Post production and the ism's?

[Tyke Tiler]

Purism, extreme purism and post production minimalism mainly.

Apologies in advance for posing or pondering this but it's something that's been rattling around in my skull for some time.

I have a very good friend of mine, he owns his own stock library company, he's also a photographer, shooting weddings, magazine covers, portraits etc, I happen to think he is of a very good standard and he produces some excellent images.

In comparison, both of our post production methods differ, in fact I'd go as far to say that a gaping crevasse parts us when it comes down to editing and our workflow routines.

Occasionally we jab at each other, 'How long did you spend in photoshop on that one then eh?' or 'Another one fresh from the CF and straight out to client eh?'

Sometimes because of the anti post production issue, I think that he's being lazy or it's such a waste to not finish the image off appropriately.

Granted, some photographs really do not require a hefty touch in the mastering area but I'm referring to the image that could or does, it could be the style of the author, the train of thought or preferences that is behind the decision and the attitudes and perceptions of others toward one who chooses to do so.

I strive to get everything as right or as best as possible in camera, I'm a firm believer in this, but there are practices that exist beyond this, enhancing, accentuating, emphasizing and expressing the original foundations in the digital darkroom.

All in all, however, friendly piggery jokery is all it is.

But.

Sometimes I can't help but feel that the anti photoshop, or anti edit, or anti anything for that matter is a potentially fatal place to be if you turn to photography or any other art form for that matter, for enjoyment, a career or both together.

Surely allowing an open minded approach is always going to be beneficial?
Easier said than done I know, I am also guilty, I know it.

The more I encounter the extremes of purism and minimalism approach the more I seem to get uncomfortable with how seemingly 'one way' it all is.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the fruits of the approach, I have been more than impressed with the end results, it's only when I come to hear of the methods and the 'religion' that surrounds it, that I get uncomfortable:

'There is only one true way of doing something, there is only one true way to achieve this result' type of attitude, I can't help but find it a little disturbing.

Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Should I be considering different points of view?

I'm one who gets next to no feeling from looking at a motor sport pictures or a flash car in a multistory car park but for me to condemn the entire 'genre' and deny it's worth would be ridiculous, selfish and frankly over indulgent.

I seem to find this with purists, they seem to do an awful lot of condemning.
Sometimes I find my hero's, my influences and inspirations discounted and sentenced to deficiency because of their methods and technique.

Not that I care particularly, they will always continue to drive me but to deny them and their work is very odd to me.

Has anyone else encountered this or am I alone?

I post this because I love to hear as much varied opinion as possible, whether your just picking up a camera for the first time or whether you work day in and day out with photography. It doesn't matter, the discussion is open to all.

Let's have it!

 

[Dudie]

As with many things, there's no right or wrong way. There are those in all walks of life who consider their way the only way and have a difficult time determining the difference between their opinion and actual fact. Bit of a blinkered attitude to have but hey, leave 'em to it. No skin off my nose. Keep an open mind, learn from it, adapt what suits you and at the end of the day, do what you want to obtain the result you want. I call it the 'jazz' approach

 

[..MD..]

i think i understand what your saying mate. and i for one would love not to have to do anything to my photos. but alas i i not that good so the purists will have to wait



md

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Purism, extreme purism and post production minimalism mainly.

Apologies in advance for posing or pondering this but it's something that's been rattling around in my skull for some time.

I have a very good friend of mine, he owns his own stock library company, he's also a photographer, shooting weddings, magazine covers, portraits etc, I happen to think he is of a very good standard and he produces some excellent images.

In comparison, both of our post production methods differ, in fact I'd go as far to say that a gaping crevasse parts us when it comes down to editing and our workflow routines.

Occasionally we jab at each other, 'How long did you spend in photoshop on that one then eh?' or 'Another one fresh from the CF and straight out to client eh?'

Sometimes because of the anti post production issue, I think that he's being lazy or it's such a waste to not finish the image off appropriately.

Granted, some photographs really do not require a hefty touch in the mastering area but I'm referring to the image that could or does, it could be the style of the author, the train of thought or preferences that is behind the decision and the attitudes and perceptions of others toward one who chooses to do so.

I strive to get everything as right or as best as possible in camera, I'm a firm believer in this, but there are practices that exist beyond this, enhancing, accentuating, emphasizing and expressing the original foundations in the digital darkroom.

All in all, however, friendly piggery jokery is all it is.

But.

Sometimes I can't help but feel that the anti photoshop, or anti edit, or anti anything for that matter is a potentially fatal place to be if you turn to photography or any other art form for that matter, for enjoyment, a career or both together.

Surely allowing an open minded approach is always going to be beneficial?
Easier said than done I know, I am also guilty, I know it.

The more I encounter the extremes of purism and minimalism approach the more I seem to get uncomfortable with how seemingly 'one way' it all is.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the fruits of the approach, I have been more than impressed with the end results, it's only when I come to hear of the methods and the 'religion' that surrounds it, that I get uncomfortable:

'There is only one true way of doing something, there is only one true way to achieve this result' type of attitude, I can't help but find it a little disturbing.

Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Should I be considering different points of view?

I'm one who gets next to no feeling from looking at a motor sport pictures or a flash car in a multistory car park but for me to condemn the entire 'genre' and deny it's worth would be ridiculous, selfish and frankly over indulgent.

I seem to find this with purists, they seem to do an awful lot of condemning.
Sometimes I find my hero's, my influences and inspirations discounted and sentenced to deficiency because of their methods and technique.

Not that I care particularly, they will always continue to drive me but to deny them and their work is very odd to me.

Has anyone else encountered this or am I alone?

I post this because I love to hear as much varied opinion as possible, whether your just picking up a camera for the first time or whether you work day in and day out with photography. It doesn't matter, the discussion is open to all.

Let's have it!

Yes.

 

[Twentyten]

As with many things, there's no right or wrong way. There are those in all walks of life who consider their way the only way and have a difficult time determining the difference between their opinion and actual fact. Bit of a blinkered attitude to have but hey, leave 'em to it. No skin off my nose. Keep an open mind, learn from it, adapt what suits you and at the end of the day, do what you want to obtain the result you want. I call it the 'jazz' approach

I'm one of those who dosen't do any PP in Photoshop, if i don't get it right in camera then it's just not worth bothering about and get's binned, of course, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that i don't know one end of Photoshop from the other.

 

[Studio16]

I think somwewhere in that lot your asking is it ok to photoshop :shrug: but i might be wrong its all wayyyyyyyyyyyy to deep for me.

i like pictures
i like them even more when i enhance them
my clients like my pictures of course they only see the enhanced ones
they pay me
im happy they are happy
then i give all the money to her and have to ask for some back now and again to pay for more gear


people have been enhancing images since photography began (almost) even in the darkroom i remember my dad dodging and burning and using different technices to get different effects 30 years ago. its just a modern tool for modern tools

 

[clud17]

The camera is the hardware, photoshop is the software, make them work together and amazing things can happen. Im not a purist, i just use all the options available to me to enhance the results i get from a very enjoyable hobby.

If i take great shots that dont need any PP then i smile if i make an average shot look great with PP then i smile

 

[Tyke Tiler]

As with many things, there's no right or wrong way. There are those in all walks of life who consider their way the only way and have a difficult time determining the difference between their opinion and actual fact. Bit of a blinkered attitude to have but hey, leave 'em to it. No skin off my nose. Keep an open mind, learn from it, adapt what suits you and at the end of the day, do what you want to obtain the result you want. I call it the 'jazz' approach

Nice one, I like the term 'The Jazz approach'

Yes.

Haha! Is that a for or against ism's then mate?

I'm one of those who dosen't do any PP in Photoshop, if i don't get it right in camera then it's just not worth bothering about and get's binned, of course, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that i don't know one end of Photoshop from the other.

Aha, interesting, how about if you did know more about post production tech? Is it something that interests you?

I think somwewhere in that lot your asking is it ok to photoshop :shrug:

Not really mate, if editing images in photoshop wasn't ok, I'd still do it. It's like cooking for me, you make your image nicely and then apply the right kind of heat, too much heat and it's spoiled and vice versa.
What I'm really trying to get at is the destructive nature that is to compound techniques and methods into a singular approach and then snub any deviants. Is that too deep?
I appreciate your thoughts though, very much, and your right dodging and burning has been down for many years

The camera is the hardware, photoshop is the software, make them work together and amazing things can happen. Im not a purist, i just use all the options available to me to enhance the results i get from a very enjoyable hobby.

If i take great shots that dont need any PP then i smile if i make an average shot look great with PP then i smile

Thanks for sharing

 

[joxby]

What I'm really trying to get at is the destructive nature that is to compound techniques and methods into a singular approach and then snub any deviants. Is that too deep?

I think you're going to have to specify an example...

 

[lukewoodford]

I think SOME of the problem with people not "liking" photoshop is because they are intimidated by it and scared to learn it, I felt this way at the start but then I did. Half of my style is the processing and I love it.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I think you're going to have to specify an example...

Ok, the 'digital art' debate, regardless of whether a camera, lenses and lighting were used as foundation tools to create an image, the post production techniques or styles somehow change some peoples opinions as to the photographers value or status and the also the work itself.

Ergo, 'that is no longer a photo but digital art and the creator is not a photographer but a digital artist.

I hope that makes some shred of sense.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I think SOME of the problem with people not "liking" photoshop is because they are intimidated by it and scared to learn it, I felt this way at the start but then I did. Half of my style is the processing and I love it.

Good point, I agree, sometimes that is an issue mate and rather than accept it as an absence of knowledge, it's easier for some to condemn and dismiss.
It's definitely one explanation to some views on the subject, there are folk out there who have the strong belief that a photo should not be 'messed' with.

 

[Cobra]

Blimey Tomas that was an essay
I had to read it twice to get my head around it ( but then I am not well, but only in the "temporary" sense of the word,
HOWEVER the jury is still out on that one or so I am told )

To the task at hand, when I first started out with a DSLR all I had was
the canon software for transferring the images to a PC and not the slightest idea how to tweak I was happy with the results.
I then after awhile dropped in here and found ( through advice and guidance) that my images were severely lacking.
I now use CS3 and to be honest enjoy "tweaking" as much as I do taking.

I find it an interesting "off shoot" to the whole togging thing.

If I can use an example
I used to shoot very regularly and found that "loading" the ammunition was
as much fun as firing it, tweaking the loads to get the best from the ballistics
(accuracy, speed & trajectory) of said round.
So yes its all part of the same hobby as far as I am concerned

So in closing I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I did yours

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Blimey Tomas that was an essay
I had to read it twice to get my head around it

Ha ha, sorry bud, I do appreciate it though, especially the reading of it twice, my apologies , I know I'm not the best at being clear and concise.

If I can use an example
I used to shoot very regularly and found that "loading" the ammunition was
as much fun as firing it, tweaking the loads to get the best from the ballistics
(accuracy, speed & trajectory) of said round.
So yes its all part of the same hobby as far as I am concerned

So in closing I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I did yours

That's a great analogy, superb! I've likened it to cooking in the past, you gather the ingredients, fresh as you can get, rinse, prepare, mix, chop and then apply the necessary heat.

A mate and I were chatting on a drive home, he said that all pro's must pass their images on to an editing dept or a retoucher, I was quite opposed to this thought, whether it truly does happen much or not is not my point but it would be taking away half the adventure for me, if one takes pleasure and pride with the loading of the ammo, then to not fire and inspect the targets afterward would be taking away part of the ride.

 

[AliB]

I tend to look at both shooting the image and then creating the finished product as part of the same process. I don't look to get the entirely finished product from the camera but I will aim to get as close as I can. Lighting, composition, framing, exposure. They all need to be good to spot on.

Once I've got my image then the fun can start!

I'm still not where I want to be with it but I'm making progress. Here's a very good example of someone who's photography I admire (A lot) and the direction I'm trying to go in.

http://www.caithnessphotographic.com/

Now I don't believe for one minute that this kind of image can be shot entirely in camera, it's definitely heading in the direction of digital art.

I'm happy to use both photography and digital skills to produce an image so long as it is well composed and executed.

I know what you mean about purists and I think, often, it depends on the subject. Landscape togs who will proclaim that it should all be done in camera may not have considered product photography or advertising or fashion.

Each to their own, I'm not that closed minded that it bothers me in the slightest.

 

[Cobra]

Ha ha, sorry bud, I do appreciate it though, especially the reading of it twice, my apologies , I know I'm not the best at being clear and concise.

Its not you mate its me, its very much like having a nasty hangover
but no alcohol consumed effect but no cause

That's a great analogy, superb! I've likened it to cooking in the past, you gather the ingredients, fresh as you can get, rinse, prepare, mix, chop and then apply the necessary heat.

yep another most suitable analogy

A mate and I were chatting on a drive home, he said that all pro's must pass their images on to an editing dept or a retoucher, I was quite opposed to this thought, whether it truly does happen much or not is not my point but it would be taking away half the adventure for me, if one takes pleasure and pride with the loading of the ammo, then to not fire and inspect the targets afterward would be taking away part of the ride.

That seems a bit strange and possible a bit of an anti-climax or even
"cheating"
would you turn over your images to be manipulated? I doubt that I would
Its OK helping someone with a bit of P/P on here if they ask for it,
and can help with the basic tweaks, but you don't know "exactly" what
the 'tog saw or was aiming to produce, so with all good intentions it could come out as a bastidisation ?

 

[Geordi69]

I had a similar discussion with a 'purist' of sorts at college(doing a B&W film course). They were slating post production as cheating and should not be refered to photography.
I countered with you should be able to use all the tools available to create an image that you like and are proud off. They came back with all this modern stuff has ruined the art.
I just took his camera of him, and told him to go and mix the chemicals up and make his own plates and get his subjects to stand still for an hour or so, if he wanted to be pure and not use any 'modern stuff' He just went "OH, I have been taking adavantage of modern stuff for all these 50 or so years I have been doing photography"
He had never been forced to look at it like that before, and realise all the changes in technology that helped him achieve his shots he was after. He came in the next week to show me his new DSLR.

I love to mix the analogue and digital worlds, I am still new to this game, but each form is helping me with the other. So overall my photography is improving, and I am dam happy about that!!

 

[Twentyten]

Aha, interesting, how about if you did know more about post production tech? Is it something that interests you?

Absolutely, but until i can obtain an affordable copy of Photoshop I'll just have to muddle along.

Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for sympathy, I probably could afford it, but £500 on something which has such a steep learning curve?? What if i couldn,t get to grips with it?

 

[kittylitter]

Maybe it's more about what your perception of photography is that determines your attitude to pp? I'm new to DSLR photography but have always been the one that has a P&S in my bag, taking loads of photos, trying to capture 'the moment' so to me heavy pp just isn't something I want to do, no matter which camera has generated the image.

I saw a picture recently where someone has taken an image of Liverpool, used pp to make it look as if it was on fire and superimposed birds on it - although I can appreciate the level of work that has gone into the photo, that to me isn't what photography is about, maybe that's what I see more as digital art??

I'm all for sharpening and adjusting etc to bring the best out of an image, the sort of things I don't understand are changing the colour of a sky in a landscape pic from one on a grey day to glorious sunshine - I didn't see that sky so I can't relate to changing the image *that* drastically - if that makes sense ?? I suppose that explains why I'm not striving towards things like water drop/technical photography - I like the feeling that I get seeing a sprawling Lakes landscape that makes me want to grab a camera and capture as much as I can of that in a photograph.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I haven't got an issue with pp, its each to their own but heavy pp to totally change an image is not really for me.

<<<<<<< off to get some paracetamol now for the self induced headache

 

[joxby]

Isn't it more about definitions, and changing them for your convenience.
I think the day a shoot is the inconvenience in the creation of an image, is the day you need to re-evaluate the direction and definition of your chosen art.

You can't lump shooting for yourself (for pleasure) and shooting for a client in the same bucket.
The client wants an image not necessarily a photograph, if you want to make any money you have to supply what the client wants economically, that might mean a 99% software manufactured image, still a photograph ?, well I dunno, but definitions/purism doesn't pay the bills.

Is it purism to try and keep your images within the confines of what defines a photograph, or does extreme digital manipulation want to be accepted, share photography's credibility and not look for its own..

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Is it now about defining the new types then, what’s acceptable as being still photography, and what’s pushing the boundaries into digital art.

But how much credibility does the purism angle think it actually has, are not both the old tools and the new both just info collectors at their basics, as its always been. Couldn’t we argue we have more control of that collection then ever before..

So inevitably isn’t it what next becomes the new acceptable look, made new in the first place by, the people pushing the boundaries.

 

[fontmoss]

this is a great thread!

its something ive found in cycling, specifically mountain biking (shouts for richpips and other STWers) where there is a branch of cycling where folk only use 1 gear. they are loved and hated in equal measure and like with shunning post editing there are those who try to convince you its a purer route and truer to cycling's roots. There are those who say its total garbage and nothing but the emperor's new clothes. i despise both.

i ride a bike with 1 gear because i enjoy it. it comes with its own challenges and rewards and necessitates a different approach than a bike with gears but to say it's purer? even if it were what good is that? we'll get our rewards in cycling heaven*?

im new to photography and already ive found a space where im comfortable, i use a fixed lens 90% of the time and love it. if im being honest maybe there is an element of feeling 'purer' and closer to what those 50 odd years were doing but i have a digi camera and even if i had a film camera it wouldn't be the same. Look at flickr, how many people have cameras these days and are good at photography?

speaking to a friend last night she was convinced that film was purer than digi, simply because with digi work you can make any picture look amazing. i struggled to convince her otherwise but ultimately the perception by most people i know is that a good film pic is worth more than a good digi one.

whether we should post process? well i tweak or am starting to tweak but no tbh i think there comes a point where you have done more in post processing than you did when you took the picture originally and at that point the image stops being a photograph and becomes digital art. in the end though it only seems folk like us worry about it because the folk i know at least, assume all digi pics have been bolstered by computer magic.

sorry bit epic but its late and this thread has really got my brain ticking on something ive been mulling over for a while.

*cycling heaven is devoid of cars btw

 

[Shutterman]

Thomas

What a question, and a good one at that.

This conversation and topic must be written on a scrap of paper and passed from one purist to another with explicit instruction to repeat to all Heretics of the church of photography.

From a personal point of view I would love to be at a stage where I did not need to carry out any PP on my images but I have about as much chance of that happening as I do of winning the lottery. If I did ever reach that stage would I take the purist approach and never let the image enter the develop module of Lightroom or Photoshop and just let it sit there in all its natural glory?

No I do not think I could stand the Nagging voice in my head whispering "What if you did a tweak..... I bet it would blossom".

I think everyone has their own process they follow and I would think people who are driven by financial constraints and deadlines would just want to get the images out the door and the cash in the bank, It most likely takes some of the personal fun out of photography for them having to be constantly aware of the time and the need to hit the deadline.

At the end of the day for me it is about doing something that I get great enjoyment out of and having a interest that I can share with other. We are all either a Purist or a Tweaker to some extent but at the day Photographers one and all, some of us still get the buzz and rush other just the constant ticking of the clock and a balance sheets flashing before their eyes.

I think I will remain a Tweaker its a lot more fun...

(I have no Idea if I have come close to answering and of your questions raised in you as I am knackered and my hands and eyes have lost all co-ordination)

Nigel

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Absolutely, but until i can obtain an affordable copy of Photoshop I'll just have to muddle along.

Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for sympathy, I probably could afford it, but £500 on something which has such a steep learning curve?? What if i couldn,t get to grips with it?

I started using photoshop or at least tried to in 2005, I had used it many times before then but not a 'sit down with tutorials and try like the wind' kinda deal, it takes time to become more efficient but the basics are very quick to grasp. If you want to warm a little more before buying the full version, you could always try elements?

Maybe it's more about what your perception of photography is that determines your attitude to pp? I'm new to DSLR photography but have always been the one that has a P&S in my bag, taking loads of photos, trying to capture 'the moment' so to me heavy pp just isn't something I want to do, no matter which camera has generated the image.

My perception of photography remains the same, it's something I love and I must respect.
This is interesting, would you say that extensive post production will never interest you, or is this just how you feel while you find your feet and discover the area's of photography that satisfy or interest you the most?

I saw a picture recently where someone has taken an image of Liverpool, used pp to make it look as if it was on fire and superimposed birds on it - although I can appreciate the level of work that has gone into the photo, that to me isn't what photography is about, maybe that's what I see more as digital art??

I'd call it a manipulated photograph or put more simply an 'image'. If the camera and lens is taken away then the image can't exist, manipulations and advanced post production are required to make a quality representation and for that, knowledge of the technical aspects of photography is needed for the image to be believable.

Isn't it more about definitions, and changing them for your convenience.
I think the day a shoot is the inconvenience in the creation of an image, is the day you need to re-evaluate the direction and definition of your chosen art.

For me, definition doesn't seem to be an issue but I agree with what your saying about inconvenience, although I strongly doubt that any photographer would perceive the shoot as one, if they did then your right, time to pack it in.

You can't lump shooting for yourself (for pleasure) and shooting for a client in the same bucket.
The client wants an image not necessarily a photograph, if you want to make any money you have to supply what the client wants economically, that might mean a 99% software manufactured image, still a photograph ?, well I dunno, but definitions/purism doesn't pay the bills.

Ooh, now that's a golden nugget, thanks very much!

Is it purism to try and keep your images within the confines of what defines a photograph, or does extreme digital manipulation want to be accepted, share photography's credibility and not look for its own..

Well, manipulation is accepted and purism, it seems, can be destructive if relied on as a singular practical template. Maybe this applies more in the business sense as you have alerted me above, if one wants to stay afloat, if one wants to bring something new or unique to the table then adopted singular mind sets such as purism or extreme purism, it seems, could be restrictive and not beneficial.

...But how much credibility does the purism angle think it actually has, are not both the old tools and the new both just info collectors at their basics, as its always been. Couldn&#8217;t we argue we have more control of that collection then ever before..

So inevitably isn&#8217;t it what next becomes the new acceptable look, made new in the first place by, the people pushing the boundaries.

Awesome, I'm all for pushing boundaries, I'd like to think I'm always doing it but the truth is I'm trying to, my efforts aren't there yet, I will keep trying and hopefully sometime I can say that I actually have pushed and succeeded.

this is a great thread!

...speaking to a friend last night she was convinced that film was purer than digi, simply because with digi work you can make any picture look amazing. i struggled to convince her otherwise but ultimately the perception by most people i know is that a good film pic is worth more than a good digi one.

That's a good one, I've been involved in a similar conversation with a die hard film buff. Now, I appreciate film, I don't use it and never have, while film was alive and kicking I was sucked into different activities, I played guitar in a punk rock band for some time, it wasn't until digital had entered the scene that I began to travel and also find photography.
My film buff compadre also had the view that it truly is the only pure form of photography, when I posed the manipulation question and brought the dodging and burning techniques, they denied the lot. The conversation was a difficult one at that, most likely, similar to the first discussions concerning the spherical nature of the earth.

....because the folk i know at least, assume all digi pics have been bolstered by computer magic.

I think this slots rather nicely into the lack of knowledge or understanding of post production rather than a intentional jump onto purist soils.

*cycling heaven is devoid of cars btw

Thomas

What a question, and a good one at that.

This conversation and topic must be written on a scrap of paper and passed from one purist to another with explicit instruction to repeat to all Heretics of the church of photography.

At the end of the day for me it is about doing something that I get great enjoyment out of and having a interest that I can share with other. We are all either a Purist or a Tweaker to some extent but at the day Photographers one and all, some of us still get the buzz and rush other just the constant ticking of the clock and a balance sheets flashing before their eyes.

I think I will remain a Tweaker its a lot more fun...

(I have no Idea if I have come close to answering and of your questions raised in you as I am knackered and my hands and eyes have lost all co-ordination)

Nigel

Thanks Nigel! Very interesting and also spot on for me there mate.

 

[mr_pants]

This is always an interesting debate and has been discussed to death many times on DPC, but not with as much constructiveness as seems to be being brought to bear here.

If it's photojournalism that's your thing, then retouching options are quite limited. However, if it's art that you're trying to present to someone, then I say that whatever is necessary to realise your vision is fair game (other than cruelty to children and animals, disruption of the public transport network, pollution of public water supplies and listening to Take That).

 

[mr_pants]

Absolutely, but until i can obtain an affordable copy of Photoshop I'll just have to muddle along.

Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for sympathy, I probably could afford it, but £500 on something which has such a steep learning curve?? What if i couldn,t get to grips with it?

Have you looked at the Gimp? The price is certainly affordable

 

[Tyke Tiler]

This is always an interesting debate and has been discussed to death many times on DPC, but not with as much constructiveness as seems to be being brought to bear here.

If it's photojournalism that's your thing, then retouching options are quite limited. However, if it's art that you're trying to present to someone, then I say that whatever is necessary to realise your vision is fair game (other than cruelty to children and animals, disruption of the public transport network, pollution of public water supplies and listening to Take That).

Great points Pants! Especially the Take That comment!

During the European Figure Skating Championships earlier this year, I was working for Getty Images, the rules were very clear - 'We need the picture before you take it', so I didn't have the time to use my preferred editing processes. All there was time for was basic adjustments within Lightroom and then straight to the picture desk via FTP.

 

[GarynLea]

Just going back to the cooking analogy, does it really matter if cooking on gas or electric, or using a microwave or open fire? Is it right to use a blender when you could mix by hand, should you use all natural ingredients or are packet/frozen foods acceptable?

The same applies to imaging imo, the final result is the aim. wether it be painted, sketched, photographed, spray painted, scanned, sculptured etc. An image is an image and the other bit just describes the route taken to acheive it. If at the end of the day it looks good, then the job has been done.

It's down to the individual as to what they will or won't allow themselves to do to get there but it certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the process or the finished product.

I think as photographers we have the easier route than most. Our images are already there, we just have to capture them. I am in awe of people who can create great looking images from nothing as I have very limited artistic talent. The sand art on YouTube is amazing.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Just going back to the cooking analogy, does it really matter if cooking on gas or electric, or using a microwave or open fire? Is it right to use a blender when you could mix by hand, should you use all natural ingredients or are packet/frozen foods acceptable?

Excellent! Good points, there are many different ways to achieve a similar result, the guidelines would be as long as the quality is not compromised and the result is your best gold, then so be it.

The same applies to imaging imo, the final result is the aim. wether it be painted, sketched, photographed, spray painted, scanned, sculptured etc. An image is an image and the other bit just describes the route taken to acheive it. If at the end of the day it looks good, then the job has been done.

It's down to the individual as to what they will or won't allow themselves to do to get there but it certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the process or the finished product.

Well said.

 

[Myky D]

As per all previous discussions - it's art - there is no "wrong" or "right" - only subjective opinion. Just like music.

That's why it makes me laugh when people get sniffy about it all - particularly when people try to invoke some form of justification.

 

[fontmoss]

myky D im with you to a certain extent but are the Spice Girls really in the same league as Jacko?


I mean they have a strong back catalogue how can he compete...

 

[Gonetae]

I'm just getting into the PP side of things and to be honest Im really enjoying the playing around in the various programs to make a picture more of what I want it to be. As people have mentioned previously at the end of the day it is an artform and as long as the end result is pleasing whether its straight from camera or digitally altered that's all that matters to me. Both types of pictures are equally valid and I don't see why one should have more merit than the other as long as the photographer/buyer/viewer is happy with them.

just my tuppence worth on it.

Tommy.

 

[Kev M]

The same applies to imaging imo, the final result is the aim. wether it be painted, sketched, photographed, spray painted, scanned, sculptured etc. An image is an image and the other bit just describes the route taken to acheive it. If at the end of the day it looks good, then the job has been done.

I'll be back later when I have time but I just wanted to pick up on something in this paragraph.

An image is an image, but not necessarily a photograph.:shrug:

 

[jerry12953]

I'd like to have more time to think this through but what really does bug me about PP'd images are those where, for example, one sky has been replaced by a "better" one. (see this month's Photoplus for how to do it, folks....)

I'd like to think that even in these digital times a photograph still has some basis in reality. But where do you draw the line?

One landscape photographer I spoke to suggested that if there's a "blemish" or imperfection in the scene that on another day or visit might just as easily not be there, it might be acceptable to clone it out. But if it was a permanent feature it should be left there - even if you'd rather it wasn't.

So that's the difference between a walker in a red anorak, and a telegraph pole on the horizon, for example.

Regarding "tweaks", going back to the days of film, every film had different characteristics, which, depending on the situation could be its strong or weak point. So Velvia, for example had/has highly saturated greens which made the landscape really sing out. But at the same time it had/has highly saturated reds which made a sunset quite over the top.

It seems to me that in just simply processing your RAW files you can, in a sense, pick the film emulsion of your choice from an almost infinite number of possibilities, for each separate image. Now I enjoy doing that, and I think its the main advantage that digital has over film.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I'd like to have more time to think this through but what really does bug me about PP'd images are those where, for example, one sky has been replaced by a "better" one. (see this month's Photoplus for how to do it, folks....)

I'd like to think that even in these digital times a photograph still has some basis in reality. But where do you draw the line?

Great post Jerry!
Personally, there are no lines to be drawn, I'll go as far as it takes if I'm allowed the time or have the time spare.

If a sky has been replaced and it's believable then that's simply talent IMO. Maybe I just don't care too much for 100% reality when it comes to being creative, I like my non fiction/fiction and if the two elements cross streams, so be it. How much reality depends on the assignment though.

One landscape photographer I spoke to suggested that if there's a "blemish" or imperfection in the scene that on another day or visit might just as easily not be there, it might be acceptable to clone it out. But if it was a permanent feature it should be left there - even if you'd rather it wasn't.

So that's the difference between a walker in a red anorak, and a telegraph pole on the horizon, for example.

See, that's exactly the trouble I have with those kind of restrictions, it feels like another claustrophobic commandment of purism to me.
If you can get rid of a blemish or an imperfection in post, I do so without a second thought. The telegraph pole would be left alone if it wasn't detrimental to the frame, if it were, then off with it's head!

 

[GarynLea]

I'll be back later when I have time but I just wanted to pick up on something in this paragraph.

An image is an image, but not necessarily a photograph.:shrug:

I know what you're going to say Kev, I made very little distinction between and image and a photograph ... I was leaning more towards photography as an art form rather than as a true representation for documentary purposes. But can we really call the latter a true representatin if pp has been used in any shape or form? Even sharpening can destroy evidence of the truth.
Both methods can still be called photography as a camera was used to produce them.

 

[jerry12953]

See, that's exactly the trouble I have with those kind of restrictions, it feels like another claustrophobic commandment of purism to me.
If you can get rid of a blemish or an imperfection in post, I do so without a second thought. The telegraph pole would be left alone if it wasn't detrimental to the frame, if it were, then off with it's head!

That's the problem with current photography, really. It used to be more honest and you could believe in what you saw (more or less). In other words, it had documentary value.

Now you really don't know what to believe. I personally feel that you have to draw a line somewhere, and what my friend suggested seems a good place for it.

 

[joxby]

If a sky has been replaced and it's believable then that's simply talent IMO. Maybe I just don't care too much for 100% reality when it comes to being creative.

You're joking.....talent at what, photochoppery or photography...
You can be creative with reality, a boost of levels and some thoughtful cropping is one thing, but to replace an entire sky isn't acceptable imo.

See, that's exactly the trouble I have with those kind of restrictions, it feels like another claustrophobic commandment of purism to me.
If you can get rid of a blemish or an imperfection in post, I do so without a second thought. The telegraph pole would be left alone if it wasn't detrimental to the frame, if it were, then off with it's head!

There are no restrictions in art, you can do whatever you like, but you can't call the end result of a sky transplant, a photograph imo, you could enhance it a distance, but not cut paste.
Is that so bad, is that the restriction you are talking about, being bound by a definition.
I don't see any restrictions, if I want to make a clay pot, I'm gonna have to use clay, mud won't do because it'll be a mud pot, its a restriction but hell I'll have to live with it, I hate clay but I want to make pots.
I could moan about how badly done to us mud users are, not being allowed into the clay pot gang, after all we make the same thing....pots
Nobody is stopping anyone making mud pots, but you won't be invited to the clay pot Christmas party, you wouldn't want to go anyway, its full of clay purists....

 

[joxby]

I know what you're going to say Kev, I made very little distinction between and image and a photograph ... I was leaning more towards photography as an art form rather than as a true representation for documentary purposes. But can we really call the latter a true representatin if pp has been used in any shape or form? Even sharpening can destroy evidence of the truth.
Both methods can still be called photography as a camera was used to produce them.

These threads always end like this, its either all or nothing, where is the middle ground ?
You can't use a minor colour shift that doesn't perfectly represent the scene in reality as justification for cut pasting a sky in, like, well the red is half a shade off so if I'm changing that, nothing is real, therefore anything goes.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

That's the problem with current photography, really. It used to be more honest and you could believe in what you saw (more or less). In other words, it had documentary value.

Current photography? Do you feel that it's not as good as it used to be?
I think it had the illusion of being more honest in the past maybe.

Photography, like everything else, evolves.

Documentary photography still has value, I'm interested, what makes you say that it doesn't anymore?

With journalism, documentation and sports etc, one must show the truth or truthful representations at least.
When the purist approach is applied to photography in general, that's when I think your options become limited and your creative visions, impaired.

It would hold me back having rules that cannot be broken.

You're joking.....talent at what, photochoppery or photography...

Both. Isn't it obvious? , if you believe its real then of course it shows skill.
If after the discovery of the sky not being real you then change your mind and say that you no longer appreciate the image, I find that ridiculous.

So what, it's not real? :shrug: Why does photography in general have to be non fiction?

Put very simply, it was two photographs, taken by a photographer and then merged together using knowledge and artistic license.
'Yes but it's not a photograph anymore'

I don't care, if it's inspires or stimulates then it's purpose is complete, without the camera and the lens it cannot exist. Period!

You can be creative with reality, a boost of levels and some thoughtful cropping is one thing, but to replace an entire sky isn't acceptable imo.

Yes you can be creative with reality, I'm not disputing that, It's my job.

As for the clay pot analogy
It's still a pot, regardless what it's made from. I'm not trying to poke fun at purists or condemn them.

If your obsessing on the material used to create it, then I don't ever intend to create 'pot's' from only one material and also by using a singular template, if I'm not invited to the clay pot makers xmas party because I didn't use clay then I couldn't care less, I'm off to the 'make a pot with anything you damn like' party and having a much more fun time! :razz: