Posted by Howard Cheek on January 9, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Thanks for the article David, a great read..I do not care to enter into the post processing debate, but do appreciate the authors comments concerning the use of natural light in a particular shot.
"Enjoy the Light"
An interesting read--i disagree with it so i left a comment
Posted by Bryan Maltais on January 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM
"It is quite amazing how often I find myself tweaking a picture this way and that for an hour and then discovering I have simply gotten back to the appearance of the original RAW file"
That's total BS! I would never want my finished image to look like the raw file, and the statement perpetuates the myth that all photos are manipulated beyond what the scene looked like. Despite how advanced digital has gotten, RAW files do not look as good as slide film did straight out of the camera, and post processing RAW files is a must to get the life back into them.
I agree with much of the rest of the article; about how PS tweaking should not take the place of a good CAPTURE in the first place, and that over-editing is bad. However, I have yet to be able to create the perfect light in PS, like the author suggests.
The other aspect is that digital has forced us all to extend our art to become expert technicians in editing software, thus mastering an additional dimension that was not there in the days of film (this goes for slide film, not dark room prints). So, overall, has it really made us lazy?
Digital, and the traditionalist grumblings about it, is an expected evolution, and no different from when cameras changed from as big as my torso to hand-holdable, and when light meters, and auto-focus became available. I'm sure people said that all those things take away from the true skill set as well.
Posted by Andy Richards on January 9, 2010 at 9:16 PM
I have to agree with your comment, Stan. I'll have to remember the characterization
What gets lost in articles such as this is that prior to digital, the cost of post processing was prohibitively expensive. Had it not been so I suspect photographers would have made more use of colour separation and the like.
I suspect the author's background, photojournalism, may have something to do with his perspective in that the necessities brought about by travel, deadlines etc. made a photographer utilize limited resources more carefully.
The reason this article caught my attention is it reflects discussions had with other photographers. That the cost of film, processing and other technical aspects demanded more forethought before pressing the shutter. But then David Bailey penned an article in the early 70's which said 35mm diminished photography.
Posted by Andreas Resch on January 10, 2010 at 3:23 AM
I'm so tired of these film vs. digital rants ... AHHHH. I'd say nature photographers here aren't really the problem of this article actually. Sure we push our images over the limits sometimes, but in most cases it's still all under control and aesthetics are maintained or even enhanced.
I've seen some post processing stuff recently in other places that really hurt my eyes and I guess these shots are rather qualified as targets for this discussion.
It feels as if in no other art form, creativity is that much under attack as in digital nature photography.
It feels as if in no other art form, creativity is that much under attack as in digital nature photography.
My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that we are able to have 70+ post discussions on whether or not it even is an art... there's no question in my mind, but it's simply not even something that would come up regarding other art forms.
I agree with you Andreas, there are other forums where post processing seems to be the subject, rather than the scene itself, but for the most part everyone on NPN does a great job IMO at keeping to the 'spirit' of photography.
Thanks for the link. I agree but only partly and I find the way he writes and analyses just too simple and polemic. And one thing that was not mentioned at all: Composition and "idea". And that's 100% independent of the kind of medium in use. This is however the core of all visual arts - good composition and communication with the viewer. To me it seems that some purists just think that "waiting for the light" makes their images better - if it helps their ego and their pride - alright.
Posted by Basil Greber on January 10, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Grumpy-old-man-talk - way to go Stan, I fully agree!
Posted by Buck Ward on January 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM
The blog article in question is dated May 9, don't know what year. Interesting that it generates buzz here. I think I'm moving towards the dead horse crowd.
As a nature photographer...other than fixing image problems created by lens/digital such as softness, dust, vignette, etc...a photographer shouldn't change "anything" in the picture if he want to truly enjoy the beauty of our nature. Changing image light is pure cheating in my opinion.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM
I still think all of these discussions about manipulation are totally dependent on viewers expectations. Most people viewing photos expect them to either try to be faithful to what could be seen with your eyes, OR be obvious manipulation. Anything in between leaves things open for debate, and can leave some viewers upset, misled, or uncomfortable.
If I were to have a gallery show with normally processed images (unmanipulated to most folks) I'd get a particular response from the viewers. If I had another show with the identical prints, but hung up a big sign out front touting my extensive computer use and manipulation, I'd probably get a totally different response - and it's possible that both would be favorable. (Maybe even if the attendees were the same.)
My point is that it's not really about the image - or at least not simply about the image.
Changing image light is pure cheating in my opinion.
There's still gray area there Mohsen. What about long exposures? They can dramatically change the light away from what your eye could ever see, but are completely "natural" in terms of not being manipulated. Also, what about HDR? Done in certain ways it actually comes closer to what your eye can see, but certainly changes the light as captured by the camera.
That's total BS! I would never want my finished image to look like the raw file, and the statement perpetuates the myth that all photos are manipulated beyond what the scene looked like.
My guess would be that the person doing the editing was winding up with something that looked like the RAW file with the software defaults for his camera. A true linear RAW file would of course look awful. And even the base settings in most software looks pretty crummy. I'm guessing that he was using the defaults for his camera which would probably get pretty close to the JPG straight out of the camera.
Posted by Brian Jackson on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Stan, I didn't even find it a interesting read. Just another old film guy that hasn't caught up to the present.
Discussion
13 replieshttp://rising.blackstar.com/millimetering-the-death-of-gods-own-light.html
"Enjoy the Light"
That's total BS! I would never want my finished image to look like the raw file, and the statement perpetuates the myth that all photos are manipulated beyond what the scene looked like. Despite how advanced digital has gotten, RAW files do not look as good as slide film did straight out of the camera, and post processing RAW files is a must to get the life back into them.
I agree with much of the rest of the article; about how PS tweaking should not take the place of a good CAPTURE in the first place, and that over-editing is bad. However, I have yet to be able to create the perfect light in PS, like the author suggests.
The other aspect is that digital has forced us all to extend our art to become expert technicians in editing software, thus mastering an additional dimension that was not there in the days of film (this goes for slide film, not dark room prints). So, overall, has it really made us lazy?
Digital, and the traditionalist grumblings about it, is an expected evolution, and no different from when cameras changed from as big as my torso to hand-holdable, and when light meters, and auto-focus became available. I'm sure people said that all those things take away from the true skill set as well.
I suspect the author's background, photojournalism, may have something to do with his perspective in that the necessities brought about by travel, deadlines etc. made a photographer utilize limited resources more carefully.
The reason this article caught my attention is it reflects discussions had with other photographers. That the cost of film, processing and other technical aspects demanded more forethought before pressing the shutter. But then David Bailey penned an article in the early 70's which said 35mm diminished photography.
I've seen some post processing stuff recently in other places that really hurt my eyes and I guess these shots are rather qualified as targets for this discussion.
It feels as if in no other art form, creativity is that much under attack as in digital nature photography.
My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that we are able to have 70+ post discussions on whether or not it even is an art... there's no question in my mind, but it's simply not even something that would come up regarding other art forms.
I agree with you Andreas, there are other forums where post processing seems to be the subject, rather than the scene itself, but for the most part everyone on NPN does a great job IMO at keeping to the 'spirit' of photography.
If I were to have a gallery show with normally processed images (unmanipulated to most folks) I'd get a particular response from the viewers. If I had another show with the identical prints, but hung up a big sign out front touting my extensive computer use and manipulation, I'd probably get a totally different response - and it's possible that both would be favorable. (Maybe even if the attendees were the same.)
My point is that it's not really about the image - or at least not simply about the image.
There's still gray area there Mohsen. What about long exposures? They can dramatically change the light away from what your eye could ever see, but are completely "natural" in terms of not being manipulated. Also, what about HDR? Done in certain ways it actually comes closer to what your eye can see, but certainly changes the light as captured by the camera.
My guess would be that the person doing the editing was winding up with something that looked like the RAW file with the software defaults for his camera. A true linear RAW file would of course look awful. And even the base settings in most software looks pretty crummy. I'm guessing that he was using the defaults for his camera which would probably get pretty close to the JPG straight out of the camera.