accident and fooling around.

Slobodan... wonderful... isn't this an apt description of the creative process in general?  Sometimes I think we might tend to be a bit too "stuffy" about photography as art.  I can imagine the early impressionists... fooling around, making happy accidents as they played with non-literal renderings, non-literal colors, etc.  In the digital world we have a veritable plethora of tools.  Exploring them, playing with them, combining them in new ways is not only OK, it is an exploration of the creative process.

The more we play with tools, mess about, the more we understand their potential and their limitations.  As this happens, we create a reservoir of what's possible that we may use with greater intention later on.

Ansel Adams was once asked (in my presence) what was the most important piece of equipment in his darkroom.  His reply has stuck with me ever since (and this is a direct quote), "A capacious trash can."

Rand
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Praki on January 22, 2014, 09:36:37 pm
Rand:
Great comment. Today probably Mr. Adams would have said "My favorite computer instruction is Command Delete." (of course for the Mac Users). While pre-visualization of a good image  may be the result of accumulated experience, fooling around or happenstance (as Slobodan rightly points out), I am still at the stage of taking a technically good exposure (good histogram, interesting subject, ETTR etc. etc.) and "post visualizing" it to find out what impact I want the image to have in the print, so I can use the appropriate tools and relatively small adjustments to get there, rather than playing the parameter or slider roulette which is why I still have a large physical trash can. Hope always springs eternal and keeps Ilford and Epson in business.
Praki.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Ed B on January 26, 2014, 12:23:27 am

Cameras now shoot perfectly exposed and focused photos especially with the various "Scene modes" that make technical decisions for the photographer. Push-button apps now take those images and make them magically more alluring to fit a current trend, colour palette or "look". So, there is no longer any  "intention" by the artist like there is in putting carefully crafted words on paper or notes on staff paper or paint on canvas or paper. Shoot enough frames (or point a camera randomly) and sit at a computer long enough pushing buttons and one will produce something worth framing or publishing. Granted with some modern art, one must wonder if there was intent on the part of the artist or just random playing!

Perhaps the only pre-conceived decision someone with a camera has now is being at the right place, at the right time and choosing a focal length and a composition that "work". But even these can now be overcome with digital cameras that hold thousands of images - just keep shooting, zoom in zoom out, shoot, shoot, shoot - something will come of. Imagine hiking up mountains with only 20 sheets of film for a few days, or going on a trip with only two or three rolls of film. Have we lost the uniqueness of photography under a tidal wave of souped-up snapshots?


I didn't read through this whole thread but I'd like to address these two paragraphs. It is true the technical aspect of photography has become easier but the compositional aspect still remains. That is something that happens with purpose more often than not. You could shoot a thousand images of a subject but that doesn't mean you will get "the"shot. It may increase your odds but the odds are still against you when it comes to randomness.

Is PP really that different than a painter or writer or musician "playing" around with color or words or sound? I've always believed that processing was just as important as shooting, it's no different in the digital age as it was with film (the exception being chrome film for obvious reasons).

Infinite monkey theorem? Doubtful.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: gerafotografija on January 26, 2014, 02:03:44 am
Sorry I'm coming in late to this thread, but hope it's not too late to jump in.

Wasn't it Gary Winogrand who was known for having said that his process was essentially to frame his subjects in order to see how they would look as pictures – or something to that effect?

I got the impression from a recent retrospective exhibit of his work that he snapped 1000s of frames for every one that he winnowed out from the fluff afterwards in his contact sheets. It seems safe to say that most photographers don't get exactly the result they hope for each time they release the shutter. The main difference between the best and the rest seems to be how many imperfect photos they are willing to just let go.

So, although I am all for the process of visualizing the end product while shooting images, I suspect it is at best an iterative and error filled one. The only thing I know for sure is that my skills in the darkroom were never good enough to save as many poorly exposed, but somewhat interesting captures as I can today using mediocre RAW files.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: jerome_m on January 26, 2014, 01:17:40 pm
Wasn't it Gary Winogrand who was known for having said that his process was essentially to frame his subjects in order to see how they would look as pictures – or something to that effect?

"I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed." - Gary Winogrand.

But I don't think he meant that he photographed things at random and afterwards selected what looked nice on his contact sheets.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 26, 2014, 03:13:16 pm
... to save as many poorly exposed, but somewhat interesting captures as I can today using mediocre RAW files.

I'm puzzled where the time comes from to save mediocre images, rather than make the good images better or go take a better photo?
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: luxborealis on January 26, 2014, 11:26:30 pm
fwiw Previsualization heresy (http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=1858)

Yes, good article, but he, too, missed the point entirely. Like painters, we are always sketching with out cameras, shooting frames we know are less than ideal, but all the while learning from what we see and shoot and "post" visualize.

Pre-visualization is not a panacea and it's not for everyone (as I have learned here). It works wonderfully for me and I bet it would work better for others if they choose to pursue it. Like most disciplines, it takes work and I've found the rewards worth it. If, as a result, you think my photography suffers for it, then hopefully I will realize it one day and ditch it. But I'm not at that point yet.
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: Isaac on January 27, 2014, 01:48:32 pm
Yes, good article, but he, too, missed the point entirely.

At least once a week I write a reply that has little chance of being understood by anyone but myself.

Which point does he miss entirely?
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: churly on January 28, 2014, 10:47:15 am
Yes, good article, but he, too, missed the point entirely. Like painters, we are always sketching with out cameras, shooting frames we know are less than ideal, but all the while learning from what we see and shoot and "post" visualize.

With all respect Terry, I am curious then - if we have all missed the point entirely.  What is it?  I'm not interested in an arguement but would truly like to know what I am missing for my own develpmental benefit.

Pre-visualization is not a panacea and it's not for everyone (as I have learned here). It works wonderfully for me and I bet it would work better for others if they choose to pursue it. Like most disciplines, it takes work and I've found the rewards worth it. If, as a result, you think my photography suffers for it, then hopefully I will realize it one day and ditch it. But I'm not at that point yet.

It would seem to me that anyone that makes an effort to effectively compose an image is involved is some form of pre-visualization.  To me, with lots of practice, the pre-visualization should become part of the natural process at which point you shouldn't have to think about or worry about putting a name on it.  You mentioned the use of visualization in sports.  The value of visualization comes after you have trained the eye-brain-muscle system with lots of practice, not before.


Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: NancyP on January 28, 2014, 12:59:24 pm
I get into moods when I just play with sliders and presets and whatnot, not because I have an intention of using them in that instance, but to learn a bit about those features and their behavior in various settings. I am still a rank novice at post-processing, so the f4rting around does count as learning.  ???    :P    :o   :)   I learn by experimentation and not by "recipe". Electrons are cheap.

See? You pushed my button!
Title: Re: Push-button photography
Post by: John Rodriguez on January 30, 2014, 12:23:57 pm
I think we need to separate out what's right for us "artistically" and what's right for others.  If you agree with the idea that "art" is really just a form of creative expression for people, then all that really matters in the end is does the "artist" feel like they've gotten something out of what they created.  For some people that may be manipulating an image in software until it does something for them personally.  I think that's great.  To me that's the point of art.

My personal approach is different. It may not be so much that the approach above wouldn't give me any sense of fulfillment, but it just doesn't suit my inherent laziness. This may sound funny, in that you could think of the approach above as lazy, but I personally hate having to go through tons of images.  I'd much rather have just a few to weed out.  That's a big reason why I hate shooting events for my friends who ask for it, I can't stand weeding through all those files.  My laziness has always been there.  While I shot film for most of my life, by the time I decided I wanted to make photographs it was a digital camera I first used.  Even when I started, I hated going through lots of files and would expose judiciously.  Eventually I moved to 4x5 and made even less exposures.  What brings me joy in the field is finding the perfect composition. By the time I've found it I usually know exactly what I want out of a photo from a tonality and composition perspective.  I'll sometimes wind up tightening up composition further later, but tonality rarely changes from what I envisioned.  Color may be a bit more fuzzy.  Film and sensors don't capture the same colors I see necessarily, and it's hard to remember exactly what colors I saw sometimes.  Since I moved back to digital I do take a few more exposures, but not many.  Usually it's one additional exposure at a smaller aperture to make sure I get everything.  If I'm shooting something with moving water I'll make exposures until I get the texture I want, although even then I'll often delete anything not close immediately on the camera. 

However, I think the real nut we're talking about is comparing our work with others, and does one think they aren't getting the validation they think they deserve because viewers A) may not understand how the differences in their approach may "require more skill" or B) don't care.  I'm not going to say I'm never guilty of this, but I try really hard not to, because in the end it's never going to make me a happier person.