"Let your blacks be black and let your whites be white." Such is one of the tenets of image editing. The volume or quantity of pure black and white areas determines the mood of the image, but not the actual tonality itself. One example would be the difference between a low-key and high-key image. The reason why photographs need to have this level of pureness in the light and shadows is because the brain interprets it that way. Tom is also right in saying that his present thought when he captured this scene guided him on his edit. In my opinion, it was not the stark contrast in the black and white areas that changes how we perceive or react to the image, rather I think it is the relative sharpness of the image that changes the perception that we have of it. You can have pure blacks and whites and still render the image in delicate softness and that, too changes the mood of the scene. It will now depend on the overall concept of the photographer (in this case, Tom) that would determine how he wants us to see his work and agree with his vision. However, being confined only in the middle tones robs the image of its impact or pop. I think that one of the reasons why personally I considered the 2nd edit of much better rendition of the scene because I can now see broader tones as opposed to a limited one. Just my personal opinion.
Sitting quietly, doing nothing. Spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
black mambaRegistered UsersPosts: 8,323Major grins
edited April 27, 2011
I find the divergence of opinion over these two images to be fascinating, informative and, to be honest, somewhat perplexing.
In reality, the scene I recorded had no real black, nor any real white, points within it.....it was a fairly bland scene. In my first version, the tree at the lower left was the darkest point within the image and some of the small, breaking waves were probably the whitest points. But in both cases, neither point was actually anywhere near either pure black or pure white.
With the re-edit, I selected the darker tree at the lower left as my pure black point and I selected the wave at the left, right at bottom of the frame, as my pure white point and the image accurately reflects those changes....it now had pure black and pure white points.
What I find most amusing....and perplexing....is that, according to a view such as Jiro's, the image had to be altered quite substantially from what I considered to be reality in order for the mind to give the image its blessing.
Tiddlywinks anyone? This photography stuff just got too hard for me.
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
What I find most amusing....and perplexing....is that, according to a view such as Jiro's, the image had to be altered quite substantially from what I considered to be reality in order for the mind to give the image its blessing.
Tiddlywinks anyone? This photography stuff just got too hard for me.
Tom,
I think you have articulated the issues well. What seems to be bugging you is that there's no clear, universal answer to the question, "must an image be faithful to the remembered scene?" Some think so, others do not. So it's really up to you to decide what you want. Just to muddy the waters a little more, I don't see any reason why you need to be consistent about it either--I know I'm not, and that doesn't bother me in the least. You won't please everyone no matter what you do, so you might as well keep yourself content.
Tom,
I think you have articulated the issues well. What seems to be bugging you is that there's no clear, universal answer to the question, "must an image be faithful to the remembered scene?" Some think so, others do not. So it's really up to you to decide what you want. Just to muddy the waters a little more, I don't see any reason why you need to be consistent about it either--I know I'm not, and that doesn't bother me in the least. You won't please everyone no matter what you do, so you might as well keep yourself content.
Richard couldn't have said it better. Reality always depend on how the viewer sees it. Philosophically, the mind will always be subjective. No mind, no subjectivity, ...just seeing. The moment that we clicked the shutter of the camera, reality has already been altered by the aperture, shutter speed, ISO, sensor sensitivity, lens characteristics, etc., . What we are doing in the post-processing is to "re-create" the "reality" that we saw depending on our subjective reaction to the scene or subject. Yes, Tom - in the end, all that matters is how you want to show it. Hope this helps, my friend. I apologized if I caused some confusion regarding the matter.
If I may add something (to further confuse you, Tom. ) "There are three images that make a final photograph: The one you envision, the one you shoot, and the one you develop. The better you are at the last two, the closer you can come to the first." - by David duChemin.
Sitting quietly, doing nothing. Spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
Tom,
I think you have articulated the issues well. What seems to be bugging you is that there's no clear, universal answer to the question, "must an image be faithful to the remembered scene?" Some think so, others do not. So it's really up to you to decide what you want. Just to muddy the waters a little more, I don't see any reason why you need to be consistent about it either--I know I'm not, and that doesn't bother me in the least. You won't please everyone no matter what you do, so you might as well keep yourself content.
I couldn't agree with you more, Richard. It sure has been enlightening, though, to see the spectrum of responses to these two images....the differences of opinion, each with its own validity.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
Comments
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
In reality, the scene I recorded had no real black, nor any real white, points within it.....it was a fairly bland scene. In my first version, the tree at the lower left was the darkest point within the image and some of the small, breaking waves were probably the whitest points. But in both cases, neither point was actually anywhere near either pure black or pure white.
With the re-edit, I selected the darker tree at the lower left as my pure black point and I selected the wave at the left, right at bottom of the frame, as my pure white point and the image accurately reflects those changes....it now had pure black and pure white points.
What I find most amusing....and perplexing....is that, according to a view such as Jiro's, the image had to be altered quite substantially from what I considered to be reality in order for the mind to give the image its blessing.
Tiddlywinks anyone? This photography stuff just got too hard for me.
Tom,
I think you have articulated the issues well. What seems to be bugging you is that there's no clear, universal answer to the question, "must an image be faithful to the remembered scene?" Some think so, others do not. So it's really up to you to decide what you want. Just to muddy the waters a little more, I don't see any reason why you need to be consistent about it either--I know I'm not, and that doesn't bother me in the least. You won't please everyone no matter what you do, so you might as well keep yourself content.
Richard couldn't have said it better. Reality always depend on how the viewer sees it. Philosophically, the mind will always be subjective. No mind, no subjectivity, ...just seeing. The moment that we clicked the shutter of the camera, reality has already been altered by the aperture, shutter speed, ISO, sensor sensitivity, lens characteristics, etc., . What we are doing in the post-processing is to "re-create" the "reality" that we saw depending on our subjective reaction to the scene or subject. Yes, Tom - in the end, all that matters is how you want to show it. Hope this helps, my friend. I apologized if I caused some confusion regarding the matter.
If I may add something (to further confuse you, Tom.
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
I couldn't agree with you more, Richard. It sure has been enlightening, though, to see the spectrum of responses to these two images....the differences of opinion, each with its own validity.
Tom