Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-23-2009, 12:07 PM   #31
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I believe Adobe labs.
Anyway, other than using fine grained film and high acutance developers, there is no artificial sharpening available to the film/wet print photographer, Although lith masking can bring out sharp edges, it is always at the expense of acutance.
Unsharp masking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photoshop uses an analagous technique but I think USM was around a long time before photoshop. Anyway, its of less practical use in wet photography because there is no AA filter, so there is no loss of sharpness (apart from the enlarging lens quality perhaps) from developer to print. If you scan it then thats different.

QuoteQuote:

AA used large format film because it was easier for him to control the entire process with it.
At least that's what he told me.

I've managed to get as much as 14 stops out of B&W film, but it's work. My post was addressing colour neg film specifically, roll film generally, as there still is no digital replacement for large format B&W. You'll have a very hard time getting more than 8-10 stops out of any B&W film on the market now, especially if you are shooting roll film and need generalized development.

He did most of his commercial photography with Hasselblads, BTW
That does not change the fact that film and digital have completely different response characteristics so comparing DR directly is misleading. Both need manipulation if you want the end result to look half way realistic.

If you are using generalised processing, of course you have even less flexibility, which is why the fact you can use photoshop so easily is so utterly fantastic.

03-23-2009, 01:45 PM   #32
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by dylansalt Quote
Hence why I treat digital in EXACTLY the same way.
Your loss then I guess.
03-23-2009, 02:35 PM   #33
emr
Guest




If it's "art", I don't care how much one processes the original photograph. The end results are what matter. For more documentary images I'd accept only the slightest manipulation. One newspaper photographer who I admire has said something like that the photograph shouldn't lie. I understood he manipulates the pictures only slightly if needed, not the show something that's not there or give a false impression.

Then again - with the risk of contradicting myself - I don't really think there's a truth about photographing something, it's always a subjective view and interpretation.
03-23-2009, 02:43 PM   #34
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
In full agreement...

Agree with this 100%

Jason

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I do as little post processing as I can. I really do believe that digital photography and Photoshop is leading to an overall lowering of photographic skills.
It is too easy to just "fix it in Photoshop" and too many pictures are being taken with little or no thought to the end result.
What I find really disturbing is the number of people who will spend a half hour or more in post processing to fix something that would have taken a half minute to correct at the time the picture was taken.
Penny wise, Pound foolish.

There is of course, the school of Photoshop as art, and I have no problems with highly manipulated images if the intent was to impose a particular look on the image after the fact.
The extremely tone mapped HDR images are an example.
I actually quite like them.
But they aren't photography anymore, they are digital graphic arts.

Photoshop is far more than an electronic darkroom. The big practical difference is that the wet darkroom doesn't have a history tool, so mistakes are time consuming and costly.
The wet darkroom worker is pretty much limited to contrast control, and dodging and burning unless he or she is a very advanced worker.

Fixing images in the darkroom is much more limited than what can be done in the computer.

Good photographers envision what the finished print will look like before they push the button and will plan their image accordingly.
This is a far different approach from opening a failure in Photoshop and trying to salvage something from it, generally with less than successful results.


03-23-2009, 03:04 PM   #35
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
If you want to create high quality prints, you need to expose correctly AND post process correctly. You cannot sniffily dismiss photoshop as merely a way to recover poor shots. Thats a cop out. Post processing is essential to develop a shot that has real potential in the first place but which you may have had to deliberately underexpose to preserve detail in the sky (or a wedding dress). The camera can only ever get you half way there.
I agree with this as well, with caveats. I believe that the best shots I can create are those done to touch the soul of the person viewing that image. Isn't that really the definition of any art form, the pursuit of that which, though a myriad of means, allow the creator to transmit the feelings of their soul to another human being?

I do not allow my own work to be viewed by anyone (externally) if it will not pass the above test, does it touch their soul, could it change their life, even if for a few seconds, a few months or their lifetime?

Maybe the issue is that a photographer is defined as one who practices photography. And what is photography?



Main Entry:
pho·tog·ra·phy Listen to the pronunciation of photography
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
Function:
noun
Date:
1839

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

I guess I would contend that we may need to classify those who do use PS heavily (and consistently) to not be photographers by definition, more like digital artists.
03-23-2009, 03:15 PM   #36
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,857
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Unsharp masking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photoshop uses an analagous technique but I think USM was around a long time before photoshop. Anyway, its of less practical use in wet photography because there is no AA filter, so there is no loss of sharpness (apart from the enlarging lens quality perhaps) from developer to print. If you scan it then thats different.
I used that technique extensively when printing large format chromes onto Cibachrome. At the time we called it contrast masking. I never noticed it having any effect on sharpening. If it did, it would be pretty minimal.

QuoteQuote:
That does not change the fact that film and digital have completely different response characteristics so comparing DR directly is misleading. Both need manipulation if you want the end result to look half way realistic.
How is it misleading? You said film has a greater dynamic range, and unless you are going to do some fairly hefty exposure and development manipulation with the few emulsions that can be coaxed into having a lot of range, it is a false statement.

I'm just saying that, I'm not addressing the degree of manipulation you'd need to do to get the film to give you a 12 stop range.
In Photoshop, the manipulation would be Image/adjust/levels.
03-23-2009, 05:03 PM   #37
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
I'm sorry, I think that is missing the point and I also think its untrue.

You have no idea what the developing lab did to your print, so how do you know whether it was a lot or a little?

Ansell Adams spent hours, sometimes days, perfecting a print from a single negative. Was that because he was crap?

Frankly, I am impressed that modern cameras are often more intelligent that the apes holding them, and will do a fair job in green mode and JPG fine. But thats because they have a lot of computer firmware evaluating the exposure (even in Nikons case comparing it to thousands of stored scenes). The result is the best the camera can do, and is often pretty OK, but that does NOT mean its the best YOU can do if you opt to engage brain and learn basic photoshop skills (and no I dont just mean contrast, saturation and shadow/highlight control - although contrast is sometimes all you need) .

If you want to create high quality prints, you need to expose correctly AND post process correctly. You cannot sniffily dismiss photoshop as merely a way to recover poor shots. Thats a cop out. Post processing is essential to develop a shot that has real potential in the first place but which you may have had to deliberately underexpose to preserve detail in the sky (or a wedding dress). The camera can only ever get you half way there.

Yes there is a lot of poor photography around right now, but thats because its become very accessible to people who just want to take snaps for facebook,
or prove their manhood by walking around with a big lens blazing away at everything. Sadly an immense amount of rubbish is posted on gear forums by supposed enthusiasts who actually just buy more and more gear and bang on a lot about how much they "need" more this or bigger that. It really is no different to golf or fishing in that respect.

However, when I look around exhibitions and galleries in London I am amazed at some of the extremely high quality work being done by amateurs (some even teenagers) with modest budgets and modest gear and that standard is hugely helped by the availability of excellent information from the the internet and access to decent (even free) software for managing digital workflows. Its a lot cheaper and 1000X as powerful as owning your own colour lab and can make your humble entry level SLR look like a megabuck professional camera if you know how to use it.

And I am the first to admit that I am very much still learning after 30 years of SLR ownership, a library of photo books, and several courses - but I would never write off anything that could materially improve my photography.
Well, I seem to have one negative and one positive comment on my post. I do PP for about 15 different "Pros" beside myself. They all make money at what they do. I have about 4 of the pros who, when they come in just need the image cropped, balanced then printed. Sometimes they want it B&W then selective color. The I have the rest. When they come in it's going to be about a 20-25 layer file and as many masks to make it look decent. None of them want to sit in front of the computer to do the work themselves so they pay me.
The lab generally was me. When I stopped doing color myself I found a lab thatwould do what I wanted not what they wanted.

When I said "digital age" I pretty much meant all forms though not just photography.


Last edited by graphicgr8s; 03-23-2009 at 05:10 PM.
03-23-2009, 06:45 PM   #38
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I used that technique extensively when printing large format chromes onto Cibachrome. At the time we called it contrast masking. I never noticed it having any effect on sharpening. If it did, it would be pretty minimal.



How is it misleading? You said film has a greater dynamic range, and unless you are going to do some fairly hefty exposure and development manipulation with the few emulsions that can be coaxed into having a lot of range, it is a false statement.
Nope I never said anything of the sort. I said that negative film sent off to a developers could be pushed up to 2 stops to correct exposure. With digital I am not getting my prints done by a lab so I have to do it myself which means I have to get the exposure right in the first place and ideally know how to manipulate tone cures on photoshop if I want the overall exposure balance between highlights, midtones and shadows to look balanced.

QuoteQuote:
I'm just saying that, I'm not addressing the degree of manipulation you'd need to do to get the film to give you a 12 stop range.
In Photoshop, the manipulation would be Image/adjust/levels.
I dont understand where this argument is going. First you quote me for saying something I never said and now you are confusing DR and tone curves.
03-23-2009, 06:58 PM   #39
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Well, I seem to have one negative and one positive comment on my post. I do PP for about 15 different "Pros" beside myself. They all make money at what they do. I have about 4 of the pros who, when they come in just need the image cropped, balanced then printed. Sometimes they want it B&W then selective color. The I have the rest. When they come in it's going to be about a 20-25 layer file and as many masks to make it look decent. None of them want to sit in front of the computer to do the work themselves so they pay me.
The lab generally was me. When I stopped doing color myself I found a lab thatwould do what I wanted not what they wanted.

When I said "digital age" I pretty much meant all forms though not just photography.
Well my apologies for taking your original statement out of context as I obviously did. However I still disagree with your premise that the quality of photography overall has declined and that its somehow because of photoshop. I still believe its simply a matter of popularity and access. Anyone now can have a blog, but are there more great writers?

But it seems to me that you have also kind of contradicted your original statement. If you have to use 25 layers to make a shot look half decent, is that because they are incompetent?

I mean, some photographers used to spend hours in the darkroom, but most never had access to one. Now we all do. OK so some people use this as an excuse to take poor shots, but honestly I think it actually allows you to take viable shots in light conditions when previously you would have simply given up, and in many cases achieve results that look amazing.

Of course you can screw up photoshop and make a photograph look utterly rubbish, but that does not mean that good photoshop work is not essential to get the best out of any shot, even if you need a relatively light touch some of the time.
03-23-2009, 10:07 PM   #40
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,857
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Nope I never said anything of the sort. I said that negative film sent off to a developers could be pushed up to 2 stops to correct exposure. With digital I am not getting my prints done by a lab so I have to do it myself which means I have to get the exposure right in the first place and ideally know how to manipulate tone cures on photoshop if I want the overall exposure balance between highlights, midtones and shadows to look balanced.

Negative film cannot be pushed for extra film speed at all. Been there, done that, have the graphs to prove it. You can increase contrast with B&W film, and can perhaps coax about 1/3 stop of speed increase (close enough to nothing) if you develop it long enough.
What you missed. or I managed to not get across is that digital now has a longer dynamic range than film by at least a couple of stops.
Some B&W emulsions can be coaxed into more, but this is certainly very far from the mainstream.

I dont understand where this argument is going. First you quote me for saying something I never said and now you are confusing DR and tone curves.
Amazing, considering we both said more or less the same thing early on.
I'm not confusing anything.
Levels is how you fit the scene to the dynamic range of the process.
03-24-2009, 01:53 PM   #41
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Well my apologies for taking your original statement out of context as I obviously did. However I still disagree with your premise that the quality of photography overall has declined and that its somehow because of photoshop. I still believe its simply a matter of popularity and access. Anyone now can have a blog, but are there more great writers?

But it seems to me that you have also kind of contradicted your original statement. If you have to use 25 layers to make a shot look half decent, is that because they are incompetent?

I mean, some photographers used to spend hours in the darkroom, but most never had access to one. Now we all do. OK so some people use this as an excuse to take poor shots, but honestly I think it actually allows you to take viable shots in light conditions when previously you would have simply given up, and in many cases achieve results that look amazing.

Of course you can screw up photoshop and make a photograph look utterly rubbish, but that does not mean that good photoshop work is not essential to get the best out of any shot, even if you need a relatively light touch some of the time.
Apologies noted but not really needed friend. Yes, they pretty much are incompetent but they "earn a living" taking pictures and I make a bit of money correcting their incompetence.
I love the ones that come to me though with a really a-one image and just want selective color or a minor tweak done. They are the able photographers. I don't make as much money from them but I sure love seeing their work. Sometimes I get their stuff and have to tell them I won't touch it, it's just that good. And they respect that opinion and I just print it for them.
Back in the day you're right. We spent a lot of time in the darkroom to get an effect. Or to just experiment to get a new "angle" But it seems we also were a lot closer to correct than what I see today. Don't get me wrong here. There are still great shooters out there. Fortunately many of them shoot Pentax and are on this forum. And many amateurs here to that do amazing work. Without Photoshop.
03-24-2009, 02:20 PM   #42
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Apologies noted but not really needed friend. Yes, they pretty much are incompetent but they "earn a living" taking pictures and I make a bit of money correcting their incompetence.
I love the ones that come to me though with a really a-one image and just want selective color or a minor tweak done. They are the able photographers. I don't make as much money from them but I sure love seeing their work. Sometimes I get their stuff and have to tell them I won't touch it, it's just that good. And they respect that opinion and I just print it for them.
Back in the day you're right. We spent a lot of time in the darkroom to get an effect. Or to just experiment to get a new "angle" But it seems we also were a lot closer to correct than what I see today. Don't get me wrong here. There are still great shooters out there. Fortunately many of them shoot Pentax and are on this forum. And many amateurs here to that do amazing work. Without Photoshop.
Well, you have a unique view of the market I guess. I find it slightly appaling that "professionals" need quite as much help as that. I was hoping it was more to do with fact they were pushing the boundaries. Obviously not.
03-24-2009, 02:37 PM   #43
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,784
I guess I align closer with the 'purist' philosophy. For me, part of the 'art' behind photography is framing and composing through the viewfinder, using the various lenses and associated A/Tv settings to paint the picture, and minimal PP afterwards except to make up for shooting error (under/over exposure, cropping if absolutely necessary, etc.).
03-24-2009, 04:16 PM   #44
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
This might answer your question.

fire escape in the sky

03-24-2009, 04:36 PM   #45
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
Yup, describes my pursuit exactly.

I think the point here is that we likely all disapprove of a P&S shooter paying a person to correct their mistakes, enhancing the photo (even to the point of completely changing it), and then trying to pass it off as though they are a professional photographer. It dilutes the value of the term "photographer" and is insulting to those who do their homework, try hard to make things right from the get go, expand their horizons through either personal challenges or external pressures and take pride in their work.

In my opinion, there can be a fine line there between a photographer and a Photoshopper. I think that ultimately, we don't need or desire to insult those who do Photoshop heavily, we just don't want them to be representative of what the term photographer has historically meant to the general populace. When a person takes a photograph and then heavily manipulates it with Photoshop it is no longer a photograph and should not be considered or marketed as such, instead it should be considered digital artistry, or some other term. The problem is setting boundaries on the alterations, getting rules set down that the majority of the interested parties can agree on.

Regardless of the effort I make on using my computer to make watercolor like, acrylic like and oil like prints, they are not watercolors, acrylics or oils. In my sig you will find a link to my galleries, one of which is to my digital artistry, which is not created using Photoshop.

QuoteOriginally posted by legacyb4 Quote
I guess I align closer with the 'purist' philosophy. For me, part of the 'art' behind photography is framing and composing through the viewfinder, using the various lenses and associated A/Tv settings to paint the picture, and minimal PP afterwards except to make up for shooting error (under/over exposure, cropping if absolutely necessary, etc.).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, lot, photography, reality
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New in here and in photography Aktivus Welcomes and Introductions 1 09-12-2010 01:19 PM
What Is Your Philosophy? Rupert General Talk 56 02-08-2010 01:35 PM
3D photography MattGunn Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 07-29-2009 09:54 PM
adopting the strobist philosophy Gooshin Photographic Technique 29 06-07-2009 07:53 AM
Let's get better at our photography together!!! paulsoucy Post Your Photos! 40 08-19-2008 10:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top