Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is a form of manipulation, used to create an artwork and presented as such. The question then is, would it be necessary in post-processing if the photographer were able to accomplish it on the field? Or, is it okay to not worry so much on the field since it can be accomplished in the lab anyway?
There is always a thin line between use and abuse. But that has nothing to do with cheating (which would imply deception of some kind).
I was answering the OP's question with what had been an acceptable form of manipulation in printing your own pictures and would not have been considered cheating back in the day. I thought that would have been pretty apparent. I don't even consider HDR cheating.
Well, it would be up to those who feel mocked, to take him up on that challenge, but not without considering the limits of a P&S. An argument that rests on... "but a P&S can't take such and such exposure" doesn't address that.
One can hire a PS expert (or less than an expert) to do the job. I have Photoshopped someone's vacation pictures, upon request from someone here at C-D. As for quality, why go bonkers with PS if it isn't about improving the quality of presentation?
How is it not addressed? P&S have their limits which is why many people turn to more professional cameras. People with professional cameras are not "wannabes". They are people who, quite obviously, need more than what a P&S does.
PS in the hands of a novice is like giving paint to a four year old. All over the place results, too much of EVERYTHING, etc.
I see that all you are interested in is contradicting everything I type.
You are right and I am wrong. - Thanks for your valued input!!
Nice time exposure! Just how much $$ has that one photograph made for you ?? Thousands ??? Tens of thousands ??
I have a job... My job is to create and sell images. All I care about is Ben Franklin being handed to me on a daily basis.
So far I have made over $40K just from this one image (snapshot) excuse me for calling it an image. It is a "snapshot" ! Therefore worthless and not worthy to be called a photograph.
Created using a Mamiya C220 @ 40 below zero. I melted snow to process the film. I had no water. Since 1989 That image has outsold all other images in my vast collection which have been published in many books, magazines, and for business advertising magazines.I made a lot of $$ from these so called snapshots.
2,000 high quality lithos were sold @ 20 bux each. They sold like wildfire.
And..pray tell where is your "gallery" located ??
That's a fun image that you've shared a million time.s I do see that you went out of your way to brag that you used a Mamiya C220, a very fine twin-reflex camera to take this shot. Tell me, how does that picture look straight out of the camera? Oh wait, you can't see the picture until IT'S BEEN PROCESSED. Well guess what? I shoot RAW, and you can't see my pictures either until they've been processed. It's the same thing my friend. JPG shooters are to digital cameras what Polaroid shooters are to film cameras.
That's great you make a lot of money on your images. If that's your metric on what constitutes a good image then more power to you! Someone could sell a grainy blurry picture of Tom Cruise picking his nose to the Star for 50 grand, but is it a good picture? By most definitions, I think not.
I don't sell my photos, yet. It's really not worth the trouble for me right now. It takes a lot of time to set up a good website and market your work and even then it's a super competitive field and you can expect to make peanuts. I have however donated several prints to charity fund-raiser auctions back when we lived in a small AZ town and they generally went for a few hundred dollars. So I know my work has value. That's just not my focus as a photographer right now. My focus is on creating the best quality shots that I can.
I certainly don't begrudge you for making it your livelihood, I may even be a bit envious. You live in a land that's seldom scene by most people and your pictures of the life that people lead there have great value. I love seeing them. But your photos are primarily snapshots. You see something interesting, you take a picture of it. That's a snapshot. And yes it takes skill to do it well! A photograph that's not a snapshot is one where you start with a vistion in your mind and you coordinate various elements in advance to achieve your vision. The 8 minute exposure I showed you is an example of that. I climbed out on a cliff overlooking the ocean at midnight on a full-moon with a good tripod and intervalometer and did some arithmetic to calculate the exposure and I got the shot. Oh, and BTW, it look exactly like when the image presented on the camera's LCD after it was exposed. That is to say, it contains no special effects or special post-processing like you claimed. It needed nothing in post other than standard RAW conversion.
Even though I don't market my photos, here's one that accidentally made me some money. This is a photo of the Hoover Dam bypass bridge construction. There are thousands of photographs taken by tons of photographers of this amazing construction all over the internet. However, this one is special. I sent a copy to the local newspaper who put it on the front page and I got so many requests for prints that I enabled the Buy button on my gallery so people could buy it. And they did. The reason why this shot has great value is that it was shot the day the two haves of the supporting arch were connected and a welder is welding the rebar to make the connection. That red cone in the center of the shot is the trail of welding sparks falling into the Colorado River. There's not another shot like this in the world as far as I know. Some day I should probably market it if there's still interest when I get around to it.
BTW, that's an HDR made from three exposures. In essence it's a snapshot because I just happen to stumble on the scene quite serendipitously while traveling back to northern AZ from a shopping expedition in Las Vegas. The construction that had gone on for years was always spectacular, but I'd never bothered to stop and take a picture of it before! But on this particular evening, as I was driving across the dam, I saw the welder on top of the arch and almost had a heart-attack realizing the potential of the shot. But the irony is that essentially the only shot I ever sold is one that used "trick" (HDR) photography to achieve.
Anyway, this isn't mean to be a peeing contest of whose shots have more value because I think both of our shots have great value in their own right. The discussion is about making photographs, and why I feel that (a) equipment does matter, and (b) post-processing is necessary skill for a photographer to have to create the very best images they can.
I don't advertise my website on this forum, but many of my shots contain a watermark with the name of my website. So hunt around a bit and you will find it. Or PM me and I'll send it to you. NOTE -- I ask others to respect my privacy and NOT post the link here. Thank you.
And somehow you believe that PS reveals the true potential of a photographer. Well, you’re surely entitled to your opinion that I couldn’t disagree with, more. PS is a tool, should be used as such, not the end. Let us take some pictures you posted yesterday (Native Art). What kind of post processing did you feel was necessary? If you didn't, what do you think could make for a better photograph via post-processing?
Each individual sentence in that paragraph if ridiculous!
1) PS does not reveal anything. Not using post processing tools effectively does though!
2) Opinions based on nonsensical logic are useless.
3) No one except you has insinuated that any single tool is "the end". You say the camera is, and that is absurd.
4) You don't seem to have actually looked at the images of Native Art that I posted. Asking if I did any post processing leaves me wondering what your point is? Did you look at them? Do you actually have to ask those questions? And if you do, what value could the answers possibly have for you?
Quote:
“Best possible processing†can entail a variety of things. It can be about best possible paper, best possible film, best possible equipment that one puts to work (including the lens), best possible printer and so on.
More argumentative obfuscation to clutter the discussion with distracting worthless nonsense.
Quote:
Somehow, the point of “best possible on-field talent†is taking a back seat here.
Not true. It's just a case of putting into a valid perspective, which is not the back seat at all. It also isn't alone in the vehicle as you would have it, nor even all by itself in the front seat. Camera configuration is important. So are the other necessary tools. None of them can be excluded without reducing quality.
Quote:
That is why a photographer must choose the best equipment he/she can afford, and the best timing, the best angle of view, the best perspective, the best lighting, and the best effort he/she can put in a shot. Artificial techniques that define post-processing should be minimally relied upon.
Post processing is no more or less "artificial" that in camera processing. Processing is required, and settling for less that optimum processing means less than optimum quality. Minimizing any portion of the essential processes of photography leads to lower quality.
Your philosophy is a recipe for mediocre work.
Quote:
Thanks for the unnecessary wise words. They’re better put to practice than preached.
Most of the participants in this thread have clearly been practicing it correctly. You have not.
I was answering the OP's question with what had been an acceptable form of manipulation in printing your own pictures and would not have been considered cheating back in the day. I thought that would have been pretty apparent. I don't even consider HDR cheating.
I don't either. The OPs fault may be the use of the word cheating, but I also see a point in people doing just that with completely redefining their composition and presenting it. HDR is another good example of what can or cannot be achieved on the field, or using a basic equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
How is it not addressed? P&S have their limits which is why many people turn to more professional cameras. People with professional cameras are not "wannabes". They are people who, quite obviously, need more than what a P&S does.
PS in the hands of a novice is like giving paint to a four year old. All over the place results, too much of EVERYTHING, etc.
To address something, you must consider the context. If you're going to argue... but P&S can't do that... be my guest.
There is always a thin line between use and abuse. But that has nothing to do with cheating (which would imply deception of some kind).
The whole point of photography is deception! A viewer is deceived into having the feeling or experience of looking at something they've never seen. Further, what they think they see has never existed! It is a creation, by the photographer, not reality.
Photographs are not taken by cameras, they are made by photographers, and any resemblance to reality is a deception!
Each individual sentence in that paragraph if ridiculous!
1) PS does not reveal anything. Not using post processing tools effectively does though!
2) Opinions based on nonsensical logic are useless.
3) No one except you has insinuated that any single tool is "the end". You say the camera is, and that is absurd.
4) You don't seem to have actually looked at the images of Native Art that I posted. Asking if I did any post processing leaves me wondering what your point is? Did you look at them? Do you actually have to ask those questions? And if you do, what value could the answers possibly have for you?
More argumentative obfuscation to clutter the discussion with distracting worthless nonsense.
1) An extension of your argument, the babbling about "artificial techniques". Try not to pull things out of thin air, if you don't like them delivered back to you.
2) Logic is easier said than done. Try it.
3) Your relentless defense speaks for it. I'm glad a thread has been created where we can do more than talk? I would LOVE to see your work there.
4) I must have seen them, if I mentioned them here. No? Or, do you believe I dreamed about it and coincidentally you had a thread started on it? Stick with the argument, as we can use logic around here. So, did you do any post processing in those pictures?
Quote:
Not true. It's just a case of putting into a valid perspective, which is not the back seat at all. It also isn't alone in the vehicle as you would have it, nor even all by itself in the front seat. Camera configuration is important. So are the other necessary tools. None of them can be excluded without reducing quality.
Well, then let me see it beyond your endless defense of a tool this guy, who is clearly frustrating you, happens to be able to use.
Quote:
Post processing is no more or less "artificial" that in camera processing. Processing is required, and settling for less that optimum processing means less than optimum quality. Minimizing any portion of the essential processes of photography leads to lower quality.
Did I say otherwise?
Quote:
Your philosophy is a recipe for mediocre work.
Most of the participants in this thread have clearly been practicing it correctly. You have not.
Awesome. Now, let us look at and discuss the work, rather than talk about "philosophies".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson
The whole point of photography is deception! A viewer is deceived into having the feeling or experience of looking at something they've never seen. Further, what they think they see has never existed! It is a creation, by the photographer, not reality.
Photographs are not taken by cameras, they are made by photographers, and any resemblance to reality is a deception!
I can tell, and that is exactly how we all should be taking your posted photographs, including landscapes and portaits. Not that I would dare ask you... were paintings also always supposed to be just that?
You just happened to be there... ?? and you captured a moment in time that can take hours literally to explore that photograph. OUTSTANDING!!
I love it! Yes many years ago; I used to feel pretty darn good, when you sell images of that quality and murals as such. It is very rewarding, but then I finally figured out the big $$ is in low prices. Volume brings in major bucks.
Here is what I would do. Forget the internet as a way to make big bucks with photos.. The way to do this is to have a public place to display your work. Do not use photographs - they are too expensive to make.
Rather have color seperations made of your very best and then have 2000 posters published that can easily sell @ 20 bux each = 40K. Now you need ten images to distribute and watch the bucks come rolling in.
You provided me with a lot of information and yes you are heading in the right direction by donating and giving... My favorite thing to do is.. ... give!! It always brings back much more than you gave. It's a great high!!
You are 100% correct that you ain't gonna make squat using a web sight to sell photographs.. but you can easily go out and purchase a note-card stand or a post card stand and fill it up with your best stuff and "watch' what happens. Once you find places to set them up... Hundreds of dollars a day can easily be made by selling post cards.
Yes again you are right, I am in an area where 'snapshots' sell big time.
If you google alaska native photographs in stock agency companies. There is very little out there that is saleable.
It's pretty limited as to what I can do photography wise in being creative surrounded by ice!
I dunno if you have seen these; but I won't post any of the other 'familiar' images. You have made it plain you have seen quite a bit and I thank you for all your positive responses.
Yes it is a lot of very hard work to "get out and sell" your images to the public. And after successfully doing that for 4 decades, I have learned quite a bit.
"Pre-visualizing a shot" ?.. ..I can honesty say I've accomplished that very few times.
I still have lots to learn; but I do enjoy helping newbees grasp and get a good handle on photography. I've taught color processing techniques to students for many years and I sure miss the old way where you actually to know what you are doing to get great results. Now instant photography is paving the way for a whole new breed of EXPERTS in photography.
Hand them a roll of film and most of them would be completely lost when it comes to focus, shutter speeds, and all that goes with it.
IN fact I recently had someone claim you need 1,000th of a second to stop a bird in flight.
That shows how little experience this person actually has. Race cars are easily stopped (left to right movement) with a shutter speed of 1/250.
I sure would like to spend some tiime (privately) and share some secrets. Your work is exceptional - I will admit that freely!!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on marketing photos too. I think your idea of selling actual prints as post cards or the like makes perfect sense.
I would be happy to shoot with you any time to share the joy and secrets of our craft.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't even consider HDR cheating.
