Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-22-2014, 08:16 AM   #106
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
A rose by any other name etc etc.

I find it interesting that many people can't seem to get beyond process
and see the final image free from assumptions about what is and is not
proper process and genre. Hell - even a velvet painting of Elvis can be
done well or poorly.

The final image either works or not. Process is irrelevant.
Well, there is a feeling that pros "get it right in camera" and also that photography is more about documenting what is really there than creating something else. Graphic art -- highly processed images like these or, HDR photos that look like something out of a video game are quite eye catching, but I personally wouldn't put them on my wall. But I wouldn't frame a lot of the street photography photos that are posted by people either.

There is a fine line between graphic art and photography and not sure which side of that line these photos come down on.

01-22-2014, 10:12 AM   #107
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,465
The online elusive "pro" - born with a creative silver spoon in their mouth and can shoot any genera of photography with perfection with any camera. And often cited to support arguments in online forums.
01-22-2014, 10:14 AM   #108
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The online elusive "pro" - born with a creative silver spoon in their mouth and can shoot any genera of photography with perfection with any camera. And often cited to support arguments in online forums.
I don't know those folks, although most professionals I know do try to get things as close to the way they want in camera as possible, as they hate doing extra post processing (time=money).
01-22-2014, 10:22 AM   #109
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,465
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't know those folks, although most professionals I know do try to get things as close to the way they want in camera as possible, as they hate doing extra post processing (time=money).
I would say except many professional landscapers. Focus stacking and exposure blending with colors pushed to the limits is what I see for sale often.

01-22-2014, 10:58 AM   #110
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I would say except many professional landscapers. Focus stacking and exposure blending with colors pushed to the limits is what I see for sale often.
I don't know any professional landscapers. Pros I know do portaiture and weddings.
01-22-2014, 11:20 AM   #111
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sinister Quote
Exactly. Just would like to add: Equipment as part of the process is irrelevant for the final viewer.
But: Without the right equipment, the final product is either impossible to produce, or harder to produce well.

For example, all these shots could have been simulated with a phone camera - but it would have been much harder/less enjoyable for the photographer, and the end results would be desultory to the point that the viewer would notice.
01-22-2014, 11:24 AM   #112
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
You're supporting my point now

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't know those folks, although most professionals I know do try to get things as close to the way they want in camera as possible, as they hate doing extra post processing (time=money).
Which is why FF may have been so valuable to that photographer here, no?

It's possible to simulate 'less DOF for the same FOV' with an aps-c (or smaller) format, but the results don't always look that great and it's more work for the photographer.

01-22-2014, 11:27 AM   #113
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Pros I know do portaiture and weddings.
Some of the heaviest PP'd images I've ever seen have been in wedding portfolios.... nothing wrong with that, the clients seemed to love it, which is what matters.
01-22-2014, 11:32 AM   #114
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Which is why FF may have been so valuable to that photographer here, no?

It's possible to simulate 'less DOF for the same FOV' with an aps-c (or smaller) format, but the results don't always look that great and it's more work for the photographer.
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Some of the heaviest PP'd images I've ever seen have been in wedding portfolios.... nothing wrong with that, the clients seemed to love it, which is what matters.
I suppose. The one I am most familiar with is my wife, who shoots weddings and portraits and she shoots APS-C and doesn't do a lot of heavy processing. I don't know about simulating narrow depth of field. She shoots primes and most other wedding photogs in our area shoot with f2.8 zooms (usually on APS-C). Relatively easy to match depth of field on APS-C with an f1.4 prime compared with an f2.8 zoom, even on full frame...
01-22-2014, 12:01 PM   #115
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
there is a feeling that pros "get it right in camera"
This presumes that "right" is already defined by the photographer before
he even releases the shutter - that is intent. Is the intent to
accurately recreate the scene in front of him or to go beyond the purely
objective and attempt something more. It's been my experience that the
raw scene in front of me rarely stands alone on it's own merits - it
needs help. If you really just want to recreate literal reality then go
into military recon photography.

In any case my experience is that the amount of control and subtlety
available on site and in camera is crude compared with what is
available through competent PP of a properly exposed RAW file no matter
what your ultimate intent is. But then, obviously, I'm not a "pro".


QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
photography is more about documenting what is really there than creating something else.
Often what is "really" there is a great deal more than just what one sees.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
highly processed images like these or, HDR photos that look like something out of a video game are quite eye catching, but I personally wouldn't put them on my wall.
I agree completely but this is just a matter of over the top PP not intent.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There is a fine line between graphic art and photography and not sure which side of that line these photos come down on.
Why draw a line at all - why compartmentalize? Does the image work for you or not?

Last edited by wildman; 01-22-2014 at 12:13 PM.
01-22-2014, 12:03 PM   #116
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,465
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
... as they hate doing extra post processing (time=money).
Time=money puts them at a disadvantage to someone who can shoot just as good but can spend more time creating a mood with color, cleaning up pimples, skin tone, etc and working on a print until you got it right.
01-22-2014, 12:14 PM   #117
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
This presumes that "right" is already defined by the photographer before
he even releases the shutter - that is intent. Is the intent to
accurately recreate the scene in front of him or to go beyond the purely
objective and attempt something more. It's been my experience that the
raw scene in front of me rarely stands alone on it's own merits - it
needs help. If you really just want to recreate literal reality then go
into military recon photography.

In any case my experience is that the amount of control and subtlety
available on site and in camera is crude compared with what is
available through competent PP of a properly exposed RAW file no matter
what your ultimate intent is. But than, obviously, I'm not a "pro".




Often what is "really" there is a great deal more than just what one sees.



I agree completely but this is just a matter of over the top PP not intent.



Why draw a line at all - why compartmentalize? - Does the image work or not?
There are two issues -- whether or not the photographer is able to achieve his/her vision (and how much post processing it takes to get there) and whether I (the viewer) appreciates their vision. Getting exposure/colors right in camera is relatively easy with portraiture. As tuco says, the issue is often cleaning up skin on teenage girls, etc which can take time.

Landscape is different, as he says, because getting adequate depth of field, balanced exposure in sky/ground, and decent sharpness throughout usually requires some post processing (although this can be done in a heavy handed way or not).
01-26-2014, 06:50 PM - 2 Likes   #118
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bkpix's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Creswell, Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 517
What's cool to me is that her pictures sparked this thread, which is one of the longest and most coherent discussions of photographic aesthetics I've seen on a gear forum in a long time, if ever.

Really, her photos are not about the "full frame look," whatever that is. Rather, they are about having a specific vision and the skills to implement it. Whether you like her vision or not -- and I'm a little mixed myself -- she has managed to get a lot of attention online, and I do admire her ability to pull off a body of work that has a high level of technique and a clear approach and tone.

I'd love to see one of you gear/technique/PP geniuses out there deconstruct one of her photos and describe exactly how it was done. That could be a fun education for the rest of us.
01-27-2014, 07:53 AM   #119
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bkpix Quote
What's cool to me is that her pictures sparked this thread, which is one of the longest and most coherent discussions of photographic aesthetics I've seen on a gear forum in a long time, if ever.
Agreed.

QuoteQuote:

Really, her photos are not about the "full frame look," whatever that is.
I need to point this out again - the photos are not about the 'full frame look', she uses the Full Frame Look to realize her vision more effectively. It requires less PP to do so, when your raw material has some of that effect already in it.


QuoteQuote:
I'd love to see one of you gear/technique/PP geniuses out there deconstruct one of her photos and describe exactly how it was done. That could be a fun education for the rest of us.
And show personal examples!

.
01-27-2014, 09:40 AM   #120
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,028
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I need to point this out again - the photos are not about the 'full frame look', she uses the Full Frame Look to realize her vision more effectively. It requires less PP to do so, when your raw material has some of that effect already in it.
I agree absolutely. Using a certain equipment is from my perspective always an evaluation of the requirements and compromises (i.e. systems) offered in order to achieve the desired outcome. Cause the latter is what counts in the end...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
For Sale - Sold: Full frame $1600 Canon EOS 6D full USA warranty, NIB pocketrounds Sold Items 30 06-04-2013 11:43 PM
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes? crossover37 Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 166 05-16-2011 07:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:23 PM. | 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