Reply #4 - April 20, 2008, 12:46:44 PM
Photoshop will never be able to produce what a "REAL" filter on a lens can do. You should know better then that, Ryan
I agree, to an extent. Some filters are definitely better to do at the time of original capture. Some filters are better applied in post processing, I think. The one problem that always comes to my mind is that I still believe it's much faster to screw on a filter and get it right the first time than it is to try and 'manipulate' it or even 'fix' it in photoshop. From a business standpoint, time = money.
As for Ansel Adams, educate yourself and see what he did.
Adams did manipulate his images. You call it what you want, but the only thing that really exists is a line that is drawn between what any individual considers a manipulation. Yes, he planned the final print from the beginning; yes, he exposed knowing exactly what the final product could be from that exposure; then he went into his darkroom and 'manipulated' the final image with traditional wetroom techniques and tools to accomplish his vision. A hundred years from now, the techniques we are all using on a regular basis in Photoshop will be considered the traditional tools and techniques of an age gone past.
As for the wet room and the digital room, we can't say they are the same. Far from it.
Wet rooms and computers are definitely different. Many of us will never work in a wet darkroom. In my opinion, there is no longer any reason to compare the two. One is a product of the past that will rarely be utilized in the future of photography. Only by photographers that feel strongly that it is part of their art, and hobbyists that just love to 'manipulate' film in the wet room. The vast majority will never understand the process. I know I don't know much about it, and I don't think it really matters. I will never use a wet process. You could potentially be educated enough to realize what tools do what to an image in Photoshop and use them as though the wet processing techniques never existed; as many of the young up-an-coming photographers will surely do.
The basics would be, color correcting/balance, exposure and sharpness if needed. That would be regarded a straight image.
And if we were photojournalists, those should be the only tools we ever use; keeping the images true to the stories they tell. Most of us are not, so the tools are at our fingertips to 'create' a whole new world of photography. Let's use them. I think based on this discussion; I ultimately agree with you. Again, anything you are doing in post-processing is time-consuming. Getting it right in the camera will yield a better final product and a more profitable business. I also agree that would be considered a 'straight' image.
Ansel Adams - It was my understanding he was one of the first photography "purists". At the time there was a movement (much like now) where people were scratching negatives and things to make artistic images. He was against that.
All that means is that there was a line he drew for what he was willing to do, and what he didn't approve of. It was his personal choice, just like the choice we face today. It is up to us to decide for ourselves what we feel, and sell it to our clients based on our personal convictions. You also have to realize that much of his work was not done for a strictly commercial or artistic purpose.
I am not saying it was not artistic. His work was largely documentary for the purpose of saving some of the country's greatest natural resources. There was no room for a great amount of manipulation in his images, because his point was to show people how beautiful the places were so they would do something to preserve them. These photographs needed to be quite pure or he would have been shunned. Am I right, Mike?
What is the difference between that and using corrective ligting.
As for this, I think there is a huge difference. Crap in, crap out. Some poor images can be made good, and good images can be made better. But great images start out great. The difference is if you can plan well enough, and 'pre-visualize' your final product, then you can probably accept certain things in an original capture knowing that you can 'fix' it later. Again, time = money. It's up to you how you want to spend it. I stand by the idea that the best method is to do everything you can to get it right in camera first; including corrective lighting.
Filters - Yes, filters you put over your lens yield a different result than filters applied in PS. Preference for either is personal (I like the absolute control of PS), but one is no more real than the other.
Again, I agree. The filters are different. Some are certainly better, some may not. Time = Money. I cannot get a good Polarizing effect with photoshop. Partially based on the color shifts and saturation, but also with the fact that Photoshop is a real PITA to get rid of the glare on that lake or river; it can't replace a Polarizer if you like to use them. However, a split ND filter has a distinct line that must be carefully utilized to keep from showing up in the image; Photoshop can control the light and dark areas in an image regardless of the horizon line and any other bright/dark problem areas you are trying to expose for. Again, you have to plan on this, because you still have to have the necessary information in your original to produce the final. (just like Adams)
So, that's my little soapbox take on the matter. As far as competition goes; I have to say I agree with Mike that there should be a separation, however I don't think the line can be easily drawn; like Bob said. It would be a very large grey line. Digital is here to stay, the wet room is all but gone. Many people are becoming 'good' photographers because of what they can do with post processing. But all the images I see winning print shows and scoring high have started out as great photographs and been enhanced to be great final images. They are never the product of a lazy photographer that didn't pre-visualize the final print in its final form, whatever that may be.
I am also a painter, as I know some other people on the forum are; painted photos (or whatever you want to call them) are not the same as an oil painting and never will be in my opinion. However, they are still beautiful and I like them when they are done well. In print competition, they win because they are often creative, well presented, and great photographs to begin with. If the elements of scoring and judging are present and considered, the image is going to be wonderful and the score will be high. I don't mind this in print competition because the exact same image would probably do well without its additional manipulation, and because I think the photographer almost always planned it that way from the beginning. I highly doubt many of them were bad images to begin with that were then 'fixed' into a "Best of Show" print.
Travis
Edited to remove my most 'assholeishness' comments. My apologies to Mike, and to everyone else.« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 06:39:41 PM by Travis Minnig »
Logged
