Un-altered G1 photos

[Guy1]

The original, un-altered photos are the true representations of the camera's capabilities and the photograph's abilities in using them.

Many magnificient photos taken with digicams but manipulated with software to such an extent that they do not look anything like the originals are posted on forums and webpages.

There is nothing wrong with software manipulated photos. They should clearly be identified as such. They represent the software's capabilities and the user's abilities in using them.

It is my opinion that if all were aware of this, many unsatisfied users would understand why THEY can not produce such masterpiece directly out of the camera.

I wish that we would have an ''un-retouched album" section for the G1. This would give a more honest representation of the G1 and photographer.

Guy

ps: There must be a way to find out if a photo was post processed so that we could identify cheaters...

[gandini]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Especially the last sentence, implying that those of us who "process" our digital photographs are "cheaters." I am so irate at present, that Im sure I should hit the delete key rather than continue, but ... well, Im not going to.
As I have posted many times before--and to paraphrase one of the most famous utterances of Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print the performance. In our digital case, the unaltered, RAW file is our negative, which in my case contains not only lighting problems (compression, low contrast, under and over exposure), and composition compromises (I couldn't get to stand exactly where I wanted to), it also contains 4 stuck pixels that I choose to remove using software rather than risk Canon's warranty procedure. And the posted print, in my case the photos I put on my website photo galleries, are the true representation of my creative photographic vision and skill. Compared to Adam's heavily manipulated prints, my web photos are hardly touched! I crop, I expand the luminance scale, and I only mildly sharpen after resizing to compensate for the resize algorithm. I do not dodge or burn or anything using layers or masks (not that there's anything wrong with that, either, as an artistic means to expressive ends.)
This "holier-than-thou" attitude that raw images truely represent the camera properties and the merit of the photographer is just so much pompous posturing it makes me puke. It's the end result that counts. Wonderfully skilled photographers like Pekka are totally honest, and in doing so he tells us that he manipulates his photos. I have made that clear on my website (even though I still have more to reveal in terms of my "manipulations" philosophy) also. I do not "hide" behind Photoshop, I use it as a tool, just as my Canon G1 is a tool, and my tripod, and my flash. Is artificial light a "manipulation" that should be criticized or banned by the purist ****s?

Anyway, as I know this to be the BEST forum for Canon digital photography, please know that this is not a flame, but an honest reply to what I truely believe is a bogus argument that can be reasonably and carefully dis-assembeled and successfully de-bunked.

cheers,

[Andrei]

I can not agree with you completely. G1 as any other camera has a technical limitations, like short dynamic range. And extreme pictures (very high contrast, for example) has unattractive view without postprocessing.

Should we treat manipulation with WB, contrast or saturation in ZoomBrowser(PhotShop) as post-processing or curing ?

And what to think, according you, about film-photography itself ? Darkroom is a permanent process of post-processing: paper, exposure, hands manipulations, reactives and so on. I belive you will not like the "unprocessed" pictures from darkroom.

Anyway, what is you final aim: to be a good operator of G1 of to be a good photographer ?

guy1 wrote:
The original, un-altered photos are the true representations of the camera's capabilities and the photograph's abilities in using them.

Many magnificient photos taken with digicams but manipulated with software to such an extent that they do not look anything like the originals are posted on forums and webpages.

There is nothing wrong with software manipulated photos. They should clearly be identified as such. They represent the software's capabilities and the user's abilities in using them.

It is my opinion that if all were aware of this, many unsatisfied users would understand why THEY can not produce such masterpiece directly out of the camera.

I wish that we would have an ''un-retouched album" section for the G1. This would give a more honest representation of the G1 and photographer.

Guy

ps: There must be a way to find out if a photo was post processed so that we could identify cheaters...

[Andrei]

Hi, Phil !

I see, we were writing our responses in one time and with the similar thoughts :)

[Mark Zarn]

I'm with with Phil and Andrei on this one.

There is a branch of photography called documentary photography, that seeks to interpret the world as it is. Even documentary photographers are allowed the use of telephoto and wide-angle lenses, which introduce their own distortions into the world of photography.

Most of us on this forum are seeking to present a worldview colored by our own past, hopes, and expectations. Some of us try to present nature at its ideal, others to show the sorry underbelly of society. The photos we present to the world are reflections of US, not of our cameras.

That being said, there are elements of the "creative process" with which I do not agree, such as putting one person's head onto another person's body with the intent to assassinate character, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here.

Mark

[Pekka]

Guy,

I've personally responded to this kind of claim, concerning my gallery, before. Please read this (angry message): http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=876102

Pekka
http://studio-on-the.net/photography/G1/

[Guy1]

Ooh boy,

I felt venom coming my way...! Let me clarify my post.

I was only proposing un-altered G1 photo posting to be able to judge the TRUE output of the G1.

Obviously this is what interest me when I choose a camera. I have no artistic pretentions. Nor do I pass jugement on anyone's.

I am talking hardware here, I could not care less about
the "talented", "artistic" and "savy" way one can tweak the file with PS or other software is not my interest with this proposal.

So cool it guys and try to understand before starting preaching.....

Cheers,

[Andrei]

Please, don't mention "Neal" anymore :)

Pekka wrote:
Guy,

I've personally responded to this kind of claim, concerning my gallery, before. Please read this (angry message): http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=876102

Pekka
http://studio-on-the.net/photography/G1/

[Mark Zarn]

Guy,

I was trying hard not to "preach". Sorry but your post was very unclear. I still have to read between the lines to get the message you intended.

But, you have a good point. I'd support a section on unaltered photos on this forum if Pekka can give it space. It might help us troubleshoot technical limitations both in the cameras and in the photographers using them.

Mark

[Andrei]

No venom at all !!!
That's why I used the phrase "I'm not COMPLETELY agree with you"). I am sure I understood, what you meant. But I think, It's wrong way to see the pictures with no post-processing. This is like comparing two negatives, made with Canon and Pentax or Nikon or something else. The better is to compare the final products.
Some days ago I made a couple of shots with E-10. My dream is digital SLR. D30 - too expensive. And I tried E-10. I knew about the noise, about slow playing and so on. But I wanted to see what I could do with this "negative". Nothing. Maybe I'm not strong enough in PS, maybe the camera was wrong. But D30 still keeps to be my dreams :)

guy1 wrote:
Ooh boy,

I felt venom coming my way...! Let me clarify my post.

I was only proposing un-altered G1 photo posting to be able to judge the TRUE output of the G1.

Obviously this is what interest me when I choose a camera. I have no artistic pretentions. Nor do I pass jugement on anyone's.

I am talking hardware here, I could not care less about
the "talented", "artistic" and "savy" way one can tweak the file with PS or other software is not my interest with this proposal.

So cool it guys and try to understand before starting preaching.....

Cheers,

[Andrei]

Not a problem: Neal is a guy, who said this

"I said that (any) doctored images are dishonest if that disclosure is not made to the viewing public and the same image is used to extoll the alleged quality of a particular camera."

You can read that discussion, Pekka placed the url.

The question is: what to tread post-processing (doctoring) ? Any camera comes along with software. Any camera has built-in functioanality (I mean, more or less serious camera) to choose WB, contrast, saturation. So, we can do this in camera or in software, coming with camera. Or in PS !! To treat thease oparations as doctoring or no ? My opinion - no. Because thease are built-in features of camera.

If we want to compare the hardware, we have to set it to FULL AUTO, to JPEG (not to RAW or TIFF), to one resolution, to one speed, place it together, press the buttons in one moment and to see, what will be the output. But I believe, nobody will like it :)



mark zarn wrote:
Guy,

I was trying hard not to "preach". Sorry but your post was very unclear. I still have to read between the lines to get the message you intended.

But, you have a good point. I'd support a section on unaltered photos on this forum if Pekka can give it space. It might help us troubleshoot technical limitations both in the cameras and in the photographers using them.

Mark

[Pekka]

I'll let you have a couple of :) :) and a :D 's to keep you in the forum. :)

What puzzles me that:

You must have seen hundreds of G1 photos on the galleries in the net (choose from http://studio-on-the.net/photography/G1/g1.html if you haven't found any), so if you still wish to see some 'true' G1 photos ----
What are you hoping to see in that 'true' photo? It seems to me that you already have mady up some assumptions on G1 image quality and you're seekin images to make your point stronger, are you?

All the images you see in my gallery are G1 photos. It's G1 hardware in my hands. Someone else has a different view of it. See e.g. How Carlos does in his great album http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=932331&a=10944520

Not even D30 users have any need to boast that the cameras produce always great photos straight out of the box. Instead, it's a common agreement that the output of digital camera is to be considered as a negative before the lab, and so you act as the lab master. That's why most pro's prefer no in-camera sharpening. A RAW to TIFF conversion is excactly 'lab technician step', and if PS is still needed after that it's also lab work (as paper prints in photo labs are always "leveled" and "color adjusted" - if not in its direct sense but in a choice of print paper.

guy1 wrote:
Ooh boy,

I felt venom coming my way...! Let me clarify my post.

I was only proposing un-altered G1 photo posting to be able to judge the TRUE output of the G1.

Obviously this is what interest me when I choose a camera. I have no artistic pretentions. Nor do I pass jugement on anyone's.

I am talking hardware here, I could not care less about
the "talented", "artistic" and "savy" way one can tweak the file with PS or other software is not my interest with this proposal.

So cool it guys and try to understand before starting preaching.....

Cheers,

[Mark Zarn]

Andrei,
It's true...where do you draw the line between how the image is processed in-camera and what someone may do in Photoshop?

Posting an "unaltered" photo might be a lot harder than anyone suspects!

Mark

[gandini]

guy1 wrote:
Ooh boy,

I felt venom coming my way...! Let me clarify my post.

No venom intended, but if you stick your neck out, get ready to have it lopped off...! Perhaps your post wasn't as clear as it could have been, but I tried hard to read between the lines.

I was only proposing un-altered G1 photo posting to be able to judge the TRUE output of the G1.

Are you wearing galloshes, Guy? Here again you're wading in with statements like "TRUE". The truth lies in the image, and the message and sentiment behind it. All my web gallery images are the truth. I'm true to my abilities and skill and imagination and honestly show images for others to look at. My images are nothing special, having never won a photography competition in my life, and I realise where I stand in the bigger pekk-ing order (Couldn't resist, Pekka!) But it's the output that should be measured and judged.

Obviously this is what interest me when I choose a camera. I have no artistic pretentions. Nor do I pass jugement on anyone's.

I am talking hardware here, I could not care less about
the "talented", "artistic" and "savy" way one can tweak the file with PS or other software is not my interest with this proposal.

But herein lies the rub. Just as I tell my students that you cannot separate content from style (in writing), you cannot truely or successfully separate the artistic decisions made by the camera operator, from the technical properties of the camera as image recorder. Why choose slow shutter/small aperture over fast shutter/big Av? Why choose fill-in flash over available light? Tripod over hand-held. These are all decisions in my world, that influence the photograph. I have a vision of the final print/web image and I use everything at my disposal to create it.

Why do you think purists use the term "make a photograph" rather than "take a photograph?" All the deeper philosophical issues aside (see Susan Sontag's wonderful essays on photography for that), the terms indicate that it's a creative process, that takes time, energy skill and talent, in varying degrees.

If you truely don't give a fig about art and talent and all that stuff, then forget photography! Choose a camera any way you want, but don't come posturing that it requires a "as the camera saw it" section on this forum. I vote that it would be a waste of forum resources. I want to see how others view the world using the camera as their tool. And to say that anything short of the entire process is even possible is bunk--even Andrei's wonderful example of how to conduct the "perfect camera comparison" reveals how limited and silly that exercise would be.

Vent: off

Cheers to all co-members!

[Guy1]

Phil,

You make feel as the christians must have felt during the inquisition;

"if you stick your neck out, get ready to have it lopped off"

"If you truely don't give a fig about art and talent and all that stuff, then forget photography! "

"Are you wearing galloshes" ...etc

Still, THERE is something to be said about the G1 capabilities and I think that the G1 can produce a very presentable photos.


Pekka,

I have viewed your web site and was extremely impressed. I showed it to my wife, (me too..), and told her "here is what this camera can do" and I added "in the hands of THAT guy".

I have the G1 since a few months and I have learned so much from practice, reading, and viewing this and other forums.

My proposal was only intended to allow the rest of us to see the results from the G1 before post processing. Only then I feel, could I compare my results with others.


As Mark Z. said

Posting an "unaltered" photo might be a lot harder than anyone suspects!

This is exactly my point and to the zillions of neophytes like me, this would be a very valuable tool to better understand the working of the camera.

BTW - Very good forum Pekka. I hope I have not rattled the cage too much.

, Phil.

Guy

[Rick]

I was going to stay out of this as the others handled it quite well but your last comments really got me.

You stated;

"My proposal was only intended to allow the rest of us to see the results from the G1 before post processing. Only then I feel, could I compare my results with others."

If all you want to do is compare your ability to operate a camera then I suggest you form a club of Quaker Oatmeal pin whole camera users. No buttons, switches, programming, Photoshop or anything else that could be construed as interfering with the pureness you seem to desire.

The reason you got the responses you did (and deserved) was that you used less tact then an elephant in your original post (Troll actually). Your accusation that some here were cheating you and others by not identifying any manipulations they might have performed on their works was ludicrous to be honest. It also was extremely insulting and provocative and if you dont see that then the entire time of everyone who responded is wasted.

Your proposal doesnt make sense in light of the fact that the very nature of digital cameras and this type of technology is inherently manipulated many times before it gets to your eyes both within the camera and through the transfer process. The other thing you need to understand is that with all the settings possible on these cameras people would have to dedicate a lot of time to making sure they gave you all the information that was necessary to reproduce their efforts. And since photography is supposed to be a creative endeavor I fail to see why you would want to duplicate to that degree. Learn from what you see and try to emulate not copy others. And learn to use the full set of tools necessary to give you the best images possible from your point of view. This isnt journalism 101 this is creative photography and it is supposed to be subjective not objective.

Lastly, If you didnt intend your original posting to sound as insulting as it did then you need to learn more about netiquette and tact. Also, I usually dont respond to people that hide behind pseudonyms in this kind of a forum, what are you afraid of?

Rick :eyes

P.S. In one of the classes I took from Ansel Adams he stated something so obvious it was incredibly brilliant. A student asked him how come all his pictures came out so well, he said; "They dont, I just dont show people my mistakes"

[gandini]

P.S. In one of the classes I took from Ansel Adams he stated something so obvious it was incredibly brilliant. A student asked him how come all his pictures came out so well, he said; "They dont, I just dont show people my mistakes"[/quote]

Well, for fear of exposing my mistakes, I did some very quick manipulations and provide for Guy, and all others interested, a completely unaltered version of one of my gallery photos:

http://gandini.unm.edu/personal/PhotoGallery/light_and_shadows.htm

There is a difference between the gallery photo and the RAW--> JPG image of the same dimension, no doubt. But not all that much, it's all pretty understandable as to why I chose to change this or that, and I know which one I like best...

PS challenge to find the stuck pixels in the original image! I guarantee they're there.

cheers,
philip

[Guy1]

Rick,

1- Guy is my name, I had to use Guy1 as this forum requires a minimum of 4 letters for a user's name.

2- Your deliberatly insulting, pompous and patronizing answer only makes you like the inquisitors I was talking about ealier. Only YOUR truth is the truth. ALthough the fact that, as someone pointed out in DP, National Geographic ONLY ALLOWS Un-RETOUCHED potographs in its pages gives SOME value to my request.

3- In your rage you have missed my point completely.

4- Sorry if you felt the word "Cheater" applied to you. It was an error of my part, (a freudian slip some would call it..). Pls accept my appologies for it.

5 - Here again, in very simple terms a short explanation of my proposal for a un-adultered G1 photo posting area within this new Canon photography forum;

- To allow each other to share the images of the G1 as they are produced by the camera/photographer.

- This will indicate the "raw", (or "pure" if you will allow the term), quality of the G1/photographer's photo.

- This should also help in evaluating a camera's potential.

This does not in any sense take away the credit of anyone producing great galeries of photos that can be pre or post processed as they wish.

This is a friendly discussion. Sorry if I have stepped on sensitive toes and souls. It was not my intention.

Could we now, address the value of this proposal without attacking and destroying the messenger.


Guy

[Guy1]

Phil,

Thank you for your reply. Beautifully crafted photo.

Guy

[ega1]

guy1 wrote:
- To allow each other to share the images of the G1 as they are produced by the camera/photographer.

- This will indicate the "raw", (or "pure" if you will allow the term), quality of the G1/photographer's photo.



Would you ask for similar restrictions if we were discussing film cameras?

guy1 wrote:
- This should also help in evaluating a camera's potential.



That's what reviews are for.

How would evaluating the photographer's ability help in evaluating a camera's potential? Why are a photographer's post processing skills any less valuable than his camera composition skills?

I'm not trying to provoke you, just to perhaps think this through a little more carefully.

The only way to evaluate the hardware is to do test shots in controlled environments. That's what reviewers do. As soon as you depart from that, it becomes difficult to separate the talent from the specifications.

[Rick]

guy1 wrote:
Rick,

1- Guy is my name, I had to use Guy1 as this forum requires a minimum of 4 letters for a user's name.

>>> Nice to meet you Guy.

2- Your deliberatly insulting, pompous and patronizing answer only makes you like the inquisitors I was talking about ealier. Only YOUR truth is the truth. ALthough the fact that, as someone pointed out in DP, National Geographic ONLY ALLOWS Un-RETOUCHED potographs in its pages gives SOME value to my request.

>>> The problem here is this point 2 is exactly how you sounded in your opening post. So of course that is how you read others. Mine was done tounge in cheek except for the pointing out of your lack of tact. Also National Geographic has used Scitex machines for years to punch up photographs, extend the dynamic range, match profiles of inks to the paper they used, etc.... What they mean by unretouched is no derivitive changes. In other words dont change the content.

3- In your rage you have missed my point completely.

>>>> No Rage here even though you seem to percieve it. I dont have time to get angry about posts on the net. I said your post got to me, I didnt say it enraged me.

4- Sorry if you felt the word "Cheater" applied to you. It was an error of my part, (a freudian slip some would call it..). Pls accept my appologies for it.

>>> Read my post again, I said "Your accusation that some here were cheating you and others by not identifying any manipulations they might have performed on their works was ludicrous to be honest. " which is exactly how your post reads. Accepted!

5 - Here again, in very simple terms a short explanation of my proposal for a un-adultered G1 photo posting area within this new Canon photography forum;

- To allow each other to share the images of the G1 as they are produced by the camera/photographer.

- This will indicate the "raw", (or "pure" if you will allow the term), quality of the G1/photographer's photo.

- This should also help in evaluating a camera's potential.

>>> I dont agree, even though I understand your intent now after reading the thread.

This does not in any sense take away the credit of anyone producing great galeries of photos that can be pre or post processed as they wish.

>>>>Well yes it does, your saying those images dont have the same worth to you unless they were restricted from being able to use all the tools at their disposal to communicate what they want.
Photography is Communication and its a tool that should be used with other tools to accomplish that end. Your original post came across as denigrating the efforts of those who wished to enhance or modify or make clear the communicative intent of their photography. And the word cheater didnt just imply but shouted intent on their part. The point though is that if you see an awesomely moving, thought provoking image, and you find out it was shot with a G1 and then find out that they cut and pasted a few images together even though all shot with the G1, does this mean the G1 cant do that? NO! It means that this incredible collage was constructed of images shot with that G1 camera. That recomends the camera more than a plain vanilla shot can do.

This is a friendly discussion. Sorry if I have stepped on sensitive toes and souls. It was not my intention.

>>> One of the things about the written form is that a great deal of body language, inflection, facial gestures and such are absent. It leads to misunderstandings repeatedly on the net. This is why it is so important to choose the proper words when using this medium.

Could we now, address the value of this proposal without attacking and destroying the messenger.

>>> Certainly! As was once stated so eloquently " I may not agree with what you have said but I will defend to the death your right to say it" I wasnt attacking you as much as I was attacking the verbage with which you chose to state it.


And to refer back to my previous post as to your proposal, Personaly, I dont think it would help you, it comes down to like I said. There are way too many modifications along the path of aquisition for their ever to be a point at which you can say, Aha! this is the photogarpher and the camera melded as one with no outside influence.

Too many factors must be taken into consideration. The lighting per se, what if they used reflectors and gobo's? What about when I use a spot meter to check a scene for dynamic range and then set my exposure manually, what about stretching pantyhose across the lens to get a softer look? The point Im trying to make is that there isnt any "pure" shot. On my site (which my isp is down :-() www.spincityimaging.com/pro90 I made it a point to say what was done to some images, but most times I dont. I make my living at photography and art and I dont make lite (no pun intended) of any discussion about it. The fact is, this is just another form of the old "Is photography art?" argument. It will go on ad infinitum and be renewed at every change in the technology

So take it in the spirit that it is meant, I hope you get the informatiuon you need but I think your going about it the wrong way.

Also, to be truly nit picky, :-) there is no way that you could or should ever use an image on the web to determine if you should buy a camera or about its quality. I could go on for hours about color correction, dpi and data loss during resizing, the quality of your monitor and the settings you have it at versus the settings of the originator of the image. Also, keep in mind that most browsers can and do at times input their own changes on images as they decode them, dithering and palatte problems abound.


Good Luck

Rick

[Rick]

Phillip, If I may call you that:-)

I dont think you have any mistakes showing with that image:-) Its great, btw I love the brown wall, I think it somehow softens the harshness of the contrasting light and shadow areas without detracting from the over all effect.

Nicely done!

Rick

[Andrei]

Below are examples of the pictures out of the camera (with auto WB, normal, normal, normal) and processed. I found that I like more warm tone. So that my processing (usually) is setting appropriate WB during RAW->TIFF converting. Most of the time it's more than enough. And now I'm addicted on RAW :) Extreme cases, like last two ones, are sick with shortage of dynamic range. As to me, this is the main problem of G1 (Not even the problem with focus). In such cases it's possible to tune the curve in PS or apply more complicated approach: Contrast masking + color balancing + curve = 99 easy steps :) .

http://www.fototime.com/inv/B3FB800DE0C6AEF

[Guy1]

Hi Rick,

Happy to meet you.

I had visited your site earlier. Your photos, (enhanced and "raw"), are so vivid. They reflect your talent.

Although we do not agree on the value of my proposal I appreciate you taking the time to send your posts.


Cheers,


Guy

[Guy1]

Andrei

Thanks for your post. It is interesting to see what can be done to improve and augment the camera's capabilities and also correct the photographer's initial settings.

As you mentionned, sometimes it must get pretty complicated.

Cheers,

Guy

[Andrei]

Hi, Guy !

In my opinion, at least WB has to be set (not corrected). In most cases it removes cast and gives color boost.

guy1 wrote:
Andrei

Thanks for your post. It is interesting to see what can be done to improve and augment the camera's capabilities and also correct the photographer's initial settings.

As you mentionned, sometimes it must get pretty complicated.

Cheers,

Guy

[gandini]

Andrei wrote:
Below are examples of the pictures out of the camera (with auto WB, normal, normal, normal) and processed.
http://www.fototime.com/inv/B3FB800DE0C6AEF

Andrei:
Great set of photos! This totally exemplifies what I believe photography to be all about.
I spent many (too many?) nights in a darkroom choosing paper grades, development times, dodging and burning, only to get a dozen prints that in the light of morning looked like crap.
Now, with digital technology, I can create the "prints" or web images that I find pleasing--adjusting brilliance (levels), saturation, color balance, even perspective (remember those old days we'd tilt the photo paper under the enlarger?)--in the comfort of my office, with music and light playing all around me.
With regard to your unprocessed/processed images, I feel that nearly everything you did to each image falls in to the category of "standard image processing" that would have occurred in the darkroom of a film processor. In most cases, even milder corrections.
So back to Guy--you need to draw the line for yourself, no doubt. And I think that this thread has really helped us all, to vent, to philosophize, to share ideas and images, that ultimately lead to a better understanding of our own photography, and the larger community of photographers in which we mingle. My personal line is easily seen, and I've tried to express it with wit and wisdom in my words here. I believe the G1 to be a wonderfully competent tool, that can create amazing images in the hands of many people (Pekka's list of galleries covers the spectrum of image-making with this tool) and gives us all creative possibilities.
Long live the G1!

cheers,

[Andrei]

gandini wrote:
Andrei wrote:
Below are examples of the pictures out of the camera (with auto WB, normal, normal, normal) and processed.
http://www.fototime.com/inv/B3FB800DE0C6AEF

Andrei:
Great set of photos! This totally exemplifies what I believe photography to be all about.
I spent many (too many?) nights in a darkroom choosing paper grades, development times, dodging and burning, only to get a dozen prints that in the light of morning looked like crap.
Now, with digital technology, I can create the "prints" or web images that I find pleasing--adjusting brilliance (levels), saturation, color balance, even perspective (remember those old days we'd tilt the photo paper under the enlarger?)--in the comfort of my office, with music and light playing all around me.
With regard to your unprocessed/processed images, I feel that nearly everything you did to each image falls in to the category of "standard image processing" that would have occurred in the darkroom of a film processor. In most cases, even milder corrections.


Hi, Philip !

You are absolutely right - I'm doing with my digital pictures the same thing I did with my prints in darkroom many years ago. And what I love in digital darkroom - I can do it better and technically easier and with better output. Yes, this is normal, "standard image processing" :) And I think you share my thoughts that there is nothing wrong with this "standard".

Of course, there is a very small percent of pictures, which have to be processed in really hard manner: using different color space for palette blending, using difficult masking technique and so on. But it is extreme case, and, as a rule, the result of human mistake during scanning or photographing.

I am amateur. If to translate this word into Russian language, we'll find the root of the word - love. I am trying to make my photos so that they be loved by others, by myself. No matter if I conveyed the color white with 255 255 255 or 240 240 240. I want to express HOW I saw it, HOW I felt and so on.

O-op, stop :) I feel, my English is far from perfection to be writer :)

[Bors]

On the subject of cheating...

How can anyone define 'cheating?' What constitutes 'pure' photography? These are silly questions. Every photo is a mechanical capture of something.

Is it cheating if you use the best digital camera (or film) money can buy, and not just print film in a disposable point and shoot?

Is it cheating to use saturation or sharpening or contrast settings? How do you define *not cheating?*

Every camera(film or digital) will treat the same light different even at the 'same' settings due to the properties of its (lens, film, etc) construction. How is using a polarizing or neutral density filter any different from using a filter in Photoshop? It isn't. Someday, when cameras are more sophisticated, we will be able to use stylus pens on the LCD to select different exposures and filters for different areas of the image *before* we take the shot.

The whole point is to capture emotion and beauty, to make a statement about a vision we see through a vision we capture. Whatever improves that emotion, that vision, is good. This is art after all.

Every single purist will have a different definition of 'cheating.' The whole idea of 'cheating' is worthless because it tears down what should be an enlightening, creative process.

'Purists' aren't all bad, they simply have a different take on how *they* enjoy their hobby. There are bird watchers who only count birds as seen if they see the bird in its natural habitat. 'Purism' only becomes a problem when they try to tell others what constitutes a valid image.

So modify away! Seek beauty!

Be well.

Bors

[Del K]

Look at the history of photography and you will find photographers who concentrated on the art and science of using the camer, some who concentrated on transforming what is in the negative, some who did both. All were limited by the technology available, and tried to do their best with what they had. Is photography any different with a digital camera, in its philosophy? I don't think so.

Personally, I question the need or use for a section for unaltered shots, since, as has been pointed out, who can say what constitutes an "unaltered" image? Does artificial lighting count? It did to some film photographers.

My practice when posting photographs for comment is to describe what I believe to be the salient conditions of the shot and processing. If I go beyond what I believe is the norm, with the digital equivalent of shot to negative to print as my guide, I say so when the shot is posted. If I do nothing more that what is usual or accepted in dealing with a negative, it does not get mentioned. Some of us go further, some do not. But, all of these are photographs produced with the skill of the protographer.

Why don't we all continue to do as we have done, and let those who want comments on their "unaltered" shots inform us of that. It is all still photography, and our purpose here is to share and inform.

Del K

[James]

I love an interestering topic... :D

[powerG1user]

I just joined the G1 forum. Old topic but best thread.

=
"general"

I would agree with what is said in that, once outside the camera, the modified photos represent the camera's *extrinsic* abilities. Minding that this is stated in a human-expressive context, where the raw captured data passes through the tools and art of "Man" for their aesthetic purposes. Like in Philip G's paraphrase of Ansel Adams, it is the performance of the score.

At the same time, I must disagree with what is said in that a raw image does Truly represent the camera's *intrinsic* abilities (only for *that* specific camera setting, ISO, WB, f-stop, shutter, etc.). This is stated within a scientific context, where the systems of the sensor's dynamic range, sensitivity, A/D gain setting, signal to noise ratio, and internal camera algorithms dictate what the camera is capable of recording.

This doesn't mean that the skill of the artist doesn't introduce itself on the input side of the camera. But if you have a capable photographer behind the lens you'll have good zone exposure (proper CCD dynamic range use), good color balance, proper lighting, etc.. Poor shooting will only show the *photographer's* limitations, not the camera's. But for this whole response, I assume the shooter is skilled to the very limits of the camera, and so wants to pick the best one for its recording ability, and under the shooting conditions they're interested in, even if they're not interested in aesthetics.

From an engineer's perspective one rule reigns, if you don't capture an original signal with fidelity to the signal's characteristics that you desire, then no algorithm in the world will help you. It's forever lost in noise or quantization.

And yet performing post-capture enhancements isn't cheating, or invalidates your new output. It is merely a process to solidify or even emphasize the characteristics that *you* find most important. And it doesn't really matter whether it's purpose is for simple recognition or for emotional impact; or likewise, whether it's for 1-D audio signals or 2-D images.

"Guy1"
So if you want "scientific" un-altered G1 photo's look at www.dpreview.com. Their review section shows shots using ISO settings, noise reduction, resolution charts, color swatch charts (with gray steps), and I think different sharpens/contrasts that can be used to compare camera recording ability *at those settings*. It only takes a few pics at some key settings to show a camera scientific worth at its best use. From those examples, you can apply all the other quality rules from regular photography regarding exposure, f-stop and depth, and signal to noise - except for reciprocity failure, or nonlinear response which CCD's don't have/minimize.

I personally found the G1 outstanding, especially at ISO 50, but then I can't often hold it by hand steady enough under natural indoor lighting - go to ISO 400 to hand-hold it, and the image gets grainy. Can't escape photo physics in CCD's or film.

"Philip G."
For concepts like content and writing style, the inseparability of artist from tools doesn't extend to photography. I agree, that in writing, the content, personal perception, and expression style can't be separated from the person. Furthermore idea content and words are all abstract data.

Consider if you show the same picture to 1000 people to write a polished description about it. You're likely to get 1000 unique writings, and many drafts along the way. The act of perception to finished writing is all performance by the writer, to the world that is the score, in this case a photo. So writing is more analogous to just the performance of print making.

Skillfully shoot the same picture with 1000 different digital cameras, and the only differences will be noise, color balance, dynamic ranges, and resolution. The data is *not* abstract, but is an external-machine perceived 2-D set of RGB values of so many bits per channel. Therefore, the camera's input/output characteristics *are* separable from the artist, and so can be evaluated for selection purposes. What is done with the skillfully made "camera-perception", is up to the perceptual-expressive artist, the camera has passed on.

Returning to content and writing style, that is why Ansel Adams had to print the skillfully shot negative over and over again. He perceived his negative, and his last print, and consider his desired goals in expression and emotional impact. Then he rewrote his scored printing stages in his mind, and then expressed those complex words of 2-D enhancements on the black and white canvas to time. Quite a performance art, in itself.

The final print was inseparable from the artist, but he never would have gotten the skillful shot in the first place with a 35mm camera and film with limited dynamic range.

BTW, really nice art/abstract, and infra-red pics.

~~

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.

It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination.

It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
- Rod Serling

[gandini]

To powerG1user:
Thanks for posting to this long standing thread! I, like you, always enjoy the "bigger" issues over the selection of lens, or download software.
In your conclusion you once again refer to Adams' score and performance. I have read much on Adams' and have even attempted a humble homage to him (my Moonrise at 60 photo and essay). There are some who believe that his many printings of certain images ("Moonrise-Henandez" as one) changed so dramatically over the years that they represent an evolution of mood and sentiment in him -- and those critics who prefer one era over another. Perhaps. I think we all desire, and attempt at times, to revisit an old "print" and enhance, or reinterpret it with the benefit of hindsight. I know that I would love to redo many of my first gallery prints and lower the sharpening (!) at the very least.
At this, the 100th anniversary of Adams, we are all reminded of the contributions he made to photography, and encouraged and challenged to create images of our own.
On another point you raise, I am still wed to the idea of the inseparability of tool and artist, mainly because of the infinite permutations of the controls available to the user (not just aperture, shutter, artificial light but spacial and temporal location). In your example of taking the "same picture" with 1000 cameras there is a practical limitation to its usefulness. Not only do I see no reason to take the same picture with 1000 cameras, I don't see that it's actually possible. In the abstract I must agree that if *all* other parameters are constant then each image will only differ by objectively measurable physical and technical differences in the cameras, but I'd argue this is not relevant. The artist chooses the camera as a tool to assist in the realization of his/her vision. This choice is endogenous. I chose the G1 in part becuase of the tilt and swivel LCD, but it has also created in me new ways to visualize the world. It has taken the camera from my eye and face and caused me to deal more intimately with my subject, rather than hide behind the machine as is the case with an SLR. I am just slightly less of a voyeur with the G1 than with my T90. While the tool does create limitations and constraints within which the artist must work, I find them relatively minor in comparison to the constraints placed on me by time, opportunity and creativity. Give me an Olympus, or a Nikon (heaven forbid!--just joking) and I'll make the most of the opportunities I find, and produce similar, if not exactly the same, images as I do with the G1. I had a Sears contractor's saw, and now I have a Delta Unisaw, but I find most cuts are just as square and just as smooth, just a little easier to make on the Delta!

Cheers,