[derekkite]

Thanks for a very nice post.

All I am after in any image is an honest record of what I saw, what captured my attention. Several of my photographs are about to be published in book form, as part of a presentation of what could best be described as a guide to noticing, or perhaps the art of noticing. The body of text has nothing to do with photography. The photographs are meant to inspire the reader to begin to notice nuance of detail, subtlety, the overlooked, the small. An attempt to encourage a slowing of one's pace through life, and an appreciation of the inexplicability of anything, everything. As such, I wanted to provide images that could be seen and appreciated in anyone's daily life, so they had to be as realistic as possible. That's why I shoot the way I do, trying as best I can to capture exactly what is in front of me.

I had no idea what I was asking of this community. It ended up feeling like I had asked a conservative Christian community what they thought about the teachings of Buddhism. Wrong group, wrong question. There were, like you, some very kind, inclusive, and thoughtful responses. And then there were the true believers.

Let us know when it is published. I would be very interested. I find carrying a camera slows me down and I see things I wouldn't otherwise.

Recently I was involved in a discussion between two very accomplished photographers where they discussed their post processing technique. Both approached it as an artist would; they would have an image of something interesting, well captured and exposed. These were both wildlife photographers, and their goal was to present an image which highlighted what they wanted in a way that appealed to them. One would smooth out the background using an editing tool that gave an almost watercolor quality, with the subject sharp and clear. Other times the background would add to the image. Both produce stunning images that catch your eye and elicit a reaction. That is their goal, and they are very good at it, without it looking overprocessed.

I think it comes down to skill level (post processing is quite complex) and your sense of asthetics. But no matter what, a bad shot usually can't be saved.

[magkelly]

Actually, what's on a camera screen isn't quite what you'd see with your eyes. Even before you take the photo you've got something unrealistic going on. The camera is not as sophisticated as the human eye and probably never will be. The eye can see a lot more and to me what happens when I take a photo is I get something a bit less interesting than my eyes see. I shoot RAW most of the time so I can adjust the picture to be more like what I saw, but also so I can improve upon what the sensor can capture when the results are less appealing than I'd like. Part of learning about composition is learning about what is appealing ascetically versus what the camera thinks is real.

Our cameras are getting better and better, but ultimately they can't quite capture the vision our eyes can, at least not often. You may think you're seeing exactly what your eyes see on that screen and in the resulting photo but I'd bet that's your mind telling you that and a bit of an afterthought illusion rather than what's really going on. Our memory tends to do that adjust what we think we saw while taking a photo to matching what we see later in the resulting image. I'm not saying that every image needs a ton of post work because that is not so. My experience is most need very little but still I don't tend to like my images straight from the camera as shot in RAW most of the time. Sometimes I barely touch them. Sometimes I spend 20 minutes in post trying to match my eye's vision of what that photo should look like versus what I got.

There are a lot of people out there who will batch adjust photos with several actions in Photoshop and think nothing of it. I hardly ever do that. For me, each photo is a whole mystery unto itself and I usually have to adjust each individually to suit me. I can't mechanize my post work to that extent. It just doesn't suit how I work or see my work at all. I don't think 100% untouched photos are all that attractive most of the time or more pure than photos that have been. There is a difference between reasonable post adjusting and photo art of course, but adjusting minor things like sharpness or white balance I think nothing of doing that. You start cloning objects in, changing colors, then I start thinking of the result more as photo art but until then, no.

Even in the darkroom era photographers used to do minor corrections all the time. It's the same corrections it's just a lot easier with image editors like Photoshop, that's all. What used to take someone like Ansel Adams 60 minutes to do I can now do it in less than 2 minutes probably but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing the very same thing all those years ago. You'd be surprised at how much altering was going on back then. There was a museum photography exhibit a few years ago I went to where for each historical photo they showed an exact copy of the original negatives as a slide projected onto a screen on a wall and the photo as printed by the photographer back in the day. That was the first time I ever realized just how much correcting and altering you could do back then sans a digital image editor. I was amazed and that's when I stopped worrying so much about being so "accurate" in my work and started learning more about digital imaging sans any kind of guilt about using it.

Artistic vision and accuracy they don't always work hand in hand. Even back at the beginnings of photography photographers were trying to alter their work to match their personal vision and they often did. The only place it's usually not tolerated is in journalism and even then it's only when it's work for say the newspaper or evening news. Take a look at a magazine like say National Geographic and you will see plenty of altering and improving going on. If doing nothing in post suits you, fine, to each his or her own, but if you occasionally do feel the need to do some post I wouldn't get worried about doing it. So long as it looks like what you THINK you saw in the end you're doing fine...

[ghostdog]

Actually, what's on a camera screen isn't quite what you'd see with your eyes. Even before you take the photo you've got something unrealistic going on. The camera is not as sophisticated as the human eye and probably never will be. The eye can see a lot more and to me what happens when I take a photo is I get something a bit less interesting than my eyes see. I shoot RAW most of the time so I can adjust the picture to be more like what I saw, but also so I can improve upon what the sensor can capture when the results are less appealing than I'd like. Part of learning about composition is learning about what is appealing ascetically versus what the camera thinks is real.

Our cameras are getting better and better, but ultimately they can't quite capture the vision our eyes can, at least not often. You may think you're seeing exactly what your eyes see on that screen and in the resulting photo but I'd bet that's your mind telling you that and a bit of an afterthought illusion rather than what's really going on. Our memory tends to do that adjust what we think we saw while taking a photo to matching what we see later in the resulting image. I'm not saying that every image needs a ton of post work because that is not so. My experience is most need very little but still I don't tend to like my images straight from the camera as shot in RAW most of the time. Sometimes I barely touch them. Sometimes I spend 20 minutes in post trying to match my eye's vision of what that photo should look like versus what I got.

There are a lot of people out there who will batch adjust photos with several actions in Photoshop and think nothing of it. I hardly ever do that. For me, each photo is a whole mystery unto itself and I usually have to adjust each individually to suit me. I can't mechanize my post work to that extent. It just doesn't suit how I work or see my work at all. I don't think 100% untouched photos are all that attractive most of the time or more pure than photos that have been. There is a difference between reasonable post adjusting and photo art of course, but adjusting minor things like sharpness or white balance I think nothing of doing that. You start cloning objects in, changing colors, then I start thinking of the result more as photo art but until then, no.

Even in the darkroom era photographers used to do minor corrections all the time. It's the same corrections it's just a lot easier with image editors like Photoshop, that's all. What used to take someone like Ansel Adams 60 minutes to do I can now do it in less than 2 minutes probably but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing the very same thing all those years ago. You'd be surprised at how much altering was going on back then. There was a museum photography exhibit a few years ago I went to where for each historical photo they showed an exact copy of the original negatives as a slide projected onto a screen on a wall and the photo as printed by the photographer back in the day. That was the first time I ever realized just how much correcting and altering you could do back then sans a digital image editor. I was amazed and that's when I stopped worrying so much about being so "accurate" in my work and started learning more about digital imaging sans any kind of guilt about using it.

Artistic vision and accuracy they don't always work hand in hand. Even back at the beginnings of photography photographers were trying to alter their work to match their personal vision and they often did. The only place it's usually not tolerated is in journalism and even then it's only when it's work for say the newspaper or evening news. Take a look at a magazine like say National Geographic and you will see plenty of altering and improving going on. If doing nothing in post suits you, fine, to each his or her own, but if you occasionally do feel the need to do some post I wouldn't get worried about doing it. So long as it looks like what you THINK you saw in the end you're doing fine...

Very nice post. Thanks.

---------- Post added 06-25-15 at 02:57 PM ----------

Let us know when it is published. I would be very interested. I find carrying a camera slows me down and I see things I wouldn't otherwise.

Recently I was involved in a discussion between two very accomplished photographers where they discussed their post processing technique. Both approached it as an artist would; they would have an image of something interesting, well captured and exposed. These were both wildlife photographers, and their goal was to present an image which highlighted what they wanted in a way that appealed to them. One would smooth out the background using an editing tool that gave an almost watercolor quality, with the subject sharp and clear. Other times the background would add to the image. Both produce stunning images that catch your eye and elicit a reaction. That is their goal, and they are very good at it, without it looking overprocessed.

I think it comes down to skill level (post processing is quite complex) and your sense of asthetics. But no matter what, a bad shot usually can't be saved.

When someone records an image with a camera, that image only exists because they recorded it, and as such, it's theirs to interpret, or alter or dismiss. I understand and appreciate that. I've spent enough time outdoors to be able to distinguish an image that reflects what I've seen, or could imagine seeing, and an image that has been changed to appeal to a photographer's vision and intent.

For me, the natural world is more than compelling as it is. I suppose I'll keep doing what I've been doing (and failing miserably according to some members of this form) trying with all my might to compose and capture images that are as close to being what is in front of the lens at the moment I clicked the shutter. As long as my pictures inspire people to notice the remarkable and the inexplicable in the common and the "mundane", I will have been successful, not as a photographer. but as a writer.

[derekkite]

It really does come down to taste and aesthetics. Your images should reflect what you want them to look like.

I suspect that is the biggest challenge in photography; having a shot be yours, identifiable. One of the photographers I mentioned has numerous shots of different species in a very similar pose, to the point that others use his name to describe the pose. Much is how the shots are taken, which ones are chosen, and processed.

[MD Optofonik]

I'll bite.

I consider 8x10 large format film photography state of the art. Still. One day I hope to at least try it out but I don't need to try it to understand and appreciate the time and effort put into making each exposure (we call it "capture" today), developing each sheet, and printing each photograph. Even with the most meticulous attention to detail during exposure there is the expectation and planning of more work to come during processing and printing. Relatively speaking, I see no difference with digital; careful attention to exposure and more work to be done in "post". The post work, however should be taken into consideration when making an exposure, not as a "fix, but as a continuation of the photographic process. I also believe there is also a vast difference between dodging and burning vs painting something out. Some would argue that there is an analogy between the two but I would respectfully disagree perhaps even going to far as to argue that a line is crossed at some point between photography and design.

If one paints out power lines in a California mountain landscape is one "taking" a photograph or "designing" an image? I'm torn when it comes to this sort of editing but tend to turn my camera away, remove it from my eye, and enjoy the view on a purely personal level irrespective of such man made desecration. It would be too easy to take the shot and edit the image into a view I wish existed, allowing myself (and others) the luxury of illusion in the face of tragedy.

I'll not get into "Photoshopping" as the term is currently understood beyond saying it is a legitimate tool when creating certain types of art, commercial or "fine".

[noelpolar]

I must admit, recently when I've seen some work put up at the local camera club at the monthly competition I've had to ponder things (Ive only been a couple of times.....probally isn't for me). Most of the photographers work has been processed pretty naturally.....by this I mean some adjustment to sharpening, clarity, shadows etc (in camera or out....who knows).

However, put up against these, as far as scoring and awards go, are images that have clearly had a greater depth of work applied, such as separating the elements into layers and applying more complex adjustments. I'm not even sure where one could draw the line on this, given that less complex image editing solutions like "Lightroom" have quite complex editing functionality in them now (things like brushes, haze, and graduated filter editing tools).

I do know that It doesn't feel like a level playing field when comparing images though. But I guess it's much the same in comparing a couple of prints in a competition without knowing the equipment used....ie I'm less likely to go wow at a good D810 image then a good P&S image for example, if I new what they were shot with.

[normhead]

Every great film photographer had great technician.

I tend to see it the other way.

It blows my mind that people honestly believe that they can take work straight off the camera, and it will be as good as the images where people have taken 45 minutes to an hour to actually work on them.

When I was doing film, for every 3 hours in the studio, we spent 3 hours in the darkroom. Digital has really cut down on the darkroom time, but you still have to do it.

So, no, if you don't spend time improving your images in PP, you don't get the same results as those who do. duh

Get used to it.

The camera is not some kind of magic box that turns you into a great artist. Those who succeed are those who work at their craft. Same as any other visual medium. The only thing weird about photography would be those who think they are getting some kind of free pass to artistic greatness., just by clicking a button.

So if you thought photography was some kind of short cut to fame or fortune, forget it. If it was, everyone would be rich and famous. You have to work like everyone else.

Clicking the button then saying "that's the way I like it" is just lazy. Show me where you've gone into lightroom or photoshop and created 5 or 10 different interpretations of your image, in what universe is that flat image that uses half the dynamic range available with it's muted colours the one you'd select as your favourite?

The thing is, if you haven't learned to do at least three or four different treatments of an image, you don't even have a choice, so saying you like it right off the camera is meaningless. If your only choice is one thing, right off the camera, then of course you like that. You have nothing else to choose from.

When someone says " I like images right off the camera"
I hear " I don't know how to post process and I either don't have time or can't be bothered learning."

Well , just because you can't be bothered, doesn't mean people who do are doing something wrong. That's just not the way it works.

And you can't just pick up a camera and suddenly be the next great photography superstar, it takes a heck of a lot more work than that.That's like picking up a basketball and expecting to be the next Micheal Jordan. You can dream about it all you want...but that's not going to make it happen. And the fact that I might have hit a couple shots in my small time industrial league basketball career that would have made any player proud, maybe even Micheal Jordan, doesn't mean I could play anywhere near the level he could. What would be a career defining shot for me, would be one of his 20 made baskets in one game.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-26-2015 at 07:10 AM.

[vonBaloney]

When someone says " I like images right off the camera"
I hear " I don't know how to post process and I either don't have time or can't be bothered learning."

Yeah, same here, it just means, "I know nothing about photography." Which is fine for most, and I can let that be. But when it comes with a snobbish attitude, as if post-processing is something *wrong*, and they are "artistically pure" by not processing (when they really just don't know anything about it) then they need a schooling. [That is a general statement not to be taken as directed at anyone in this thread.]

[stevebrot]

Yeah, same here, it just means, "I know nothing about photography." Which is fine for most, and I can let that be. But when it comes with a snobbish attitude, as if post-processing is something *wrong*, and they are "artistically pure" by not processing (when they really just don't know anything about it) then they need a schooling. [That is a general statement not to be taken as directed at anyone in this thread.]

Well put.

The notion of the pure image is usually an indication of a lack of knowledge of the image-making process. There is no such thing as an unprocessed image, whether the capture was made using film/tin/gelatin (chemically sensitized medium) or a digital sensor, or the cornea of the human eye.


Steve

[dms]

Thanks for a very nice post.

All I am after in any image is an honest record of what I saw, what captured my attention. Several of my photographs are about to be published in book form, as part of a presentation of what could best be described as a guide to noticing, or perhaps the art of noticing.

Ghostdog--It seems to me you started this discussion pretending to be somewhat naive and taking a position that you knew was too simple, in order to elicit a lot of comments. We on the other hand thought you wanted a discussion/dialog. Shame on you.

[Rondec]

Very nice post. Thanks.

---------- Post added 06-25-15 at 02:57 PM ----------

When someone records an image with a camera, that image only exists because they recorded it, and as such, it's theirs to interpret, or alter or dismiss. I understand and appreciate that. I've spent enough time outdoors to be able to distinguish an image that reflects what I've seen, or could imagine seeing, and an image that has been changed to appeal to a photographer's vision and intent.

For me, the natural world is more than compelling as it is. I suppose I'll keep doing what I've been doing (and failing miserably according to some members of this form) trying with all my might to compose and capture images that are as close to being what is in front of the lens at the moment I clicked the shutter. As long as my pictures inspire people to notice the remarkable and the inexplicable in the common and the "mundane", I will have been successful, not as a photographer. but as a writer.

It is really tough to do what you are attempting. Certainly you have a vision of a scene that you have seen. You still have choices about white balance, sharpening, whether or not to burn highlights or dodge shadow areas.

It feels to me as though you are reacting against over processing and saying that no processing is better, but in the digital age, there is no such thing as no processing. You are just choosing neutral settings, but there is still some sort of processing going on.

As I said before, you are a photographer and your vision is real. As long as you are meeting that vision -- either with or without post processing -- then you don't need to worry about what others think. I guess I would just say that, whatever settings you have chosen on your camera, those are your post processing. They are what turn your RAW image into a jpeg that is viewable.

[derekkite]

Ghostdog--It seems to me you started this discussion pretending to be somewhat naive and taking a position that you knew was too simple, in order to elicit a lot of comments. We on the other hand thought you wanted a discussion/dialog. Shame on you.

Why the touchiness? It is worth thinking this stuff over, what it comes down to is someone developing their own style. There is no right answer, in fact, there can't be a right way or right anything. And we end up having strong feelings about it because it reflects who we are. That is good.

[ghostdog]

Ghostdog--It seems to me you started this discussion pretending to be somewhat naive and taking a position that you knew was too simple, in order to elicit a lot of comments. We on the other hand thought you wanted a discussion/dialog. Shame on you.

Nothing could be further from the truth. My question was formed out of true curiosity. I have no interest in controversy or stimulating ire.

I won't be coming back to this forum and asking questions. I wish I hadn't bothered. I'll figure out what works for me.

[normhead]

Nothing could be further from the truth. My question was formed out of true curiosity. I have no interest in controversy or stimulating ire.

I won't be coming back to this forum and asking questions. I wish I hadn't bothered. I'll figure out what works for me.

Actually if you're going to come back and put put a bunch of statements indicating you think you are the true judge of what reality is, who's honest and who isn't, what an accurate portrayal of reality is etc, that's probably a good idea. To make use of a forum like this, you really need to be able to listen to what others are saying without prejudice, to weed through the chaff to get to the kernel etc.

We are not the, "come in and tell us how wonderful you are and we'll all tell you what a genius you are" forum. But there are lots of people here who really know their stuff. All you're saying to me with statements like

I won't be coming back to this forum and asking questions.

is, you're extremely lacking in the kind of maturity, you need to grow. People don't put their opinions out because they want controversy. People put their opinions out because they have legitimate concerns with your attitudes and opinions, which unfortunately you can't distinguish from reality. You're sulking .

Get over it.

Start learning about photography instead of coming from a position of "here's what I think , worship me."

[vonBaloney]

Nothing could be further from the truth. My question was formed out of true curiosity. I have no interest in controversy or stimulating ire.

I won't be coming back to this forum and asking questions. I wish I hadn't bothered. I'll figure out what works for me.

I don't understand the prickly attitude. You asked a question, stimulated an interesting discussion, no one was rude to you as far as I can tell. So it's all good, what's the problem?