[Dartmoor Dave]

Not to hijack the thread, but is the photo made at the time of exposure, or later, in the image editor?

It's made in the mind of the photographer while looking at the scene. Then the photographer uses whatever technical means are necessary to get the desired end result. A photographer who insists on doing it all using SOOC jpeg is merely placing unnecessary limits on the technical means that are available.

[Vasyl]

A few weeks ago, back when the weather was warm, I spent some minutes watching a keen photographer trying to photograph a group of Dartmoor ponies with his very high-end looking Canon on a tripod. The ponies would stand there patiently while he planted his tripod feet and adjusted the height, then at the moment he bent down to look through the viewfinder they'd move away out of frame. Each time the ponies did that the photographer moved his tripod to a new position and started setting up again, and each time he finally bent down to look through his viewfinder the ponies moved away. After about ten minutes of it the poor guy looked close to tears.

The thing is, ponies really don't like it when they can't see your face. So if you want to get good photos of them from close by you have to shoot handheld and shoot fast, with the camera up to your eye for the briefest moment possible. Of course you could try using live view and a tripod, although you'd still be most likely to end up with lots of photos of a horse's a**e and also look like one.

you made my day!!!...Conclusion - tripod is not for ponies and ponies are not for any firearms like a canon...:-)

[pschlute]

Not to hijack the thread, but is the photo made at the time of exposure, or later, in the image editor?

It is made after I have done my final editing in the editing software.

A bit like film where the finished product, the picture itself, is only complete when it has been printed.

[DeadJohn]

Does that really add more value?...

What do you mean by "value"? Are you talking about making the photo better, or adding value to our discussion of the photo?


I don't think information about technique makes a photo any better to a viewer or purchaser. Here on PF, though, many of us don't just share photos to harvest likes, and I appreciate details about how a photo was taken. That's also why knowing the camera and lens is helpful, but a good photo is good regardless of equipment and methods.

In the astrophotography niche, fellow astrophotographers frequently discuss equipment, how many images were stacked, and what software features were used for processing so we can learn from each other.

[clickclick]

I find they can be of interest for many reasons, and I'm sure there are times I've looked at a photo wondering what they did specifically to get the shot, so helpful and useful, yes, but "value" isn't how I would describe it.

[aslyfox]

I was replying to the concept of "purity". When I clone out an object in a picture (or even a person) I realise I am modifying what the camera "saw". But when I head out with a camera it is not to "record what is there" , I go out to make a photograph.

create a painting then

I submitted a photo for a critique here once

it was a photo of a cheetah and cub feeding on a kill

a complaint was made that I didn't use pp to remove a stalk of grass from the posted photo

why?


the " offending " stalk crossed the face of the cub, but did not obscure it

it was real

why complain about reality ?

[pschlute]

why complain about reality ?

What has reality got to do with art ? If the picture is improved by cloning, then clone.

If you venture out late at night or very early morning are you going to be happy with your pictures if they only consist of dark frames ?

[aslyfox]

What has reality got to do with art ? If the picture is improved by cloning, then clone.

If you venture out late at night or very early morning are you going to be happy with your pictures if they only consist of dark frames ?

what ever choice you make is fine with me

do you know the limitations of your gear

experimentation is fun

[Lambic]

Spirited discussion! I think in a gallery situation I really don't need to know these details, but here on this forum where I come to learn from others' experiences, I think these details are useful.

[MossyRocks]

I submitted a photo for a critique here once

it was a photo of a cheetah and cub feeding on a kill

a complaint was made that I didn't use pp to remove a stalk of grass from the posted photo

why?


the " offending " stalk crossed the face of the cub, but did not obscure it

it was real

why complain about reality ?

I am of two thoughts on this. Almost always when I submit a picture for critique (I do fairly frequently) I do some fairly light slider edits in light room for contrast, highlights/shadows, black/white levels and leave it at that without it looking overcooked so that I can get the most feedback. Even personally I like to leave things with fairly mild edits for most images (astro pics are a big exception) as I still have that mindset from film. However I don't have a problem removing distracting elements provided they are small, like a flower that has a dirt clump on it, power lines in the corner of the image, some footprints in snow, or a small road marker post in the ditch. Some people like taking pictures, some like making images, to each their own.

[aslyfox]

. . .. Some people like taking pictures, some like making images, to each their own.

fair enough

[BrianR]

Context matters. Handheld or sooc jpeg can be useful information from a troubleshooting standpoint. If someone's swinging these or similar terms around as if they are some kind of holy grail of photo 'purity' then I'll just scroll on by.

... or claim that only the colour of the camera's jpeg is the "one and true" record of what they are recording.

I don't argue anymore

I don't get that either. 'Factory default jpeg' gets some mystical properties.

Not arguing the point is a good policy.

[PDL]

My two cents.

Having grown up with film since the early 60's, yeah I developed good technique for hand held shots. I don't really care for tripods since the places I usually shoot just do not allow their use, or they would be very intrusive to other people standing around where I am. Three of the images in my PPG gallery were hand held (*ist Ds) taken during the blue hour in 2006 in New Zealand. In fact, all of my PPG images are hand held except one, the Seattle Center Fountain shot, where I put the camera on my foot for perspective and keeping it out of the water. https://pentaxphotogallery.com/artist-gallery/?artist_id=152749

Even on my trip to Yellowstone NP a few weeks ago, all the images are hand held as were the images I took while in Alaska in June. One of my buddies, who I shared images with, asked if the panoramas I took used a tripod. Nope, all were hand held as were all of my panoramas I have taken since 2017. Do I brag about it? Ah no. Do I brag about my ability to hand hold my 300mm and get a majority of "useable" images, no, not really. (However, some of that ability is due to SR) Good technique will provide you with the ability to provide "more value" to your images.

Value, to me, is what I want it to be. Panorama's do not exist as OOC images - at least not mine. OOC JPEG's are based on what the factory engineers think "is acceptable". I prefer to choose what I think is acceptable, sometimes I do not get results that work all that well, but for the most part I get something that passes my muster. Putting, or leaving, your camera in "green" mode or P will give you factory acceptable images about 90% of the time. I prefer to shoot in that last 10%, therefore I take responsibility for how the image is captured and processed rather than leaving it up to some factory default.

The same goes for the "I shoot only manual" types. They are not going to be able to keep up with me when shooting and I really doubt that they are going to have a higher keeper rate. Now, I have a lot of keepers, but I still only product a few finalized images, in fact my inability to cut down on the number of images I show to friends, family and clients is one of the reasons that they almost fear it when I offer to show them my images. I tend to put quite a lot of people to sleep.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Value, to me, is what I want it to be. Panorama's do not exist as OOC images - at least not mine. OOC JPEG's are based on what the factory engineers think "is acceptable". I prefer to choose what I think is acceptable, sometimes I do not get results that work all that well, but for the most part I get something that passes my muster. Putting, or leaving, your camera in "green" mode or P will give you factory acceptable images about 90% of the time. I prefer to shoot in that last 10%, therefore I take responsibility for how the image is captured and processed rather than leaving it up to some factory default.

There is also the act of taking the photograph, I find great enjoyment in capture the best I can with what I have at the time. If the conditions allow me to use a tripod then I dig out the tripod for me that is part of the enjoyment.

My reward is when all the technical aspects, artistic interpretation and the challenges come together to create something that I find enjoyable .

There is a reason as to why I go out before sunrise and come back in the dark while lugging my equipment around

[Rondec]

But these two things are different.

Cloning out imperfections is modifying what was actually there. Making it something that is not the case. Imagine cloning out your least favourite family member from a photo. Same thing.

Right out of the camera simply explains ones mastery of the jpeg settings, and exposure. They took a shot with the desired effects that n the dead no further adjustment, that’s all

As to value of the different qualifying statements attached to an image, they add value to a discussion about technique but not monetarily

I guess the question is of journalism versus art. Of course I wouldn't clone out a family member, but I wouldn't hesitate to clone out a branch that was in the wrong spot. But honestly, if I'm taking a landscape photo and see something -- garbage or whatever I'll pick it up rather than have to clone it out after the fact (and if it's trash transport to the nearest trash can).

Not to hijack the thread, but is the photo made at the time of exposure, or later, in the image editor?

People have the impression that back in the golden era of film, folks like Saint Ansel took their photos "in camera" and then just printed them. But having read his books, the reality is quite different. He kept copious notes while he was taking photos and then used those notes while developing his films in conjunction with his zone method to attempt to reach his vision for a scene.

I take a lot of landscape photos and when I look at a sunrise scene, I know that I am going to have to under expose the scene by between one and two stops to be sure that I don't blow the highlights in the sky. This means that if I shot jpegs my foreground would be really dark. So I shoot raw, knowing what I can do (and plan to do) in post processing in order to capture the dynamic range that my eye sees. I see it all as one piece, image capture and post processing. Unfortunately the last part -- the printing is often not done in these digital days -- but there is a reason why Ansel Adams' books were the camera, the negative, and the print. He felt that each one of these components of producing an image were equally important.