Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A Disturbing Thought...  (Read 17952 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7854



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2007, 11:07:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

A few images online here!
Forsh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2007, 07:22:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I fully agree with the OP's sentiment. When I took this shot: teach english in china other artists where I work ask me if I am going to clone out the power lines and such in the background...I tell them no, this is the reality of the view and I think the power lines add a sense of realism...

jobs teaching english
english teacher jobs
english jobs in china english jobs in china
english teaching jobs
english teaching jobs abroad
teach english jobs
online english teaching jobs
teaching english jobs abroad
jobs in china teaching english
« Last Edit: August 17, 2014, 11:31:14 AM by Forsh » Logged

china english news My HDR Photography from Okinawa Japan.  | teach english in china Other from Okinawa Japan. So what do you do? You don't want create a
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2007, 07:39:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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...
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 07:39:38 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3344



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2007, 08:37:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
 
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2007, 08:17:49 PM »
ReplyReply

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˘.
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2007, 12:19:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
....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.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
RMichael
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2007, 06:38:10 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
mmurph1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #27 on: May 29, 2007, 08:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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. ..
Logged
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2007, 08:44:13 AM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 08:45:38 AM by RomanJohnston » Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1674


« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2007, 09:33:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 09:34:22 AM by Peter McLennan » Logged
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2007, 10:55:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Bro.Luke
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2007, 10:58:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged
larryg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2007, 10:58:49 AM »
ReplyReply

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).
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1674


« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2007, 03:27:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2007, 09:15:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Wild Eyes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2007, 08:51:25 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
enlightphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2007, 05:49:15 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Velvia  2 stop GND

I won't engage in a debate over post processing. The scan was made to look like the transparency.
Logged

Gary Crabbe
Enlightened Images
http://www.enlightphoto.com
http://enlightphoto.com/views/ (Weblog)

NEW PORTFOLIOS:
http://www.enlightphoto.com/portfo1.htm


186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


IMAGINE THAT:
Every sixty minutes, the universe expands by one billion miles in all directions.
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2007, 01:13:15 PM »
ReplyReply

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
« Last Edit: July 12, 2007, 01:13:46 PM by Rob C » Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2007, 10:32:08 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad