Cloning

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Its not an argument, its a point of view.

Typically people put forward arguments to try and justify a particular point of view. I think you'll have difficulty justifying that one somehow.

Tiriel

If I could get it right in camera then I'd be doing a lot less post processing It doesn't mean I would be doing none - but less for sure.

Getting it right to the point where I'm happy with the shot and have to do nothing to it - is rare, except for street photography when I do nothing if at all if possible (bar a B/W conversion) - no cropping/editing because the scene is what it is. For other shots I'd clean them up more.

amdgilmore

Silva360 wrote: »

I cannot agree with that. Your camera sensor simply cannot capture the dynamic range of your eyes in many situations. If you expose for the sky, in certain high dynamic range situations, your foreground will be underexposed and vice versa.

This is a common misconception about how the eye works in terms of dynamic range - there's a distinction between total dynamic range and the static contrast ratio of a single scene.

The total dynamic range of your eye vastly exceeds the capabilities of digital sensors in terms of discernible detail at either end of the spectrum, but just like your camera it cannot simultaneously resolve details in light and dark parts of the same scene.

If the eye is static, and observing a single scene, it can only resolve detail across a range of about 6-8 stops. Not at all dissimilar to your camera.

The effect you're observing is the result of the eye moving and readjusting, and the brain averaging multiple scenes. It's sort of a natural version of the blending method you're talking about.

This isn't necessarily refuting your argument about post-processing, just making a distinction between the actual processes that are taking place.

Wabbit Ears

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Typically people put forward arguments to try and justify a particular point of view. I think you'll have difficulty justifying that one somehow.

Arguably I think you would have trouble explainging how the point of view is unjustified.

A snapshop from a phone or a point and click is usually printed or presented as-in. A photographer would take the images, even from the same devices and post process them in some manner. I don't think that's incorrect or unjustified a statement.

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Arguably I think you would have trouble explainging how the point of view is unjustified.

A snapshop from a phone or a point and click is usually printed or presented as-in. A photographer would take the images, even from the same devices and post process them in some manner. I don't think that's incorrect or unjustified a statement.

I think you'll have to define what you mean by the word 'photographer', and not in a circular "someone how post processes their shots in some manner" sort of way. Without some special "wabbit ears" definition, what you're saying is complete nonsense. Millions of photographers all over the world have, for the better part of a century, presented their images 'as-is'. Some of the most famous artistic photographers and photojournalists had no truck with post processing as you've described it above. So your argument really doesn't hold any water.

Wabbit Ears

by your logic everyone with access to a camera is a photographer.

So how do you define what the difference is?

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

by your logic everyone with access to a camera is a photographer.

Well, strictly speaking everyone with access to a camera who actually takes pictures, that's an important bit :-D

magicbastarder

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

So how do you define what the difference is?

a photographer is someone who takes a photo.

one of the strengths of photography is its democracy; yet many photographers are keen to impose an arbitrary hierarchy upon it to distinguish themselves from 'mere' snappers. you can if you want, if it makes you feel better, but to use the extent to which you process your photos as the main yardstick for this is just bananas.

you have claimed there is more weight attached to processing than there is to the act of photography, so we can say you're primarily a processor, and secondarily a photographer?
if there are two posters here who consistently produce output of equivalent quality, one who uses extensive processing, and one who favours a 'straight from the camera' approach, are you arguing that the former is more of a 'photographer'?

Silva360

amdgilmore wrote: »

This isn't necessarily refuting your argument about post-processing, just making a distinction between the actual processes that are taking place.

It would certainly be arrogant for me to argue the science of 'seeing' because I know nothing of it. But when I am viewing a scene, or scanning a scene if that is the proper terminology in this sense, my camera just cannot capture/'see' the same dynamic range as my eyes (which makes sense if what you say is correct). But in a photographic sense, and as the camera cannot 'scan' a scene in the same way my eyes can, does that make it highly acceptable to blend to produce a true record? Or is it still a reimagining because there should only be partial correct exposure, depending on where my eyes have settled when i press the shutter???

amdgilmore

Silva360 wrote: »

But in a photographic sense, and as the camera cannot 'scan' a scene in the same way my eyes can, does that make it highly acceptable to blend to produce a true record? Or is it still a reimagining because there should only be partial correct exposure, depending on where my eyes have settled when i press the shutter???

There you go. Muddies the waters a little, doesn't it? :pac:

I personally think blending is the most natural of the post-processes, since it's a very basic version of what's actually happening when your brain interprets a scene.

(Obviously I am not including that radioactive brand of HDR that we all know and hate)

Silva360

amdgilmore wrote: »

There you go. Muddies the waters a little, doesn't it? :pac:

I personally think blending is the most natural of the post-processes, since it's a very basic version of what's actually happening when your brain interprets a scene.

(Obviously I am not including that radioactive brand of HDR that we all know and hate)

I'm glad we agree Blending in the most important tool in my post processing artillery. I would hate to think of it as creating the 'fake'... Thanks for your interesting comments.

---

As for the stuff about snapper v real photographer's, I think I remember someone saying that 'one takes and one makes'. I might be wrong. But in any event the 'makes' does not imply 'makes after'. I definitely agree that anyone taking a photograph is technically a photographer. What I find rubbish, other's find genius. It's all very subjective. It's all good in it's own way, and if the photographer is happy, then it's photography to them which is all that matters really.

magicbastarder

amdgilmore wrote: »

(Obviously I am not including that radioactive brand of HDR that we all know and hate)

really though, that's just HDR done badly.
there's no processing that's worse than obvious processing. you don't want to see the puppet's strings.

CabanSail

When I was involved in teaching a photography class I would make the point that our eyes see the world in a different to a camera, even though the optics are similar. We have to modify our perception to realise what the camera will record, depending on how you use it. The difference from the recorded data and what we perceived can be negligible or enormous.

An example is that we know that the depth of field will vary with a changing aperture, this is true of the eye too with the iris. We generally think the depth of field is wide as the eye will keep refocusing and we compile the view in our mind.

---

I can see the points most are making here and agree with them too, even when opposing. There is not right or wrong, just personal preferences.

One thing I think is that anyone who take a photograph is a Photographer. It's just the quality that varies.
At the end of the day the most important person to please is yourself (or the client if you are a professional)

magicbastarder

CabanSail wrote: »

There is not right or wrong, just personal preferences.

however, this viewpoint leads to less enjoyable debates, because 'let's agree to disagree' is not a debate...

Whammy!

magicbastarder wrote: »

however, this viewpoint leads to less enjoyable debates, because 'let's agree to disagree' is not a debate...

Where did you get "let's agree to disagree" from someone claiming that there is no right or wrong, just personal preference?

Through debate one can change their perspective on the matter and thus, change their personal preference.

Although typically online debates tend to be people spouting their perspective to everyone while paying no attention to the counter points. Now that makes for less enjoyable debates.

magicbastarder

it was just intended as a flippant remark, so not one i put too much thought into, but kinda getting at the notion that the 'there is no right or wrong' can somewhat hobble a good stimulating debate where people are at opposite poles.

MysticalRain

I think a lot of people get too hung up on this subject. I don’t think either approach is right or wrong. It’s all down to personal preference and what it takes to achieve the end result.

I guess it depends on what your end goal is. Either you are simply documenting something and the image has to remain true to it’s original form lest it loose it’s “integrity”. Or else you are aiming for some kind of artistic result, where the end justifies the means, and how exactly you achieved it matters little. If asked what my views are on the subject, I tend to side track the debate by describing myself as a “digital artist” rather than a photographer (as hilariously pretentious as that sounds). So my view would be less ideological and more pragmatic. I guess it would be the difference between taking pictures Vs making pictures. What happens in the camera is less important that what happens in the digital darkroom afterwards.

I think in the digital age it is hard not to avoid doing some kind of photo manipulation. If you are not shooting jpegs (which themselves are automatically post-processed by the camera), then RAW files fresh out of the camera need some work to begin with to bring them up to the level of how the original scene would have looked.

Personally speaking, I would have gotten rid of the snot on the dogs face as it is a distraction - either through cloning it out or wiping it off the dogs face (if you are one of those togs who has a problem with “not getting it right in the camera”).

Also, I think people have a slightly rose-tinted view of the old analogue days (and this is where I think a lot of the hang ups people have about digital post-processing originate from). Many of the old masters did an awful lot of photo manipulation, the difference being that they did it in dark rooms and at the printing stage instead of on a computer.
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

Tiriel

Having just seen the post in the off topic thread, on the top 100 landscape photos (international) - some shots are amazing but for me, most are over processed and are so far removed from reality that they just don't appeal to me anymore. That's just me but I think there's a line and once you go over it and start doing mad processing - it changes the shot beyond a photo and well into the realm of digital art.

magicbastarder

yeah, i'd agree with you there. the number of photos (on the link you mention) which are processed to look ethereal and dreamy is very offputting.
possibly a bit of the uncanny valley going on?

magicbastarder

interestingly, i was scanning some slides last night (first time i've scanned anything in months), and by habit found myself comparing the slides against the scans to try to ensure the scans were as true to the colour balance of the slides as possible. so much for enhancing.