HAHAHAHA! Thanks for that Derek
Theres a guy at uni who constantly tells me my shots are rubbish compared to him due to use of PP on mine.
Thom Hogan said:I'm constantly amused when discussions break out about the validity of using Photoshop to tweak colors or to retouch a small imperfection. "People expect photos to document the real world, and you should print images as you took them" goes one argument. Poppycock. The mere act of taking a picture destroys the ability to "capture" reality.
You choose which lens to use. You choose where to focus. You choose the exposure. You choose the composition. You choose a direction to point the camera. You choose what time of day and what season to take a picture. You choose the exact moment to preserve (and may distort that moment by using an extremely long or short shutter speed). You choose the type of film used (or the digital camera's color settings). And the list goes on. Meanwhile, reality also includes the moments before and after the shot, the area outside the frame, and much, much more. In short, you as photographer are making choices for the eventual viewer of your photo. The viewer only sees what you want them to, period.
On my living room wall is a large Ansel Adams print (Wonder Lake and Mt. Denali). It's a powerful image that captures the same spirit I felt standing in that same spot years later. But Adams shot in black and white. And he clearly manipulated the contrast in the final print. Even more interesting is that over the many years that Adams produced prints of that image, it appears that his burning and dodging techniques changed--later versions seem more contrasty and brooding than earlier ones. The exposure appears to be taken in very early morning on an unusually clear day (you can sit on that same spot for 20 days running and sometimes not see the full mountain). Did he document reality? I'd say no. He created an image that conveyed what he saw and how he felt in the presence of this immense mountain and Alaska's ever-changing light. And if you think he did document reality, try this exercise: take a large format camera and some black and white film to that same spot and try to duplicate the image. I'm betting that you'll find that very difficult to do, and only possible if you spend some time manipulating the final print.
So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.
Great quote there Rob.
Originally Posted by Thom Hogan
So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.
I don't think there is anything wrong with post-processing but if you give yourself a target of not doing so I think you think a lot more about the shot itself. If you get the image right in the first place it generally looks better than what you could do in photoshop imho.
The problem is that modern SLR cameras when shooting in raw are creating images that are prepped for post work. When you buy the camera it comes with software for the post processing work. When shooting in raw, it is never going to look as good as when you have done some post work on it IMO.
I think your perception of post is very different to what it actually is.
B&W, if I really wanted to shoot B&W I would buy a cheap 2nd hand Nikon F5/6 and some ilford.
I find this mentality rather odd if I'm being honest. You don't convert ANY digital photos to B&W?
Do you simply not like B&W, or do you think that because it's a digital image it shouldn't be B&W?