Jump to content

Are you a "pixel-peeper" or a creative and idea-rich photographer?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Strmbrg said:

 

As I said in my first post, for me it varies over time between gear/technique/some kind of light-version-peeping 
 

There is a saying, 'either piss or get off the pot'. It's a useful analogy because you've started a thread where you flip-flop your views at will and pontificate like you are a trial prosecutor without any evidence for the crime. 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Strmbrg:

There must be some kind of preference or mindset,

There most certainly isn't. The 'preference' is almost irrelevant. It's not preference but necessity. If a given work needs technical skills and high-grade equipment, you either apply them or lose the work.

Of course, if you feel uncomfortable 'peeking pixels', you can still choose to pick another subject which does not require much thinking about how you produce your results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Strmbrg said:

...a painter for example, is probably not so very focused on the brushes, and not reading comparisons of different brands of them...Are there differences in the different tubes of black acrylic? Do some of them show some amount of red fragments, and how much do I have to magnify before I can notice that?

This is the second time today I've read here in the forum that for some reason there is an assumption that painters are "not so very focused on the brushes". This is an insult to those who use such equipment. As far as "Are there differences in the different tubes of black acrylic?" goes we might as well ask "Are there differences in Black'n'White Film Emulsions?".

The amount of ignorance - from some quarters - regarding the skills and requirements of other Artists on show here is quite staggering.

Philip.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm not a pixel peeper in the technical sense, I can be very picky about small details in an image. For example, I can spend a lot of time finding the perfect place to crop so that small, unwanted elements don't interfere at the edge, or that a repeating pattern (like tree tops or a picket fence) is interrupted in the right way. And sometimes I clone out small elements that annoy me, but that probably no one else would have noticed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Okay, for me. I do question myself - always, and more or less from time to time - and I do not have any really good reason for to defend myself. Whether it is towards myself or towards the society surrounding me.
Defending - to me - is a "method" of avoiding progress and 'Entwicklung'.

I have had - and still have - too much focus on gear. That I relate to myself, not to how much or less others focus on it. Not so much focus on "peeping my images" however. The latter stresses me, because I will always find something that bothers me, if I dive deep enough. In some very lucky cases, I may be impressed of the gear-performance, because I cannot find any real flaws even in a very deep-diving search in the images. 

Where I can find many "flaws" however, is in my images regarding choosing the subject; the angle; the relation between the different subjects in the whole image and so on.
The most important thing to me is to actually see. To see and to find motifs to make images out of. I don't think that I am so very good at that, but I at the same time think that I am getting much better all the time. (Much better doesn't mean good, it can mean that, but it doesn't have to mean that.)

It is sad - in more ways than one - that thoughts about matters like this, can result in more or less affected reactions. (Maybe some kind of socialised reaction, just speculating.)
I have read around some in blogs where there is quite a lot of self-criticism and consequence-analysis regarding both gear- and peeping-focus. In blogs there isn't so much of debate, of course, so what is (claimed to be) right or wrong and such, is in those places not at all dominant. 

The little Leica (M10-R - no comparison to other versions because this is the only one I ever used.) have made me take much more images (pro week) than I have ever before taken.
The more I resist to wonder about a new lens, the measurable and comparable performance of it, or something else connected to the camera, the more I get involved and engaged in the creative and inspired part of the whole hobby.

Note that what I am writing is regarding me - not some universal claim relevant for every one. But I can imagine that it can be relevant to many others. 🙂

Edited by Strmbrg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, evikne said:

Although I'm not a pixel peeper in the technical sense, I can be very picky about small details in an image. For example, I can spend a lot of time finding the perfect place to crop so that small, unwanted elements don't interfere at the edge, or that a repeating pattern (like tree tops or a picket fence) is interrupted in the right way. And sometimes I clone out small elements that annoy me, but that probably no one else would have noticed.

I think this is the same focus that I have. Get rid of distractions in the image. Things that compete with the important things. A bright spot, some dirt on the street, some "messy" straws close to the flower and such. This is distracting things even when looking at the image as a whole and therefore lowers the quality of it in a real sense. I use to zoom in and out to find when I shall stop "cleaning up" any more. If it doesn't distract when zoomed out, it doesn't matter.

Edited by Strmbrg
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 250swb said:

those dreaded words 'I don't do any post processing'. It's the apex of not caring, and yet somehow or other it's usually meant as a virtue.

The voice of sanity.

I can feel my teeth grinding every time I hear those of a 'creative' bent belittling anyone that actually attempts to take an in-focus picture with a level horizon.......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, pippy said:

This is the second time today I've read here in the forum that for some reason there is an assumption that painters are "not so very focused on the brushes". This is an insult to those who use such equipment. As far as "Are there differences in the different tubes of black acrylic?" goes we might as well ask "Are there differences in Black'n'White Film Emulsions?".

The amount of ignorance - from some quarters - regarding the skills and requirements of other Artists on show here is quite staggering.

Philip.

The same people I dare say who wouldn't understand that Jackson Pollack planned and crafted his dribble paintings. Another earlier example of how materials used in a different way could change art was the invention of the paint tube in 1841, without it there couldn't have been Impressionism. And the repeatability of paint in a tube ties in with the paint brush which in the industrial age started to be mass produced and gave artists consistency, so their palette and technique could be repeated in the studio or out in the landscape.  So of course painters thought about what the materials and equipment could do to help further their goal.

Edited by 250swb
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not a pixel peeper, but not very creative either. I have no qualms about using PP to correct any shortfall in the shot, but do try to get it right at the time of the photo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thighslapper said:

The voice of sanity.

I can feel my teeth grinding every time I hear those of a 'creative' bent belittling anyone that actually attempts to take an in-focus picture with a level horizon.......

I detest slanting horizons. Especially when the horizon is water. To me (and accepting that there are exceptions) its a sign of sloppy workmanship. And focus, or lack of it, should be relevant. There is of course a difference between pixel peeping for the sake of it, and being technically competent.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marc B-C said:

I have no qualms about using PP to correct any shortfall in the shot, but do try to get it right at the time of the photo.

Absolutely, minimising PP is always a laudable aim but not an end in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, pgk said:

Absolutely, minimising PP is always a laudable aim but not an end in itself.

Isn't it curious though that minimising PP is something more applicable to the digital age and not earlier? There was and still is an astonishing amount of PP done in the darkroom or a hybrid process to create a print. Besides deciding at the print stage what the contrast would be it was taken for granted a bit of edge burning would balance and contain the photograph against the white boarder, if a face was too dark it could be dodged, the print could be selenium toned, etc. All gone out of the window because the camera now dictates the photographers view of the world. The distrust of Photoshop isn't about fakery, Photoshop can simply do what the darkroom did, it's about the fear of having to make a judgement. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Isn't it curious though that minimising PP is something more applicable to the digital age and not earlier? There was and still is an astonishing amount of PP done in the darkroom or a hybrid process to create a print.

Ummmm. Having spent a vast amount of time in darkrooms I don't really see any point in spending time on any sort of post processing unless I have to. My aim is to 'see' an image when taking it (in its final form) and find as short a route as possible to achieve the result I want. So its basically idleness I'm afraid and nothing more esoteric🙄.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2024 at 11:01 AM, Strmbrg said:

[...] Are you a "pixel-peeper" or a creative and idea-rich photographer?[...]

Would you ask artists if they are a "creative and idea-rich" painter or sculptor? If they are like the ones around me they would say have a look at my works and do your own opinion. Not being an artist myself i will answer that it depends on photos. When i did legal photo for my job i was trying to be a good lawyer taking accurate pictures for clients if needed and now that i'm retired, the pleasure i feel in photography come from composition and colors in the first place but the choice of tools take a large place too because i do my own post production so pixel peeping is also important for me. I suspect my reply is as boring as you expected but it's just mine sorry.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I notis that this have caused a lot of more or less upset reactions. I really don't understand why, but i understand THAT it is so.
If one is a "peeper", gear-addict or whatever, then be that. There is probably no meaning in continuing this discussion because it will only focus on aggressions.

I am some kind of gear-illitterate type, unable to remember detailed facts or names on gear - who moreover has severe difficulties when it comes to complex technical matters.
Not even particularly creative, but much more creative than the things listed as my severe shortcomings. No problem with that self-awareness at all.

For my part there will from now on mainly be focus on sharing images. 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Strmbrg said:

I notis that this have caused a lot of more or less upset reactions. I really don't understand why, but i understand THAT it is so.

I haven't noticed anyone upset. I have noticed a few people who disagree with your premise (including myself). This is a forum. People have different opinions.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Strmbrg said:

There is probably no meaning in continuing this discussion because it will only focus on aggressions.
For my part there will from now on mainly be focus on sharing images. 🙂

?????

I think everyone here has just pointed out ..... in their own way ..... that dogmatic adherence to either opinion regarding the original proposed question is flawed ...... and I don't think anyone has been aggressive or directly critical of anyone else's views. 

There is a difference between banter, discussion, and an genuine argument ....... most posts here are good natured  .... even if opinions differ and very, very rarely seek to be acrimonious or antagonistic. I can't see anything here that falls into those categories. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...