Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 18 Mar 2015 (Wednesday) 08:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The Creative Vision Hoax in Nature Photography

 
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
15,859 posts
Gallery: 176 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5991
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Mar 23, 2015 09:54 |  #46

davebreal wrote in post #17487827 (external link)
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".


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 290
Joined Nov 2010
     
Mar 23, 2015 10:40 |  #47

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.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,868 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 23, 2015 12:31 |  #48

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.


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,414 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4589
Joined Dec 2008
Post edited over 6 years ago by LV Moose.
     
Mar 23, 2015 13:56 |  #49

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

WaltA wrote in post #17488269 (external link)
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 :oops:


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1056
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited over 6 years ago by Alveric.
     
Mar 23, 2015 14:31 |  #50
bannedPermanent ban

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:

'...photography had always seemed to be a form of expression with an implacable obviousness to it. But photographers and their theorists [...] began to find a way around this impediment. [Making] a virtue out of what had always seemed a shortcoming [...], of what had always been regarded as photography's flaws: blurring, grotesque foreshortenings, untrue colors, images chopped off by the edge of the film frame, and so on. They achieved their goal; they managed to make photography utterly baffling to those unwilling to come inside the compound and learn the theories and the codes.'

(Emphasis mine)


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,414 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4589
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 23, 2015 14:37 as a reply to  @ Alveric's post |  #51

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


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1056
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Mar 23, 2015 15:04 |  #52
bannedPermanent ban

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.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Mar 24, 2015 12:26 as a reply to  @ Alveric's post |  #53

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.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1056
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited over 6 years ago by Alveric.
     
Mar 24, 2015 12:50 |  #54
bannedPermanent ban

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.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
[Hyuni]
Goldmember
Avatar
1,186 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Dec 2008
Location: CHiCAGO
Post edited over 6 years ago by [Hyuni].
     
Mar 24, 2015 15:38 |  #55

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.


6D Rokinon 14 f/2.8 l EF 35 ƒ1.4L l EF 135 ƒ2.0L l EF 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II l YN460 l 580EX II l Flick'd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phantelope
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 40
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NorCal
     
Mar 24, 2015 16:42 |  #56

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~


40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1126
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 26, 2015 23:29 |  #57

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.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Mar 28, 2015 13:05 |  #58

[Hyuni wrote:
='[Hyuni];17490272']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?

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.


Dave
flickr  (external link)Twitter  (external link)Wordpress Blog (external link) YouTube (external link)
My Gear--> Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colin ­ Glover
Goldmember
1,376 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 131
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southport nr Liverpool United Kingdom
Post edited over 6 years ago by Colin Glover. (4 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2015 15:06 |  #59

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.


Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 600D, EF-S 18-55 ii, EF 55-200 USM ii, EF-S 75-300 iii, Tamron 28-80, Sigma 70-210. Pentax 50mm, Pentax 135mm, EF-S 55-250, Raynox Macro adapter, Neewer filters (CPL, UV, FLD & ND4), Fuji HS20 EXR (30X zoom ) & cable release, Yongnuo 560 iii & Luxon 9800A manual flashguns for the Fuji, Hama Star 63 tripod, Hongdek RC-6 remote control, Velbon DF 40 www.point-n-shoot.co.uk website.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
Avatar
1,601 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 156
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Mar 28, 2015 15:10 |  #60

davebreal wrote in post #17495562 (external link)
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?


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14,568 views & 23 likes for this thread
The Creative Vision Hoax in Nature Photography
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Pzaloumis
898 guests, 225 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.