I found this pretty depressing

[MickSturbs]

Nothing wrong with a bit of image manipulation:

Orton/06 Nov 2010/3154 by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr


Psychadelic Hyacinth by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr


Storm over Corby Boating Lake - 11/05/2012/2719 by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr
​

 

[parkmoy]

For centuries painters have depicted scenes as they saw them and interpreted them. Why should a photographer be any different? OK, a photograph of record should not be interfered with but the rest are images and provided the enhancement or whatever is skilfully done where's the problem? In any event the process has already started in camera with the choice of shutter speed, aperture etc, not to mention the user settings available in top end DSLR's.

I'm not a fan of the Skies R Us brigade but if the end result is a beautiful or meaningful image why not?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Jealousy will get you nowhere.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It may take skill, but we aren't talking photography. We're talking image manipulation.

It may take skill, but we aren't talking photography. We're talking image manipulation.

Even if all composite imagery was taken by the photographer? So the work in post #75 isn't photography?

Ansel Adams may well have manipulated his picture but it was as much as a skill as taking the pictures in the first place; today a kid on a computer could create a composite image made from parts find on the internet or indeed the software package that started this discussion; a big difference in skills I would suggest. I'm not against manipulation per se, should saying that it has got far too easy and is detracting from the skill and challenges in getting the image in the first place.

But there is no software package that will make good composite work automatic, or easy for people with no skill. Some pretend to be, but the results are crap. Good composite work requires skill. What you seem to suggest is that it's easy and requires less skill. What makes you say this? Care to show us some of your composite work to demonstrate how easy and skill-less it is?

I'm sorry, but There's an attitude in here that suggests stuff that's a single image (no matter how manipulated) demonstrates more skill than something that's a composite. Why?

If we're talking about people creating composites from stuff they didn't even produce themselves being less skillful as photographers, then ... Duh!... of course... they didn't shoot the images, so of course it's not measuring their skills as PHOTOGRAPHERS,

The fact is.. I can take a heavily clichéd image with a 10stop and in these forums would love it, yet it's the easiest, most skill-less technique in the world... which is why most love it. It delivers "impressive" results with relatively little effort.

I went on a trip with a few of my second year students a couple of weeks ago. It was just a fun 2 days in the Lakes to take some pretty pictures... just for fun. I took a box of 10stops with me, and handed them out. Despite none of them having used such a technique before, all of them had the "technique" mastered in about 5 minutes. I say "technique" because all it is is being able to take a light reading and then doing some primary school maths. The SKILL isn't in using the filter... it's taking the underlying photograph. Whether the water is "creamy" is ****ing irrelevant. Yet amateurs will wet themselves over such imagery.. just because a long shutter speed has been used.. as if that's a "skill" or something Determining the correct shutter speed for the amount of light entering the lens is indeed a skill... an extremely basic one that is learned by most right at the very, very start, so why is this "technique" still so loved by amateurs, and why does it still feature so heavily in camera club competitions?

Skill as a photographer my arse!!

After a quick 5 minute demo... All my students spat out a shot demonstrating the use of a 10 stop, and then were far more interested in laughing at the idiot with about three cameras as a massive lowepro pack full of lenses who's spent about an hour there taking his image... that would have looked identical to pretty much all of these, as the light was exactly the same, and it was the same location.


View attachment 38876
View attachment 38877
View attachment 38878
View attachment 38879
View attachment 38880

One of these is mine.... you'll have to decide which.



None of these students are landscape phtographers... we were there for a holiday. All images were perfectly exposed. Most, if not all were just shooting in JPEG (except the one I shot... I just can't bring myself to do it ) to save card space (none of this was intended as serious), and those that are processed were just done in camera with whatever settings were available. So why is a skill taught in 5 minutes so highly regarded, and compositing skills that require a keen understanding of light, contrast, physics, and requires good planning and a very long time to master, and THEN excellent photoshop skills that require equally as long to perfect regarded as "cheating"?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Nothing wrong with a bit of image manipulation:

Orton/06 Nov 2010/3154 by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr


Psychadelic Hyacinth by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr


Storm over Corby Boating Lake - 11/05/2012/2719 by Albert Hurwood, on Flickr
​

**** me sideways... please tell me you're trying to be ironic.

 

[DG Phototraining]

You & your students proved your/their maths is competent, their compositions - not so much

I'm betting the guy you all laughed at got some better images, whether or not he wanted milky water

But I agree its 'easy' to get an interesting effect like this, but its much harder to capture a good photo; waterfalls are a PITA to capture really well as they are so busy with bits sticking into shots and restricted access without waders or a wish to survive the day lol

Dave

 

[Pookeyhead]

You & your students proved your/their maths is competent, their compositions - not so much

I'm betting the guy you all laughed at got some better images, whether or not he wanted milky water

But I agree its 'easy' to get an interesting effect like this, but its much harder to capture a good photo; waterfalls are a PITA to capture really well as they are so busy with bits sticking into shots and restricted access without waders or a wish to survive the day lol

Dave

They were merely trying out a technique. None of them were seriously trying to make a serious landscape image (as previously stated, none of them are landscape photographers), and probably spent less than 5 minutes on their image. My point is that the technique itself is not really skilful at all. Anyone who understand how to take a light reading can do it equally as well as someone who has spent a lifetime doing it. The guy spending an age taking his shot may well have a shot that has the "rules" applied, and therefore gives the camera club types a trouser tingle, but other than that... so what? That's just another rule that can be taught in 5 minutes too.

None of my students had waders

It would be pointless to try and perfect a shot at this location as well, as by the time we'd finished at 9am there was literally a queue of people with beards lining up to tale "their" shot... which seeing as they were lining up for the "prime spot" would all leave with identical images. What's the point? The world just does not need any more images of Ladore falls taking... it just doesn't. Repetitive, derivative rubbish... yet someone creating something interesting and unique via compositing is regarded as less skilful.

Just utterly puzzling.

 

[DG Phototraining]

They were merely trying out a technique. None of them were seriously trying to make a serious landscape image. My point is that the technique itself is not really skilful at all. Anyone who understand how to take a light reading can do it equally as well as someone who has spent a lifetime doing it. The guy spending an age taking his shot may well have a shot that has the "rules" applied, and therefore gives the camera club types a trouser tingle, but other than that... so what? That's just another rule that can be taught in 5 minutes too.

Yep - it is a simple technique that gives an instant wow to some images, water & skies mostly

Somewhat related - do you find your 10-stopper to actually be 10-stops? Mine seems to be around 11.5, sometimes this is a bonus and others a PITA requiring lots of ISO adjustment to get the exposure time I want

Dave

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yep - it is a simple technique that gives an instant wow to some images, water & skies mostly

Somewhat related - do you find your 10-stopper to actually be 10-stops? Mine seems to be around 11.5, sometimes this is a bonus and others a PITA requiring lots of ISO adjustment to get the exposure time I want

Dave

I took an ambient reading without the filter and just applied a 10stop increase, and it seemed pretty close, yeah.. as you can see... maybe slightly dark, but not enough to worry about, as if any of those shots were serious, they'd have been shot in raw, and the half stop error most seem to have could have been easily changed in post without a quality penalty. The biggest problem was constant cloudy/sunny/cloudy/sunny during the exposures causing contrast issues rather than exposure issues, so some had to do a retake because of that, but they seemed to be 10stop, yes.

 

[petersmart]

**** me sideways... please tell me you're trying to be ironic.

Ironic - moi?

 

[jerry12953]

I'm not sure how the use of a 10-stop filter has got anything to do with this.

Firstly, you don't need to use one to get the silky flowing water effect that most people are after. Maybe you could teach your students that, David?

Secondly, it is probably impossible to take an accurate still image of a waterfall no matter what techniques you use; purely because it is a moving feature and the only way to capture it realistically would be as such (eg a video). You're always going to get an approximation of a waterfall otherwise. Try to stop the movement of the water using a fast shutter speed; does it look exactly like the waterfall? No.

However, and thirdly, that waterfall is there in reality. It is a section of the world around us. The photograph has documentary qualities. That doesn't change if you use the cameras jpeg setting or shoot raw and process it your self; or convert it into b&w or use a 10-stop filter or a pinhole camera or clone out some minor untidy detail. That is pretty close to the definition of a photograph, I believe. And we're not talking about how skilful the photographer is in any way. But if you add a shopping trolley or wrecked car or a duck in post processing, no matter how difficult it might be, then it no longer has those qualities. It tells a different story.

Maybe some landscape photographers do have beards but I can't see the point in characaturing them like this. Neither does calling them "amateurs" or "camera club members" or all the other terms of derision you and other people sometimes use. A little bit of humility about your abilities and ideas wouldn't go amiss.

I don't know which of those waterfall pics was yours, David, but I know which I prefer.......;.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

However, and thirdly, that waterfall is there in reality. It is a section of the world around us. The photograph has documentary qualities. That doesn't change if you use the cameras jpeg setting or shoot raw and process it your self; or convert it into b&w or use a 10-stop filter or a pinhole camera or clone out some minor untidy detail. That is pretty close to the definition of a photograph, I believe. And we're not talking about how skilful the photographer is in any way. But if you add a shopping trolley or wrecked car or a duck in post processing, no matter how difficult it might be, then it no longer has those qualities. It tells a different story.

And there you go again, drawing your lines where you like them drawn. Which is fine and dandy but it isnt where others draw it and therefore is only relevant to you.

It only has documentary qualities if its intended that way. There is no over-riding rule that says it has to be. It seems pointless to highlight the billion ways even an un-doctored (using your own lines) image can show a false impression. POV being the biggest. Selecting only part of a scene can (and very often does) immediately create a false impression of the overall. Therefore its a false impression. Making it B&W is the biggest false impression that exists and yet this seems to be generally accepted as ok. Why? its a con and not a view anyone would ever see if they went to that location. So why is it ok? Your lines won't permit removing 'major' elements of a scene or indeed adding any but its happy to remove the biggest and most important, colour.

Surely you must be able to see the contradiction in that?

PS: Oxford Dictionaries Definition of "Photograph" is:
"A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive-material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally"

 

[jerry12953]

B&W doesn't change the documentary element in a photograph. It changes its aesthetic qualities.

There may be exceptions to this but I Can't think of any at the moment.

A photograph doesn't only have documentary qualities if it is intended to have them. By its nature, it has them. Again there may be exceptions.

Anyway, I appreciate your interest in discussing this. I find these discussions tend to substantiate one's own views though.....

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm not sure how the use of a 10-stop filter has got anything to do with this.

In a way.. everything. It demonstrates how things that actually require no or little skill are regarded as more worthy than things that require far much more skill because of some misplaced notion of what constitutes "good" photography.

Firstly, you don't need to use one to get the silky flowing water effect that most people are after. Maybe you could teach your students that, David?

Gosh.... really? Wow.. never knew.

I doubt any of my students will be taking creamy water waterfall images every gain, so don't worry.

A little bit of humility about your abilities and ideas wouldn't go amiss.

Why? What for?

 

[odd jim]

Even if all composite imagery was taken by the photographer? So the work in post #75 isn't photography?



But there is no software package that will make good composite work automatic, or easy for people with no skill. Some pretend to be, but the results are crap. Good composite work requires skill. What you seem to suggest is that it's easy and requires less skill. What makes you say this? Care to show us some of your composite work to demonstrate how easy and skill-less it is?

I'm sorry, but There's an attitude in here that suggests stuff that's a single image (no matter how manipulated) demonstrates more skill than something that's a composite. Why?

If we're talking about people creating composites from stuff they didn't even produce themselves being less skillful as photographers, then ... Duh!... of course... they didn't shoot the images, so of course it's not measuring their skills as PHOTOGRAPHERS,

The fact is.. I can take a heavily clichéd image with a 10stop and in these forums would love it, yet it's the easiest, most skill-less technique in the world... which is why most love it. It delivers "impressive" results with relatively little effort.

I went on a trip with a few of my second year students a couple of weeks ago. It was just a fun 2 days in the Lakes to take some pretty pictures... just for fun. I took a box of 10stops with me, and handed them out. Despite none of them having used such a technique before, all of them had the "technique" mastered in about 5 minutes. I say "technique" because all it is is being able to take a light reading and then doing some primary school maths. The SKILL isn't in using the filter... it's taking the underlying photograph. Whether the water is "creamy" is ****ing irrelevant. Yet amateurs will wet themselves over such imagery.. just because a long shutter speed has been used.. as if that's a "skill" or something Determining the correct shutter speed for the amount of light entering the lens is indeed a skill... an extremely basic one that is learned by most right at the very, very start, so why is this "technique" still so loved by amateurs, and why does it still feature so heavily in camera club competitions?

Skill as a photographer my arse!!

After a quick 5 minute demo... All my students spat out a shot demonstrating the use of a 10 stop, and then were far more interested in laughing at the idiot with about three cameras as a massive lowepro pack full of lenses who's spent about an hour there taking his image... that would have looked identical to pretty much all of these, as the light was exactly the same, and it was the same location.


View attachment 38876
View attachment 38877
View attachment 38878
View attachment 38879
View attachment 38880

One of these is mine.... you'll have to decide which.



None of these students are landscape phtographers... we were there for a holiday. All images were perfectly exposed. Most, if not all were just shooting in JPEG (except the one I shot... I just can't bring myself to do it ) to save card space (none of this was intended as serious), and those that are processed were just done in camera with whatever settings were available. So why is a skill taught in 5 minutes so highly regarded, and compositing skills that require a keen understanding of light, contrast, physics, and requires good planning and a very long time to master, and THEN excellent photoshop skills that require equally as long to perfect regarded as "cheating"?

A group of people laughing at the poor chap minding his own business sounds a bit mean?

 

[Pookeyhead]

A group of people laughing at the poor chap minding his own business sounds a bit mean?

Perhaps... but they weren't outwardly laughing at him as in pointing and jeering at him, but were taking the P a bit amongst themselves. Can't stop them - they're all adults. However, they had a point: I mean... if you need to use every lens you possess, and take hundreds of shots of the same subject, obviously bracketing everything you shoot, and take about an hour when the light wasn't really changing, you're just playing with your toys.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

B&W doesn't change the documentary element in a photograph. It changes its aesthetic qualities.

The same can be said with changing a sky!

A photograph doesn't only have documentary qualities if it is intended to have them. By its nature, it has them. Again there may be exceptions.

And you've ignored the biggest one I mentioned - POV. If you only select PART of a scene you can (and do) make the 'documentary' evidence read VERY differently to the reality as millions of press images and propaganda images have done over the years. We call it composition. The biggest fake of all time photographically. Its not documentary evidence of what anyone would see if they went there, just a small angle of the overall. How can that be documentary?

Anyway, I appreciate your interest in discussing this. I find these discussions tend to substantiate one's own views though.....

Hey, its good to debate and I'm not trying to change your view, they are your lines and I respect that. We all have a free choice to do what we like thank goodness! I'm merely pointing out that there always seems to be a deeply held view in what Pookey calls 'amateur' and 'camera club' circles (I prefer 'old guard' and 'RPS' type mentality) that anything done that surpasses most of these people's competence on a software program is somehow devaluing and damaging to 'real' photography. The fact is that most of these arguments are contradictory and ill thought through when the lid is lifted. Most of the 'Masters' that these people swoon after cheated in post (or at the time the shutter clicked) just the same as is done in the modern day photographic world. The only difference is that the mechanisms are more attainable. The skills are probably just as hard to practice and take just as long to learn properly and to make convincing.

Photography is no more or less truthfully documentary than it ever has been. Its merely a tool to capture a particular scene. Some leave it at that. Others treat that as the starting point. However, it was ever thus and to assume otherwise is a tad naive in my view.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

Perhaps... but they weren't outwardly laughing at him as in pointing and jeering at him, but were taking the P a bit amongst themselves. Can't stop them - they're all adults. However, they had a point: I mean... if you need to use every lens you possess, and take hundreds of shots of the same subject, obviously bracketing everything you shoot, and take about an hour when the light wasn't really changing, you're just playing with your toys.

This is a jaded view of the world. You of all people could perhaps accept that the poor guy may have been learning? Maybe he was a sports photographer who merely wanted to take some boring landscape scenes and learn how to blend exposures well in photoshop. Maybe he had been commissioned to take some whirly water shots and was going to be paid £4.5k for a 'crap' blurred waterfall shot? I'd happily spend more than an hour at a place to satisfy a client who requested a certain shot of a particular venue or 'local' sight whatever any students, you or anyone else for that matter thought of me doing so (or indeed how rubbish I thought the subject material was). Sometimes all isn't what it seems...

 

[Ed Sutton]

Its not documentary evidence of what anyone would see if they went there, just a small angle of the overall. How can that be documentary?

That reasoning says that only a spherical panoramic photograph of a scene can be documentary. Which is plainly absurd.

A photograph can be documentary when it's a small fraction of a view (as almost all photographs are), in that the camera has recorded what was before it. It has documented it. Like all photographs the picture will be subjective, but it will still be documentary. If the sky has been dropped in then the picture is no longer documentary.

 

[steveo_mcg]

That reasoning says that only a spherical panoramic photograph of a scene can be documentary. Which is plainly absurd.

A photograph can be documentary when it's a small fraction of a view (as almost all photographs are), in that the camera has recorded what was before it. It has documented it. Like all photographs the picture will be subjective, but it will still be documentary. If the sky has been dropped in then the picture is no longer documentary.

I wonder how many landscape photographers crave to considered great documentary photographers?

 

[Ed Sutton]

I wonder how many landscape photographers crave to considered great documentary photographers?

If their photographs have no elements added or removed they are documentary - regardless of the photographer's cravings.

 

[ianp5a]

If you remove the colour, or alter the colour, which is often important, Then it is no longer a true record.

 

[steveo_mcg]

If their photographs have no elements added or removed they are documentary - regardless of the photographer's cravings.

So artists intentions don't matter? How much of the original scene has to remain for it to be documentary?

I fear we're about to veer off topic again but...

 

[ianp5a]

This should help get agreement of both sides:

• If you claim the picture represents a scene exactly, don't mess with it.
  
• If you don't claim the picture represents a scene exactly, mess with it as you see fit.

Or was that too easy?

When I post a picture here or on Flikr with no comment, I am not claiming anything. If I enter competition that allows PP, and stay within the rules, I also have no need to claim anything.

 

[Ed Sutton]

So artists intentions don't matter? How much of the original scene has to remain for it to be documentary?

Intentions don't matter as to what a photograph is. A snapshot is pretty likely to be documentary. If there are no elements added or removed a photograph is documentary.

 

[steveo_mcg]

Intentions don't matter as to what a photograph is. A snapshot is pretty likely to be documentary. If there are no elements added or removed a photograph is documentary.

I don't really understand why you are intent on pigeon holing stuff in to documentary, if the photographer hasn't explicitly aimed to make a documentary photograph then its arbitrary if they later decide to add some sky or more likely remove something thats bugging them. Also its not possible to know whats been amended with out seeing the original so again assuming something is documentary doesn't make much sense, unless the photographers has explicitly set out to make a documentary, states this and you assume to trust the author.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I don't really understand why you are intent on pigeon holing stuff in to documentary...

I'm not pigeon-holing anything. I'm saying that a photograph can be documentary just by being a picture of something, not that it's 'documentary photography' rather than 'landscape photography' or whatever.

 

[jerry12953]

I'm not pigeon-holing anything. I'm saying that a photograph can be documentary just by being a picture of something, not that it's 'documentary photography' rather than 'landscape photography' or whatever.

What I've been trying to say as well......

 

[Rich_Ellis]

That reasoning says that only a spherical panoramic photograph of a scene can be documentary. Which is plainly absurd.

A photograph can be documentary when it's a small fraction of a view (as almost all photographs are), in that the camera has recorded what was before it. It has documented it. Like all photographs the picture will be subjective, but it will still be documentary. If the sky has been dropped in then the picture is no longer documentary.

I love the way this forum takes one aspect of someones post and latches on to that tiny point and ignores the rest of the post completely.

The whole premise of this thread was that being able to drop in skies was somehow a terrible thing for now and the the future of photography. When it gets pointed out that this sort of thing has been going on since the earliest days of photography that somehow gets ignored in all subsequent debate.

If you don't like it then thats fine but harking back to "the good old days" when things were 'hard' and required 'skill' and saying that any kid can do it now is simply rubbish and shows a total lack of understanding.

However, documentary is an interesting word. In its truest sense I would say that for landscape, nothing less than a 360º pano un-doctored in any way is the only true documentary photography that exists and not absurd in the slightest. Anything else is an interpretation put across by the photographer to show what he/she wants to show.

But thats not the point really here - I am simply stating that removing a pylon or rubbish or building or fence post or dropping in a sky is no better or worse than converting to mono and I can't see why there can be an argument with that. Both are creating a false impression of the scene, both have removed things. Just because B&W is deemed 'traditional' some people seem to think this is acceptable. I am merely pointing out the flaw in that argument!

If you remove the colour, or alter the colour, which is often important, Then it is no longer a true record.

Exactly- and as I say, its been done for donkey's years

Image manipulation is nothing new - just because you or I deem something ok to do in post and other things not doesn't make that the end of photography. Huge alterations have been done since the start of photography.

What I've been trying to say as well......

Ummm.....not really, you've been saying things like taking colour from a picture is acceptable and dropping a sky in isn't.
This was your OP

I'm probably not the only photographer to have received this junk email ad for sky replacement software.

It goes on and on like this. I just find it depressing I'm afraid. It used to be possible to believe that what we were seeing in an image was real but it gets more and more difficult. Another problem will be that if you do manage to get a great sky in your image people will believe it's fake!

This should help get agreement of both sides:

• If you claim the picture represents a scene exactly, don't mess with it.
• If you don't claim the picture represents a scene exactly, mess with it as you see fit.

Or was that too easy?

When I post a picture here or on Flikr with no comment, I am not claiming anything. If I enter competition that allows PP, and stay within the rules, I also have no need to claim anything.

Haha, honestly, personally I've no axe to grind and am quite happy with that. As far as I know, lauded photographers from the past like Adams, HCB etc were quite happy to tell of their doctoring of images and scene manipulations etc. Most current landscapers as well that I know of...

Acting dishonestly is of course to be discouraged and those that deceive deserve to be called out.

My only moan is as i've described, those that hanker after a previous era that never existed anyway...

I think the major issue here is this- some believe the art of photography begins and ends in the camera, whatever that camera is able to do inside it or strapped to the front of it, is ok. Others of us believe that photography starts in the camera and ends with the finished article and INCLUDES post processing to whatever degree is deemed necessary. If you, as the viewer, dislike either approaches final images then that is of course your prerogative, however, no one approach is better or worse than the other. The final image is the thing that matters.

I guess an easy way to look at it would be:-
If you saw an image you LOVED and wanted for your wall, would your love of that picture alter, after you had initially loved it, if you later found out it was 'faked' in a way you felt crossed the line? I know it wouldn't change my attitude one iota.

This example is simple to tell its been 'faked' but would those claiming that sky dropping in etc is somehow wrong and 'easy' not understand or see the beauty (or with this image the disturbing nature) and amazing skill required to make it look this good and deem it an incredible piece of photographic work? Or would it be merely cast aside as a piece of computer art, fake and dismissed? Genuinely, I'm interested but fear I already know the answer! https://www.behance.net/gallery/20482451/Treebeard

 

[jerry12953]

Rich,

It has been interesting discussing this with you but I can only conclude that some of the more subtle parts of the debate have passed you by!

That and misquoting me doesn't really help.

I find it very difficult to believe that the most well-known and most lauded landscape specialists in the UK - people we are all aware of like Cornish, Waite, et al - would have any truck at all with replacing one sky with another. They have built up their reputations by doing everything the hard way - whether that is a good or bad thing, I don't know.

So actually, your responses are starting to annoy me now and I'm going to sign off.

J

 

[Pookeyhead]

This is a jaded view of the world.

Probably

 

[Rich_Ellis]

Rich,

It has been interesting discussing this with you but I can only conclude that some of the more subtle parts of the debate have passed you by!

That and misquoting me doesn't really help.

I find it very difficult to believe that the most well-known and most lauded landscape specialists in the UK - people we are all aware of like Cornish, Waite, et al - would have any truck at all with replacing one sky with another. They have built up their reputations by doing everything the hard way - whether that is a good or bad thing, I don't know.

So actually, your responses are starting to annoy me now and I'm going to sign off.

J

And there we have it, it took a while but eventually we got there. Rather than debate and discuss like an intelligent adult we insult and throw the toys out....well done for lasting so long. Your conclusions, sad to say, are as incorrect as your attitude.

Oh, and just in case you do return, here are some words written by "one of the most lauded landscape specialists in the UK" (I think I quoted you right on that one) Mr Cornish himself in a similar debate ON his Landscape website (and it is a direct quote) that kinda gives your 'truck' a bit of a flat tyre -

"And thinking of students, perhaps what is needed is more universal teaching of photography within all curriculums (although, dream on!); that way modern humans might then be able to fully exploit photography's strengths and understand its weaknesses and limitations without having unrealistic expectations of its veracity. We might then realise that it is, for the majority, an artistic medium, with all the potential for interpretation and creativity that implies."

For those interested and who may have read that debate started by Mr C himself about post processing, he talks of an evening spent in Worcs presenting and then chatting into the early hours with a guy called Ian Thompson (my friend and with whom he was staying), I was also there with two other people at Ian's house and Joe's attitude and thoughts on processing were pleasing and eminently well thought through and balanced (as you would expect). IIRC his views were that he doesn't like to add or take away too much from his images as it isn't his style but he has absolutely no problem or negative attitudes towards those that do.

 

[Pookeyhead]

To no one in particular.

There have been composite images for as long as there's been photography. This thread is stupid. Why are so many people so upset because there's a piece of software that claims to work miracles? Have any of you used it? I notice you can't even download a trial copy and it's hundreds of dollars. I can't image many people buying it on spec. It will NOT do what they claim. It will NOT fool anyone. It WILL be apparent that it's been composited. Those who will use this software are not really photographers. I don't say that in a disparaging way. I mean it will probably be bought by digital artists and those more interested in creating imagery for PR or advertising.

Why would anyone get depressed over it?

I'm just left a bit confused by this thread. Simple skills are held in high esteem: Stuff that you can learn in an hour off a you tube video, yet more creative uses of imagery are dismissed as less honourable... less worthy.

Given that composite imagery has been used creatively for as long as there has been photography, the only problem I see with the software in the OP's first post (Layer Cake) is that it makes some pretty dubious claims about it's abilities. The fact that it automatically does anything shouldn't be upsetting anyone in this thread because I bet you all use similar software - but because it's not COMPOSITING anything, you feel that's OK. How many of you use plug ins for black and white conversions because you are either too lazy or not knowledgeable enough to do it properly yourself? How many of you use "skin softening" bullcrap plug-ins because you either can't be bothered or don't have the retouching skills to do it properly? How many of you use any of this crap from Nik, Topaz et al? How many of you are bypassing skills in favour of moving sliders around in some bull sh*t plug in?

Yeah... you rock... you can move some ****ing sliders. Seriously - get over youselves. Some people in here need a good slap and a reality check.

I dismiss anyone's claims about being pure, and honest, and pretending to be a real photographer who never does anything to change their images as utter bullsh*t!

If you want to impress anyone... ditch the digital processing and get your ass into a darkroom, or shoot onto E6 and STILL deliver the goods... then we'll talk.

You're all spoiled. Making impressive imagery is child's play these days, so stop pretending you're all brilliant because you can make a boring shot look impressive in Lightroom. Why do you think contemporary photography is rebelling against such imagery? We're drowning in a sea of decorative art that's produced not with photographic skill, but because the ability to process digital imagery affords people the opportunity to do things that were not possible pre-digital. I'd LOVE to see every single image ever posted in here as a straight from camera raw file. I'd just love it. It would be such an eye opener, and it would put a few things into perspective. The fact is, the majority of what you see in this forum will be massively altered from what the camera captured, yet receives praise, but a composite image would get banned from many "competitions".

Hypocrisy and stupidity... and a very narrow minded view of photography.

 

[Steve Smith]

^^ What he said.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

I love the way this forum takes one aspect of someones post and latches on to that tiny point and ignores the rest of the post completely.

Like Sunday's Dilbert:

Steve.

 

[OlyPaul]

What's with the documentary photography tag being used for landscapes to glamorize it all the while,surely you mean record photography, boring as it was unaltered in any way just as close to the way human eye saw it and not perceived It .

 

[OlyPaul]

To no one in particular.


If you want to impress anyone... ditch the digital processing and get your ass into a darkroom, or shoot onto E6 and STILL deliver the goods... then we'll talk.

I'd LOVE to see every single image ever posted in here as a straight from camera raw file. I'd just love it. It would be such an eye opener, and it would put a few things into perspective. The fact is, the majority of what you see in this forum will be massively altered from what the camera captured, yet receives praise, but a composite image would get banned from many "competitions".

Hypocrisy and stupidity... and a very narrow minded view of photography.

While I agree with all you say to a point and as someone who constantly shot E6 and had a b&w darkroom I would point out that in most landscapes a record E6 shot would be just as disappointing especially early morning landscapes.

In this example of a raw image that is just a conversion in CO8, (it's surprising what you can do in just a raw converter these days) and no I am not worried about showing the raw image (I know its not great), using E6 I would have exposed for the foreground and used a grey or ND grad for the the sky. were has with the raw it was about getting the most detail for processing which results in a very dull image and nothing like what I saw. So on reflection your point of seeing the raw is a little bit flawed as that is the nature of the beast, just as you would expose a b&w neg for the best tonal range but would result in a very bland straight print at grade 0 with no dodging or burning.

 

[Steve Smith]

While I agree with all you say to a point and as someone who constantly shot E6 and had a b&w darkroom I would point out that in most landscapes a record E6 shot would be just as disappointing especially early morning landscapes.

Yet people managed (and still do) to make exceptionally good landscape images on E6 film.


Steve.

 

[YoshiK1]

@OlyPaul - teach me your wicked processing skills! I'd love to be able to bring out my images like that but I'm a PS n00b!

 

[Pookeyhead]

While I agree with all you say to a point and as someone who constantly shot E6 and had a b&w darkroom I would point out that in most landscapes a record E6 shot would be just as disappointing especially early morning landscapes.

In this example of a raw image that is just a conversion in CO8, (it's surprising what you can do in just a raw converter these days) and no I am not worried about showing the raw image (I know its not great), using E6 I would have exposed for the foreground and used a grey or ND grad for the the sky. were has with the raw it was about getting the most detail for processing which results in a very dull image and nothing like what I saw. So on reflection your point of seeing the raw is a little bit flawed as that is the nature of the beast, just as you would expose a b&w neg for the best tonal range but would result in a very bland straight print at grade 0 with no dodging or burning.

My point is, by posting teh raw, we can see exactly how much of a great shot can be attributed to phtography, and how much can be attributed to processing. As you've demonstrated, more often than not these days, it's processing, and not the actual photgraphy.

As you said, if that was E6 you'd use a ND grad, and still exposed for the foreground.

I disagree that shooting on film reulst in dissapointing results. What you are suggesting is that landscape phtography has improved since digital. Patently, that's not true

©Joel Meyerowitz, Deardorff 8x10 on transparency - all in a pre-photoshop era.

View attachment 39141
View attachment 39142
View attachment 39143

So, sorry.. I'm not buying that argument

I don't agree that the raw is like printing at grade 0 either. Correctly exposed, great shots can be had straight from the camera... just as Mr Meyrowitz has done here. Film or digital... makes no difference.