Do you make or take?

lark

I've always spent too much time in post. Mostly because I'm not that good with my camera and I rarely take a picture that is straight up what I think I saw.
So, I admire and have the greatest respect for the Harry's,Andy's ,Jim's and many, many more of those photographers who consistantly and prolificly throw up these stunning pictures almost daily.
I get frustrated cause I take lots of pictures and a fair amount are good, so I take them into post and it takes a few days to a week to get them back...so much to do.:dunno
I break them down into sections and make each one as perfect as I can so that I get great detail at larger sizes as well as smaller.
I've bought into the idea that if I can just keep taking pictures, lots and lots of pictures (and of course study) I'll be able to reach this level of quality with most of my shots and not have to spend so much time in post.
This article offers a different view of what I do (and I needed to hear it)
so I pass it on to you all in hope that someone else needs it too.



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml


"This is MY way. What is YOUR way? There is no THE way."


Thanks,
Den

gus

G'day lark...i tend not to procrastinate over a shot. I have always just looked at them in PS & if i thought it need any changes there & then then i did 'em on the spot. I always ditch my shots once they are on SM. Sort of like burning your ships....dont look back but fwd to what you can do tomorrow.

Shay Stephens

A rant not aimed at anyone in particular ;-)
Many people are under the mistaken impression that cameras are capable of spitting out perfect artistic work. One push of the button, and you have a master piece...

Ehhhhhhhh

Enter reality. The photographer is the only variable in the equation that makes the difference. As the link provided plainly shows, the camera records the raw ingredients of the photo. Of course, the preparation needs to be there. One has to compose the shot, and make sure the other technicals are ok. But in the end (and for the most part), the photo is not presentable in the raw state. It has to be cooked to be palatable (to use a culinary analogy).

In the image editor, aesthetic contrast, color, and brightness are needed to finish the photo, to make it palatable if you will. But with the mindset that a photo is only good if it was spit out of the camera and uncooked, you have a conflict. You see in the market place photos that have been lovingly cooked and prepared and presented. You look at your raw piece of junk photo and think to yourself that "man, I must totally suck as a photographer" or "If only I had a better camera".

Those sentiments are totally bogus, are totally bogus, are totally bogus. You are comparing apples to oranges with that thinking. I think a lot of people would gain a lot of confidence if they saw the raw captures of the awesome photos they wish they could take. What they would see is a low contrast, dark, crooked, piece of you know what. "Hey that looks like my work". Yes, but only in the raw state. The difference is in how it is prepared for human consumption.

Show the photos you take, some love. Show your viewers some love too.
Process those photos to have appetizing contrast, color, and brightness. That alone would do wonders to the world of photography. It would also cause the photographer to realize it's not the camera or even some esoteric photographic skill that makes the difference. It's an internal vision of what the photo should look like that makes the difference. If the photo doesn't come out of the camera looking the way you want it to, then sit down and make it look that way in post!

The end result is it is up to you, the photographer, to make your work look the way you want it to. If it doesn't, you have no one and nothing to blame but yourself.

The secrets to great photos and photography in general:

• Composition *
• Lighting *
• Exposure *
• Post processing (color, contrast, brightness) *

(*not camera dependent, but very much photographer dependent, and all inseparable)

JamesJWeg

Great rant Shay, thanks for sharing. I have recently realized that I don't do enough post, in fact I try to do none. Latly I have been rethinking this approach a little, your post/rant hepled a lot, thanks.

James.

wxwax

Shay Stephens wrote:

It's an internal vision of what the photo should look like that makes the difference.

This, I believe, is the key and is what separates the talented from the rest of us.

If we shoot enough, we'll all eventually stumble into a decent shot or two along the way. But having a vision of what the shot could look like, and being able to bring it to fruition on a consistent basis, is the mark of an accomplished phtographer.

Personally, I put at the top of my list the shooters who envision the final product before they ever push the button.

lark

When I first picked up a camera someone told me, "You are never going to seethrough the viewfinder what you see when you look at it. Your job is to know the camera and make it get as close to what you see as you can."
I bought that advise, and I was forever frustrated until digital photos came along. Then is when the world opened up to me. I can make these pictures look llike what I saw. Now, down the road a bit, I see that I am making the pictures look like what I THOUGHT I saw.
Working in post gives me great pleasure. Being able to manipulate the subtilties of the picture itself I find very creative...regardless of what turns out. Some originals are good, most suck badly, but I can (in post) really give them a chance and I find that most any picture can be "fixed" the bigger problem is which ones are worth the time.
I always have a picture in mind when I take a picture so when I roll it back on the screen of my memory I have something to work with.

I'm going to post a before and after and it will give you an idea of what takes me hours to do. It'll also give you an idea of why I look up to the above mentioned people (Shay, sorry I left you out, you were one of the one's most helpful through your example of what could be done with a camera for me over the last few years).
This entire website is just chock full of outstanding talent, and so helpful!

That's what prompted me to start this. I just realized the process I use is valid also. Comparison (and the BS that goes with it) is not necessary.

However, I really would like to get good enough with the camera to be half as prolific as these other guys!.....................it'll get there.

So, I ask again..do you make or take? I make.......

Here's the original....yuck

lark

...and after much work, most of which you can't tell. But in larger print sizes (above 11x14) you can see the light blue of the mist above the falls; you can see the falls got a "haircut" or a trim; an I swear those trees were that green!....not the B&W of the master. So, what do you think?