azzo Posted November 26, 2012 Share #21 Posted November 26, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... Who is more important the photographer/camera partnership or the PS artist? I think if the split was maybe 70/30 then it is probably 30/70 now. IMO, it should be the photograph itself in the first place, thus the photographer. Having captured a standard/normal photo can only be enhanced up to an extent. But, having captured an excellent photo initially with potential for further enhancement, by carefully adding your artistic touch, will take it to the ultimate level ready for presentation. I do not agree with your 70/30 or your 30/70. A 95/05 is more like it. At least, that is the way I see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Hi azzo, Take a look here Hand on heart... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted November 27, 2012 Share #22 Posted November 27, 2012 I am sure you are right but I would be surprised to discover that Bresson or Capa spent more time in the darkroom then in the field.Leica gave them the opportunity to show their talents, expertise and imagination. And they knew that Leica would have given them the best results in their hands. This is a fictitious view of photography. I urge you to read some history, I urge you to look at some photographs. It is the sort of internet naivety on the same level where people believe Cartier Bresson only used a 50mm lens. Below is a link to an image by Don McCullin of a shell shocked Marine in Vietnam. The yellow post-it notes are made by the photographer as directions for the printer. Even hardened war reporters care about how their image should be made to look as good as possible.... We Made This Ltd although you will no doubt make the excuse that McCullin used a Nikon, so needed all the help he could get Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntoninoRusso Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share #23 Posted November 28, 2012 Below is a link to an image by Don McCullin of a shell shocked Marine in Vietnam. The yellow post-it notes are made by the photographer as directions for the printer. Even hardened war reporters care about how their image should be made to look as good as possible....Steve Hi Steve. Thank you very much for this link which I have found very interesting. What can I say, I guess i am an old romantic and reality is in fact quite different. It is just that when I see postings (including mine) when we proudly indicate the camera and lens used ,then I ask myself am I really seeing an MM + nocti result? Reality is “No”. Just like mine they all have had LR or PS corrections. And only the photographer will know how much. Antonino Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unkei Posted January 6, 2013 Share #24 Posted January 6, 2013 Ansel Adams was surely one of the most famous and iconic photographers ever. But he processed all of his images in the darkroom, dodging, burning, and applying filters, before printing his images. My wife of 30 years and I tend to argue about this anytime it comes up. I hold that using Photoshop to process images is no different than what he did, it's only making use of a more modern, less toxic tool. (And yes, I've worked in a Real Darkroom too) I do think that putting the Pyramids next to the Eiffel Tower just because we can is cheating, at least if we try to present that image as genuine. Unkei Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted January 8, 2013 Share #25 Posted January 8, 2013 I would redirect the pride to the results of my own successful efforts, while holding respect and appreciation for the designers, engineers, and craftsmen who produced the equipment and materials used, for which they may be justly proud. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Old Dog Posted February 12, 2013 Share #26 Posted February 12, 2013 I don't give the camera any say in when my art is finished. I reserve all those decisions for myself. Kind of like saying Michael Angelo had to use only the colors that came out of the tube (bowl) and couldn't mix any different colors together !! Or, as for cropping, that his art work was determined only by the size of the canvas that his understudy handed him. I crop every image I shoot. Rarely do I make an image that is perfect out of the camera and so I try to do as well as I can but never really achieve perfection. Don't handcuff yourself in your art, it serves no purpose as far as the result that hangs on the wall is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 12, 2013 Share #27 Posted February 12, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ansel Adams was surely one of the most famous and iconic photographers ever. But he processed all of his images in the darkroom, dodging, burning, and applying filters, before printing his images. Not only that, but he reinterpreted and re-processed many of his prints over time, as this discussion covering over 30 years of his famous Moonrise photo illustrates. He was a smart marketer, too, as the public liked his later, more contrasty, interpretations. So much for the 'visualization' (he hated the 'redundant' term previsualization later used by Minor White) that he is known for espousing, and that others wrongly interpret as an unchanging "see it...print it" approach. Whatever it takes. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.