Photography very much seems to be becoming a hybrid of actual photography and graphic art, as the vast majority of people manipulate their images to some degree (all the way to beyond redemption) in photo editing software. I'm old fashioned. I like honest photography, accomplished mostly in the camera, with perhaps just a light touch of spiffing up in editing. HDR -- and especially caustically overdone HDR -- really turns me off. And yet it seems that a lot of "popular" "photography," including much of what appears on the PP here, is not really photography, it is graphic art, and people very much want to "take photos like that."
The fact is, you cannot take photos like that. You can MAKE photos like that.
I am interested in others' opinions and observations on this. To me, in my opinion, just my view on things, so much popular edited-beyond-reality photography is like eating Velveeta instead of real cheese, or McDonald's chicken nuggets instead of a fresh, organic, grilled chicken breast. It's overdone enough to please the masses, but is it REAL?
I feel the same way mostly about photography. HDR is my nemsis when used to create a cartoon "masterpiece." But I am a huge fan of adding textures to some of my pictures, so I might be a hypocrite! That being said, I think that photography editing has crossed the realm into graphic design/editing and doesn't reflect true photography.
interesting question and i expect you are opening something of a can of worms on this ;p
arguably very little is "SOOC"... there are all sorts of settings you can play with in your camera to change colour, increase contrast and sharpness, etc, etc, etc... so arguably - waht's the difference if you do that in camera vs. in post processing? even the grand masters of film did a lot of work in the darkroom, no?
I am not a huge fan of overdone HDR either, but i'm not sure i would agree with your comparison... sure, you can argue that processing changes the image to a point where others may not recognize it from the original, but i'm not sure this is always a bad thing... sure, there is purity in a freshly grilled organic chicken with nothing but a sprinkle of salt and a squeeze of lemon... but then, is taking that chicken and making it into a wonderfully savoury chicken cacciatore necessarily a bad thing?
and then - what is reality? what my eye sees and what your eye sees are almost certainly different things...
anyway, i could go on and on, but that would be boring and i have to go pick up my kids from baseball now... ;p
i think the main thing i want to say is that while you may be right in saying that some of those photographs are "made" not "taken", i don't think that necessarily means they aren't art, or that they the equivalent of cheese-whizz...
If you read how much work Ansel Adams did in the dark room .... it may give you some interesting insight into how much manipulation went into creating great printed photos way before photoshop existed.
Here's a quote describing Ansel Adam's work in the darkroom
"Ansel Adams specialized in black and white photography. Sometimes it would take him a whole day to print a picture to make it look exactly as he wanted it. One of his most famous prints is Moonrise.
Alfred Stieglitz offered him a one-man show in New York. It was the opportunity of a lifetime. He worked so hard that summer preparing for exhibits he worked himself to exhaustion. It took him months to recover. "
I'm funny. I won't mist to add water drops to a shot - I have to have it straight from Mother Nature. But I will boost color and clarity in Lightroom. I crop, probably too much at times. I over use my macro lens - but not really as it makes me happy and for me that is really all that matters any more. I have enough confidence in myself that the PP doesn't have the same pat on the back that it used to have as it only matters I like it. Don't get me wrong - I love it if others like it as I am now selling it and will alter it like crazy for those sites. But my love is still in the original. I just want to make money for the next new lens......so will have two shots of a subject. The one that makes my heart happy and the one to sell. Now that really opens a can of worms. Good topic, Shannon.
I like both - is the photo for you or someone else? What is the photo going to be used for? Why was it taken in the first place? Talent is not only in the taking of the photo, it is also turning that photo into something that means something or appeals to you or someone else. Maybe you TAKE the photo then MAKE it into what you want it to be.
I like all sorts of photography, in my mind it kind of works like this:
A photograph with a little tweak to enhance the original picture or a sooc shot are in my hypothetical "photography" box.
A photograph that is manipulated beyond recognition goes in my hypothetical "art" box. Neither better nor worse, just entirely different subjects in my mind!
I know photography is an art of it's own, as is being a super photo-shopper, but the finished subject falls into categories in my mind and that's how I view the finished piece :-)
@cdonohoue - Ah, the constant artist's moral dilemma ... Write/paint/shoot/sing what makes us happy, or what sells. We all know that most buyers are not artists, so ... you have the perfect solution. Take two pics. The one that makes your heart sing and the one that makes your purse sing. A perfect plan.
My aunt is a highly published writer. She is very good. Unfortunately, only two of her books make her heart sing. And, unfortunately, there is only so much time in a life ... so she doesn't have time to write "her" books. Fortunately, photographers do have time to take "our" pictures.
digital is rubbish, go back to film, then you're doing real photography. If your shooting digitally who cares what processing is done, its already not real photography.
I have done many SOOC images and also experiment to the very edges of manipulating the heck out of the same image. For me, it's all part of the creative process and experimenting with the originally captured images.
When I have sold my images, many of the more bold, in your face, manipulated images where the first to sell. It all depends on the audience - since each will have their preference.
@chewyteeth lol. Hmm, now what the word I'm after... oh, yes, "bollocks!"
Actually, it's not 'real' photography unless you're working with wet plates. This new-fangled film is killing the art. :D
Srsly?
In other news, actually, it doesn't matter. There's a lens and an imaging medium and a development process. And it depends on light.
Actually, I prefer to 'make' a photo rather than 'take' it - although I hold a different semantic difference to the one under discussion here; 'take' suggests the removal of something, whereas 'make' suggests the creation of new a thing. :shrug:
Anyhow, s'cure me I've a bunch photos from a shoot this afternoon that I have to start ETSOO ;)
its ALL "Make" when it comes down to it. Taking a photo with a digital camera? Guess what... your camera makes adjustments to the photo automatically... so the image is processed before you ever upload it to your computer. Taking a photo with a film camera? Guess what... either you're doing setups with light, reflectors, gadgets for those "magical" images etc and/or you're doing things in the developing stage that is altering the image. There is no such thing as "Take" in the photography world. The closest thing you can get to strictly "take" are snapshots in which no thought went into it at all... because if you move yourself to the left or right to get a better angle... you are MAKING the shot. If you use a shallow depth of field to blur the foreground and background, you are MAKING the shot. Photography, for me, isn't about trying to capture what everyone else sees. Photography, for me, is getting an image that reflects WHAT I SEE. Sometimes that takes no effort or post processing at all... sometimes that takes photoshop, nik color efex or silver efex, Lightroom ,etc.
But seriously, there is no "taking" a photograph. Everything you do to get a particular image is making it. Posing people, arranging a still life, where you choose to stand, what angle you choose to shoot from, the aperture you choose, using long shutter speeds... it is all a process of some type. Also, watch "Is Your Red the Same as My Red"... very important video that I think all photographers should watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08
I love these type of threads. Take it, Make it. If you are getting out and doing something besides....Well I wont go there. Art is Art. Just have fun and explore.
I won't get into the "photoshop vs SOCC" debate. To me, "taking a shot involves coming upon a perfect moment and trying to capture that moment to share with others. Making a shot involves setting up props and lights and backgrounds - all to make the viewer think he's seeing something that isn't there. Both have merit, but the "take" shot is still more fun, for me.
truth hurts? lets all do wet plate then, I'm in. at least there's some science involved with 35mm/120, no science in digital. Nothing wet. no need to meter your light, ...'chemicals...wha, what have chemicals to do with photography I just press this button here don't I?'. No need to stick to one ISO, no need to do anything, camera does it all, it even puts a sepia tint to it if you wanna feel like you're mixing the past with the present to make something not as good as either,
@aprilmilani I agree with April. Enjoy your photography in whatever way you like. Like all art, it's in the eye of the beholder. To sit in judgment of those who don't hold the same values as you do is somehow not in keeping with a community of artists. Live and let live, man! ;o)
I'd love to see someone post an example of a photograph that is "Take" and not "Make" on 365.... because I seriously don't believe there are any images on 365 that aren't made in some way. Seriously, if your pov is anything other than from standing straight up and aiming straight ahead, you've already altered the image. If you take a picture of someone and the background is blurred because of your chosen aperture, you've altered what we see because you want the focus on the person and not the background. If you've ever moved to the left or the right to get better light, you've made an alteration. For film users, your choice of film, camera, lens and how you develop the film is an alteration. Any set up prior to snapping a photo is an alteration. If you want nothing but truth in your images, you can never use a tripod or lens with image stabilization, you can never use a shallow dof, you can never angle your camera lens in any way, you can't use any filters - polarization, ND, UV or otherwise, you can't use a lens hood, you can't crop, you can't worry about what is in the background, you can't put any thought into what you take before pressing the shutter release..... the thing is, as people, we don't like distractions in our photos.... we don't want all photographs of the same subject to look identical to one another.... we don't like flaws... we want what is the most flattering in our eyes... so we make lots of choices, many subconscious, when making photographs, and yes, everyone on this thread makes photographs and there is nothing wrong with that. I love it that everyone here puts thought and passion into their photography.... its that thought and passion that MAKES it.
I love it when people bash new camera technology and digital editing and then post photos on the internet. If you are a purest then silver gelatin is the way to show your photography (of course most of that is edited as well). Who cares what other people do, your opinion is just an opinion. You like it or you don't.
I prefer basic SOOC, but I do crop and convert many of my shots to BW. I do little PS. I like to 'see" what I have shot, not created. It is an art to create with PS and I am jealous of their talents but that is no longer basic photography.
@sjoblues I agree. I do very little editing to my images. I occasionally use filters etc from my Iphone apps and some brightness/ contrast controlling the pictures are what you see.
I think there is a place for 'graphic art' but personally I like the final shot to resemble what I saw, hence I took a photo of it!
I use some post-processing, but I am not making the image something that it was not to begin with. I prefer the term "make" instead or "take." You take snapshots, but you make an image. Good composition happens before you press the shutter and that is part of making the image.
Interesting point, and I tend to agree. I worked as a retoucher with Photoshop for years in the trade, so I try and avoid it now. As you say, many techniques, saturated colours, colour popping, posterising etc are now very overdone. Those who totally rely on PS or LR are not really very good photographers if they can't achieve what they want in the camera. Yep, I take out the odd blemish, maybe crop a bit, or do a little colour tweak if I'm in the mood, and that's just about it.
Interesting comments about film, here, too. In our colour lab there were technicians who could make just as many enhancements with film processing as can be done digitally now, so that's definitely not a pure technique, either. It's down to what each individual prefers, I guess, but for me, images that have had lots of work done on them in PS or LR have lost their integrity and look artificial
You say you do 'a light touch of spiffing up in editing' - define light touch. Who gets to decide how much editing is acceptable. To me it's all about creativity. A subject is just a subject, and with today's cameras, anyone can take a great photo. It's what you do to get the shot and what you do or don't do afterwards that determines how the end result will affect people. Art moves people, so who gets to say what should move people.
I vote for doing what makes you happy - unless you're being paid, then you might have to cave.
I'm entranced by the idea of not just capturing what is already there, but rather envisioning what can be. It's not always "covering up" poor technique, but often pushing boundaries of the art form. Art has always and will always embrace change.
Black and White? Is that "take" or "make?" Unless you are colorblind, you probably "see" in color.
What about "White Balance?" Is selecting the White Balance based upon the light source "making?" What about multiple light sources? Which White Balance will you use? You are "making" some decisions, distinct from what your eye might see in any case.
What about "blurred backgrounds" a.k.a. bokeh? Is that "making?"
What about taking shots with a longer or shorter focal length than 50mm (35 on an APS-C camera, and who knows what on the small P&S sensors)? Aren't you "making" that image right then and there, since the eye's "real" field of vision is about that of a "standard" lens.
What about removing the digital noise? Definitely "editing" and "making" I think, but isn't that returning the image to something more like what you "see" or think you see? You don't see in digital noise... And after you do some noise mitigation, what about extra sharpening, since the noise mitiagation actually "blurred" and flattened the image in a way that you certainly don't "see" either. Or do you simply leave the ugly digital noise and claim SOOC, even though it is very ugly, and you certainly don't "see" like this.
And how are you going to "take" an image that you see fine, but is beyond the dynamic range of a camera, even the best? The human eye does "see" with a dynamic range about 3 stops wider than even the best digital sensor. Do you just give up or live with an image that has blown highlights and blown shadows, or do you start to "make" a tonal mapping "close" to what you see? Enter HDR.
Do you "shoot" in RAW? Well, don't you "make" the image you actually will show/present?
Do you shoot in JPEG? Well, hasn't the camera "made" the jpeg image with all the lossy compromises it must take?
Doesn't the camera actually "make" the data that makes the image anyway? Photons hit each pixel on the sensor creating small analog voltage differences across the tiny capacitors which are then amplified (usually adding "noise" by the way) and passed to an analog-digital converter to "sample" the signal. Etc. ,etc...
Doesn't the camera acutally "make" the color as well? The light passes through a a red or green or blue filter above each pixel, and then the software, by examining all the neighboring pixels, infers the color at that pixel? Each pixel doesn't "see" in color at all. Color is made in a digital camera, and the algorithms it uses are closely guarded trade secrets of the camera manufacturer.
And I could go on and on, but I won't. SOOC might indeed be preferred by some (not me) but don't think it hasn't been significantly processed and "made" by the hardware, firmware and software in the camera. As Jeff Walker said before me, @jsw0109, nothing at all is simply "taken," everything is "made" in some manner or other.
For me it's about making a shot look its best, but not altering it too much so that it doesn't look anything like the original. I’m definitely one for making a shot as I usually start with an idea on how I’m going to process it before I shoot. I love the whole creative process and playing around in PS but I do try to keep my edits to a minimum, I can honestly say I've probably only posted 4 SOOC's in my project. In the end, I think the most important thing for me is editing or no editing, I actually like what I've created and I'm being true to my own taste.
Shooting in jpeg = what ever your camera decides to make the image into, like a robot/machine, so that in itself is manipulation of any give image.
My view is if you like the image that you are faced with then you like it, no matter how it has been taken or manipulated, the same as paint applied by a brush or hand by an artist, or a simple piece of fabric manipulated into something that you would or wouldn't wear, and so on. YOU either like it or you don't, its all personal opinion, an opinion which is the beauty of photography and other visual arts, there will be some you like and some that you don't, think about it, isn't it great that we can actually choose based on our own personal opinion?!?
I am happy for everyone to have a different personal sweet-spot on the continuum of technology/editing/'making' images/photographs/compositions. I don't have to agree with how something has been made/taken, and I can choose if I like the resulting image independently of any amount of expert in-camera/SOOC/PS skills.
IMHO it is the 365 image that is to be considered and discussed for it's resulting artisitc merit, not being judgemental on how it was achieved. (Images used in the news, magazines or in marketing for example, are a separate issue.)
I'm getting hungry from reading this very interesting piece of crap-I think I have to go now to McDees and order some chicken nuggets - TAKE out---with a super large greasy fries.!.!!
My point is--Why don't we just enjoy and appreciate our gifts---we are so blessed with talents, and CA$H to buy all this expensive stuff in compare to others -who are feelin' desperate right now- let's have some fun, shoot yourself to death(either in point & shoot cameras, DSLR, Film,Digital,PS or SOOC)----Who duh' frack cares?!!!
Here we go again SOOC snobbery *eye roll*
Shall we bow down to those perfect photographers who do not edt...sheesh
That kind of arrogance just makes me shake my head!
@ltodd very well stated. it would be great if everyone stopped worrying about how an image came to be and just looked at the image and decided if it was pleasing to them in some way instead. If a person spends a few hours setting things up so that he/she can take ONE shot and get it right or if they would rather spend a few hours in post processing to get a particular look right...... both people went through a lot of trouble for that ONE image - and I don't care where they spent the time - before or after the releasing of the shutter... I just care whether or not I connect to it in some way.
For me it's about what I want to evoke with my photograph. Since I'm not shooting for a newspaper I'm free to be creative. I'm a friend of LR but try not to go overboard.
@sjoblues I think as soon as you said "honest photography," you lost me. I'm starting my 6th month of discovering my camera(s)--one being a Canon Rebel and the other being my smart phone. Before this project, I let the Canon sit like china on a shelf, and I pulled it out on "special occasions" or "when I was willing to lug it around." Big sigh.
Now, I can't imagine not carrying my Canon around. Am I doing honest photography? UM, WELL YEAH. I am learning about how I might approach a subject. I'm participating in fun challenges by the wonderful folks on here to learn about camera settings--oh, thank god someone taught me to learn about AI Servo, and one time, someone challenged all of us to One Night Stands, and in ONE WEEK's TIME, I freaking went nuts doing wildlife shots, motion blur, night photography, arty photography--and lord only knows what else. I even stated I was going to try to do it sooc and in manual mode. I LOVED challenging myself, but not because I was going to do honest photography--only because I want to learn all about my camera and what it can do. I also loved doing what others were doing and learning HOW they did it--including processing. All part of the deal for me.
I don't really care if someone thinks the photos I take are PP worthy or not...the first time I made the PP, someone like you started a thread about the validity of the PP and how most of the photos are really bad anyway...yeah, that was a bit of a buzz kill since I was just thrilled anyone was looking! But whatever.
I'm going to keep learning about my camera--honestly, that's what I'm going to keep doing.
its not a question of one or the other editing some photos makes them garish , gaudy and kitch while not editing others makes them seem insipid , wishy washy and lifeless. as has been said many time in many of the near clonelike discussions on here there is really no such thing as SOOC as if an image is not altered in camera it is altered in the developing , every step you make to create an image is manipulated by choices,(in the case of film type of papers, choice of chemicals, amount of exposure e.t.c.) those that say this is not so have never spent much time either in a darkroom or a lightroom. I want my shots to be the best that I can make them, sometimes that means cranking up the manipulation sometimes it means leaving the hell alone, the art comes in knowing which shots to do what with and what is needed to enhance the image
What is photography then? Is it merely taking a photo of a particular subject and having it printed (or posted) straight out of the camera with all the right combination of subject mastery, composition, color and centering? That may be true in the last century, but NOT IN THIS ONE. That kind of photography itself birthed the cacophony of software that are made in order to improve the way we see photography now.
Is photographic talent being traded away then if someone processes an image through Photoshop or whatnot? I just don't think so. It is elevating the art into something more. Something that is comparatively better. Talent IS NOT LOST in the process. It is improved. All is said about losing the art because someone "played" with the art. But I think that a true artist must possess both the talents of a photographer and the skills of a post-processor.
I believe that photography now is creativity. It is TAKING the ordinary and MAKING it extraordinary. It is not losing the elements, it is fusing those with a creative vision.
You make it appear like people who made it to PP are a bunch of idiots who don't know nothing about the elemental requirements of photography. I say, you are wrong. We got our photos on PP because we got a vision. We took a photo and we made it a LOT LOT better. If it made it to PP, then we, I say we, must be doing something right. Don't you think so?
Eugh.... am I the only one that is slightly tired of seeing this conversation come up on every photography website they are on? No offense to the OP but yeah, this is like the abortion or religion discussion of the photography world.
Photoshop vs SOOC
Film vs Digital
In the end it's up to us to make what we want of our photography. Like any other art in the world, it is evolving and in my opinion people who stubbornly turn their noses up at people who use photoshop are like people who refuse to use mobile phones because they feel like a phone call is not really made unless you turn the rotary dial... or those who 'shame' people who use ereaders because they clearly don't have a real appreciation for books.
I like a phone that can fit in my pocket (Ok not really, I have a Samsung Galaxy Note, so let's say purse instead)...and I love being able to carry 150 books in my purse too. If I want to take 2000 photos so I can pick one I really like and not spend my grocery budget on film or cut myself out of a boring shot in my livingroom and paste me onto the back of an African lion, I'm darn well going to do that too.
Again, I don't mean to insult or offend the original poster... this is an interesting debate but it's also a very very very dead horse. We're kicking bones here, people.
My only issue with any of this is when people lie about it. If you photoshop, don't deny it... otherwise take what you want to take, make what you want to make and let others do the same. Nobody is Clockwork Orange-ing you into looking at anything.
Seems to me that you would not be able to tell whether this pic or that pic had been manipulated or not. As somebody relatively new to photography, and especially to digital, don't spoil this for me. Who cares! I love being able to take the same shot in a bracket 10 or more times, changing different settings, and then being able to see ,in EXIF, the best shot .The best shot is still my opinion, it may not be somebody else's "best shot" but so what! Just the fact that I have taken 10 shots means that I have manipulated the outcome and given myself 10 choices! I don't care what anybody says digital is fantastic!!! but if you like film or post production / Lightroom whatever, that's good too.
Presenting a rather dull shot with a smug "i did nothing to enhance it" tag means you turned up your nose at the wide variety of technology which could have enhanced it. "It's SOOC" - "Well, yes, i can tell!"
These days we have choice and a wonderful heady democracy which has levelled the playing field and for this i am truly grateful. If you are confident in your SOOC shot then fine but if you want a little help or to have a lot of fun then go ahead - it's all art & too late to shut that gate anyway as frankly, the horse has bolted :o)
We should start a thread where we pair people up. The "SOOC" person shares their SOOC photo and gives the Non-SOOC person the original file to edit... then let the masses vote on which they prefer :P
@breigh ha ha - the soocs will have their fingers hovering with lust over the editing buttons "just a tiny bit of contrast, and a little crop, noone will know!"
It is the final image that is important, not how it was produced.
The author has the final say in how they wish to portray their work - and as the viewer, you have the option to like, dislike, appreciate, accept or reject the work as it is presented, and the effort that has gone into producing that image.
If you do not like processed images, move on - no problem, and find something you do like. Each to their own.
When photos get too far away from a real photo it bothers me. I love a natural looking photo way better then crazy enhanced, fake sunset, fake light, etc. There is a lady that is in my local area and she replaces skies a lot in her photos. They are beautiful and they look amazing but at that point it isn't photography any more its great computer skills.
@chewyteeth No 'science"? Hmm... reckon there's the same, if not more, in a digital image - the same physics and more mathematics, anyhow, although less photochemistry, perhaps. But darkroom chemistry is more akin to following baking than actual science...
so your argument is film photography is like baking, digital like physics, maths and science? So that makes me a much less intelligent photographer I guess. A home-photographer, un-technical and amateur. Sure doesn't feel like that when I'm using a light meter to get a proper exposure, working out distances and flash strengths when shooting in low light, compensating my exposure and working with a fixed ISO all the time - and that next to friends who just keep pressing the button on their digital till it works itself out, 500 chances to get something decent. But fair enough, I'm the dummy.
I actually like to think of it as an image that I'm trying to achieve. I try to get as much right at the point of capture as possible because if i need to edit afterwards, It makes it that much simpler. Also, why waste 15 minutes in photoshop when a 10 second check will save you that time?
I dont particularly have a problem wiht photoshop and love seeing some dark photoshop work - its all depending on just what i want to achieve. I'm certainly not going to quibble about using the heal took to take out blemishes, or fly aways if it makes the image look neater.
I think this starts to then touch on another topic that was raised a while ago.. lets say you want to shoot a picture of food. The plate looks wrong so you change that, then decide that you need to put it in a different place. Then maybe you want to cut the food, and you know what, the light here isnt too fab, so lets add some fill but then its too strong here so we'll put a flag here. You shoot it and its just kind of flat and dull you so pump up the contrast and exposure a bit. Wait, there's a burnt bit over here and someone's finger print on the plate... To me once you consciously make a decision on THIS is how I want it.. you're just "making". Whether you do it physically or in a post (digital or otherwise), its all part of the same process and its more the VISION thats the key thing
Wow, some of the vitriol was unexpected and really, uncalled for.
We are all free to do whatever we want with the images we create, of course, but calling some of it "photography" instead of art doesn't wash. For me. I have seen more than one photography contest or competition that specifically disqualifies heavily manipulated images and have served as a judge on a couple myself. I have seen photos disqualified for OBVIOUS manipulation (the world does not exist in selective color, for example) and have seen the "photographer" pitch a fit and say the rules shouldn't apply to him/her because the image is fantastic, etc.
Rules are rules.
I have had neophyte photographers show my highly manipulated images and ask what camera they should buy to be able to take images like that, and see them discouraged when told NO camera takes images like that, that was done on a computer.
People will continue to be wowed by fantasy images, that's a fact. The mindset of "If it's popular, it must be good" is a false one, however.
@chewyteeth Erm, no. The point there was that the 'chemistry' involved in darkroom work, is analogous to baking - just following recipes - albeit with more toxic ingredients (I'm assuming a little here, of course; it's possible that you do sit down and work out the electron transfer mechanisms of some as yet unexplored chemical on a silver nitrate emulsion and hypothesise what effect that will have on a developed print... but I'm willing to bet not). And that there is as much actually science involved in digital as with film. My inner physicist is suggesting that there's probably more, and my outer software engineer is pretty damn sure about the maths thing. :)
The other techniques you mention are valid for either medium, so I'm not really sure where you're going with that.
As it goes, I think that it's just a touch disingenuous espousing the view that it's not 'real' photography unless it's film on an Internet photography forum. I guess you don't de-noise or colour correct anything you scan before you post it here either, eh?
Also, I do find the 'it's not real photography unless...' view to be just a tiney-tiny bit elitist. One of the wonders of digital is that it significantly lowers the barriers to entry for the artform. Film is expensive. Development equipment is expensive.
Digital allows one to learn the hows and whys without that expense; it's a great leveller. Once upon a time, you had to have some fairly chunky resources behind you to even consider taking it up as a hobby. I certainly couldn't have found the cash.. not being a Lord, n'all, like that Lichfield or Snowdon, etc, etc..
:shrug: Anyhow, who cares - as long as it's fun - do whatever you like to get the images the way you want 'em. That said, I'm not a fan of overly done PS retouching, or of composite images (though HDR has it's uses, natch)
@toast Heh :D @jsw0109 @frankhymus, reckon that's pretty much one the money.
Well I see totally the opposite, that digital is elitist, you can get a film camera and ten rolls of film on ebay for less than £25 and can be shooting straight away. Sure over time the ten rolls runs out. But the average DSLR costs £500 and lasts three years before its obsolete or worn out if I take £50 out for a decent SLR that leaves me £450 for film over three years thats 150 rolls a year, three a week give or take (I get film for £1 or less) sure I'm not counting developing. But the digital, you get a £500 DSLR thinking you'#re the dogs balls then you get on digital rev and they're like you're nobody unless you have this L lens, and this L lens, and if you shoot with Sigma lenses you're a dick, etc. etc. So you're constantly chasing the next best thing. My main camera is a Minolta XD with a 50mm f1,4 lens its from 1979 and turns 34 this year, the same as me (we have a joint party) its immaculate and may have taken hundreds of thousands of photographs. Its very similar to my dad's old camera, and his dad's. When I was a kid my dad took us walking on the hills and he'd stop the family so he could turn dials and mess with his focus ring for ten minutes before he took a shot of us all sitting on a wall, I can do the same now. Its the same concept with a few tweeks as the view camera guys employed in the 19th century. My Cointax 137 was designed by Porsche and it has Carl Zeiss lenses I could only dream of affording if I wanted them mounted on my Canon. I can get for less than £100 top quality gear. Digital has much more maths and physics and settings, but it allows total automation also and I wouldn't like to know the percentage of users who opt for just getting shit in frame. Film taught me how to take pictures, and standing in the dark with that whiff of urine (coming from the fixer bath not me) hoping to see images, makes the process complete. If you've done it and the sterile computerised nature of digital, clean and instant does it for you better then that's the right answer. Its different for everyone. But for me digital doesn't come close and I shoot with both all the time. If everyone tried it and said digital is better I'd be happy, but loadsa people are like, man film is so expensive thank God it's obsolete, and they don't know man, they just don't know.
As for the other stuff, I'm just winding you up dude. I shoot digital too.
and I don't post here, I just come back to argue with the Bill O'Reilly crowd now and again.
I haven't read all the above! (I just couldn't force myself to go through it all!) But I'm with you in the "take it" camp, Shannon. I understand that whatever pov you choose is, in some way, "making it", put I also know that's not what you meant :) Keep taking it, girl! And enjoy!
@sjoblues Don't let it get you down! Unfortunately you opened one of those horrible cans o' worms! I've often wondered the same, but never had the gumption to ask in a thread! :)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
arguably very little is "SOOC"... there are all sorts of settings you can play with in your camera to change colour, increase contrast and sharpness, etc, etc, etc... so arguably - waht's the difference if you do that in camera vs. in post processing? even the grand masters of film did a lot of work in the darkroom, no?
I am not a huge fan of overdone HDR either, but i'm not sure i would agree with your comparison... sure, you can argue that processing changes the image to a point where others may not recognize it from the original, but i'm not sure this is always a bad thing... sure, there is purity in a freshly grilled organic chicken with nothing but a sprinkle of salt and a squeeze of lemon... but then, is taking that chicken and making it into a wonderfully savoury chicken cacciatore necessarily a bad thing?
and then - what is reality? what my eye sees and what your eye sees are almost certainly different things...
anyway, i could go on and on, but that would be boring and i have to go pick up my kids from baseball now... ;p
i think the main thing i want to say is that while you may be right in saying that some of those photographs are "made" not "taken", i don't think that necessarily means they aren't art, or that they the equivalent of cheese-whizz...
"Ansel Adams specialized in black and white photography. Sometimes it would take him a whole day to print a picture to make it look exactly as he wanted it. One of his most famous prints is Moonrise.
Alfred Stieglitz offered him a one-man show in New York. It was the opportunity of a lifetime. He worked so hard that summer preparing for exhibits he worked himself to exhaustion. It took him months to recover. "
A photograph with a little tweak to enhance the original picture or a sooc shot are in my hypothetical "photography" box.
A photograph that is manipulated beyond recognition goes in my hypothetical "art" box. Neither better nor worse, just entirely different subjects in my mind!
I know photography is an art of it's own, as is being a super photo-shopper, but the finished subject falls into categories in my mind and that's how I view the finished piece :-)
My aunt is a highly published writer. She is very good. Unfortunately, only two of her books make her heart sing. And, unfortunately, there is only so much time in a life ... so she doesn't have time to write "her" books. Fortunately, photographers do have time to take "our" pictures.
When I have sold my images, many of the more bold, in your face, manipulated images where the first to sell. It all depends on the audience - since each will have their preference.
Hey! Someone was just asking about you on here yesterday. Glad to see you've popped back in!
Actually, it's not 'real' photography unless you're working with wet plates. This new-fangled film is killing the art. :D
Srsly?
In other news, actually, it doesn't matter. There's a lens and an imaging medium and a development process. And it depends on light.
Actually, I prefer to 'make' a photo rather than 'take' it - although I hold a different semantic difference to the one under discussion here; 'take' suggests the removal of something, whereas 'make' suggests the creation of new a thing. :shrug:
Anyhow, s'cure me I've a bunch photos from a shoot this afternoon that I have to start ETSOO ;)
But seriously, there is no "taking" a photograph. Everything you do to get a particular image is making it. Posing people, arranging a still life, where you choose to stand, what angle you choose to shoot from, the aperture you choose, using long shutter speeds... it is all a process of some type. Also, watch "Is Your Red the Same as My Red"... very important video that I think all photographers should watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08
truth hurts? lets all do wet plate then, I'm in. at least there's some science involved with 35mm/120, no science in digital. Nothing wet. no need to meter your light, ...'chemicals...wha, what have chemicals to do with photography I just press this button here don't I?'. No need to stick to one ISO, no need to do anything, camera does it all, it even puts a sepia tint to it if you wanna feel like you're mixing the past with the present to make something not as good as either,
@chewyteeth
I think there is a place for 'graphic art' but personally I like the final shot to resemble what I saw, hence I took a photo of it!
Interesting comments about film, here, too. In our colour lab there were technicians who could make just as many enhancements with film processing as can be done digitally now, so that's definitely not a pure technique, either. It's down to what each individual prefers, I guess, but for me, images that have had lots of work done on them in PS or LR have lost their integrity and look artificial
I vote for doing what makes you happy - unless you're being paid, then you might have to cave.
Warning, don't look at my photos, you won't like what you see.
Black and White? Is that "take" or "make?" Unless you are colorblind, you probably "see" in color.
What about "White Balance?" Is selecting the White Balance based upon the light source "making?" What about multiple light sources? Which White Balance will you use? You are "making" some decisions, distinct from what your eye might see in any case.
What about "blurred backgrounds" a.k.a. bokeh? Is that "making?"
What about taking shots with a longer or shorter focal length than 50mm (35 on an APS-C camera, and who knows what on the small P&S sensors)? Aren't you "making" that image right then and there, since the eye's "real" field of vision is about that of a "standard" lens.
What about removing the digital noise? Definitely "editing" and "making" I think, but isn't that returning the image to something more like what you "see" or think you see? You don't see in digital noise... And after you do some noise mitigation, what about extra sharpening, since the noise mitiagation actually "blurred" and flattened the image in a way that you certainly don't "see" either. Or do you simply leave the ugly digital noise and claim SOOC, even though it is very ugly, and you certainly don't "see" like this.
And how are you going to "take" an image that you see fine, but is beyond the dynamic range of a camera, even the best? The human eye does "see" with a dynamic range about 3 stops wider than even the best digital sensor. Do you just give up or live with an image that has blown highlights and blown shadows, or do you start to "make" a tonal mapping "close" to what you see? Enter HDR.
Do you "shoot" in RAW? Well, don't you "make" the image you actually will show/present?
Do you shoot in JPEG? Well, hasn't the camera "made" the jpeg image with all the lossy compromises it must take?
Doesn't the camera actually "make" the data that makes the image anyway? Photons hit each pixel on the sensor creating small analog voltage differences across the tiny capacitors which are then amplified (usually adding "noise" by the way) and passed to an analog-digital converter to "sample" the signal. Etc. ,etc...
Doesn't the camera acutally "make" the color as well? The light passes through a a red or green or blue filter above each pixel, and then the software, by examining all the neighboring pixels, infers the color at that pixel? Each pixel doesn't "see" in color at all. Color is made in a digital camera, and the algorithms it uses are closely guarded trade secrets of the camera manufacturer.
And I could go on and on, but I won't. SOOC might indeed be preferred by some (not me) but don't think it hasn't been significantly processed and "made" by the hardware, firmware and software in the camera. As Jeff Walker said before me, @jsw0109, nothing at all is simply "taken," everything is "made" in some manner or other.
Ditto. Visual art comes in many, many, many different forms.
I'll bet similar discussions were had after the introduction of the electric guitar :D
My view is if you like the image that you are faced with then you like it, no matter how it has been taken or manipulated, the same as paint applied by a brush or hand by an artist, or a simple piece of fabric manipulated into something that you would or wouldn't wear, and so on. YOU either like it or you don't, its all personal opinion, an opinion which is the beauty of photography and other visual arts, there will be some you like and some that you don't, think about it, isn't it great that we can actually choose based on our own personal opinion?!?
your gay.
I even spelled you're wrong like a proper troll
http://365project.org/discuss/tips-n-tricks/8442/sooc-b-tches
I am happy for everyone to have a different personal sweet-spot on the continuum of technology/editing/'making' images/photographs/compositions. I don't have to agree with how something has been made/taken, and I can choose if I like the resulting image independently of any amount of expert in-camera/SOOC/PS skills.
IMHO it is the 365 image that is to be considered and discussed for it's resulting artisitc merit, not being judgemental on how it was achieved. (Images used in the news, magazines or in marketing for example, are a separate issue.)
My point is--Why don't we just enjoy and appreciate our gifts---we are so blessed with talents, and CA$H to buy all this expensive stuff in compare to others -who are feelin' desperate right now- let's have some fun, shoot yourself to death(either in point & shoot cameras, DSLR, Film,Digital,PS or SOOC)----Who duh' frack cares?!!!
Shall we bow down to those perfect photographers who do not edt...sheesh
That kind of arrogance just makes me shake my head!
Now, I can't imagine not carrying my Canon around. Am I doing honest photography? UM, WELL YEAH. I am learning about how I might approach a subject. I'm participating in fun challenges by the wonderful folks on here to learn about camera settings--oh, thank god someone taught me to learn about AI Servo, and one time, someone challenged all of us to One Night Stands, and in ONE WEEK's TIME, I freaking went nuts doing wildlife shots, motion blur, night photography, arty photography--and lord only knows what else. I even stated I was going to try to do it sooc and in manual mode. I LOVED challenging myself, but not because I was going to do honest photography--only because I want to learn all about my camera and what it can do. I also loved doing what others were doing and learning HOW they did it--including processing. All part of the deal for me.
I don't really care if someone thinks the photos I take are PP worthy or not...the first time I made the PP, someone like you started a thread about the validity of the PP and how most of the photos are really bad anyway...yeah, that was a bit of a buzz kill since I was just thrilled anyone was looking! But whatever.
I'm going to keep learning about my camera--honestly, that's what I'm going to keep doing.
What is photography then? Is it merely taking a photo of a particular subject and having it printed (or posted) straight out of the camera with all the right combination of subject mastery, composition, color and centering? That may be true in the last century, but NOT IN THIS ONE. That kind of photography itself birthed the cacophony of software that are made in order to improve the way we see photography now.
Is photographic talent being traded away then if someone processes an image through Photoshop or whatnot? I just don't think so. It is elevating the art into something more. Something that is comparatively better. Talent IS NOT LOST in the process. It is improved. All is said about losing the art because someone "played" with the art. But I think that a true artist must possess both the talents of a photographer and the skills of a post-processor.
I believe that photography now is creativity. It is TAKING the ordinary and MAKING it extraordinary. It is not losing the elements, it is fusing those with a creative vision.
You make it appear like people who made it to PP are a bunch of idiots who don't know nothing about the elemental requirements of photography. I say, you are wrong. We got our photos on PP because we got a vision. We took a photo and we made it a LOT LOT better. If it made it to PP, then we, I say we, must be doing something right. Don't you think so?
Photoshop vs SOOC
Film vs Digital
In the end it's up to us to make what we want of our photography. Like any other art in the world, it is evolving and in my opinion people who stubbornly turn their noses up at people who use photoshop are like people who refuse to use mobile phones because they feel like a phone call is not really made unless you turn the rotary dial... or those who 'shame' people who use ereaders because they clearly don't have a real appreciation for books.
I like a phone that can fit in my pocket (Ok not really, I have a Samsung Galaxy Note, so let's say purse instead)...and I love being able to carry 150 books in my purse too. If I want to take 2000 photos so I can pick one I really like and not spend my grocery budget on film or cut myself out of a boring shot in my livingroom and paste me onto the back of an African lion, I'm darn well going to do that too.
Again, I don't mean to insult or offend the original poster... this is an interesting debate but it's also a very very very dead horse. We're kicking bones here, people.
My only issue with any of this is when people lie about it. If you photoshop, don't deny it... otherwise take what you want to take, make what you want to make and let others do the same. Nobody is Clockwork Orange-ing you into looking at anything.
These days we have choice and a wonderful heady democracy which has levelled the playing field and for this i am truly grateful. If you are confident in your SOOC shot then fine but if you want a little help or to have a lot of fun then go ahead - it's all art & too late to shut that gate anyway as frankly, the horse has bolted :o)
The author has the final say in how they wish to portray their work - and as the viewer, you have the option to like, dislike, appreciate, accept or reject the work as it is presented, and the effort that has gone into producing that image.
If you do not like processed images, move on - no problem, and find something you do like. Each to their own.
Oh
Hold on
You're just trolling.
lol :)
so your argument is film photography is like baking, digital like physics, maths and science? So that makes me a much less intelligent photographer I guess. A home-photographer, un-technical and amateur. Sure doesn't feel like that when I'm using a light meter to get a proper exposure, working out distances and flash strengths when shooting in low light, compensating my exposure and working with a fixed ISO all the time - and that next to friends who just keep pressing the button on their digital till it works itself out, 500 chances to get something decent. But fair enough, I'm the dummy.
I dont particularly have a problem wiht photoshop and love seeing some dark photoshop work - its all depending on just what i want to achieve. I'm certainly not going to quibble about using the heal took to take out blemishes, or fly aways if it makes the image look neater.
I think this starts to then touch on another topic that was raised a while ago.. lets say you want to shoot a picture of food. The plate looks wrong so you change that, then decide that you need to put it in a different place. Then maybe you want to cut the food, and you know what, the light here isnt too fab, so lets add some fill but then its too strong here so we'll put a flag here. You shoot it and its just kind of flat and dull you so pump up the contrast and exposure a bit. Wait, there's a burnt bit over here and someone's finger print on the plate... To me once you consciously make a decision on THIS is how I want it.. you're just "making". Whether you do it physically or in a post (digital or otherwise), its all part of the same process and its more the VISION thats the key thing
We are all free to do whatever we want with the images we create, of course, but calling some of it "photography" instead of art doesn't wash. For me. I have seen more than one photography contest or competition that specifically disqualifies heavily manipulated images and have served as a judge on a couple myself. I have seen photos disqualified for OBVIOUS manipulation (the world does not exist in selective color, for example) and have seen the "photographer" pitch a fit and say the rules shouldn't apply to him/her because the image is fantastic, etc.
Rules are rules.
I have had neophyte photographers show my highly manipulated images and ask what camera they should buy to be able to take images like that, and see them discouraged when told NO camera takes images like that, that was done on a computer.
People will continue to be wowed by fantasy images, that's a fact. The mindset of "If it's popular, it must be good" is a false one, however.
I'm just annoying people, you're the digital exception man I don't know a quarter of what you know.
The other techniques you mention are valid for either medium, so I'm not really sure where you're going with that.
As it goes, I think that it's just a touch disingenuous espousing the view that it's not 'real' photography unless it's film on an Internet photography forum. I guess you don't de-noise or colour correct anything you scan before you post it here either, eh?
Also, I do find the 'it's not real photography unless...' view to be just a tiney-tiny bit elitist. One of the wonders of digital is that it significantly lowers the barriers to entry for the artform. Film is expensive. Development equipment is expensive.
Digital allows one to learn the hows and whys without that expense; it's a great leveller. Once upon a time, you had to have some fairly chunky resources behind you to even consider taking it up as a hobby. I certainly couldn't have found the cash.. not being a Lord, n'all, like that Lichfield or Snowdon, etc, etc..
:shrug: Anyhow, who cares - as long as it's fun - do whatever you like to get the images the way you want 'em. That said, I'm not a fan of overly done PS retouching, or of composite images (though HDR has it's uses, natch)
@toast Heh :D
@jsw0109 @frankhymus, reckon that's pretty much one the money.
Well I see totally the opposite, that digital is elitist, you can get a film camera and ten rolls of film on ebay for less than £25 and can be shooting straight away. Sure over time the ten rolls runs out. But the average DSLR costs £500 and lasts three years before its obsolete or worn out if I take £50 out for a decent SLR that leaves me £450 for film over three years thats 150 rolls a year, three a week give or take (I get film for £1 or less) sure I'm not counting developing. But the digital, you get a £500 DSLR thinking you'#re the dogs balls then you get on digital rev and they're like you're nobody unless you have this L lens, and this L lens, and if you shoot with Sigma lenses you're a dick, etc. etc. So you're constantly chasing the next best thing. My main camera is a Minolta XD with a 50mm f1,4 lens its from 1979 and turns 34 this year, the same as me (we have a joint party) its immaculate and may have taken hundreds of thousands of photographs. Its very similar to my dad's old camera, and his dad's. When I was a kid my dad took us walking on the hills and he'd stop the family so he could turn dials and mess with his focus ring for ten minutes before he took a shot of us all sitting on a wall, I can do the same now. Its the same concept with a few tweeks as the view camera guys employed in the 19th century. My Cointax 137 was designed by Porsche and it has Carl Zeiss lenses I could only dream of affording if I wanted them mounted on my Canon. I can get for less than £100 top quality gear. Digital has much more maths and physics and settings, but it allows total automation also and I wouldn't like to know the percentage of users who opt for just getting shit in frame. Film taught me how to take pictures, and standing in the dark with that whiff of urine (coming from the fixer bath not me) hoping to see images, makes the process complete. If you've done it and the sterile computerised nature of digital, clean and instant does it for you better then that's the right answer. Its different for everyone. But for me digital doesn't come close and I shoot with both all the time. If everyone tried it and said digital is better I'd be happy, but loadsa people are like, man film is so expensive thank God it's obsolete, and they don't know man, they just don't know.
As for the other stuff, I'm just winding you up dude. I shoot digital too.
and I don't post here, I just come back to argue with the Bill O'Reilly crowd now and again.
And, yeah, I suspected as much, but I'm a sucker for a decent argument, especially on a Monday ;)
Argument-Monday
can we make it an official weekly thread?
the Bill O'Reilly crowd won't like it though, they're all pretty flowers, cute teddy bears and homophobia.
I'll have a ponder for a good fight subject for next week ;)