I'm tired of fake digital photos!

[Transfer]

It seems like everyone loves a super edited digital photo these days. What's the deal? If it's not stiched, HDR, or otherwise seriously altered in photoshop it seems like it's not a good photo in today's standards. I'm just so tired of people going gaga over super-enhanced photos!! Thumbs down to the phonies. Am I just behind the times? Is super-processing what makes the best photos?

[mattograph]

Did it bug you this much when Ansel Adams spent 4 hours in a dark room dodging and burning?

[Jaymz]

You realize that many of todays processes in photoshop, HDRs, panos have been around and used since the 1800s? This isnt new stuff thats come along with digital.

[bric-a-brac]

Did it bug you this much when Ansel Adams spent 4 hours in a dark room dodging and burning?

or worked with pre-digital HDR? "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights..." :p

also, you want to see some un-real "real" stuff as rendered by film, check out the colors on a no longer produced slide film by fuji called fortia. WOW. I would've loved to have tried some of that.

a photograph is never really the truth, but rather a visual expression of the photographer's interpretation of it.

[Transfer]

What? my dear Ansel? *faints*

[mattograph]

Someone get this man a glass of water!

[LBaldwin]

There is a difference in the manipulation of a scenic image and an editorial or news shot.

Yes Ansel did heavily dodge, burn and use chemistry to alter the image. But retouching is not something relied on as today's "photographers" do. WE alter eyes, remove unwanted items. drastically altering the "truth" of an image.... But Ansel was not a news photographer either. I have met more than a few of his students and a few of his darkroom technicians as well. Most hate PS with a passion. It does not require any real skill according to them.

[Jon Foster]

I don't know, I've seen some super edited stuff that is just killer. I guess if you can do it right, then why not? And by right I mean top quality work.

Jon.

[mattograph]

If Annie Leibowitz knew about photoshop, think of all the money she could have saved in renting that elephant. she would LOVE to have those bucks back.

[chauncey]

Hypocrisy raises it's head anew...those B&W's on your flicker account...did they come from the camera like that?

[nicksan]

If there is some kind of Univeral rulebook that describes the amount of "editing" that can be done in PS and still be able to call it a "real" photo, please forward me the link.

Otherwise...yes...you are behind the times.

[nicksan]

No...the lighting actually looked like that. I swear...:lol:;)
Hypocrisy raises it's head anew...those B&W's on your flicker account...did they come from the camera like that?

[Jaymz]

If there is some kind of Univeral rulebook that describes the amount of "editing" that can be done in PS and still be able to call it a "real" photo, please forward me the link.

Otherwise...yes...you are behind the times.


Send that link to me too. :p

[KnowImagination]

I sort of see where you are coming from, but at the same time it is up to you how much processing you want to do. If you don't like the style of the "over edited" photos you have been seeing I encourage you to shoot with as little edits as possible.

Honestly I try and edit as little as possible in most situations, but there are some times when I have to do a bit of processing to get the look I am going for.

[Transfer]

Hypocrisy raises it's head anew...those B&W's on your flicker account...did they come from the camera like that?
Oh please. Thanks for calling me a hypocrite for my 15 seconds of DPP post processing.

[Radtech1]

...

[bric-a-brac]

Oh please. Thanks for calling me a hypocrite for my 15 seconds of DPP post processing.

however ungracious, I suppose it does beg the important question of "how much is too much?/where is the line drawn?"

I mean, what is phony in photography, when it's all just subjective rendering anyway?

[JWright]

There is a difference in the manipulation of a scenic image and an editorial or news shot.

Yes Ansel did heavily dodge, burn and use chemistry to alter the image. But retouching is not something relied on as today's "photographers" do. WE alter eyes, remove unwanted items. drastically altering the "truth" of an image.... But Ansel was not a news photographer either. I have met more than a few of his students and a few of his darkroom technicians as well. Most hate PS with a passion. It does not require any real skill according to them.

I think Ansel Adams would have embraced digital photography and Photoshop enthusiastically...

[asysin2leads]

nevermind

[mbellot]

It seems like everyone loves a super edited digital photo these days. What's the deal? If it's not stiched, HDR, or otherwise seriously altered in photoshop it seems like it's not a good photo in today's standards. I'm just so tired of people going gaga over super-enhanced photos!! Thumbs down to the phonies. Am I just behind the times? Is super-processing what makes the best photos?

Depends (like all things in life).

I generally do very little (fix poor exposure, bump saturation a tad, a dash of NR when shooting @ ISO6400), but some of the results people get are simply astonishing.

OTOH, I have been know to wipe stray body parts out of a shot when someone requests a 30x40 poster of "their" dancer. Reality remains, its just been sanitized a bit.

:lol:

[SOK]

Hypocrisy raises it's head anew...those B&W's on your flicker account...did they come from the camera like that?

In the words of the great Bill Lawry..."Got 'im, yes!"

(Sorry, only Aussies and possibly International Test cricket fans will get that....)

[toxic]

Photographs were not any more "real" in the film days. All sorts of filters were used when taking a photograph - Ansel Adams' favorite was Yellow #15 or something. Photographers regularly manipulated development times and temperatures to manipulate the contrast and exposure of their images. Then there were the manipulations in the darkroom, down to the paper you printed on.

There is no "fake" photograph. Every photographer since the invention of photography manipulated his exposure to end up with the image he envisioned. Just because one person's vision isn't the same as yours doesn't mean an image is any less of a photograph.

Are there photos where the processing dominates the actual subject matter? Yes, but that was the photographer's choice, not yours.

[yogestee]

It seems like everyone loves a super edited digital photo these days. What's the deal? If it's not stiched, HDR, or otherwise seriously altered in photoshop it seems like it's not a good photo in today's standards. I'm just so tired of people going gaga over super-enhanced photos!! Thumbs down to the phonies. Am I just behind the times? Is super-processing what makes the best photos?

I used to spend hours in the B/W darkroom on one 20x24 inch print for exhibition.. No-one complained it "was super edited" for better words..

I think you should step back.. Digital photo editing/manipulation is an art just as painting or drawing is..I wish I had those skills..

Each to their own..

[Electrical]

In the words of the great Bill Lawry..."Got 'im, yes!"

(Sorry, only Aussies and possibly International Test cricket fans will get that....)

so basically no one at all...

[Mintie]

In the words of the great Bill Lawry..."Got 'im, yes!"

(Sorry, only Aussies and possibly International Test cricket fans will get that....)

I miss Bill... and Richie. In fact I miss the whole Channel 9 commentary team.

Back on topic. It's like anything; if you don't like it don't look at it. Sure, HDR seems to be all the rage on certain websites, but there are also plenty of sites, books, magazines, etc that favour the less photoshopped imagery. Just go there.

I'm not particularly a fan of HDR so I just don't look at it or comment on it.

[Electrical]

I miss Bill... and Richie. In fact I miss the whole Channel 9 commentary team.

Back on topic. It's like anything; if you don't like it don't look at it. Sure, HDR seems to be all the rage on certain websites, but there are also plenty of sites, books, magazines, etc that favour the less photoshopped imagery. Just go there.

I'm not particularly a fan of HDR so I just don't look at it or comment on it.

i think a big problem is that nowadays people create HDR's and other crazy PhotoChops because they "CAN", not because they "SHOULD".

if the concept of the image fits an HDR, go ahead. i've seen many architectural HDR's but they're hardly detectable because the main goal of creating the HDR wasn't the "look-factor" it was the "advantage" factor (dynamic range).

portraiture HDR, for instance is just off most of the times IMO.

[S.n.a.f.u.]

i thought the same as the OP until the last month or so where i started to see how sometimes it is really necessary to PP and image to give it the same look as it had when you were shooting it, sometimes we dont always have the right settings in camera be it forgetfulness or laziness or just whatever but the key to PP is to learn to use it right and not do anything that will detract from the photo.

the old saying of practice makes perfect is wrong so here is the correct updated version
"proper practice makes perfect."

it all comes down to learning to use the tools of the trade to make you better at what you do and not just shooting crappy pictures and letting the tools do all the work for you, balance will allow you to blend both to come out with a great end result

[MR do little]

While i can understand your rant to a certain degree, im not sure what you think you would gain with a thread like this.

Sure, oversharpened images and eye's that been pp to the point it looks like they are glowing with radiation isnt my cup either.

Then again what is "super edited" ? Adjustment made in the rawconverter ? Increased contrast, color adjustment/corrections ? Removing blemishes, recovering highlights ? giving the eyes some more light, selective sharpening ?



Can you honestly say that you can distinguish photos thats been "edited" compared to those who is straight from the camera ? (keep in mind that you can get disney colors straight out of most dslrs these days)

Photography is such a broad expression, so there is room for everyone regardless of how much pp you put into to your photo to get the result you envisioned.

[Wilt]

Certs is a breath mint...Certs is a candy mint

Age old argument that applied even in film days. You could retouch negatives, retouch prints, dodge and burn and use hot developer locally for contrast control. But now you can open eyes that are closed, slim people down, put heads on other bodies, etc. as well. The question is one of 'artistic composition altering' vs 'portrayal of reality', and even Ansel's photos can border on the question of 'reality' of the scene as captured in the camera. Great philosophical debate.

[mattograph]

But now you can open eyes that are closed, slim people down, put heads on other bodies, etc. as well.

You could do that too. Photo retouchers are almost as old as photography itself. In truth, though, that was a process that was so cost prohibitive that only the truly commercially successful could afford it.

Now you can do it for an additional $500 expenditure, one time.

[fly my pretties]

I agree with the OP. Expressing yourself creatively in a way that pleases you, or in a way that pleases other people, but doesn't stick to the fundamental rule of "expose-develop-print" is inherently wrong and should be banned.

But seriously - Photography is an artform, and the act of making this thread just to moan about something you don't like is incredibly oppressive and not really representative about what photography is about.

If everyone likes something, like you say, and you aren't doing it, perhaps you should get with the times or just concentrate on doing what you like.

[stathunter]

Retouching, photoshopping, editing, photo manipulation- whatever you call it has been around since before film - with glass slides.
Truth is people, places, things look better (in my opinion) with a little touch up - like Tammy Faye Baker used to say "Every old barn can use some paint." :)

[Brikwall]

Two comments:

"Art is subjective"

"Conformity kills creativity"

[chauncey]

"Every old barn can use some paint."
Why does mine need so much...snot fair :lol:

[stathunter]

Why does mine need so much...snot fair :lol:

Mine looks lots better with gaussian blur....lots of it. :)

[HappySnapper90]

Did it bug you this much when Ansel Adams spent 4 hours in a dark room dodging and burning?

Dodging and burning is minute compared to what many photographers do to digital photos. And digital photography helped kill kodachrome film and also make good photographs not special anymore. With film, you needed certain films to get high saturation and higher contrast, but with digital even a $100 digicam has a vivid mode that gives very high saturation (and all digicams give high contrast). So now every digital photo now is what used to be reserved for special occasions/special film. It's like having cake and ice cream every day - it's not a treat anymore!

In the end digital photography has largely taken away the "exceptional" photograph look and made it "everyday" which ruins the feeling of shooting or looking at prints/slides from a good special film.

[fly my pretties]

Dodging and burning is minute compared to what many photographers do to digital photos. And digital photography helped kill kodachrome film and also make good photographs not special anymore. With film, you needed certain films to get high saturation and higher contrast, but with digital even a $100 digicam has a vivid mode that gives very high saturation (and all digicams give high contrast). So now every digital photo now is what used to be reserved for special occasions/special film. It's like having cake and ice cream every day - it's not a treat anymore!

In the end digital photography has largely taken away the "exceptional" photograph look and made it "everyday" which ruins the feeling of shooting or looking at prints/slides from a good special film.

Did you complain about mobile phones and televisions with autotune as well?

Your beef seems to be the progression of technology, which is very snobbish. Basically, your complaint is that now anyone with rudimentary photographic knowledge can pick up a camera and take a decent shot.

That's how it should be, if you want to stay in the dark ages where only a select few can ever take footing, then switch to oil painting.

[oaktree]

Oh please. Thanks for calling me a hypocrite for my 15 seconds of DPP post processing.

Hippopotamus!

Seriously, with the new technology, expecting all photographers to show "real" photos would be like expecting all painters to produce "real" paintings. And you know how much "post processing" painters go through?

[mbellot]

Dodging and burning is minute compared to what many photographers do to digital photos. And digital photography helped kill kodachrome film and also make good photographs not special anymore. With film, you needed certain films to get high saturation and higher contrast, but with digital even a $100 digicam has a vivid mode that gives very high saturation (and all digicams give high contrast). So now every digital photo now is what used to be reserved for special occasions/special film. It's like having cake and ice cream every day - it's not a treat anymore!

In the end digital photography has largely taken away the "exceptional" photograph look and made it "everyday" which ruins the feeling of shooting or looking at prints/slides from a good special film.

Huh?

High contrast/high saturation are not the end all/be all of an "exceptional" photo.

Dreck is still dreck, regardless of how saturated or contrasty the image. Digital photography has just enabled larger volumes of images to be taken (the zero cost of "film" and "processing"), so even though statistically the odds of someone catching an exceptional image you see more now becuase the sheer volume of images taken has gone way up.

Film is dead. Rejoice.

[mattograph]

Mine looks lots better with gaussian blur....lots of it. :)

I found a way to add lots of blur in camera. PM me for details........

[mattograph]

Huh?

High contrast/high saturation are not the end all/be all of an "exceptional" photo.

Dreck is still dreck, regardless of how saturated or contrasty the image. Digital photography has just enabled larger volumes of images to be taken (the zero cost of "film" and "processing"), so even though statistically the odds of someone catching an exceptional image you see more now becuase the sheer volume of images taken has gone way up.

Film is dead. Rejoice.

Dude, you used "dreck" twice in the same sentence.

Just my opinion, but that sentence felt a little "overprocessed".

[Addiction2k]

I don't know enough to say what I think of digital photos. What I'm most interested in currently is being able to shoot photos that might be worth some effort, other than that I wont care much.

[drh681]

a couple of points...
on the OP...
uhmm... my rant would be more along the lines of "fakey makey" stuff like adding a Moon to a night scene. (almost invariably, it is oriented wrong even backward and in a place the moon will never appear)
HDR and Pano are tools not "tricks" digital imaging made them easier to access.

on "Digital imaging killed Kodachrome"...
digital imaging killed ALL film. Velvia shot Kodachrome which never recovered from the injury, But Kodochrome died because of its cost and complexity of process.

on the volume of images we see...
Digital has not increased the number of images made, just the number of them seen "in public" That was one good thing about film imaging, 99% of the pictures stayed in their processing envelopes after a single look through by the person picking them up...

[oomus]

the old saying of practice makes perfect is wrong so here is the correct updated version
"proper practice makes perfect."



I think more accurately ..... "Practice makes better"
nothing ever seems to stay "perfect" for very long...
just better or worse depending on the day, person and mood....

[captainpenguin]

I am with you on this one especially with HDR where the shots look totally unnatural

[airfrogusmc]

a couple of points...
on the OP...
uhmm... my rant would be more along the lines of "fakey makey" stuff like adding a Moon to a night scene. (almost invariably, it is oriented wrong even backward and in a place the moon will never appear)
HDR and Pano are tools not "tricks" digital imaging made them easier to access.

on "Digital imaging killed Kodachrome"...
digital imaging killed ALL film. Velvia shot Kodachrome which never recovered from the injury, But Kodochrome died because of its cost and complexity of process.

on the volume of images we see...
Digital has not increased the number of images made, just the number of them seen "in public" That was one good thing about film imaging, 99% of the pictures stayed in their processing envelopes after a single look through by the person picking them up...

Adams might not be the best example because visually he was what is considered a purist. Controlling through exposure, film processing and printing what he saw in his minds eye which may or may not have been the way it actually looked but the way he saw it.

I think Jerry Uelsmann would be a better example and are these not photogrpahs to be considered as serious or they are less because of his manipulation?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=jerry+uelsmann+images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=hip3StfNI5OANrqRjLEM&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1

[exile]

This thread demonstrates what an emotive topic this is.

However, the OP is as entitled to his opinion as everyone else on this thread. He is free to dislike what he sees as over processed images. Art is subjective and an artist has failed if he needs to force someone to like his/her art.

The Ansel Adams analogy is an interesting one. Adams development of the zone system was a technological response to his dissatisfaction of the results he was obtaining with the film and paper that was available - he was not getting images that he felt were true to the scene he was trying to portray. He was essentially trying to make the rendition of the scene more natural than he was getting with the conventional methods. If Adams was around today I think he would utlise Photoshop, but I think he would use it to produce what he saw as naturalistic images - which would almost certainly not fall into the category of over-processed.

Now although I believe that Adams would have produced naturalistic images with the modern workflow, that is a reflection of the nature of his subject, he was a landscape photographer. I'll be honest here and say that there are landscape images out there that make my eyes bleed and they are almost always dreadfully over-processed - and I speak with authority having created such images myself (edit to add: just look at my avatar!!! I wouldn't make an image like that now.) However, landscape photography is only one genre and there are photographers out there working in different genres who have probably performed even more processing and produced a stunning image.

For me the problem it isn't about processing, but the final image ... and that is probably the best guide to "taste" in processing as anything else. If all the viewer sees in an image is the processing, then the processing is too much. Processing should complement the subject, not detract (or distract) from it.

[jacobsen1]

Yes Ansel did heavily dodge, burn and use chemistry to alter the image. But retouching is not something relied on as today's "photographers" do. WE alter eyes, remove unwanted items. drastically altering the "truth" of an image....

ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann? ;)

I think Ansel Adams would have embraced digital photography and Photoshop enthusiastically...

maybe, maybe not. The huge difference is what Adams did required skill because at a lot of the steps making a mistake ruined the image (developments times ETC). Plus it was harder to know if what you were doing was working until the end. Like everything else, we've got much more instant feedback/gratification now.

[Karl Johnston]

Transfer, if it makes you happy I don't use photoshop. :D

[stathunter]

What about females with enhanced parts? Personally a little enhancement is good.....Michael Jackson enhancement is just a tad overdone.

[Lazuka]

What about females with enhanced parts? Personally a little enhancement is good.....Michael Jackson enhancement is just a tad overdone.

So when your pictures turn out looking like MJ, you've gone too far? :)

[S.n.a.f.u.]

I think more accurately ..... "Practice makes better"
nothing ever seems to stay "perfect" for very long...
just better or worse depending on the day, person and mood....

my point is simple you can practice something wrong all day long and at the end of the day you are worse off then when you started.

but if you are doing something in a proper manor you will inherently get better the more you do something in the proper manor.

and the old adage isnt practice makes better it is practice makes perfect so that is the basis i was going off of.

[JWright]

Retouching, photoshopping, editing, photo manipulation- whatever you call it has been around since before film - with glass slides.
Truth is people, places, things look better (in my opinion) with a little touch up - like Tammy Faye Baker used to say "Every old barn can use some paint." :)

Yeah, but 30 coats? :rolleyes:

[LBaldwin]

ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann? ;)



maybe, maybe not. The huge difference is what Adams did required skill because at a lot of the steps making a mistake ruined the image (developments times ETC). Plus it was harder to know if what you were doing was working until the end. Like everything else, we've got much more instant feedback/gratification now.


Is his work cool or what??

[RDKirk]

You could do that too. Photo retouchers are almost as old as photography itself. In truth, though, that was a process that was so cost prohibitive that only the truly commercially successful could afford it.

Now you can do it for an additional $500 expenditure, one time.

And that is basically the only difference--what was once available only on a Playboy Enterprises budget is now available to a college freshman.

This "no manipulation" ethic outside the journalism realm is only about as old as Photoshop. Prior to the mid 60s, every hometown portrait photographer was also an expert retoucher--that was considered part of the profession. The negatives of those famous Hollywood portraits usually carried more retouching pencil graphite than silver.

But as both color film and small cameras took over the industry in the mid 60s, the expense and difficulty of retouching forced it into the highest-end brackets. The rest of us bought diffusion filters.

But up until Photoshop, most everyone understood that "get it right in the camera" was a matter of economics, not morality.

[mbellot]

on the volume of images we see...
Digital has not increased the number of images made, just the number of them seen "in public" That was one good thing about film imaging, 99% of the pictures stayed in their processing envelopes after a single look through by the person picking them up...

I thoroughly disagree.

My wife and I spent 13 days in Germany, Austria and Switzerland for our honeymoon and walked away with 10 rolls of 24 exp. film, or ~ 240 images. It cost us near $200 in film and processing costs if I remember.

I can shoot that many images in one day at Disney world with digital. There is no "upfront" (film) cost, and the "backend" (developing) cost is also greatly reduced because digital to prints cost less than $0.15 per 4x6, or about $36.00 for the same 240 prints.

Digital has also made it easier for people to share their photos, good or otherwise - on that you are correct.

[mattograph]

The rest of us bought diffusion filters.

You're showing your age: :)

[chauncey]

Methinks Transfer has left the building.
Could it be his arguments were based on an inadequate understanding of history and a similar amount depth of knowledge regarding current reality.

[mattograph]

I thoroughly disagree.

My wife and I spent 13 days in Germany, Austria and Switzerland for our honeymoon and walked away with 10 rolls of 24 exp. film, or ~ 240 images. It cost us near $200 in film and processing costs if I remember.

I can shoot that many images in one day at Disney world with digital. There is no "upfront" (film) cost, and the "backend" (developing) cost is also greatly reduced because digital to prints cost less than $0.15 per 4x6, or about $36.00 for the same 240 prints.

Digital has also made it easier for people to share their photos, good or otherwise - on that you are correct.

Totally agree. Could there be a flickr if everyone had to scan their film? I think not.

[exile]

Methinks Transfer has left the building.
Could it be his arguments were based on an inadequate understanding of history and a similar amount depth of knowledge regarding current reality.

I think it more likely that the unfair bashing he got could be the reason. He was entitled to his opinion.

[nicksan]

I think it more likely that the unfair bashing he got could be the reason. He was entitled to his opinion.


...and we aren't?

If you can't stand the heat...get a friggin' air conditioner!:lol:;)

[Quad]

]Adams might not be the best example because visually he was what is considered a purist. Controlling through exposure, film processing and printing what he saw in his minds eye which may or may not have been the way it actually looked but the way he saw it. [/color]

I think Jerry Uelsmann would be a better example and are these not photogrpahs to be considered as serious or they are less because of his manipulation?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=jerry+uelsmann+images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=hip3StfNI5OANrqRjLEM&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1


As demonstrated in his SX-70 work, I suppose everyone likes to get out of the darkroom once in a while.




Digital the environmental alternative to film.



Still I can understand not liking some aspects of digital (which aspects is up to the individual for me it oversaturation esp. on portraits for others it is things like accessibility [doesn't it piss you off that you spend time learning some arcane technique only to have a digitial camera include it as a menu feature?]) just as there are aspects of film that some may not like (burn the heretics).

Besides it is uber cool to be using film in a digital age. What is not to like about that? Besides the sewer creatures love selenium toner and silver laced chemistry and what goes into the sewer stays in the sewer.


Of course the world may have room for more than one opinion on the matter and so we could all debate this over a virtual beer and the OP just does not like certain aspects and is not shutting out digital just because it is digital so that is a fair enough stance.


Uelsmann was interesting as a photographer but some may not like his work at all since it is so fake (more burning to be done).

^
|
|
|
|

Warning some of the above may or may not contain sarcasm I really cannot decide.

[exile]

...and we aren't?

If you can't stand the heat...get a friggin' air conditioner!:lol:;)

Au contraire mon ami! :D

[chauncey]

It wasn't his opinion that bothered me, I applaud him for that...it was that fact that he expouses his lack of PP and posts B&W conversions.

[exile]

It wasn't his opinion that bothered me, I applaud him for that...it was that fact that he expouses his lack of PP and posts B&W conversions.

Meh, mono-schmono! (Gee my last reply in French and now this! It must be late!) :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

Is his work cool or what??

He's a great photogrpaher and he did it all in the dark room. Have you seen John Paul Caponigros work? He's the son of the great Paul Caponigro. Its all digital, well the post part is.

[DYORD]

I just want to add in this conversation:

As much i wanted not to crop in photoshop.. i obliged to..(to make my photographs look nicer). But that frustrates me soo much! I really felt like I'm not a good photographer. I wonder why i didn't see that when I was shooting.

Anyhow, brightness/contrast, whitebalance corrections, etc... is just fine with me.. but somehow, altering the picture (cloning, masking, etc.) makes me feel it's not my work.

I'm a graphic artist.. I'm very good in photoshop. And I hate it when I use that talent in my photographs. As much as possible, i try not to touch it. I can't be proud of myself if almost everything was altered.

just my piece!!!

[airfrogusmc]

I just want to add in this conversation:

As much i wanted not to crop in photoshop.. i obliged to..(to make my photographs look nicer). But that frustrates me soo much! I really felt like I'm not a good photographer. I wonder why i didn't see that when I was shooting.

Anyhow, brightness/contrast, whitebalance corrections, etc... is just fine with me.. but somehow, altering the picture (cloning, masking, etc.) makes me feel it's not my work.

I'm a graphic artist.. I'm very good in photoshop. And I hate it when I use that talent in my photographs. As much as possible, i try not to touch it. I can't be proud of myself if almost everything was altered.

just my piece!!!

Try to get it right in camera but its vision, camera skills and PP that make great images. If you have great photoshop skills its no different than being very good in the darkroom. Use everything you can to get your vision to the print. Photoshop is just another tool to help you do that and you need those skills as much as you need great skills with a camera. Adams put equal weight on the camera, the negative and the print. Its no different now.

[nicksan]

I just want to add in this conversation:

As much i wanted not to crop in photoshop.. i obliged to..(to make my photographs look nicer). But that frustrates me soo much! I really felt like I'm not a good photographer. I wonder why i didn't see that when I was shooting.

Anyhow, brightness/contrast, whitebalance corrections, etc... is just fine with me.. but somehow, altering the picture (cloning, masking, etc.) makes me feel it's not my work.

I'm a graphic artist.. I'm very good in photoshop. And I hate it when I use that talent in my photographs. As much as possible, i try not to touch it. I can't be proud of myself if almost everything was altered.

just my piece!!!

I don't see anything wrong with cropping.

Yes, it goes without saying that it's best to get it right in the camera (whatever that really means right?;)), however there are certain situations where you just can't...maybe can't get close enough or whatever the reason. Then you can plan it out and frame loosely knowing you will be cropping later. (God bless the 21MP 5D MKII ;-) ) I don't think there is anything wrong with it, nor is realizing you framed too loosely after the fact. You do whatever is necessary to fulfill YOUR vision.

At least for me, there are times where "it" just doesn't come to me...as in the "vision". Sometimes it does. You see it. You shoot it. Bam...feels great. But I don't have any delusions that this happens to me every time. It doesn't.

Sometimes you find the diamond in the rough...after you PP an image.

Ain't nothing wrong with that!:D

[exile]

Sometimes you find the diamond in the rough...after you PP an image.

Ain't nothing wrong with that!:D

Let's not forget that we have to post-process images if we shoot RAW. If we don't we are allowing the camera to do the processing for us (care of DIGIC) ... and if we get prints made from film, the mini-lab does its own stuff.

In some cases, we need to extract the diamond :)

[skywalkerbeth]

Count me as one who really doesn't like HDR all that much. I'm sure there are good examples, but it doesn't even look like a real scene to me many times.

[exile]

Count me as one who really doesn't like HDR all that much. I'm sure there are good examples, but it doesn't even look like a real scene to me many times.

As one who has a (very old) HDR as my avatar (I really must change it), I agree with you. I first started dabbling with HDR in an attempt to get images with both shadow and highlight detail. As my knowledge and skills improved I found that I was getting the results without the need to resort to HDR techniques. I really dislike the heavily tone-mapped local contrast look. However, I have seen some excellent HDR images ... these display none of the obvious tone-mapping "HDR look", just good highlights and shadows.

[Photon Phil]

My take on this is that I dislike the plastic skin look that is all the rage with the senior portraits in my area. It gets me to "ooooh" for about five seconds and then I see the fakeness. Yes, "it sells" but it's just cheesy. And the eyes with the dialated pupils beyond reason, puhleese.

All other adjustments I think are open for the using in my book.

[Wilt]

My take on this is that I dislike the plastic skin look that is all the rage with the senior portraits in my area. It gets me to "ooooh" for about five seconds and then I see the fakeness. Yes, "it sells" but it's just cheesy. And the eyes with the dialated pupils beyond reason, puhleese.

All other adjustments I think are open for the using in my book.

But if it generates income by increasing order sizes, why does it matter that YOU don't like it? bw!

I dislike the highwater pants and the bared midriff shirts (really, with these overweight teens with rolls of fat to show... LOOK AT YOURSELVES, GIRLS!) It wouldn't stop me from selling the clothes to them!

[HappySnapper90]

Huh?

High contrast/high saturation are not the end all/be all of an "exceptional" photo.

Film is dead. Rejoice.

I'm just saying the high contrast and high saturation "look".. the "wow" that could only be gotten with kodachrome is now "ordinary". Like eating ice cream and cake everyday for dinner, you'd get tired of it quickly.

Film is hardly dead. It's what I shoot 90% of the time and growing. More reliable colors (slide film) and more dynamic range/exposure latitude (negative film)

[exile]

I'm just saying the high contrast and high saturation "look".. the "wow" that could only be gotten with kodachrome is now "ordinary". Like eating ice cream and cake everyday for dinner, you'd get tired of it quickly.

Film is hardly dead. It's what I shoot 90% of the time and growing. More reliable colors (slide film) and more dynamic range/exposure latitude (negative film)

This is true! It might be dead for the mass consumer market, but that doesn't mean it's dead. I know of one very talented photographer who took exception to a comment about MF giving superior results to top end digital. However, when he actually tried it he "saw the light" ... he now shoots both digital and (analogue) MF.

[cdifoto]

It seems like everyone loves a super edited digital photo these days. What's the deal? If it's not stiched, HDR, or otherwise seriously altered in photoshop it seems like it's not a good photo in today's standards. I'm just so tired of people going gaga over super-enhanced photos!! Thumbs down to the phonies. Am I just behind the times? Is super-processing what makes the best photos?
The Dave Hill type look hasn't really grown on me either, although some attempts at it that fell short haven't been so bad. :)

[cgatto]

I'm just saying the high contrast and high saturation "look".. the "wow" that could only be gotten with kodachrome is now "ordinary". Like eating ice cream and cake everyday for dinner, you'd get tired of it quickly.

Film is hardly dead. It's what I shoot 90% of the time and growing. More reliable colors (slide film) and more dynamic range/exposure latitude (negative film)

I disagree. There are definitely still some hardcore film users out there, as well as those who use film for old-times sake, but really, film is (at least) very close to being dead. I don't know anyone in my generation using film, and I certainly know none of my kids will be using film either. If it's not dead now, it will be in the not-so-distant future.

[airfrogusmc]

I disagree. There are definitely still some hardcore film users out there, as well as those who use film for old-times sake, but really, film is (at least) very close to being dead. I don't know anyone in my generation using film, and I certainly know none of my kids will be using film either. If it's not dead now, it will be in the not-so-distant future.

Most serious landscape photogprahers (young & old) are still using large format cameras and the zone system and that won't be going anywhere for a long time.

[bric-a-brac]

Most serious landscape photogprahers (young & old) are still using large format cameras and the zone system and that won't be going anywhere for a long time.

a lot of commercial photographers as well. there are a lot who aren't willing to shell the $20+ thousand on digital backs for their medium and large format systems when they can get the same resolution with less lag time and and better color from scanning ektachrome.

I don't think black and white will ever die because there are too many fine art photographers who choose the medium for the express purpose of having a physical hand in their art, and too many college photography programs that use darkrooms to instill disciplined image making, give photographers a sense of "pre-visualization," and to convey a better understanding of where the tools in our contemporary digital toolboxes come from/how they're best applied.

[DYORD]

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk291/DYORD/Photography/BOTON_falls_rev.jpg

here's what I'm talking about... Many people say this is a good photograph. Sure I got all the credits, but deep inside... i'm a bit frustrated.

here's the orginal:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk291/DYORD/Photography/IMG_0868.jpg

if only my peers would see this, they will take back all the credits! :D

[mbellot]

DYORD - I prefer the original (second) image. The processed one is overdone.

IMHO, YMMV.

[RDKirk]

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk291/DYORD/Photography/BOTON_falls_rev.jpg

here's what I'm talking about... Many people say this is a good photograph. Sure I got all the credits, but deep inside... i'm a bit frustrated.

here's the orginal:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk291/DYORD/Photography/IMG_0868.jpg

if only my peers would see this, they will take back all the credits! :D

The question is, which represents your vision of the scene?

[HappySnapper90]

DYORD - I prefer the original (second) image. The processed one is overdone.

IMHO, YMMV.

I agree. Far too much contrast was added to the photo, Major blown highlights and so much black area. Neither the edited or original photo is much to write home about IMHO.

[cdifoto]

I like the first one. It'd look good as a desktop wallpaper.

[sjones]

I disagree. There are definitely still some hardcore film users out there, as well as those who use film for old-times sake, but really, film is (at least) very close to being dead. I don't know anyone in my generation using film, and I certainly know none of my kids will be using film either. If it's not dead now, it will be in the not-so-distant future.

The CD was commercially introduced in 1983; yet despite this occurring more than 25 years ago, and despite the mass appeal of MPEG (or perhaps because of it), vinyl still has occasional resurgences, and yes, even among the younger folks.

Can't speak for the rest of the world, but I see lots of college-aged kids carrying around film cameras in Tokyo.

Film is now a niche medium, undoubtedly, but this is far from being near death.

I switched from digital to film, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this decision.

[Stealthy Ninja]

It seems like everyone loves a super edited digital photo these days. What's the deal? If it's not stiched, HDR, or otherwise seriously altered in photoshop it seems like it's not a good photo in today's standards. I'm just so tired of people going gaga over super-enhanced photos!! Thumbs down to the phonies. Am I just behind the times? Is super-processing what makes the best photos?

Couldn't agree more. It's terrible what these young hooligans do these days. Some one should call the photoshop police on those wippersnappers!

I hardly do any processing to my photos...

See... dang I just realised something...I forgot to sharpen this image...:

[airfrogusmc]

a lot of commercial photographers as well. there are a lot who aren't willing to shell the $20+ thousand on digital backs for their medium and large format systems when they can get the same resolution with less lag time and and better color from scanning ektachrome.

I don't think black and white will ever die because there are too many fine art photographers who choose the medium for the express purpose of having a physical hand in their art, and too many college photography programs that use darkrooms to instill disciplined image making, give photographers a sense of "pre-visualization," and to convey a better understanding of where the tools in our contemporary digital toolboxes come from/how they're best applied.

+ 1 Exactly.

[LBaldwin]

Digital just does not have the same "look", tonal range, sharpness, or for that matter quality of light. It is hard for me to describe accurately, just exactly how and why I feel that way. Film cannot be duplicated electronically. We try really hard to duplicate what is in reality a past technology.

Digital is a great technology, it has it's place as the dominate way to create images but it will NEVER completely have the look and feel of a good sheet of KR.

[Stealthy Ninja]

...it will NEVER completely have the look and feel of a good sheet of KR.

What's Ken Rockwell got to do with quality?! :p

Now something worth posting:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Nice quote from Mr. Clarkvision:
There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong.


I don't see myself going and buying a film camera or anything. But there are times you miss the "mystery" of film cameras. Getting that little packet with your prints in it is like opening a present. :D

I think that's the secret to why people still shoot film. Mostly it's not "better", just nostalgic.

[chauncey]

Ninja. your link is relevant but a little dated, new data would be interesting. His best point is the versatility of the digital camera (wildlife).

LL had a comparison between a DsIII and a MF a while back and the author said that discerning the difference would be difficult at best.

The new software out there that mimics old film...does it work?

[airfrogusmc]

What's Ken Rockwell got to do with quality?! :p

Now something worth posting:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Nice quote from Mr. Clarkvision:



I don't see myself going and buying a film camera or anything. But there are times you miss the "mystery" of film cameras. Getting that little packet with your prints in it is like opening a present. :D

I think that's the secret to why people still shoot film. Mostly it's not "better", just nostalgic.

The real magic is seeing the image start coming up in the developer for the first time. I still remember the way I felt when I say it for the first time MAGIC.

The control you get with large format B&W zone system photography is a much different experience both practicly and estheticly than it is with digital.

I like to think of it like the reason some audiophiles still like tube amps and turntables with expensive tone arms and vinyl. They say the sound is warmer, richer than digital. The masses have turned to CD and downloads but there is still a good number of people listing to vinyl. In fact look at the increased availability lately.

If you ever seen the beautiful Steiglitz platinum print of O'Keeffes hands with the thimble (not a reproduction in a book or viewed on the web) you would see just what the attraction of that type of image is and theres nothing in the digital world that I've seen that come close.
Its not nostalgia that keeps photographers shooting large format, B&W, zone system images.

Also there was an article a year or so ago in How magazine quoting two of the top ad agencies in New York still insist on film.

[HappySnapper90]

I don't see myself going and buying a film camera or anything. But there are times you miss the "mystery" of film cameras. Getting that little packet with your prints in it is like opening a present. :D

I think that's the secret to why people still shoot film. Mostly it's not "better", just nostalgic.

Not me. I recently stopped getting 4x6 prints when film is developed. I realized that the lab was applying too steep of an auto tone curve when making the prints. The negatives are in much better shape than the prints especially for high contrast photographs. So for me it's just developing and I'll scan my own negatives, print which ones I like and save money in the process. And I still get the much greater exposure latitude/dynamic range than negative film has compared to dSLRs.

[joedlh]

I don't see anything wrong with people experimenting with new techniques. The Internet makes it easy to share with others. You see the bad with the good. I think it depends on where the photographer is coming from. Did he or she see a photo and envision how it might be brought closer to what their inner eye saw (e.g., Anselm Adams)? If so, the skill here is to make it look as if it hadn't been manipulated. Nevertheless, one does see lots of examples of poorly applied technique. I think many of these have focus on the technique, not the vision. Perhaps this is what you mean by fake digital photos.

One other observation: the rise of the Internet and digital photography has made it easy for images to be presented to a wider audience. That includes the 90% that should never see the light of day along with the 10% that are extraordinary. As for myself, I find it disheartening to do a Google search on a subject of one of my favorite images, only to have it not show up withing 40 pages of 25 images each. For someone who is trying to extend the boundaries of their avocation (or business, for that matter), I'm constantly on the lookout for techniques that will help me raise my images above the fray. Along those lines, I've been beating my head against filter and blending techniques that will (I hope) break the fine art barrier for my work. Among those who feel the same motivation, some may be more free-wheeling than I am in sharing the results and thereby risk being exposed as producers of "fake digital photos" as you put it.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Ninja. your link is relevant but a little dated, new data would be interesting. His best point is the versatility of the digital camera (wildlife).

LL had a comparison between a DsIII and a MF a while back and the author said that discerning the difference would be difficult at best.

The new software out there that mimics old film...does it work?

The guy had the 5DII in the charts, how recent would you like it?! :p

And I still get the much greater exposure latitude/dynamic range than negative film has compared to dSLRs.

Not really,

From the article I posted before:
Electronic sensors have a larger dynamic range than film (at least the better sensors do).

Film is good because you can enlarge it nice and big. Mainly you're stuck with the pixels you shoot with in digital (though there is software that can enlarge your photo to huge sizes without too much quality loss).

Again I'll say, it's the "feel" of film. It's like making your own wallet out of leather instead of buying one from a shop. It's just so much more satisfying (that's my theory at least, I prefer digital because it's more convenient. However, I do remember processing some photos in a darkroom twice, it was fun, but it would get tedious pretty quick if you had to do it all the time).

[chauncey]

The guy had the 5DII in the charts, how recent would you like it?
Missed that, sorry

[sjones]

Again, I started digital…nostalgia did not prompt my decision to switch to film. After all, I still use a 35mm dedicated scanner and Photoshop.

[jerseyfinn]

So when your pictures turn out looking like MJ, you've gone too far? :)

But Michael's mom might like that picture as it aesthetically pleases her!

An interesting thread indeed & I've enjoyed the discussion. But as noted, we're talking aesthetics here and the art of photography falls squarely in that domain. Photoshop is today's digital metaphor for other more traditional processes of the past and folks who use it are not the vulgar masses who ignore the gentile gentlemen's club of no touchy those pixels -- the world is not static so why should photography hold still? Though I do agree that in the wrong hands, you can get some pretty gnarly results. But that problem does not lie with Photoshop -- it's technology's ability to post the results with one click of the send button.

So where does the spinning lens cover stop? Photography is not a timed race to the finish line where the least PPd image wins or a Photoshop enthusiast is committing pixel blasphemy. The very process of photography is about exclusion from the moment you hold that camera up to take a shot. Why stop and fret over PP in Photoshop? Why not draw the line at lens type and focal length or DOF or POV or any other innumerable factors between click and final image? Likewise, the best image is not necessarily what's captured in camera -- although one should aspire to compose and expose as near to "perfect" as possible . . . but now we're back to that aesthetic paradigm again.

Barry

[AxxisPhoto]

The real magic is seeing the image start coming up in the developer for the first time. I still remember the way I felt when I say it for the first time MAGIC.

The control you get with large format B&W zone system photography is a much different experience both practicly and estheticly than it is with digital.

I like to think of it like the reason some audiophiles still like tube amps and turntables with expensive tone arms and vinyl. They say the sound is warmer, richer than digital. The masses have turned to CD and downloads but there is still a good number of people listing to vinyl. In fact look at the increased availability lately.

If you ever seen the beautiful Steiglitz platinum print of O'Keeffes hands with the thimble (not a reproduction in a book or viewed on the web) you would see just what the attraction of that type of image is and theres nothing in the digital world that I've seen that come close.
Its not nostalgia that keeps photographers shooting large format, B&W, zone system images.

Also there was an article a year or so ago in How magazine quoting two of the top ad agencies in New York still insist on film.



Very well said. Makes me want to go back to film.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Again, I started digital…nostalgia did not prompt my decision to switch to film. After all, I still use a 35mm dedicated scanner and Photoshop.

You never shot film at all before shooting digital?

I guess you're not very old then. ;)

I remember all through the 80s shooting film on my parents Kodak camera. Having to wind it on each time etc. Taking the film to the chemists to get processed and getting it back a few days later. Then they brought in 1 hour processing. WOW! We also had a Polaroid... talk about high-tech! ;)

It's sorta cool, but I don't have any real desires to go back to it other than for a bit of fun. :D

Each to their own though :D

[MR do little]

Digital just does not have the same "look", tonal range, sharpness, or for that matter quality of light.

Now im curious, what exactly do you mean by that ?

The light quality (wich in it self such a misused term, its more the "charachter" light) is depending on the source not the receptor, wich in this case would be the film/sensor.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I just realised something. The OP is tired of "fake digital photos."

Which leads to the question of the "Reality" of the pictures. Can you class a collection of zeros and ones as something real?! Mmmm

Perhaps the information we're all made from comes from various combinations of A, G, C, T should answer that. ;)

Thunking is funn!

[sjones]

You never shot film at all before shooting digital?

I guess you're not very old then. ;)

I remember all through the 80s shooting film on my parents Kodak camera. Having to wind it on each time etc. Taking the film to the chemists to get processed and getting it back a few days later. Then they brought in 1 hour processing. WOW! We also had a Polaroid... talk about high-tech! ;)

It's sorta cool, but I don't have any real desires to go back to it other than for a bit of fun. :D

Each to their own though :D

No, sadly, I am pretty old, and my first camera was a Kodak instamatic. However, when I say "start," I am referring to when I actually began to take the hobby seriously, as in actually learning for the first time what f/stop, ISO, focal length, depth of field, and such meant.

I started with a Canon 350D, and I couldn't believe that folks (seemingly forgetting that I was one of them) used cameras without histograms, selectable IS0 (now that I knew what the hell it meant), limited frames per roll, no instant gratification, film costs, and so on. I harbored all of the resistance to film as any other proponents of digital only.

However, I wanted a rangefinder that I could afford and I wanted grain. I picked up a Bessa rangefinder with the intent of using it in tandem with the 350D. That idea didn't last. After shooting and scanning my first roll, digital cameras were out of the mix.

Another unexpected benefit was the exorcising of any concern about the next big thing.

Nostalgia had nothing to do with it; it's the preferable characteristics of monochrome negatives (Yes! Even when scanned), the process involved, and the broader selection of affordable mediums (yeah, film might cost more in the long run, but that's irrelevant, as I could never afford a digital rangefinder, let alone a medium format, camera in one lump sum).

That said, I am still checking out to see how digital will evolve; some stuff ahead that we possibly can't imagine yet.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ That's cool dude. :D

I also "started digital" if that's the way you mean it. :D

One thing, if you want grain (on digtal) try this:
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.aspx

B&W shots often look better with a little grain added. :D

Oh and I checked out your B&W film photos. Pretty awesome. Nothing you couldn't recreate in digital, but that's not why you're using film. ;)

[CJinAustin]

It seems like everyone loves a super edited digital photo these days. What's the deal? If it's not stiched, HDR, or otherwise seriously altered in photoshop it seems like it's not a good photo in today's standards. I'm just so tired of people going gaga over super-enhanced photos!! Thumbs down to the phonies. Am I just behind the times? Is super-processing what makes the best photos?

It's easier to add a bunch of contrast or tone map than it is to take a really good picture in the first place. I have nothing against PP; I do it a lot, but creating a great picture that tells a story is the real stamp of a true photographer.

There's was a time when people were creative when they actually took the shot. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/enlarge/orange-boot-gipstein.html

That's my two cents...

[sjones]

^^ That's cool dude. :D

I also "started digital" if that's the way you mean it. :D

One thing, if you want grain (on digtal) try this:
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.aspx

B&W shots often look better with a little grain added. :D

Oh and I checked out your B&W film photos. Pretty awesome. Nothing you couldn't recreate in digital, but that's not why you're using film. ;)

Thanks for taking a look, but having converted hundreds and hundreds of RAW files to monochrome, and adding 'grain' sometimes, I can assure you, there are, in some cases, differences---sometimes subtle---that are difficult to replicate between the two (that goes both ways). Don't even get the silver halide wet print guys going.

Plus, the photos on the smugmug site are not the most representative, since, as large as they are, they are markedly compressed. But yeah, in the end, you're right, even if all the same, there are other reasons why I shoot film.

[exile]

I just realised something. The OP is tired of "fake digital photos."

Which leads to the question of the "Reality" of the pictures. Can you class a collection of zeros and ones as something real?! Mmmm

Perhaps the information we're all made from comes from various combinations of A, G, C, T should answer that. ;)

Thunking is funn!

:lol: Thunk away, but be careful where you go with it. The binary representation argument is one rolled out with disturbing frequency by those who argue against copyright! :confused: The binary argument itself is a bad one! :D

[Stealthy Ninja]

:lol: Thunk away, but be careful where you go with it. The binary representation argument is one rolled out with disturbing frequency by those who argue against copyright! :confused: The binary argument itself is a bad one! :D

Certainly is. It's like saying murder is OK because "hey it's just atoms and electricity".

:confused:

;)

You do know I was talking about DNA right?! Essentially it's information encoded into each of our cells. So it's a more complex "binary" system. More like "quadnary" (?)

[S.n.a.f.u.]

its like drinking the poison and waiting for the other guy to drop dead

[exile]

Certainly is. It's like saying murder is OK because "hey it's just atoms and electricity".

:confused:

;)

You do know I was talking about DNA right?! Essentially it's information encoded into each of our cells. So it's a more complex "binary" system. More like "quadnary" (?)

I'm sure some people I've met whose DNA is less quadnary and more like quandary. Dreadfully confused people. :lol:

[Stealthy Ninja]

Their "DNA" is "NAD"

Was their name "DAN"? ???

:lol: