I'm just waiting for the flak !! -or not!!!

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

Snoops27

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 12:43
Sorry for being an old fogey (whatever that means), but am I the only one out here who feels that something is wrong with today's view of photography. Apart from on the "newbies" forums on photog sites it has become almost impossible to find an image which has not been digitally manipulated and distorted by photoshop or similar; and I omit to used a capital "p" on purpose as in my lonely opinion photoshop is used to ridiculous extremes and is being hauted far beyond its actual real life value to photography and its roots. What happened to the real images that the photographer saw through the viewfinder? What has happened to the challenge of going out in foul weather to capture the dark threatening clouds that gathered broodily before a thunderstorm? Do we really think it better to take an "ordinary" shot and digitally turn it into something a lifetime away from what the camera actually saw? These images I see posted on the vast majority of websites definitely have something to say, are without a doubt extremely artistic and have a place in todays Artistic society, but are they REALLY photographs? That's todays assignment - DISCUSS !!! LOL.
Follow me, I'm right behind you...

davidstorm

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 13:03
Nothing has happened to the challenge o going out in foul weather and taking real images that the photographer sees through the viewfinder! No, I don't think photography is disappearing into Photoshop!

Does everyone seriously think that photographers of yesteryear didn't manipulate their images? Do you think that Ansel Adams produced his shots 'straight from camera' with no supplementary processing? No, he dodged and burned like a demon.

This is such a false argument to me, the art of processing is equally important as the art of composing and taking a picture, in fact it is probably where the artistry comes more to the fore. I really can't understand the obsession with 'straight from the camera, no PP'. Most people I suspect who claim that their shots are 'straight from camera' have actually used a JPEG image, which is processed to death by the camera! There is an argument for saying that a processed RAW is actually more natural.

Well, you did ask!

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Snoops27

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 13:21
davidstorm wrote:
Nothing has happened to the challenge o going out in foul weather and taking real images that the photographer sees through the viewfinder! No, I don't think photography is disappearing into Photoshop!

Does everyone seriously think that photographers of yesteryear didn't manipulate their images? Do you think that Ansel Adams produced his shots 'straight from camera' with no supplementary processing? No, he dodged and burned like a demon.

This is such a false argument to me, the art of processing is equally important as the art of composing and taking a picture, in fact it is probably where the artistry comes more to the fore. I really can't understand the obsession with 'straight from the camera, no PP'. Most people I suspect who claim that their shots are 'straight from camera' have actually used a JPEG image, which is processed to death by the camera! There is an argument for saying that a processed RAW is actually more natural.

Well, you did ask!

Regards
David

Really not fussed either way, David as I'm simply playing devil's advocate... Good fun tho' - 1 bite so far!!!
Follow me, I'm right behind you...

percy

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 13:21
Photographs have always been processed and manipulated, whether it's the JPEG being processed in the camera, or a RAW or JPEG in Photoshop or the editor of choice, or in the darkroom. They always will be.

I'm in the camp where I have no problem with basic image editing to improve brightness, contrast, sharpness etc. and cloning out unwanted objects/blemishes such as a discarded drinks carton for example. But I am opposed to excessive manipulation. I want the image to remain a reasonably true and fair reflection of the scene and colours originally photographed.

But of course the problem is decided what is excessive editing/manipulation - that will be different for each of us

Helpful

Snoops27

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 13:38
percy wrote:
Photographs have always been processed and manipulated, whether it's the JPEG being processed in the camera, or a RAW or JPEG in Photoshop or the editor of choice, or in the darkroom. They always will be.

I'm in the camp where I have no problem with basic image editing to improve brightness, contrast, sharpness etc. and cloning out unwanted objects/blemishes such as a discarded drinks carton for example. But I am opposed to excessive manipulation. I want the image to remain a reasonably true and fair reflection of the scene and colours originally photographed.

But of course the problem is decided what is excessive editing/manipulation - that will be different for each of us

Thanks Percy, this is the type of answer I thought would prevail, but we'll just have to wait and see... At the end of the day, ALL opinions on this subject are just that, OPINIONS and holding any opinion does not validate it as being FACT. Isn't it great we're not all the same, what a boring world that would be!!
Follow me, I'm right behind you...

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:11
This topic comes around so often that I'm starting to suspect a 'sour grapes' aspect to the question. Knowing how to PP is an important aspect of the craft. Not as much as getting the shot right in the first place (can't make a silk purse from a sows ear). But it's important!

Stridey

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:17
My view is that with digital we have more output processing options available than in the past. Therefore you are going to get more differing opinions on the available styles. I see this as a good thing. It has made photography much more popular and more accessible. A liking for a particular style is fine, providing we recognise that not all tastes are appreciated by all people.

To add on to my accessibility argument, digital has improved people's processing skills way beyond what we could have imagined just a few years ago. This is evidenced by Professional photographers who find it much harder to sell their work now, often because there is so much quality output and competition from talented amateurs.

Not all styles are to everyone's cup of tea. The key thing being that these days we have a choice and aren't forced to drink just PG Tips (not the best analogy but hopefully you get the point....)

Regards
Nigel
Best regards
Nigel

www.nigelstridephotography.co.uk

Snoops27

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:24
Stridey wrote:
My view is that with digital we have more output processing options available than in the past. Therefore you are going to get more differing opinions on the available styles. I see this as a good thing. It has made photography much more popular and more accessible. A liking for a particular style is fine, providing we recognise that not all tastes are appreciated by all people.

To add on to my accessibility argument, digital has improved people's processing skills way beyond what we could have imagined just a few years ago. This is evidenced by Professional photographers who find it much harder to sell their work now, often because there is so much quality output and competition from talented amateurs.

Not all styles are to everyone's cup of tea. The key thing being that these days we have a choice and aren't forced to drink just PG Tips (not the best analogy but hopefully you get the point....)

Regards
Nigel

Nicely put, Nigel. Being able to see someone elses point of view, without attacking it, is a great attribute!!
Follow me, I'm right behind you...

McGregNi

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:25
I don't think anyone on here would want deliberately to produce effects that are excessively distorted away from reality .... mostly we photographers aim to process in a way that reproduces and illuminates the best output quality that the sensor is capable of. That is the real purpose of image processing, and it is an essential, integral part of successful high quality digital photography.

The reality is that the camera can't do it on its own ... it's not intelligent enough. I agree with David's points above about camera JPEGs ... no such thing as 'SOOC' ... does not exist as a concept or a reality. Camera JPGs are nothing more than edited and processed image files ..... they are just being processed by the camera's tiny computer instead. This does not imply that camera-processed images can not be high quality, only that the possibilities and range of adjustment is more limited than with powerful computer software.

This limitation may be an advantage for some ... if you are not experienced with computer imaging software then it is easier to do 'too much' than to produce subtle and true to life results. Camera jpeg adjustments are more restricted so you can not make such excessive effects. But neither can you realise the full potential of the sensors ability to capture the true range of tones that were in the scene.

It seems that the journey to good, effective processing requires an individual to pass through a few stages of learning .... I certainly produced quite rough results when I started out compared to what I do now, and at the same time as learning about specific types of adjustment.

Helpful

Gwyn

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:27
What Stridey says. He puts it far more eloquently than I could.

I have no problem with people playing with their photos. If they like over saturated, over the top HDR or whatever that is their choice and fine with me. I may not like it personally but if the producer of the image is happy the good.
Photography is an art. It takes all sorts. You don't have to like it all but that doesn't make it wrong.

redbusa99

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:46
"can't make a silk purse from a sows ear", the problem is you can. i have seen it win club competitions where things or areas have been removed or put in , the photographer has admitted it after the event , one even got to the point of same subject different background ,the only person in the room that did not know was the judge
on a personal note i find it is fun sometimes to over process just to see what happens and i do like HDR when not completely overcooked , although i have seen that and liked it on certain subjects.
i would say it is impossible to get it "right in camera" as i don,t think the metering system has been developed yet that can match our eyes.
K3 II and the odd lens or 2

Flickr

Helpful

Gwyn

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:54
McGregNi wrote:
I don't think anyone on here would want deliberately to produce effects that are excessively distorted away from reality .... mostly we photographers aim to process in a way that reproduces and illuminates the best output quality that the sensor is capable of. That is the real purpose of image processing, and it is an essential, integral part of successful high quality digital photography.

.

I completely overcooked a photo on purpose. It bore no resemblance to reality, was totally grungy with weird colours and exposure, but it looked great. It now hangs in my son's living room. He loves it and visitors to his home often comment favourably about it. One even asked for a copy of it, but I did it specially for my son, so I refused.

As I said photography is an art. People have always played with their photos, cross processing, dodging, burning, under or overexposing, using multiple exposures. Computers just make it easier to do.

I don't play with photos that often, but when I do I really like going over the top and making it

GlynM

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 14:57
Groan....
It is only just over a month since we last went round this discussion .

If you want to know my views on this recurring topic please read the previous thread which you can find here.

Glyn
Last Edited by GlynM on 22/11/2014 - 14:59

MHOL190246

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 15:02
The PSA, FIAP and Royal Photographic Society have issued new guidelines on what is and is not acceptable in submissions to competitions etc. Basically, the ruling is that no techniques that add, relocate, replace or remove pictorial elements are allowed. Removing blemishes such as dust marks etc are acceptable but wholesale Photoshopping of images is not. Needless to say, in RPS circles this has excited more than a little comment

Snoops27

Link Posted 22/11/2014 - 15:15
MHOL190246 wrote:
The PSA, FIAP and Royal Photographic Society have issued new guidelines on what is and is not acceptable in submissions to competitions etc. Basically, the ruling is that no techniques that add, relocate, replace or remove pictorial elements are allowed. Removing blemishes such as dust marks etc are acceptable but wholesale Photoshopping of images is not. Needless to say, in RPS circles this has excited more than a little comment

I think that says it all. At the very least it should make some people rethink their "so critical" opinions. Check out the spelling - O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S !!!!
Follow me, I'm right behind you...
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.