Where's the REAL pic?

[CCWKen]

All good points but when someone says they shot a pic at 1/100, f4.5, ISO 200, on a 200mm,the information is worthless to those that are trying to discover the art or improve their skills. The information becomes a mute point. For those that would truely like a critique of their photographic efforts with a camera,will need tobe more specific when posting here.

Both of the pictures by 'newbiex"are pretty good shots. (Great subject matter too!) The secondversion (picture) then becomes one's personal preference on shade, color, sharpness, etc. Critiquing the second photo then becomes everyone else's personal preferences rather than what the shooter was trying to accomplish or what he did to get the shot.

The second photo could have been accomplished without the need for post processing. Knowing basic photography, your camera and using a little time to set up could have produced the same effects. Too much emphasis is being place on the "fast food" mentality rather than basic photographic skills.

I say; if you're going to critique a photo for someone else, be prepared to be critiqued on your choice of artistic freedom.After all, you've removed the true photo talents from the equation and substituted your own preferences or talents at modifying a shot. Are you better with a camera or better with a computer? We'll see. :-)

[jsiladi]

CCWKen wrote:

I say; if you're going to critique a photo for someone else, be prepared to be critiqued on your choice of artistic freedom. After all, you've removed the true photo talents from the equation and substituted your own preferences or talents at modifying a shot. Are you better with a camera or better with a computer? We'll see. :-)

Well then, let's see some of Your out of camera pictures.. You are telling all of us that corrections are not photographs or have nothing to do with photo talent, let's see yours..

Jeff

[newbieX]

CCWKen, I actually do see your argument. I have debated that myself for the last 2 years. I have seen photos taken by extremely talented photographers with 35mm cameras (I'm sure with the basic adjustment while developing) which turns out amazing. I've just come to terms with the fact that in this digital world, your photography skill is tied to your photoshop skill (equal to your 35mm developing skill).

[Comp625]

In my opinion, it is simply the final photograph that will determine your overall prowess in the field. Think about it - when you watch a theatrical movie, you're seeing the final product.When you see a photograph framed and hung on a wall, you're seeing the final product. Whether it be Steven Spielberg or Ansel Adams, some form of modification is needed to make the final product more appealing to your audience.

Lets look at the ability to Photoshop (or digitally post-process) as simply another freedom or option, rather than techniques frowned upon.

[Frank Doorhof]

It all depends.
What is the aim for the picture.

When making a shot outside of a flower I think as little postprocessing must be done (some levels and sharpnening and that's it).

When making a model shoot I think the sky is the limit for free work, as long as the end result is pleasing.
HOWEVER.
When making portfolio shoots I think some postprocessing can/must be done but not too much.
When making a commercial shot for a skin care product no postprocessing on the skin can be done (except some flaws maybe).

I think most no-sayers are misinformed, they hate it when you use a saturation filter in PS but they do use Velvia film
They hate it when you make a colorbalance in PS, but they do cross process in film .

For me the endresult is the aim, when that is nice it's ok whatever you do.
My taste is not the plastic skins but that is personal, some people don't make modelshoots they make art and than the plastic skins make it a bit cartoon style this cross can be VERY attractive when done correct.

[cowboy43]

I agree with Frank.. I like the challange of doing my processing before i hit the shutter... to me that is when your skills with lighting really show... Dale

[aladyforty]

What is an off the camera photo? Is it done on auto, av, manual? Do you turn offsharpening, vivid, etc on a prosumer? Even DSLRs have some settings that change the look of a photo, should we not use a polarizer, a sunset filter, or should we all shoot with the same lens, zoom lenses compress the image and help fuzz out backgrounds. When I use my film camera should the processors avoid any improvements to my photos in the lab? (I know they do this:-))My hubby sat here and read these posts and asked these very questions. Have you ever sat down and watched a wildlife documentary with the most vivid colors and striking images? They are all done post processing as are movies, imagine Jaws without the music.

when it all comes down to it, a bad photo is a bad photo, it can be improved a little but will never be a masterpiece. A good shot with good composition can be improved but it has to be good to start with to be a great photo.

[KENNETHD]

This topic interests all of us, to some degree. I think one of the reasons digital is so popular, and gathering more interest all the time, is because with a little effort anyone can get involved with altering their pics to suit their own taste. Best of all once the initial cost has been incurred, the ongoing costs can drop to practically zero.(Barring purchase of more lenses, or fancier software) Another plus...instant gratification. But getting back to topic, technical advances in electronics make it easy to affect the outcome of the photo right at the moment it's added to the flash card. For me, just for my curiosity, I'd like to see some comparisons between that point and the last time it was adjusted in computer software. By anyone caring to post both. My appreciation for both is the same. Best regards,

KennethD

[VTphotog]

The main reason I switched to a digital camera, was that Labs are all using automated equipment, which analyzes brightness, contrast and color levels, then produces prints based on the program. They also autocrop, and generally expand pics so they fill the print, generally by oversizing and losing some of your photo. After having to use custom processing (and not always getting good results from them either), I decided I would either have to invest in processing my own film, or go digital. No chemicals. No contest.

Maybe what we need is to come up with a generally accepted vocabulary for digital darkroom work, such as using 'processed' to mean what a lab would do to a chemical photo, and 'edited' to mean changing elements in the picture, such as cloning or using filters or actions which add or remove pixels.

Just musing on the subject.

brian

[aladyforty]

Im still wondering why anyone would want to view unfinished work. I know that in most cases on these forums when I click to download something, the person who posted it has put time and effort into it to make it something nice to look at.

I am not sure that anyone would want to post the original shot each time. As I have said before, you still need a good shot to work with in the first place. as an example below is an original I took recently.

except for resizing for the net no touch ups



Im sure people in these forums would rather download the finished product below which has been worked on in photoshop



I dont see the edited version as some kind of cheating anymore than the work done by film photographers in the darkroom.