The Glorified Rainbow
In continuation with my photo editing thoughts last week, I have given this shot a little something extra.It was rainy.. so of course the sky was very grey but as I stood at the shore watching some friends head out in the canoes, I saw a pretty little rainbow!
By increasing the saturation, I think I've kept the essense of this photo -- the reason I took it was because of that rainbow.
Vision is not realistic. Sit two people infront of a painting and they may see absolutely different things. It is the emotion associated with a picture that gives it it's punch. What does it evoke in its viewers.
A photo is that which is recorded by a camera, true. And editing it afterwards, perhaps, is changing an image from a photograph to a picture. But where do we draw the line? Sharpening little things here or there.. brightening a photo.. changing colours..
I don't really consider myself a photographer yet, so my views may be way different from everybody elses here.... eep...
posted by Lea at 7:42 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
I like it Lea. I'm reading a photo book that tries to draw the line at post processing, then digital manipulation, however, I think "removing satellite dishes" fell into the post processing section ;)
I used to pride myself on not cropping or using picassa, but I think I'm getting older and losing my edge ;)
At least I don't use Photoshop ... yet ;)
Lea:
Nice pic. I like that rainbow. To me, post-processing, whether it be in a wet darkroom or on my laptop with Photoshop, is a part of the whole artistic process. It's a really excellent photographer who never has to modify a photo at least just a little bit. I remember when I took my photo classes, my teacher said that there is no perfect photo. A person can alway improve it whether it be by taking it again (and again and again...) or by working on it in the darkroom.
Eric
Thanks for the feedback :)
When I first started taking photos I never cropped or altered anything either. But when I was introduced to Photoshop, I quickly surrendered and became a fan. In the beginning, I was only cropping or adding a little frame around the photo and basically scoffed at any other changes I would make.. thinking that I was not displaying things the way they were meant to be displayed.
But then a few times I'd do some editing and show my boyfriend and quite often he seemed to like the altered ones better... And so it began -- a fun journey to Photoshop-Land where every picture can be accessorized and pampered to create something new.
I may be subjecting myself to the perils of endless post-manipulation, but I'm ok with that if everyone else is, LOL.
Nice rainbow picture, Lea!
Only you can decide where you draw the line on digital manipulation. IMO, it is most definitely not a sign of weakness or some sort of lesser form of art if an image requires post-processing. Unless you are shooting slides for projection where there is no opportunity for manipulation of the transparency's image, the post-processing of the negative or original digital file is a vital part of a photographer's creative process. It was no different in the days before the digital darkroom. Because the camera/lens/film is not always able to capture exactly what you see with your eye, post-processing is required to complete your personal vision when you first snapped the shutter.
--Warren
Lea: Think of it this way. A computer loaded with Photoshop or another photo processing software is just like a darkroom 20 yrs ago. It's just that you do it on a computer. I'll bet Matthew Brady (famous photographer in the American Civil War) would have liked processing on a computer.
Eric
not quite, imho. I had a darkroom 20 years ago, 30 years ago as well, and couldn't do 90% of the things one can do with image manipulation that PS can do.
Ted, I interpreted Eric's comment to mean that the CONCEPT of having to do post-processing 20 years ago in the darkroom is similar to using Photoshop on a computer today. I didn't think that he meant that you could do everything then that you can do now digitally.
For me, everything that I once did 30 years ago in the darkroom, I can do today much more conveniently on my computer. And just because I can do certain things now that I couldn't do then doesn't mean that I will do them. It goes back to the personal limits that we have on the extent of the digital manipulation that we find acceptable.
BTW, great discussion everybody.
--Warren
All:
Correct, the concept of post-processing a long while back is like using Photoshop today. I used to think that computer was "impure" for some reason. Not so. It's just different.
Eric
Hi Warren and Eric,
Those are very good points, and after reflecting a bit, I think you are both correct.
I'm having a personal internal struggle with digital editing that I'm still reconciling with.
For example, Warren and I worked on an image together that had a blue tint all over it, and the first time I showed it was the original unedited JPG out of the camera. I was proud in that I hadn't done any pp to get that blue, but in effect by accidently leaving my DSLR on the "wrong" WB setting, I was possibly doing an image manipulation of the raw data that one would do in PS, only I did it accidently ... I guess for art (but not necessarily documentary, forensics, etc.), anything in pp is fair game. I'm still thinking hard about this.
Love the philosophical outbreak that has occurred here! And I'm glad that my Photoshopping propensity has been welcomed warmly -- thanks everyone :D
Very good points, Tom.
Didn't a photographer or news agency recently get in trouble for publishing a doctored photo? That's definitely a no-no.
When we were shooting weddings and portraits in the "old days", to make people look their best, we had to pay attention to:
Posing
Lighting
Camera angle and perspective
Focal Length
Filtration
Film properties
All of which still apply today in the digital age. (you still need to make an original image as good as possible, because some things just can't be corrected digitally)
--WT
Exactly. Some things just can't be corrected digitally. If a photo is not right from the beginning, it may never be right. Bad composition, etc. Hey, this is fun.
Eric
I agree totally that the foundation must be quality. Similar to building a house on a proper foundation. You shouldn't waste your time building a house if it's going to fall down the side of the mountain when it rains.
But more precisely, what exactly is quality foundation? I don't think there is any proper answer. It is up to the post-processing artist to see something special in the original and know how to bring it out.
Abstractly, I think that any photograph can be given a purpose and please an audience. It may not match the audience the photographer first seeked to serve... and I'm going guess that that's what differentiates a professional from an amateur.
Professionals will be able to get that perfect shot in a feasible manner. An amateur will find an audience for the photograph :)
I'm most likely an amateur right now. Perfection is stressful :P
Martin was a working professional photojournalist. Hey Martin! Are you lurking out there?!? We'd love to hear your insights on this subject. :).
And what about you other lurkers?
I think this comment thread is the longest in the history of this forum. Thanks Lea, for sparking the very interesting conversation!
And BTW, I consider you a PHOTOGRAPHER.
--Warren
Wow, this is really a great thread!! I'm finding everyone's input very valuable.
As for me, I love the ability to exercize some control over the final photo by using photo-editing software.
When I got back into photography around 2002, my son Ben and I set up a little back-alley darkroom in little utility room, next to the washer & dryer. I got some Dektol, D-76, fixer and stop bath and a bunch of bottles. It was a lot of fun to teach Ben the basics, and I enjoyed it for about 2 or 3 days.
But then, I found that after a long day at work, starting to do some printing around 8pm and staying up past 11 to *maybe* get 1 good print .... well, I just no longer had the patience to do that at 52 the way I did in my 20's.
Within a few months, I pretty much switched to all digital, all the time, and haven't looked back. I do see so many good photographers who still do great work with Tri-X and some chemicals. And then there are many, like Dave Beckerman, who are hybrids - Dave develops his film, then scans the negatives and goes to town on them with Photoshop, Alien Skin, Noise Ninja, etc.
Different strokes for different folks - and it's all good!
BTW, Lea, I agree with Warren, you ARE a photographer.
Now you have to start going to those meetings, you know, the ones where you stand up in front of the group and say, "Hi, my name is Lea, and.. I'm a photographer."
Lea, you've been bitten by the bug whether you know it or not or whether you are going to admit it to yourself or not. You have the proverbial monkey on your back - shooting all kinds of pictures!
Eric
I accept this gracious offer to wear a photographer's hat! How very generous of you all to present it to me.
SPEECH SPEECH they chant, LOL..
I'm glad I found this forum :) Awesome photos, and now I see that your thoughts are also interesting -- I hope to hear more of them in the future!
Post a Comment