| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2005 01:07:11 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by crank2o:
... If photography was not an art, and it's main purpose was to just linearly replicate reality as the human eye sees it, then a dodge/burn criticism would fit - because you're right, it absolutely looks "unreal". ... |
If the main purpose of photography is not to replicate what the eye sees, but rather to transform it acording to our own artistic vision, why do we pay the most money for the cameras and lenses that best replicate what our eyes see? Photography is not art, only a part of photography is art.
Adjusting contrast, white balance, saturation, sharpness, and dust removal are methods to make our images more nearly replicate what the eye sees, to fill in for the shortcomings of our cameras and our technique in using them. Dodge and burn does not replicate but rather substitutes what the photographer's vision thinks the image should look like for what was actually seen, and thus departs from the main of photography and puts an image into the sub-category of photographic
art.
Please stop trying to make all photographers be artists. |
I think that this argument is starting to follow the trajectory of paths that have been debated in photography since its inception.
One school of thought argued that the goal of photography was simply to record visual information as fact.
The other school sought to express the deeper meaning of the individual photographer, not by depicting blatantly objective reality, but as a translation of the subjective impressions of the photographer.
This can be considered a technological extension of what had been an even older historical debate regarding depicting reality via the pencil and the paintbrush. Leonardo's Mona Lisa was hailed for its gorgeous, natural, and life-like rendition of a woman with an enigmatic expression. Salvador Dali is revered for his depiction of disreality with his painting of the melting clock.
Both schools of thought exist on this site. I can appreciate both. And that's yet another reason for why I love the diversity of the DPC community. If a photograph is post-processed in a way that gives it more impact, albeit unrealistically, I think it's wrong to automatically disregard what the person was trying to convey. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 01:13:35 AM · #27 |
I think the issue here is how well the post-processing integrates into the image. To the extent that it is obvious, it is (usually) overdone from a "purely photographic" standpoint. But the thing of it is, what the eye "sees" in a scene is often beyond the range of what the film/sensor can replicate without a little help.
You've all seen this yourself, in situations in which you are standing in sunlight looking at a scene that contains deeply shadpwed areas in juxtaposition with brightly-lit ones, and you can perceive "full color" in both areas at once. Your out-of-camera image, on the other hand, always sacrifices one or the other area, and sometimes both. "Good" post-processing will adjust the balance between these areas while maintaining a distinction between sunlight and shadow. "Bad" post-processing will make both areas the same value, and will look fake as hell.
The funny thing is, you can accomplish the "bad" post-processing with no trouble at all straight out of camera by using fill-in flash of too great an intensity. So, for example, in shooting a portrait of someone against a sunset sky you can over-light the face to such a degree that it actually appears noticeably LIGHTER than the radiant sky behind it, and this usually doesn't look very good at all.
Another thing post-processing can do is help recapture a "reality" that is not plainly visible on a much more subtle level. An example of this would be when you looked at, say, your lush, summer lawn in late-afternoon light and marvelled at the "glow" of the fire-green grass, only to be bitterly disappointed at how a properly-exposed image utterly fails to capture this. A few seconds of work in selective color or hue/saturation can recapture what you "saw" that caused you to make the image in the first place. Or when you photograph a scene with a remarkable sky that is very powerful to the eye, but which is a stop or two too bright to have that brooding power as it comes from the camera where the foreground subject has been properly exposed for.
I call this "enhanced reality", the process of making manifest what was always there. It can (and should) be done in such a way that it is not obvious that anything has been done, and this is the purest form of photographic post-processing iMO. The trick is knowing when to stop.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 01:25:22 AM · #28 |
I think it would be interesting to see if we can all agree on any given picture that used D&B if it were pp'd well or not. This argument may all be about taste or just about oversaturation of this technique in the images we have been seeing for a while
I look at post processing as just an extention of what the camera has started. If you think your camera is capturing an image representationally, think again. Our brains are not even capturing the scene as it really is and is applying it's own post processing. A scene does not really contain color, but your brain interprets different light waves with different colors.
Who would not think of using basic levels or curves for adjusting contrast? D&B is just local adjustment of contrast and has been stated above, it's use is a matter of degree and integration into the picture. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 05:50:27 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by crank2o:
... If photography was not an art, and it's main purpose was to just linearly replicate reality as the human eye sees it, then a dodge/burn criticism would fit - because you're right, it absolutely looks "unreal". ... |
If the main purpose of photography is not to replicate what the eye sees, but rather to transform it acording to our own artistic vision, why do we pay the most money for the cameras and lenses that best replicate what our eyes see? Photography is not art, only a part of photography is art.
Adjusting contrast, white balance, saturation, sharpness, and dust removal are methods to make our images more nearly replicate what the eye sees, to fill in for the shortcomings of our cameras and our technique in using them. Dodge and burn does not replicate but rather substitutes what the photographer's vision thinks the image should look like for what was actually seen, and thus departs from the main of photography and puts an image into the sub-category of photographic
art.
Please stop trying to make all photographers be artists. |
Man, that's a triumph of drabness over imagination.
We pay money for good equipment to make it a better TOOL for our vision. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 06:25:49 AM · #30 |
The cemetry challenge may aswell have had "you must dodge & burn" written into the description - the two go together so obviously.
Normal service will now be resumed : )
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 06:32:23 AM · #31 |
"Normal service will now be resumed : )"... step this way please...
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 06:48:24 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If that's true, can I go back in time (say...20 years) and Photoshop my life...well, come to think of it, I'd like to Dodge and Burn last week a little.... |
In my case that would be a whole lot of dodgin', and not too heavy on the burn, please! |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 07:19:53 AM · #33 |
Having started this thread let me clarify that I have no issue with PS, D&B et al.
Subtlety is the issue and integration. I just happen to be seeing a good deal of shots that I think might be far less without the use of PS.
Bear-I'm with ya on the green grass, Hue and Sat thing but I think we're drifting into surreal colors at times. If thats becoming the norm, I'd might see that as a problem. It's like people trying to live up to the expectations of Vogue Magazine. We cant and we probably shouldn't try. Again, subtlety.
I've seen too many dreamy images that hypnotize me and to borrow from myself, "affect me, as do shiny object, to little children". I don't want to travel so far past the line where this type of image is the norm and unless you can D&B well, SOME of your very respectable shots will not be able to compete. As someone mentioned "digital art" as a subcategory being separate...I hope people can differentiate and keep it there.
One reason I'm here on DPC is to learn how to make my camera work better. I have recieved comments where I think people (too many perhaps) are now looking for PS wizardry, maybe subconciously but present. I'm at the point where the wizardry lies in the subtlety not in the over the top stuff.
I'm leaning towards the actual photographic side of things and less to the digital post production for this(DPC)to be a fulfilling learning experience and a good place for me to compete.
My Cemetery entry wasn't great and all the shots needs post prod but my Pets entry, which is a very good image (I promise), all through the camera absolutely no processing whatsoever (except to resize for entry)is very pure and languishing in the low 5's. I'm scratching my head wondering if people can tell or appreciate the fact that it wasn't touched.
I hope that's fair and reasonable.
BTW, I think this is a great discussion as everybody has made very valid, enlightening points. All angles are just. I appreciate it.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 07:27:37. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 08:39:51 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by timj351:
This is what I don't understand very much. Why does it need to be all one way or the other? Other then some sort of self satisfaction or learning assignment I don't really see the logic in deciding to limit ourselves on the editing tools we use. I can understanding not wanting most photos to look overprocessed, I feel that way too, but I think each photo needs its own type of editing to look its best. I have many photos where a great deal of editing was involved but you wouldn't know it because each editing process was subtle but necessary and I have many others where I fealt almost nothing was needed. So when someone speaks about how a certain amount of editing is too much and is really an attempt to save photos I think they are missing the point. I think there are no steps of lesser importance when it comes to creating a great photo whether it is the initial image capture, file format, file size, image editing or printing processes used. Sometimes you can make up for some poor techniques in certain areas but, in most cases, poor techniques in one or more areas will degrade the final product to some degree. I will be the first to admit to taking plenty of shortcuts (like not using my tripod when I need to) and I usually realize my bad habits later in my editing. I can get away with this for my own use because it is mainly just for fun but if I were a working pro photographer you can bet that I would be treating every step with much more importance. Sorry for the ramble but that's what I think.
T |
For me I believe there has to be limits on what I do to photos. If you do a few of these shots with all the dodging and burning(I think they are pretty neat btw) and show them to people you will become known as the "good photoshop guy". I would rather be known as a good photographer.
Tim |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 08:48:46 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Niten:
T |
For me I believe there has to be limits on what I do to photos. If you do a few of these shots with all the dodging and burning(I think they are pretty neat btw) and show them to people you will become known as the "good photoshop guy". I would rather be known as a good photographer.
Tim [/quote]
Tim-You hit the nail right on the head. Well said. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:01:55 AM · #36 |
This has become a very interesting discussion... one thing that I don't believe has been pointed out is that this is certainly a learning site. We can therefore, expect folks to post stuff where the processing is visible, because they are learning. The best thing to do in situations where you see that visible processing is hurting an image is to tell the photographer so. That enhances the learning aspect of the site.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:22:03 AM · #37 |
More interesting to me is that a majority of people are rating this stuff really highly, which means:
a) there is a trend
b) there are more learners that have affinity with the 'style'
c) most people don't know good photography when they see it!
:D |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 11:32:57 AM · #38 |
If we desire a rational and objective conclusion to the current discussion we must try harder to push our personal value judgements into the background in our public statements.
crank2o- in your first post you more or less stated that photography is art. In your second you spoke about a long term division of thought on the point. The first seems to deny the existence of half of what you confirm in your second. And that is inflamatory to the practictioners of the depict reality school.
Originally posted by sfboatright:
... But it sounds like you are saying that using dodge/burn makes a photograph less.....I don't know......worthy or something. ... |
Actually I am trying hard not to say that d&b makes a shot less worthy. You are infereing something I did not intend to say because, I think, you are applying your own personal values to my remark. I am not saying that d&b makes an image better or worse, but rather that d&b makes it different, and moves it out of the effort to depict reality and into the realm of expressing artistic vision. And I am trying hard to make a distinction without valueing one area over the other.
bear_music- It was difficult for me to continue reading your post after you used the terms good and bad. I hope you were meaning them to identify well done and poorly done post processing. But even if that reading is correct, you seem to be talking about processing to achieve what you value as desirable. And instead of using your "enhanced reality" I wish you had said something like "improved depiction of reality".
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Man, that's a triumph of drabness over imagination.
We pay money for good equipment to make it a better TOOL for our vision. |
I recognize you, and others like you, as artists, as masters of the tools you use to express your vision. Can you recognize those people who use cameras to depict reality (as opposed to vision) as photographers? And their works as, sometimes, rising above "drabness" ? I do not seek a triumph over art, but think it would be helpful to objective discussion if the artists would acknowledge that not all photography is art. Do artists need to pull all photographers under their tent to vadidate their approach? I would hope not.
Personally, I don't accept d&b as a tool to depict reality. If it is subtlely done and I cannot detect it, and it is presented as straight photography, then the author has fooled me. Kudos to them for their skill. But I won't try to fool anyone for it would bother my conscience. The community doesn't need to draw such a fine line. A more fuzzy separation will do nicely.
I want to say a big Thank You to pawdix for starting this thread. I think it has brought out into the open things that many of us have been feeling recently. There has been a lot of noticeably dodged and burned photos in the challenges lately. Some of the most noticeable instances have met with very high approval from the voters. When it is done in a manner, and to such an extent, that we can conclude the photographer did not intend to conceal it's use, then I think it is fair to say that entry has crossed over from depicting reality and into artistic expression. Both fall within photography.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:39:44.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 11:48:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
one thing that I don't believe has been pointed out is that this is certainly a learning site. We can therefore, expect folks to post stuff where the processing is visible, because they are learning. The best thing to do in situations where you see that visible processing is hurting an image is to tell the photographer so. That enhances the learning aspect of the site. |
Thank you kibric! that is what i was thinking and wanted to post..
I received quite some critic for my D&B in the separation challenge but no one knew that was the first time i experimented with it
I agreed with most of the critic but what can i say, it was a learning process..
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 11:49:07 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by virtuamike:
Post processing should be about restoring a photo to the image that the photography sees and nothing more. |
I disagree. Post processing should be about making the photo into what the photographer wants it to be. |
I wonder if it is done for what the photographer wants it to be or what he/she perceives the voters will want. Probably more for the latter in the challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 12:14:48 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by crank2o:
... If photography was not an art, and it's main purpose was to just linearly replicate reality as the human eye sees it, then a dodge/burn criticism would fit - because you're right, it absolutely looks "unreal". ... |
If the main purpose of photography is not to replicate what the eye sees, but rather to transform it acording to our own artistic vision, why do we pay the most money for the cameras and lenses that best replicate what our eyes see? Photography is not art, only a part of photography is art.
Adjusting contrast, white balance, saturation, sharpness, and dust removal are methods to make our images more nearly replicate what the eye sees, to fill in for the shortcomings of our cameras and our technique in using them. Dodge and burn does not replicate but rather substitutes what the photographer's vision thinks the image should look like for what was actually seen, and thus departs from the main of photography and puts an image into the sub-category of photographic
art.
Please stop trying to make all photographers be artists. |
Since when is the main porpose of photography to replicate what the eye sees? That is what eyes are for. For me the main purpose of photography is to freeze a slice of time for viewing. And the camera can record an image that the eye is incapable of seeing. Ever try seeing with an "iris aperture" of f1.4 on a bright day? Or seeing with an "iris aperture" of f32 on a starlit night?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 12:30:31 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Maybe I'm alone here but I'm getting a bit tired of seeing photo's that don't even remotely resemble reality. Ain't diggin it. The shot is getting less important...not a good thing.
Does anyone else feel that D&B is being pushed way over the top to the point of overkill? |
I believe the key statement in your questions is "don't even remotely resemble reality". It's obvious that when you are looking at a photo, you are looking for representation of the reality of the scene that was captured. While D&B can be useful in enhancing a scene, it can also be useful in altering a scene. The question then boils down to, what does the individual who pushed the button want to convey?
I'm a beginner photographer and I don't have the skills that a lot of you have when it comes down to setting up your camera to capture a scene. So I use D&B to bring out or subdue the areas of the picture that turned out bad because of my inabilities. Thank God for digital, because now I can correct my pictures somewhat. This is something I could never do with film.
My goal though, is to get to a point where I can limit my processing, and count more on my abilities, to capture a particular moment in time. Something that I can look at later and say "I remember that day, that vacation, that moment. . . That to me, is photography. To alter part of a picture where it no longer represents the scene, but instead represents the photographer, then that represents art.
Some like the art, some like the photograph. When you judge a challenge, are you going to judge the photograph . . . or the art? That is the decision you have to make. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 12:55:56 PM · #43 |
Well said, RCB. I think recent the recent trend has been to favor art, and that's what has prompted this thread.
I'd like to add one comment: Kudos to everyone participating in this thread for keeping heads & tongues civil. These things are no fun once skins get thin and tempers start flaring. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 01:09:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ReallyColorBlind:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Maybe I'm alone here but I'm getting a bit tired of seeing photo's that don't even remotely resemble reality. Ain't diggin it. The shot is getting less important...not a good thing. |
My goal though, is to get to a point where I can limit my processing, and count more on my abilities, to capture a particular moment in time. Something that I can look at later and say "I remember that day, that vacation, that moment. . . That to me, is photography. To alter part of a picture where it no longer represents the scene, but instead represents the photographer, then that represents art.
Some like the art, some like the photograph. When you judge a challenge, are you going to judge the photograph . . . or the art? That is the decision you have to make. |
I wish I could post some of my stuff from the last few weeks - a lot of it doesn't resemble reality straight out of the camera : )
I know I'm sorta putting words into your mouth here (and you're not the only one that seems to be tieing the two together), but you don't have to use photoshop to create "art".
Edit: I realised I have some suitable examples in my portfolio already ...
  
All of these are *very* close to what came out of the camera (apart from the text obviously). Are they photographs or art?
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 13:31:50.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 01:16:39 PM · #45 |
coolhar - crank2o- in your first post you more or less stated that photography is art. In your second you spoke about a long term division of thought on the point. The first seems to deny the existence of half of what you confirm in your second. And that is inflamatory to the practictioners of the depict reality school.
The human eye sees one trillionth of a trillionth of the spectrum of light. When was the last time you saw radio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, ultraviolet rays, x-rays, or gamma rays with your eyes? Capturing all of THAT would be the true essence of "objective" reality.
My friend, who is colorblind, shoots exclusively in black and white. Is he capturing what YOU would see and representing it as reality? Or does he choose black and white because that lines up with his own subjective experience? Some of the best photojournalists of this century took pictures only in b&w, but does *any* black and white photograph, no matter how well captured and how minimally post-processed, truly represent reality as you know it?
And that's my entire point. No matter what method you have used to capture a picture, before you even think about processing it in photoshop, you have already processed it in your brain. The tiny bit of the spectrum of light that you can experience, has already been filtered and percieved by you. But if what YOU see, is not what I, or my colorblind friend sees, who is to say what truly depicts reality?
Reality is perception. Altered reality is still perception. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 01:31:45 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
In my opinion "capturing light" is different from creating light. |
All about photography is to capture creative light! You must use the gold rule for the life in it too: All must be done with balance!
Some pics here are so overprocessed that apear to be paints, other are so careless of it that can be nothing more than a snapshot.
D&B are a great art tool. But well done, can improve your pictures.
Do you can enumarate D&B pictures, but can distinguish between a Curves or color correted one? IMHO all these tools and features of DDR (digital dark room) are precious to "make" your picture. This make-up process are as needed to photographers as cameras.
But... with balance! |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 01:40:05 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Since when is the main porpose of photography to replicate what the eye sees? That is what eyes are for. For me the main purpose of photography is to freeze a slice of time for viewing. And the camera can record an image that the eye is incapable of seeing. Ever try seeing with an "iris aperture" of f1.4 on a bright day? Or seeing with an "iris aperture" of f32 on a starlit night? |
On a bright day my eyes work at f1.4 only for a brief moment, until they adjust, or I look away from the light. A camera will capture an image at f1.4 on a bright day only if it's shutter is open for the briefest of moments. On the starlit nights my eyes strain for a longer look to capture more info just as the camera needs a longer exposure at f32.
Are replicating what the eye sees and freezing a slice of time for viewing mutually exclusive purposes? Can't they co-exist within photography without either being designated as the main purpose, and without excluding other purposes?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 02:04:32 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by uctopuk:
I wonder if it is done for what the photographer wants it to be or what he/she perceives the voters will want. Probably more for the latter in the challenge. |
I just hope that theres not a trend leaning towards that dreamlike, D&B aura that surrounds entries as a standard in both the voting or post production. Especially if it becomes a standard for ribbon worthy votes.
I like PS but as my goal is not to be a PS Wiz I hope that I can still compete with those who are.
An example that illustrates my frustration is one picture I took that would have been a perfect D&B type candidate for the Cemetery Challenge went flat because I don't know that technique well enough and I don't like the look enough to practice doing it. I also don't shoot with PS in mind which is more to my point. I'm trying very hard to learn how to capture very pure images. Maybe we are on different planes in that sense?
BTW I wouldn't even try to define what "the main purpose of photography is" or what is art or more specifically what's the difference between a photo and digital art. There aren't enough web pages on the planet that could host that discussion with any semblance of cohesion. Yikes!!!
I just hope that Pam Anderson, candy doesn't become the gold standard in the voters eyes. Post production is fine for me as a voter and as a photographer within reason. Define "within reason"? I can't, but if post production becomes the whole enchilada, I won't be able to compete nor will I want to.
Vive la difference!!!
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 14:13:45. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 02:06:51 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Are replicating what the eye sees and freezing a slice of time for viewing mutually exclusive purposes? Can't they co-exist within photography without either being designated as the main purpose, and without excluding other purposes? |
Certainly they can co-exist. That is why I objected to your contention that the main purpose of photography was (fill in the blank). That is why I emphasized "for me" in what I described. I don't believe that there is any blanket statement possible about the "main purpose" of photography other than to say that it is entirely subjective. And how does that relate to the thread as it originated? The point is that if one is sick and tired of B&D images...score them lower. Simple.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 02:17:30 PM · #50 |
I really hate D&B and NEVER use it, but our famous heida uses dodge and burn ALOT, and she´s always winning the competitions..
maby I´ll start usint this awful tool :) |
|
