Native vs processing with (LR etc)

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, jaapv said:

I think that you don't get the distinction between editing an image and manipulating it.

Interpretation, adjustment, manipulation and more descriptors are, rather sadly, overshadowed by the catch all; 'photoshopped'. Add in Ai and you have a tsunami of imagery which does not depict a viewed and photographed subject in any way whatsoever. As people have learned that trust is all too often broken by fakery of one sort or another, photography is simply another casualty.

FWIW I am relatively happy with 'interpretation' of a raw image which implies adjustment but no shifted elements within a photographed imaged - this is my stance for the most part. But I will 'adjust' elements if they are of minor (but irritating) import - an example being a very small white van in a photo which was intrusive in a dark area and irrelevant to the overall image. I generally speaking do not manipulate photographs because to me this is delving into digital art and is not photography even if the image looks photographic, has significant photograhic basis and the output is claimed to be photography which, by any definition it is not.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

2 hours ago, evikne said:

This reminds me of a Halloween photo I took some years ago.

Interpretation, not manipulation. Since focus is on the face you must have been able to see the face when taking the photograph and have adjusted the image to recreate the image as seen. The camera cannot see an image as they eye does which often leads to problems defining tonal and colour accuracy by those who feel such parameters are relevant to more than the very few photographs which do genuinely require some degree of defined accuracy for technical reasons.

Edited November 27, 2024 by pgk

[jaapv]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Interpretation, adjustment, manipulation and more descriptors are, rather sadly, overshadowed by the catch all; 'photoshopped'. Add in Ai and you have a tsunami of imagery which does not depict a viewed and photographed subject in any way whatsoever. As people have learned that trust is all too often broken by fakery of one sort or another, photography is simply another casualty.

FWIW I am relatively happy with 'interpretation' of a raw image which implies adjustment but no shifted elements within a photographed imaged - this is my stance for the most part. But I will 'adjust' elements if they are of minor (but irritating) import - an example being a very small white van in a photo which was intrusive in a dark area and irrelevant to the overall image. I generally speaking do not manipulate photographs because to me this is delving into digital art and is not photography even if the image looks photographic, has significant photograhic basis and the output is claimed to be photography which, by any definition it is not.

Don't forget to distinguish between AI as a tool - which we find in the photo-editing programs- and AI as a pseudo-creative entity which seeks to make a non-existent reality through compilation of data.

[Anbaric]

7 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

We live in a world where people are called creative and artistic photographers becuase they do wierd "souping" to film, like soak it in urine for an hour before processing in c41.

That's nothing, you should see my innovative 'sepia toning' method.

[hansvons]

On 11/23/2024 at 6:50 PM, discoman5 said:

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

Processing seems like getting AI to answer test questions ( assuming it gets it right)- and doesn’t help one truly assess the quality of the camera in one’s use of lightning and other parameters.

of course there’s a time and place for processing such as weddings, etc. 

You answered your question, at least the second half. Weddings, anything that has no stakes in documenting contemporary history, can be treated however the artist pleases. The sky is the limit. In journalism, this is a different thing. It's all about authenticity, including the photographer's actions. That's why many news outlets only allow camera JPGs. Makes tons of sense. 

[jaapv]

Yes So what? You used to need a horse and carriage to visit your in-laws. Now you grab the car ( unless you are Amish) Does that make cars unethical? There are artists using spray cans instead of brushes and self- made oil paint.  Technology brings us new techniques all the time and we use them to create. All are valid. 
Boom it is done? I don’t think that you have any experience in processing. Using  processing tools requires skill. Learning Photoshop takes years unless you restrict yourself to the very basics.  

[Dazzajl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/23/2024 at 9:27 PM, jaapv said:

It is a slide film mindset ( coming from slide film - I know 🙃 ) that has no bearing on either negative film or digital files.

Even then we were tinkering with the shots and not letting the film get on with the job. That little case of filters we took around everywhere was a fantastic bag of tricks. 
 

Since the first image appeared on a glass plate, we’ve been looking for ways to manipulate it and add more creative control. The moment a photographer chooses to change a 28mm lens for a 35mm one, they are imposing their vision over reality and bravo to all the new and wonderful ways we can express ourselves. 

[Jeff S]

The debates about photography and manipulation preceded the Photoshop era. See, for instance, Jerry Uelsmann (or Man Ray or Maholy-Nagy, et. al.)

Only the tools and techniques have changed… and the innovation of online forum world, which similarly made commenting and debating simple and ubiquitous.

Jeff

[marchyman]

17 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

that has become the mandatory type of editing now.

 Who mandates this? How have I and most of the people I know managed to ignore this mandate?

If everything you see is that type of manipulation I may I suggest you hang out elsewhere?

[250swb]

9 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

Everyone seems to follow teh PPA like wee sheep. 

And when Man Ray allied himself with the surrealists in the 1920's do we now call him a 'wee sheep' for using many types of darkroom manipulation to make a new type of image? Or is it that your idea of photography only extends back a few years and you have no idea of anything else?

Because that is the context, many people here will find no problem with the normal everyday darkroom task of dodging and burning (manipulating, editing, improving, etc.) a photograph and find no conflict with using the Photoshop tools to do the same or to remove dust spots etc. Equally those same people most likely know of the work of Man Ray from reading history books and going to exhibitions, and despite your worry's many will have no automatic inclination to follow him simply because they've been exposed to his work. And for that group the image manipulation of combing elements to make a new photograph or artwork in Photoshop (other editing programmes are available) isn't really a modern day intellectual outrage, it is just something they understand based on its context and history.

As ever we see what we see and can intellectualise the photograph and decide if we like or appreciate it, when most of us replying to this thread already know what has gone on in photography for the past 200 years there is always a dead photographer somewhere who started it. 

Edited November 28, 2024 by 250swb

[pgk]

17 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The debates about photography and manipulation preceded the Photoshop era. See, for instance, Jerry Uelsmann (or Man Ray or Maholy-Nagy, et. al.)

Only the tools and techniques have changed… and the innovation of online forum world, which similarly made commenting and debating simple and ubiquitous.

Jeff

But today the ability to manipluate an image is made much more available because its simple enough to sit in front of a computer with a photo, software and a concept - or rather more often lack of a concept and little understanding of imagery - and create a manipulated image.

I was asked to judge a photo club competition years ago and was rather scathing of one digital image made up from a foreground portrait placed over a potentially supportive background. Unfortunately the lighting on both these was completely different and from a different direction and produced a truly awful and obvious (to me) mismatch resulting in an image which grated immediately. But the person who had produced this image (I hesitate to say photographer because it was a digital image) was most put out and months later told how well it was doing at 'higher levels' - not an scenario which makes me consider these 'higher level' judges endearingly, whoever they are. So you are quite right in that manipulation has always existed but it is accessibility which has changed, allied to a lack of understanding of how images are constructed from a base level up.

[jaapv]

That last sentence is crucial. Incompetent work is of course subject to negative critique.  That does not condemn the technique. 
using modern tools takes as much expertise as the ones that came before. 

[willeica]

13 minutes ago, pgk said:

But today the ability to manipluate an image is made much more available because its simple enough to sit in front of a computer with a photo, software and a concept - or rather more often lack of a concept and little understanding of imagery - and create a manipulated image.

I was asked to judge a photo club competition years ago and was rather scathing of one digital image made up from a foreground portrait placed over a potentially supportive background. Unfortunately the lighting on both these was completely different and from a different direction and produced a truly awful and obvious (to me) mismatch resulting in an image which grated immediately. But the person who had produced this image (I hesitate to say photographer because it was a digital image) was most put out and months later told how well it was doing at 'higher levels' - not an scenario which makes me consider these 'higher level' judges endearingly, whoever they are. So you are quite right in that manipulation has always existed but it is accessibility which has changed, allied to a lack of understanding of how images are constructed from a base level up.

For me, the content of an image is the most important thing. The techniques and equipment used come a very distant second and third. I often wish that judges would just say " I like this image" or " I don't like this image" or suchlike, rather than commenting on technique first before talking about the content or, in some cases, not even mentioning how the content strikes them. Some judges use comments on technique to avoid saying that they don't like the image being judged. It would be best to ask the person who created the image about the technique which they had used, but that could take up a lot of time, particularly if there are a large number of images being judged.

Curation is a slightly different process, but at least the artist/photographer has an opportunity to have a one on one discussion with the curator. There are no 'higher levels' in photography, but some people believe there are. Distinctions don't really help in this regard. I do appreciate, though, that distinctions, such as those awarded by the RPS, are intended to improve standards in photography. However, I have seen judges with as many as 20 letters after their name. I won't comment on how these letters were reflected in their judging 🥸

William 

[pgk]

35 minutes ago, willeica said:

For me, the content of an image is the most important thing.

The problem with the image I am talking about is that for it to have been an real photograph, the world would have had to be situated somewhere with two suns! Fine in a sci-fi movie but for an image iof an outside and most decidedly non-sci-fi setting it looked totally unnatural. If you are aiming at manipulating photographs to produce a photographic result then lighting should at least be representative of possible reality and not otherworldly. At least that's my take - my point being I suppose that manipulation requires rather more thought than often goes into it. The ability to manipulate does not in itsef guarantee that the end result will have any worthwhile attributes. If an image is entered into a competitive photographic situation it should at least look like a photograph rather than a bodge of different photographs IMO.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

For me, the content of an image is the most important thing.

I agree with you as a general principle, though I suspect that, when it comes to specific photos, you would also have a threshold of technical quality that a photo must display before you can even think about the content.

I am a judge of the photography entries at the annual garden show in a local village. I was asked by a friend who was appalled at the standard of judging of photos that had previously happened. I was nervous about taking it on (not having any relevant qualifications or experience), but I needn't have worried: the standard of entries was such that most people here would recognise their 'issues'. And it is the technical issues that are usually so distracting that I find it difficult to get beyond them to the subject matter: high street print machine prints, massively over-sharpened images (to compensate for poor focus), garish colours......... My gentle hints over the years has led them to call my bluff, and I have been invited to give a talk next year to the club meeting on 'What makes a good photograph?' !

Despite the 'issues', each year I go as a judge for the love of seeing a classic village garden show, and the opportunity to photograph the ladies who judge the jams and cakes, the gentleman who judges the obscure and phallic vegetables, and to chat with the retired National Trust gardener who has a similar outlook to me on what to look for in judging different kinds of work. 

[pgk]

32 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

My gentle hints over the years has led them to call my bluff, and I have been invited to give a talk next year to the club meeting on 'What makes a good photograph?' !

That's simplicity itself. A good photo is one which fulfills its intended purpose. Of course, as ever, the problem is in defining its purpose and how effectively that purpose is fulfilled ..... .

But enties into competitions are by definition going to be judged and the reasoning behind a judges comments are necessay if participants want to advance themselves and their images in similar situations in future.

[LocalHero1953]

55 minutes ago, pgk said:

That's simplicity itself. A good photo is one which fulfills its intended purpose. Of course, as ever, the problem is in defining its purpose and how effectively that purpose is fulfilled ..... .

But enties into competitions are by definition going to be judged and the reasoning behind a judges comments are necessay if participants want to advance themselves and their images in similar situations in future.

Yes, I agree, though (with this audience and context) I shall probably start from the position 'a good photograph is one that invites you to spend time looking at it'. Maybe I should ask for alternative suggestions in a new thread.

[Anbaric]

On 11/27/2024 at 1:05 AM, jaapv said:

And this was the scene as I saw it:

It needed editing to turn it into a photograph which represented what I saw, not what the camera rendered

Aren't those slightly different photos (e.g., the woman on the left has her eyes open in the first one), or is this some Topaz witchcraft?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

The problem with the image I am talking about is that for it to have been an real photograph, the world would have had to be situated somewhere with two suns! Fine in a sci-fi movie but for an image iof an outside and most decidedly non-sci-fi setting it looked totally unnatural. If you are aiming at manipulating photographs to produce a photographic result then lighting should at least be representative of possible reality and not otherworldly. At least that's my take - my point being I suppose that manipulation requires rather more thought than often goes into it. The ability to manipulate does not in itsef guarantee that the end result will have any worthwhile attributes. If an image is entered into a competitive photographic situation it should at least look like a photograph rather than a bodge of different photographs IMO.

Making a photograph by definition involves drawing with light, so by that criterion you had found that was done badly. I would trust your judgement on this, Paul

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I agree with you as a general principle, though I suspect that, when it comes to specific photos, you would also have a threshold of technical quality that a photo must display before you can even think about the content.

Yes, but technique is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. A perfectly sharp image of the head of a pin is not necessarily of itself interesting, but a blurred image of the head of a pin might be more interesting. Some of the most highly regarded photos in history, by some of the 'acknowledged masters', started out as 'snapshots'. There is a notion in art, which many espouse, that you first learn the rules and then you really succeed artistically by breaking them.

William 

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, willeica said:

Yes, but technique is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. A perfectly sharp image of the head of a pin is not necessarily of itself interesting, but a blurred image of the head of a pin might be more interesting. Some of the most highly regarded photos in history, by some of the 'acknowledged masters', started out as 'snapshots'. There is a notion in art, which many espouse, that you first learn the rules and then you really succeed artistically by breaking them.

William 

I agree, as you can see here: 😁