Photography or image manipulation?

[jezzyjj 10]

I think there are two ways of producing digital photos that sort of compare to the way we used to shoot film. The straight out of camera jpg is like shooting slide film you need to get everything right at the time of pressing the shutter release, composition, exposure etc. That produces an accurate record of the scene.

This is the nub of the matter I think. - Thinking that the JPEG or the slide straight out of camera is the most 'accurate' representaion.

Depending on what film you use or what digital camera you use, the image can look very, very different. So how can this be the most representative when JPEGs and films produce such different results. The JPEGs out of my camera can be in colour/B+W/toned/tweaked considerably

The reason why film has always looked nicer than video is that it is less representative and more stylised than video, not because it is more accurate.

 

In contrast shooting raw and creatively post processing produces an image comparable to the hours spent in the dark room making a print that looks like the photographer wants it to look which is not the same as saying it looks like the scene he originally photographed.

I find RAW much better for capturing how a scene looked than a JPEG.

 

Here's a good example of how by 'manipulating' the image, it becomes more accurate and far more like how we see the scene with our eyes.

The picture below was taken in mixed lighting, much like where I am sitting now, yet when I look out of mywindow, the colours outside look correct as do the colours inside. The camera however does not cope well with this sort of lighting, as it can only get one colour temp correct at any one time [film or digital]. So if shooting Jpegs, I can balance for either inside or outside. Unless I cover the windows with CTO gel and set WB to tungsten, which is how you do it when making movies.

But by using RAW where you can set WB after the fact and redevelop as may times as you wish, you can set both inside and outside WBs correctly and combine the images in post. Te end result being very much like what I saw in real life. Both the 'unmanipulated' versions look odd and not real.

 

[jezzyjj 10]

Here's two versions of same image. One is JPEG straight out of camera and the other the RAW file after some basic correcting for colour, contrast, sharpening, overall WB corrected for daylight.

The RAW file version looks far more like the scene than the JPEG, so surely the camera must have 'manipulated' the JPEG!

To make RAW shot more 'accurate' I'd need to correct the yellow colour cast from the tungsten lighting behind head like in above WB examples, but I probably won't as I quite like it in this shot.

 

[HarryMac 10]

Now you're just being argumentative and pedantic. I can have my opinion, I haven't asked you to justify why you feel the need to edit bad photographs.

 

I actually used redeye to remove it on some old photos of my deceased dog that were taken on a compact if you must know.

The "skill" of photography TO ME is to use the equipment you have to achieve the best image you can.

 

I never said YOU had to agree.

 

Hope you dont mind if a just bring up a point here, is ps on a pc or mac just a piece of equipment the same as having a stack of filters etc with your kit.

 

There is another point i would like to raise in that not everyone is lucky enough to afford or have bought for them the best equipment ie lenses and such, of which i am one. Using the simplest editing software like picasa can help to further improve a good image and get better results and isnt that what we all strive to do either by at the click of the shutter or post processing after all publishers having been using such software for years and you see the results everyday on magazine shelves.

[willman 10]

Hope you dont mind if a just bring up a point here, is ps on a pc or mac just a piece of equipment the same as having a stack of filters etc with your kit.

 

There is another point i would like to raise in that not everyone is lucky enough to afford or have bought for them the best equipment ie lenses and such, of which i am one. Using the simplest editing software like picasa can help to further improve a good image and get better results and isnt that what we all strive to do either by at the click of the shutter or post processing after all publishers having been using such software for years and you see the results everyday on magazine shelves.

 

I think the differentiation here is the what is "equipment" and what is fake.

 

Inserting an image of the moon onto a secondary photo - is fake. Stitching 3 photos together is fake. Removing an object from a photograph is poor composition. I never said they were worse or better than mine.

 

I don't have fancy equipment, i have a low value dslr and fairly low value lenses in comparison to professionals.

[HarryMac 10]

I think the differentiation here is the what is "equipment" and what is fake.

 

Inserting an image of the moon onto a secondary photo - is fake. Stitching 3 photos together is fake. Removing an object from a photograph is poor composition. I never said they were worse or better than mine.

 

I don't have fancy equipment, i have a low value dslr and fairly low value lenses in comparison to professionals.

 

As been as you are now getting personal muka you need to learn the differance between fake and creating a fantasy image, the swan and moon image is fantasy, i will never see that in real life so i made it up, hense the word "fantasy" The quicker you learn, the more creative you may become in your photography.

 

Cheers, H.

[willman 10]

As been as you are now getting personal muka you need to learn the differance between fake and creating a fantasy image, the swan and moon image is fantasy, i will never see that in real life so i made it up, hense the word "fantasy" The quicker you learn, the more creative you may become in your photography.

 

Cheers, H.

 

So was it photography or manipulation ?(tbh i didn't know it was you're photo either so nothing personal was intended.)

If you saw that in Practical Photography would you think thats a made up "image" or that's a good photo?

 

I know what i think - but it doesn't devalue the image or represent any alleged purist view.

[Eric_Collins 11]

Pff i remember the old days when photoshop was a pair of scissors and PVA glue

[jezzyjj 10]

I think the differentiation here is the what is "equipment" and what is fake.

 

Inserting an image of the moon onto a secondary photo - is fake.

So what? Nothing new about that either, been done for years, long before PS existed. Very handy if you need to get correct exposure of both moon and nightscene.

All that really matter is whether people like the photo or not.

The time when compositing is really not acceptable is in photojournalism, or representative images where it is done to mislead the viewer.

 

 

Stitching 3 photos together is fake.

Nonsense, if you want to do a panorama and don't have say an X-Pan [not that they are even made anymore] or alternatively shooting with a very wide angle lens and cropping to a panorama, when using a 60MP camera to maintain quality, this may be your only choice. So if you cannot afford those 2 quite expensive options, taking say 4 shots on your cheap camera and stitching them together will end up with basically the same image, so what the problem? All methods end with a good representation of the scene. Maybe more so than a single shot that misses out a lot of the vista.

Extending Field of View through using several shots is no fundamentally no different to reducing FoV by cropping, using a longer lens.

As for the multiple exposure shot you moaned at above. Go and learn a bit more about photography before making such ignorant criticisms. HDR multiple exposures to make one shot [which is what you appear to have described] is nothing more than a fancy graduated filter when you reduce it to basics. Or is using a graduated ND filter to reduce sky exposure cheating too?

 

Removing an object from a photograph is poor composition.

Again complete nonsense. Leaving junk in picture is poor composition. Not always possible to remove unwanted elements in situ in case you hadn't noticed. Besides how is moving an unwanted bits of litter from a shot in person any different from doing so in PS. The end result is identical and you don't have to handle dirty rubbish if doing the second.

I've used both solutions, the latter when the fags ends on the floor only became an issue during shooting as I was up in a tree at the time looking down on my subjects [also in tree]. The odd cigarette butt on the grass looked a bit crap, but as I had little time and resetting shot was tricky, I elected to remove in post as it was the easiest soultion and saved time.

 

 

 

I don't have fancy equipment, i have a low value dslr and fairly low value lenses in comparison to professionals.

Again, so what, quite a few of the images in my A3 portfolio were taken on an ancient 2.1mp point and shoot camera, others on kit way inferior to what I now use. Camera gear does not take the photo, the photographer does.

Besides I love the crappy quality of old film, cameras and iffy lenses, so do not always want 'best' quality images. In fact I spent a large part part of yesterday processing images to not look like they were taken on a modern camera.

If you are a good photographer, you can take great pictures with any kit.

[jezzyjj 10]

Pff i remember the old days when photoshop was a pair of scissors and PVA glue

And that's all PS is fundamentally, old fashioned techniques shoved inside a computer, but far more usable by those who are left handed than normal scissors!

[willman 10]

So what? Nothing new about that either, been done for years, long before PS existed. Very handy if you need to get correct exposure of both moon and nightscene.

All that really matter is whether people like the photo or not.

The time when compositing is really not acceptable is in photojournalism, or representative images where it is done to mislead the viewer.

 

 

Nonsense, if you want to do a panorama and don't have say an X-Pan [not that they are even made anymore] or alternatively shooting with a very wide angle lens and cropping to a panorama, when using a 60MP camera to maintain quality, this may be your only choice. So if you cannot afford those 2 quite expensive options, taking say 4 shots on your cheap camera and stitching them together will end up with basically the same image, so what the problem? All methods end with a good representation of the scene. Maybe more so than a single shot that misses out a lot of the vista.

Extending Field of View through using several shots is no fundamentally no different to reducing FoV by cropping, using a longer lens.

As for the multiple exposure shot you moaned at above. Go and learn a bit more about photography before making such ignorant criticisms. HDR multiple exposures to make one shot [which is what you appear to have described] is nothing more than a fancy graduated filter when you reduce it to basics. Or is using a graduated ND filter to reduce sky exposure cheating too?

 

Again complete nonsense. Leaving junk in picture is poor composition. Not always possible to remove unwanted elements in situ in case you hadn't noticed. Besides how is moving an unwanted bits of litter from a shot in person any different from doing so in PS. The end result is identical and you don't have to handle dirty rubbish if doing the second.

I've used both solutions, the latter when the fags ends on the floor only became an issue during shooting as I was up in a tree at the time looking down on my subjects [also in tree]. The odd cigarette butt on the grass looked a bit crap, but as I had little time and resetting shot was tricky, I elected to remove in post as it was the easiest soultion and saved time.

 

 

 

Again, so what, quite a few of the images in my A3 portfolio were taken on an ancient 2.1mp point and shoot camera, others on kit way inferior to what I now use. Camera gear does not take the photo, the photographer does.

Besides I love the crappy quality of old film, cameras and iffy lenses, so do not always want 'best' quality images. In fact I spent a large part part of yesterday processing images to not look like they were taken on a modern camera.

If you are a good photographer, you can take great pictures with any kit.

 

So we're back to insult again. Weak argument if all you can do is reduce it your percerption of peoples understanding and knowledge of a subject.

As a professional I would expect you to have more knowledge than me on the subject. I would also have expected a little more of a professional attitude.

 

I was trying to illustrate that i don't use mod cons and fancy filters, just the basics, to a previous post.

[Crayfish 10]

I view photography as an art, and think it absolutely should be developed using any tools available.

 

http://andrzejdragan.com/ the personal section of this is a good example of what artistry can be achieved by heavy manipulation of photographs.

[jezzyjj 10]

So we're back to insult again. Weak argument if all you can do is reduce it your percerption of peoples understanding and knowledge of a subject.

Duh! You obviously are lacking in knowledge as evidenced by your posts. You are making decsions based on an a ignorant foundation. You have repeatedly demostrated your lack of knowledge, my pointing that out does not make it insulting.

The fact that you couldn't get better results from RAW, than JPEG only shows a failure on your part to correctly learn the software or maybe your camera. And it certainly takes more than a couple of days to understand PS and the RAW workflow.

 

As a professional I would expect you to have more knowledge than me on the subject.

So why dismiss or simply ignore the knowledge I have then?

I would also have expected a little more of a professional attitude.

Sorry, should I not try and inform you of your misconceptions then?

I have even offered to show you how to best use RAW, I have also posted examples to show how useful it can be. But you completely ignore that, as you do anything that counters your view of what photography is.

 

 

I was trying to illustrate that i don't use mod cons and fancy filters, just the basics, to a previous post.

Nothing wrong with that, but do not sneer at others who prefer to be less luddite like in their outlook.

Can you imagine a carpenter saying he didn't use power tools as that was cheating and not real carpentry. Besides your basic stuff may be very fancy and considered cheating to someone with say a film camera with manual focus and no built in lightmeter. Could you use such a basic camera and get decent pictures? I know could.

 

 

What you completely fail to understand is that most people try and get the shot as good as possible in the camera and then use LR/PS/Aperture/Picassa... to then improve on the what the camera produces.

And if you care about producing the best images, then you have to shoot RAW, so you have no choice but to spend time processing your photos, just as those who used B+W film had to spend time in darkroom. But if you know what you are doing , it's can be a very quick process.