black mambaRegistered UsersPosts: 8,323Major grins
edited March 11, 2010
Richard's original thread had nothing to do with classifying art, photography, or any thing else. It was very specific in opening a discussion as to personal taste relative to manipulation of photos....by any sort of means....and what was considered, by implication, " allowable " or " appropriate " in such a case.
There's room for another thread if someone wants to start a discussion about classifying art, photos, or what have you. Let's respect the OP of this thread and keep the conversation centered around his original intent.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
Richard's original thread had nothing to do with classifying art, photography, or any thing else. It was very specific in opening a discussion as to personal taste relative to manipulation of photos....by any sort of means....and what was considered, by implication, " allowable " or " appropriate " in such a case.
There's room for another thread if someone wants to start a discussion about classifying art, photos, or what have you. Let's respect the OP of this thread and keep the conversation centered around his original intent.
So, question for discussion: If you can't tell, then why does it matter? I think we're looking at art, not PJ or documentary. Why not do whatever the muse dictates? Or is street not art?
My original point was simple: all that matters to me is in the image. Except for PJ and forensic photography, how it got there is irrelevant, unless the image is presented with misleading claims.
As for reality, well, if you think reality looks like a W. Eugene Smith print you probably should get yourself to an ophthalmologist immediately, and possibly a neurologist as well. All rules about processing are arbitrary. Explain to me why dodging and burning in B&W is different from turning an ugly nylon jacket into a less grating color. And while we're at it, why permit cropping? HCB didn't care about the darkroom stuff very much, but was adamant that his shots not be cropped. Does that mean we have to follow the same rule? I sometimes think that there is an unstated machismo that underlies many of the post-processing rants: real photographers don't need Photoshop. To which I say, nonsense. Real art changes the way you see the world. Any attempt to restrict artistic expression is counter-productive and certain to fail.
Everyone is entitled to follow whatever set of rules they care to, of course. But I think we should avoid imposing those rules on others, as rules inhibit innovation. 50 years from now, the most outrageous of today's pics will have a quaint, old-fashioned look--limited dynamic range, narrow color gamut, only two dimensions. The good news is that there will probably be Photoshop Holographic Suite 15 plugins to simulate that look.
My original point was simple: all that matters to me is in the image. Except for PJ and forensic photography, how it got there is irrelevant, unless the image is presented with misleading claims.
As for reality, well, if you think reality looks like a W. Eugene Smith print you probably should get yourself to an ophthalmologist immediately, and possibly a neurologist as well. All rules about processing are arbitrary. Explain to me why dodging and burning in B&W is different from turning an ugly nylon jacket into a less grating color. And while we're at it, why permit cropping? HCB didn't care about the darkroom stuff very much, but was adamant that his shots not be cropped. Does that mean we have to follow the same rule? I sometimes think that there is an unstated machismo that underlies many of the post-processing rants: real photographers don't need Photoshop. To which I say, nonsense. Real art changes the way you see the world. Any attempt to restrict artistic expression is counter-productive and certain to fail.
Everyone is entitled to follow whatever set of rules they care to, of course. But I think we should avoid imposing those rules on others, as rules inhibit innovation. 50 years from now, the most outrageous of today's pics will have a quaint, old-fashioned look--limited dynamic range, narrow color gamut, only two dimensions. The good news is that there will probably be Photoshop Holographic Suite 15 plugins to simulate that look.
So you're saying what? Posting in this forum is open to each individual's interpretation of what is street or PJ? Anything goes as long as there's a <?????> in the shot? Do we need people? Do we need a street? Are landscapes ok if I wasn't planning on taking the shot? What about HDR images of my buddies rice burner that I just happened to grab while I had my camera bracketing 3 exposures? Does it have to be candid?
I don't mean to be inflammatory but it seems like you're justifying this forum out of existence, Richard. What's the purpose of a forum that manages to do nothing but collect over 40,000 different peoples interpretation of what belongs there? The landscape section has rules, as does People and Weddings, so why not this one?
So you're saying what? Posting in this forum is open to each individual's interpretation of what is street or PJ?
Yes, I think that's fine. No entrance exam, no certification required. Just stick to the rough categories. And if you're a regular who just wants to share a totally off-theme pic with this particular group once in a while, I don't have a problem with that either. (Keep in mind, I was the mod who didn't mind pet pics in the People forum. ) I move threads rarely, and then only if I am very sure that the OP will be better served in another forum. We're too small a group to support sub-forums for every conceivable specialty or technique, so we just have to muddle through.
We're attracting new members and veteran Dgrinners are starting to try their hand with the genre. There's a whole lot more street photography now than there was when street shooters had to choose between OCS and People, and didn't get a lot of attention in either place. So I don't think it's working badly.
Richard, I'm definitely with you on the sentiment. I hope this becomes a wonderfully inclusive forum. But I'll reiterate my earlier comment. I hope that it's a learning forum with lots of "Works in progress" intent on improving our collective ability to tell a story in a single image or short series not necessarily one about post techniques.
I might break down at some point and invest the money and time to learn PS. If and when that occurs, there are great people in other areas of DGrin that I'll lean on.
I have a secondary question for Mike Penn. How much does your Post-style impact what you look for with the camera?
But I'll reiterate my earlier comment. I hope that it's a learning forum with lots of "Works in progress" intent on improving our collective ability to tell a story in a single image or short series not necessarily one about post techniques.
Absolutely. We have a whole forum for that on Dgrin. I never meant to suggest that PP could supplant the fundamentals of shooting, which I don't believe for a minute.
Richard, I'm definitely with you on the sentiment. I hope this becomes a wonderfully inclusive forum. But I'll reiterate my earlier comment. I hope that it's a learning forum with lots of "Works in progress" intent on improving our collective ability to tell a story in a single image or short series not necessarily one about post techniques.
I might break down at some point and invest the money and time to learn PS. If and when that occurs, there are great people in other areas of DGrin that I'll lean on.
I have a secondary question for Mike Penn. How much does your Post-style impact what you look for with the camera?
For the most part I have an idea of what the finished photograph will look like as i capture it. It doesn't work all the time. Setting up the camera consistently and using my own Adobe Raw presets ads predictability.
Yes, I think that's fine. No entrance exam, no certification required. Just stick to the rough categories. And if you're a regular who just wants to share a totally off-theme pic with this particular group once in a while, I don't have a problem with that either. (Keep in mind, I was the mod who didn't mind pet pics in the People forum. ) I move threads rarely, and then only if I am very sure that the OP will be better served in another forum. We're too small a group to support sub-forums for every conceivable specialty or technique, so we just have to muddle through.
We're attracting new members and veteran Dgrinners are starting to try their hand with the genre. There's a whole lot more street photography now than there was when street shooters had to choose between OCS and People, and didn't get a lot of attention in either place. So I don't think it's working badly.
This section works fine and your running a smooth ship (for the most part ).
I do agree about the P/J title part with B. D. but no biggie to me.
Yes, I think that's fine. No entrance exam, no certification required. Just stick to the rough categories. And if you're a regular who just wants to share a totally off-theme pic with this particular group once in a while, I don't have a problem with that either. (Keep in mind, I was the mod who didn't mind pet pics in the People forum. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/lol3.gif" border="0" alt="" >) I move threads rarely, and then only if I am very sure that the OP will be better served in another forum. We're too small a group to support sub-forums for every conceivable specialty or technique, so we just have to muddle through.
We're attracting new members and veteran Dgrinners are starting to try their hand with the genre. There's a whole lot more street photography now than there was when street shooters had to choose between OCS and People, and didn't get a lot of attention in either place. So I don't think it's working badly.
I don't disagree that the forum is moving along nicely and attracting new posters. It is certainly doing that and I think it's great. I'm concerned, however, that we're being told that it is inappropriate to discuss a shot's qualifications for the genre intended by the photographer. What else should we not talk about?
If I think a shot can be improved by not scribbling on it with a crayon why is it taboo for me to say so? That seems a very reasonable thing to say. How does that differ from suggesting a shot can be improved with a contrast adjustment or a crop? I don't think anyone has ever said that <this> or <that> shouldn't be posted in this forum (at least I cannot recall a thread in which someone suggested a photo should be carted off because it broke some cardinal rule). I would hope that we are free to discuss whatever we like, or do not like, about a particular shot. Some of us lean towards traditional while others do not. Shouldn't we be talking about our differences? Doesn't that help us all with our photography?
To be honest, I don't really understand the intent of this thread. What, exactly, is being asked of us?
I don't think it's wrong to photoshop street photos... It's an aesthetic decision. If someone does it, I understand some people will like it and some won't. That is important, otherwise we'd all be taking the same shots all the time. Everyone should do things differently and cross reference genres and mediums.
Honestly, if you distrust a photoshoped image, you probably have grown comfortable in your own photographer shoes. Making a photo black and white for example, is one of the biggest abstractions possible in my opinion and people encourage it for street photography! Everytime you frame something, you choose not to show something else. Everything about taking a photo implies manipulating that image.
Making a photo black and white for example, is one of the biggest abstractions possible in my opinion and people encourage it for street photography! Everytime you frame something, you choose not to show something else. Everything about taking a photo implies manipulating that image.
Well said.
I never did understand how black and white wasn't considered manipulation ... other than at one point it was all there was.
I never did understand how black and white wasn't considered manipulation ... other than at one point it was all there was.
It's quite simple - converting to black and white is just continuing in digital to make a "film" choice. It's presenting
an image as tonal values, rather than colors. But most people doing what has traditionally been considered "street photography" limit their manipulation of the black and white image to basic darkroom manipulations.
But this is a debate that is never going to be settled here - or anywhere really, in part because the availability and ubiquity of Photoshop gives everyone the ability to manipulate photographic images into final results that have very little - if anything - to do with what the camera captured.
snip…
the availability and ubiquity of Photoshop gives everyone the ability to manipulate photographic images into final results that have very little - if anything - to do with what the camera captured.
…an excellent observation!
…which can be applied to all photography, not just the Street/PJ aspect (IMNSHO).
Photoshop is tool no different than the camera itself. I love how it's still a dirty word with some photographers. Psst here's a little bit of advice that might help someone's photography career or art get to the next level..........There are no rules in Photography.
Photoshop is tool no different than the camera itself. I love how it's still a dirty word with some photographers. Psst here's a little bit of advice that might help someone's photography career or art get to the next level..........There are no rules in Photography.
I'd really prefer getting the analogy right. Photoshop is a tool, but it isn't the same as the camera. Maybe the better comparison is that Photoshop is no different than an Enlarger. The original capture still has to have legs.
It's interesting how photoshop has become a verb. I don't own PS and I doubt I'll buy it anytime soon. Very much too expensive* for any practical use I might have. But I do use other tools that can manipulate images. So I could photoshop, just not with um, Photoshop.
* It's incredibly easy to get pirated software where I live, but I just can't bring myself to do that.
I'd really prefer getting the analogy right. Photoshop is a tool, but it isn't the same as the camera. Maybe the better comparison is that Photoshop is no different than an Enlarger. The original capture still has to have legs.
No, I'll stand behind what I said. They are all tools and a means to an end.
Take the modern day DSLR, you can change speed, aperture, iso, metering, white balance, file format, dual file formats, crop ratio, in camera filters, in camera bracket, D-Lighting,etc. Sounds like a multi-tool to me.
It's interesting how photoshop has become a verb. I don't own PS and I doubt I'll buy it anytime soon. Very much too expensive* for any practical use I might have. But I do use other tools that can manipulate images. So I could photoshop, just not with um, Photoshop.
* It's incredibly easy to get pirated software where I live, but I just can't bring myself to do that.
Because it's a recognizable name. Also Photoshop is now 20 years old.
No, I'll stand behind what I said. They are all tools and a means to an end.
Take the modern day DSLR, you can change speed, aperture, iso, metering, white balance, file format, dual file formats, crop ratio, in camera filters, in camera bracket, D-Lighting,etc. Sounds like a multi-tool to me.
It is a multi-tool. I still wouldn't use it as a hammer. Photoshop doesn't have a lens and a good dSLR isn't a place to do serious image post-work. I still stand by earlier comments that I hope this is a place to learn to see and compose. Thus a simplistic presentation style is easiest for others to comment on. Post processing will always be a matter of personal taste.
That said, I really appreciate that you have already begun to put up images that don't have your signature PP in place. It's a real addition to the visual discussion here and we can all learn from how you move from capture to final vision.
No, I'll stand behind what I said. They are all tools and a means to an end.
Take the modern day DSLR, you can change speed, aperture, iso, metering, white balance, file format, dual file formats, crop ratio, in camera filters, in camera bracket, D-Lighting,etc. Sounds like a multi-tool to me.
While technically correct here, the camera still must capture, on some level, what the eye sees. It cannot add someone/thing that is not there nor remove someone/thing that is there.
Having said that, I do not disagree that it is a useful tool, and you wield it very well. I did love the photo that generated this discussion, but would have loved it much less had I found that it was photoshopped. The photos you are posting are inspiring me to go out with a dedicated purpose to capture some of what appear matter of fact to you (which is a high compliment -- you seem to make easy what is incredibly difficult for some of us).
I did love the photo that generated this discussion, but would have loved it much less had I found that it was photoshopped.
I don't understand why this would be true. I don't mean any offense of course, Rainbow, but why should knowing how a shot was processed affect your liking it? If you believe a shot to be great before knowing what work was done to it, why change you mind when you find out the photographer used tools that you may not? To each his own, of course.
When placing a shot into a genre we frequently need to take that information into account. I just don't think that has much to do with liking the shot.
As for Mike's 'questionable' shots, I didn't get the impression they were heavily processed. I did feel like they were extremely processed with tools no different than what the rest of us use daily. To clarify, Rutt does some very wonderful B&W conversions which are full of detail and great tonally. Liz, however, has taken to the extreme of high contrast with good effect. Both produce many compelling images but neither use tools that the other would view as out of place.
Travis
0
black mambaRegistered UsersPosts: 8,323Major grins
edited March 13, 2010
I don't present photos to this forum very often, primarily because my interests are centered around a different genre. But I follow many of the threads over here because the basics of good photography bleed over into the whole range of photographic interests. And, I'll be the first to admit that I've gleaned some very helpful information from some of those folks whose philosophies and mine seem to be diametrically opposed.
I think most people agree that the hardware and software available to us today are both tools of the trade....not identical tools, but tools none the less. Some of us tend to cast a jaundiced eye toward employing some of these tools, and others of us fully embrace the use of any tool or technology that helps us generate the finished product that we seek.
I don't think anybody is right or wrong here....it's just not that type of situation. But my observation is that those who choose to utilize any tool they can are much more accommodating of opposing viewpoints than the other way around. In other words, the " use any tool " photographer is happy to see others pursue their goals in any fashion they choose. That's seldom the case from those that eschew using many of the available means at their disposal. That's the part of this whole discussion that I have the most trouble understanding.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
While technically correct here, the camera still must capture, on some level, what the eye sees. It cannot add someone/thing that is not there nor remove someone/thing that is there.
I don't know what you're shooting with, Rainbow, but my camera captures stuff I didn't see all the time. Usually, at the edges of the frame but sometimes, right behind my subject. rofl
I don't know what you're shooting with, Rainbow, but my camera captures stuff I didn't see all the time. Usually, at the edges of the frame but sometimes, right behind my subject. rofl
Too true. I had no idea this guy was smoking! until I saw the image on my laptop!
rofl
Don
Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook.
I don't know what you're shooting with, Rainbow, but my camera captures stuff I didn't see all the time. Usually, at the edges of the frame but sometimes, right behind my subject. rofl
Misread of my statement. Your eye captured the light, but your brain did not register it. Or as I stated more clearly, the camera did not ADD something that was not there, whether you noticed or not. So my objection would be if you added it in via photoshop because it made for a better shot. (And yes, I acknowledge your 'smilie" ).
I don't understand why this would be true. I don't mean any offense of course, Rainbow, but why should knowing how a shot was processed affect your liking it? If you believe a shot to be great before knowing what work was done to it, why change you mind when you find out the photographer used tools that you may not? To each his own, of course.
When placing a shot into a genre we frequently need to take that information into account. I just don't think that has much to do with liking the shot.
As for Mike's 'questionable' shots, I didn't get the impression they were heavily processed. I did feel like they were extremely processed with tools no different than what the rest of us use daily. To clarify, Rutt does some very wonderful B&W conversions which are full of detail and great tonally. Liz, however, has taken to the extreme of high contrast with good effect. Both produce many compelling images but neither use tools that the other would view as out of place.
Photography is a process as well as a product. So Mike's shots inspire me because he went out, visualized, and captured something that I admired. That is what I would like to challenge myself to improve on. If I found out that he used the computer to add in the mist or the person or other, then I am not so inspired as my interest is in the photographing, not in becoming good with the computer (though that would be nice, it is not why I like this forum and the hobby).
Sidenotes: No offense taken on the differing opinion. I do not object to Mike's PP. I do not lean that way, but I appreciate his early response elsewhere that this is his style. And he is so good at it. Rutt and Liz also present differences which I enjoy, and I do not view any of these as being out of place or inappropriate. All of them slowly influence my progression in the hobby, as do others.
Photoshop is tool no different than the camera itself. I love how it's still a dirty word with some photographers. Psst here's a little bit of advice that might help someone's photography career or art get to the next level..........There are no rules in Photography.
I have to say I find this comment quite puzzling, because it suggests that a certain "next level" should be everyone's goal. My "next level" is not turning the photographs I take into photo illustrations, but rather continually refining my photographic vision, and improving my ability to see what's in front of me and capture it accurately; to bring people photographs of life's daily moments, captured in ways that open their eyes.
The camera is a tool; Photoshop is a tool. Digital has, for most photographers, replaced film, and Photoshop has, for most photographers, replaced the darkroom. But the fact that we are able to create all sorts of effects with Photoshop does not mean that we have to, nor should it suggest that those images that are heavily post processed are somehow "better," or are art raised to the "next level." For some people they may be. But for photo journalists and documentary photographers they are not. Nor are they for most street photographers, whose goal is to capture captivating images of life lived in public.
But then I see photography as the truthful rendering of what is, rather than as the rendering of what I might imagine.
I have to say I find this comment quite puzzling, because it suggests that a certain "next level" should be everyone's goal. My "next level" is not turning the photographs I take into photo illustrations, but rather continually refining my photographic vision, and improving my ability to see what's in front of me and capture it accurately; to bring people photographs of life's daily moments, captured in ways that open their eyes.
The camera is a tool; Photoshop is a tool. Digital has, for most photographers, replaced film, and Photoshop has, for most photographers, replaced the darkroom. But the fact that we are able to create all sorts of effects with Photoshop does not mean that we have to, nor should it suggest that those images that are heavily post processed are somehow "better," or are art raised to the "next level." For some people they may be. But for photo journalists and documentary photographers they are not. Nor are they for most street photographers, whose goal is to capture captivating images of life lived in public.
But then I see photography as the truthful rendering of what is, rather than as the rendering of what I might imagine.
No one said anything about "everyone" turning photographs into illustrations in Photoshop, no one said creating effects in Photoshop, no one said that a so called "heavily processed" (what ever that is) image is better because of the processing. From my daily encounters with other photographers photography is now an art and not a craft anymore. If someone has a vision of a city street scene that's dirty, grainy, dark, high contrast or blurry so be it. Frankly that's how I see NYC and Philadelphia so it's portrayed that way in my photographs. Why should someone's vision be limited or compared to what film once saw? I can set my camera to iso 1600 or 3200 and capture things my eye can't at night and with Photoshop I can develop, transform, process or what ever you want to call it into my vision of what I witnessed. It seems that you have the same set of "rules" about street and PJ, so much so why consider them different genres ? There are German, Japanese, Chinese and a few American "street" photographers that are on the more artistic or creative side of the genre and that list is growing. It's not only what they see but how they see it, their emotion of what they are feeling is now transformed into the photograph. If you are a landscape buff think of what Michael Kenna and Josef Hoflehner are doing compared to Ansel Adams.
Comments
There's room for another thread if someone wants to start a discussion about classifying art, photos, or what have you. Let's respect the OP of this thread and keep the conversation centered around his original intent.
Tom
As for reality, well, if you think reality looks like a W. Eugene Smith print you probably should get yourself to an ophthalmologist immediately, and possibly a neurologist as well. All rules about processing are arbitrary. Explain to me why dodging and burning in B&W is different from turning an ugly nylon jacket into a less grating color. And while we're at it, why permit cropping? HCB didn't care about the darkroom stuff very much, but was adamant that his shots not be cropped. Does that mean we have to follow the same rule? I sometimes think that there is an unstated machismo that underlies many of the post-processing rants: real photographers don't need Photoshop. To which I say, nonsense. Real art changes the way you see the world. Any attempt to restrict artistic expression is counter-productive and certain to fail.
Everyone is entitled to follow whatever set of rules they care to, of course. But I think we should avoid imposing those rules on others, as rules inhibit innovation. 50 years from now, the most outrageous of today's pics will have a quaint, old-fashioned look--limited dynamic range, narrow color gamut, only two dimensions. The good news is that there will probably be Photoshop Holographic Suite 15 plugins to simulate that look.
I don't mean to be inflammatory but it seems like you're justifying this forum out of existence, Richard. What's the purpose of a forum that manages to do nothing but collect over 40,000 different peoples interpretation of what belongs there? The landscape section has rules, as does People and Weddings, so why not this one?
We're attracting new members and veteran Dgrinners are starting to try their hand with the genre. There's a whole lot more street photography now than there was when street shooters had to choose between OCS and People, and didn't get a lot of attention in either place. So I don't think it's working badly.
I might break down at some point and invest the money and time to learn PS. If and when that occurs, there are great people in other areas of DGrin that I'll lean on.
I have a secondary question for Mike Penn. How much does your Post-style impact what you look for with the camera?
Absolutely. We have a whole forum for that on Dgrin. I never meant to suggest that PP could supplant the fundamentals of shooting, which I don't believe for a minute.
For the most part I have an idea of what the finished photograph will look like as i capture it. It doesn't work all the time.
This section works fine and your running a smooth ship (for the most part
I do agree about the P/J title part with B. D. but no biggie to me.
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
If I think a shot can be improved by not scribbling on it with a crayon why is it taboo for me to say so? That seems a very reasonable thing to say. How does that differ from suggesting a shot can be improved with a contrast adjustment or a crop? I don't think anyone has ever said that <this> or <that> shouldn't be posted in this forum (at least I cannot recall a thread in which someone suggested a photo should be carted off because it broke some cardinal rule). I would hope that we are free to discuss whatever we like, or do not like, about a particular shot. Some of us lean towards traditional while others do not. Shouldn't we be talking about our differences? Doesn't that help us all with our photography?
To be honest, I don't really understand the intent of this thread. What, exactly, is being asked of us?
Honestly, if you distrust a photoshoped image, you probably have grown comfortable in your own photographer shoes. Making a photo black and white for example, is one of the biggest abstractions possible in my opinion and people encourage it for street photography! Everytime you frame something, you choose not to show something else. Everything about taking a photo implies manipulating that image.
Well said.
I never did understand how black and white wasn't considered manipulation ... other than at one point it was all there was.
not life but lifelike
The intent of the thread was stated in the original post: discuss an issue. All opinions are welcome.
It's quite simple - converting to black and white is just continuing in digital to make a "film" choice. It's presenting
an image as tonal values, rather than colors. But most people doing what has traditionally been considered "street photography" limit their manipulation of the black and white image to basic darkroom manipulations.
But this is a debate that is never going to be settled here - or anywhere really, in part because the availability and ubiquity of Photoshop gives everyone the ability to manipulate photographic images into final results that have very little - if anything - to do with what the camera captured.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
…an excellent observation!
…which can be applied to all photography, not just the Street/PJ aspect (IMNSHO).
- Wil
I'd really prefer getting the analogy right. Photoshop is a tool, but it isn't the same as the camera. Maybe the better comparison is that Photoshop is no different than an Enlarger. The original capture still has to have legs.
* It's incredibly easy to get pirated software where I live, but I just can't bring myself to do that.
No, I'll stand behind what I said. They are all tools and a means to an end.
Take the modern day DSLR, you can change speed, aperture, iso, metering, white balance, file format, dual file formats, crop ratio, in camera filters, in camera bracket, D-Lighting,etc. Sounds like a multi-tool to me.
Because it's a recognizable name. Also Photoshop is now 20 years old.
It is a multi-tool. I still wouldn't use it as a hammer. Photoshop doesn't have a lens and a good dSLR isn't a place to do serious image post-work. I still stand by earlier comments that I hope this is a place to learn to see and compose. Thus a simplistic presentation style is easiest for others to comment on. Post processing will always be a matter of personal taste.
That said, I really appreciate that you have already begun to put up images that don't have your signature PP in place. It's a real addition to the visual discussion here and we can all learn from how you move from capture to final vision.
While technically correct here, the camera still must capture, on some level, what the eye sees. It cannot add someone/thing that is not there nor remove someone/thing that is there.
Having said that, I do not disagree that it is a useful tool, and you wield it very well. I did love the photo that generated this discussion, but would have loved it much less had I found that it was photoshopped. The photos you are posting are inspiring me to go out with a dedicated purpose to capture some of what appear matter of fact to you (which is a high compliment -- you seem to make easy what is incredibly difficult for some of us).
When placing a shot into a genre we frequently need to take that information into account. I just don't think that has much to do with liking the shot.
As for Mike's 'questionable' shots, I didn't get the impression they were heavily processed. I did feel like they were extremely processed with tools no different than what the rest of us use daily. To clarify, Rutt does some very wonderful B&W conversions which are full of detail and great tonally. Liz, however, has taken to the extreme of high contrast with good effect. Both produce many compelling images but neither use tools that the other would view as out of place.
I think most people agree that the hardware and software available to us today are both tools of the trade....not identical tools, but tools none the less. Some of us tend to cast a jaundiced eye toward employing some of these tools, and others of us fully embrace the use of any tool or technology that helps us generate the finished product that we seek.
I don't think anybody is right or wrong here....it's just not that type of situation. But my observation is that those who choose to utilize any tool they can are much more accommodating of opposing viewpoints than the other way around. In other words, the " use any tool " photographer is happy to see others pursue their goals in any fashion they choose. That's seldom the case from those that eschew using many of the available means at their disposal. That's the part of this whole discussion that I have the most trouble understanding.
Tom
I don't know what you're shooting with, Rainbow, but my camera captures stuff I didn't see all the time. Usually, at the edges of the frame but sometimes, right behind my subject.
Don
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
Misread of my statement. Your eye captured the light, but your brain did not register it. Or as I stated more clearly, the camera did not ADD something that was not there, whether you noticed or not. So my objection would be if you added it in via photoshop because it made for a better shot. (And yes, I acknowledge your 'smilie"
Photography is a process as well as a product. So Mike's shots inspire me because he went out, visualized, and captured something that I admired. That is what I would like to challenge myself to improve on. If I found out that he used the computer to add in the mist or the person or other, then I am not so inspired as my interest is in the photographing, not in becoming good with the computer (though that would be nice, it is not why I like this forum and the hobby).
Sidenotes: No offense taken on the differing opinion. I do not object to Mike's PP. I do not lean that way, but I appreciate his early response elsewhere that this is his style. And he is so good at it. Rutt and Liz also present differences which I enjoy, and I do not view any of these as being out of place or inappropriate. All of them slowly influence my progression in the hobby, as do others.
I have to say I find this comment quite puzzling, because it suggests that a certain "next level" should be everyone's goal. My "next level" is not turning the photographs I take into photo illustrations, but rather continually refining my photographic vision, and improving my ability to see what's in front of me and capture it accurately; to bring people photographs of life's daily moments, captured in ways that open their eyes.
The camera is a tool; Photoshop is a tool. Digital has, for most photographers, replaced film, and Photoshop has, for most photographers, replaced the darkroom. But the fact that we are able to create all sorts of effects with Photoshop does not mean that we have to, nor should it suggest that those images that are heavily post processed are somehow "better," or are art raised to the "next level." For some people they may be. But for photo journalists and documentary photographers they are not. Nor are they for most street photographers, whose goal is to capture captivating images of life lived in public.
But then I see photography as the truthful rendering of what is, rather than as the rendering of what I might imagine.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
No one said anything about "everyone" turning photographs into illustrations in Photoshop, no one said creating effects in Photoshop, no one said that a so called "heavily processed" (what ever that is) image is better because of the processing. From my daily encounters with other photographers photography is now an art and not a craft anymore. If someone has a vision of a city street scene that's dirty, grainy, dark, high contrast or blurry so be it. Frankly that's how I see NYC and Philadelphia so it's portrayed that way in my photographs. Why should someone's vision be limited or compared to what film once saw? I can set my camera to iso 1600 or 3200 and capture things my eye can't at night and with Photoshop I can develop, transform, process or what ever you want to call it into my vision of what I witnessed. It seems that you have the same set of "rules" about street and PJ, so much so why consider them different genres ? There are German, Japanese, Chinese and a few American "street" photographers that are on the more artistic or creative side of the genre and that list is growing. It's not only what they see but how they see it, their emotion of what they are feeling is now transformed into the photograph. If you are a landscape buff think of what Michael Kenna and Josef Hoflehner are doing compared to Ansel Adams.