The Creative Vision Hoax in Nature Photography

davebreal wrote in post #17487827
Will photographers then "see" differently when new software is released?

I reckon that our sight has not changed much since the evolution of homo sapiens. Is that an extreme literal interpretation of phrasing? Yes.

Dave,

I do not believe that our physical sight has changed much since the beginning of mankind. But whether or not our physical sight has changed or not has almost nothing to do with the concept of creative vision as it relates to photography. I do not believe that we will see differently at all when new software is released. However, the new software will allow us to be able to fulfill more of what we are already seeing in our imaginations (a.k.a. creative vision).

Once again, "creative vision" is usually used to refer to what we imagine in our mind. It deals with our imagination - and typically does not have to do with physical sight. I keep making this point, over and over again, yet some of your replies seem to make it seem as though you still think that creative vision has to do with what photographers actually see with their eyes.

It is called "creative vision" because we are creating it - it is a created scene, and not one that exists in reality. If it had to do with scenes that really exist, then it would be "observed vision".

A couple of points... what you see and what the camera sees (physically is not the same) for anyone. Do you have the same dynamic range and image preset as your camera in your physical sight? No. None of us do. The only way we can see what the camera sees is going beyond the limitations of our own sight... into our minds.

Personally when I look though my camera it is like I have a HUD inside my head. I can see in my mind what WB, tint etc changes and how they would effect a scene. I see light and shadows in my mind with the same dynamic range as the camera. But that is in my mind as we are limited to the physical restraints with basic sight. And then there is seeing in different speeds. The only way I can freeze action or slow exposures right down is in my mind. My physical sight doesn't see those things. My physical sight doesn't see sunbursts or moon bursts either, My eye's aperture capacity is limited... but it isn't inside my head.

I'll tell you this much too. That awful phone style picture you posted most certainly isn't how the human eye would have seen things. Where you have that huge solid band of black with no shadow detail the human eye would have seen detail. Where you have the sunburst the human eye would have seen graduating tones.

Well, I'm going to take the low road here and say that in my opinion "Creative Vision" for some people is exactly what we see in front of us through the viewfinder.

The creative part of it for me is how we can use composition, balancing objects in the frame, use of light and shadow, perspective and all those other in-camera tools that allow us to make a simple scene into a good photograph. Or maybe even a great photograph.

I personally don't do a lot of post-processing. A little cropping if needed, contrast and sharpness adjustment and that's it for me. So I try to use my creative edge in the camera - not in my mind or on my computer.

That's why I said earlier that I believe that there is no standard definition of "creative vision". The term means different things to different people depending on your workflow and your audience and your subject matter and where your creative touch can be injected into that workflow. For me its in the camera.

I guess I'll throw in my two cents, on this very subjective topic.

WaltA wrote in post #17488269
Well, I'm going to take the low road here and say that in my opinion "Creative Vision" for some people is exactly what we see in front of us through the viewfinder.

How is that not just "vision?" It's the same as seeing the world through pair of glasses, or contacts, or with your naked eye. The creative part is seeing (imagining) what it can become. That can happen before you hit the shutter release (or even put the camera to your face), or after you pull the image up on your computer screen, or at any step in processing before you're done with the product.

To me, "creative vision" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sight; a blind sculptor can have "creative vision" before he puts his hands to the clay.

I could go on, but I'd just be rambling.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to be wrong on this subject is to call someone else wrong. I shouldn't have even questioned Walt

Heh, whenever I see threads like this one anent 'style', 'vision', 'alternative interpretations', 'do your own thing however horrible it is and slam or ignore any comments that aren't want you want to hear' I invariably recall what Tom Wolfe once wrote:

(Emphasis mine)

I guess some of the world's greatest pieces of art are "baffling" to some, since they don't look strictly realistic.

Probably.

I aim for a true to life representation of a subject; thus, I'm not very partial to garish photos. My postprocessing is minimal.

Yes, I've dabbled a bit in image experimentation, but if I wanted to alter a scene beyond what it actually looked, I can always import the photo into Corel Painter and brush away. But that'd no longer be photography, per se, but illustration or painting.

Yet not everyone aims for the same goal, but that doesnt make their art/vision any less valid.

Also, I think most would agree that there is a continuum between photography and digital art, with photojournalism at one end and pure digital painting at the other. However, drawing a line anywhere in the middle and saying that there is a point at which it is no longer photography (provided creation started with a camera) is a futile effort on which almost no one will agree.

There are many variables regarding this. For example, as photographer and author Michael Freeman stated in one of his books, the cultural milieu carries a heavy weight on the outcome: in cultures that have until just recently been exposed to the photographic boom, like China, oversaturated colours seem to be the norm: verily, the photos produced and displayed there would send packing even those who, on this side of the Pacific, are quite liberal with the slider pushing.

There is another thing that is relevant: there are markets for almost all kinds of vision. Photographer Joel Grimes commented that when he started producing his now signature style, at least one other colleague called him on on it arguing that it wasn't photography but illustration; yet, as it turned out, what other photographers decried as un-photographic, ad agencies loved as eye-catching, and Mr Grimes was on his way up the rollercoaster.

In other areas, however, it's all down to accuracy, and vision be darned. Architecture comes to mind. Images for text books would be another. A publisher would definitely not buy images for a bug guide where the colours are all jacked up and unrealistic.

I wonder if Dave is opposed to using filters (polarizers, graidient, NDs, etc) or flash or strobes. Does that not constitute as a significant gap from keeping as close to what the eyes see?

Not in all cases, but excellent photographers are those who can execute the exact image they had in their mind (and not necessarily what they see through their eyes), using any means possible.
Who care's if they used filters, strobes, or actions in photoshop or LR? It's a means to an end and if you had an idea of a photo where the sky is cyan, you can accomplish it with either a physical cyan filter in front of the lens or do it in post.

Plus, why does someone have to disclose they did extra to "improve" the photo? Most of us already know when we see a photo, what types of work was already done on it anyway. Now with a few years in, I chuckle when someone posts a photo and people ask, "what were the camera settings?" It's almost irrelevant to ask because that's only half the equation. If you don't know the lighting conditions in that exact moment, you won't get the same photo anyway.

I have to somewhat agree that I'm not a big fan of heavy HDR or 'intense' post processing, but that's what creative vision is. Some find that is what they really like and others like low key, ambient, double watermarked, black and white bordered photos.

I'm well aware I took the bait and fed the troll, but I enjoyed it.

the way I see it, it's my photo and I can do what I want with it, and as long as I like it nothing else matters. Some try to capture things 'in camera' as they are, some go crazy with HDR or photshop, there's room for everything. Nobody likes everything, nobody has to

To me the initial capture is my canvas, may paints are digital~

I'm with Walt. It might end with PP, but it starts with composition.

Walking up to a scene, taking a snap at eye-level with a ~50mm lens is 'what you saw', but I wouldn't call it creative whatever PP was applied.

If I leave home w/o CPLs and ND filters, I consider it a mistake. However, I don't claim that "my eyes see silky water or dark blue skies" here in New Jersey. I prefer to never use the phrase Creative Vision, and generally consider it fluff at best. In an idea world, I would provide no descriptions on any photo/art I've ever made, nor would I have to provide artist statements.

It's not just about what my eyes see when I click the shutter. I envisage what it will look like with certain presets added to it. If I can't see it working in my head I might not take the picture. Sometimes it's about what can be done to a picture to make it into what you perceive the picture to become. Other times it's about capturing exactly what you see. Look at blurred water on the sea. A silky smooth long exposure looks great, but our eyes don't see it like that. However, a waterfall moves so fast we see it as blurry water, yet a fast shutter speed freezes it, and that's not what our eyes see when we look at it live. It doesn't matter to me if it's edited or not, I look for the wow factor.

davebreal wrote in post #17495562
If I leave home w/o CPLs and ND filters, I consider it a mistake. However, I don't claim that "my eyes see silky water or dark blue skies" here in New Jersey. I prefer to never use the phrase Creative Vision, and generally consider it fluff at best. In an idea world, I would provide no descriptions on any photo/art I've ever made, nor would I have to provide artist statements.

...so Dave is the only honest photographer, and everyone else is lying?