 |
Wye Photography
Lives in
Chepstow, United Kingdom
Works as a
Photographer Designer
Has a website at
www.wyephotography.com
Joined on
Feb 16, 2009
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.
And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?
In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.
In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.
In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.
All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?
Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...
@Irata
My issue is expressed in my comment above yours (I hope it was clear). The ease of it doesn't bother me per se, I was making the comparison that in the 'old days' faking, composites etc took really skill and a lot of hard work. Photoshop isn't hard work, it's easy.
Perhaps I have been using PS for too long. I went through all the stuff like I see and read here. There comes a point when you become sick of it all. Sick of all the computer generated un-reality. Perhaps you'll come to that point one day.
Like you, once I didn't care how the seagull was removed. Now I do. I suppose I've around digital media too long.
For me, authenticity is important, as is honesty, integrity and being genuine. Personally, I think Capa staged it, Alexander Rodchenko faked it a lot. That's not genuine. It's lying. Some people are like that. I am not.
Thanks for your comment about my iPhone pictures. I don't know where that sits with me yet. I'll take your comments aboard. Take care.
Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.
And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?
In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.
In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.
In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.
All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?
Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...
@JakeB
Sorry laddie, but I have been using photoshop PROFESSIONALLY as a Graphic Designer since version 2.5 Currently I run CS5.5
Old duffer eh! Well, this one being ex-Army is probably more fit than your are.
I think when this computer/gadget fetish runs it's course people will want to return to a simpler, unfiltered, humble way of making images.
You rely on a plethora of software engineers and programmers for your images. I don't. When I think about it, you don't actually make your images, Abobe's code-heads do.
Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.
And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?
In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.
In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.
In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.
All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?
Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...
To AluKd
If I wasn't in such a hurry I would have chosen better words. I should have said "largely impossible", for some workers, it is because they can't achieve the level of skill required.
Tell me, removing said hypothetical seagull from an 10x8 inch RA4 print, how long? Chances of success on first go? How much space and equipment required? How much time would you have to put in to pull it off convincingly?
I can teach one of the office girls (most of whom do not like IT) where I work to remove said seagull from a .jpg in 15minutes maximum.
As you say, it's doable, but with what kind of skill and effort?
Before digital, Newspapers had teams of guys who whose sole job it was to touch-up photographs from film. Airbrushing was an art using real airbrushes not the photoshop tool. They were highly skilled people made redundant by a bit of software that anybody can use.
Photoshop can do much, much more, much quicker, with much less skill. You have never had it so good (or bad)!
Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.
And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?
In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.
In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.
In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.
All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?
Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...
To Easycass
Thank you for your comments. My iPhone 'stuff' is peculiar and exclusive to the iPhone. I do enjoy working with the iPhone and iPad and do it in such a way as to make it obvious that the images have been modified. It's fun and a tonic for the jaded. It's blatant iPhoneography as they call it. I would NEVER pass it off as 'authentic', not that I possibly can. As the iphone 'work' is in its own pigeon hole, I may remove that gallery. Is it really 'photography'?
I don''t actually mind people modifying images, making panoramas, montages, blends, composites etc. IF they make it clear that this is the case. My whole point is passing such work off as an original one frame shot when in actuality it isn't.
That, my friend, is my whole issue.
I totally respect people who say things like "this image is a composite made from three frames" or "I removed...", "Changed..."
It is a question of honesty and integrity.
Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.
And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?
In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.
In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.
In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.
All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?
Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...
Have you actually ever tried doing composites in the darkroom?
I don't think you have. Because you'll know how bl00dy hard it is and how much skill it takes to do it successfully. And it's usually a one-off. You can't repeat exactly what you have done previously..
In Photoshop its click, click, click, drag, drop, click, click, click. Done. In minutes. In the darkroom you can work for MUCH longer than that.
You say in the camera we... In the darkroom we.. Yeah, sure, but those things actually exist. You are confined by physical and chemical realities. Not so in your fake photoshopped world.
Have you tried, say, removing that small annoying seagull that just happen you fly into your shot ruining your sky. On a colour RA4 print it's impossible (apart from actually 'airbrushing' over it). In a B&W silver gelatine print, well, give it a go! All you digital freaks get off your ar5e and give it a go with a real B&W print.
Photoshopography: Painting with pixels that don't exist!
Corwess: I Dont understand why people say its cheating.
Photography is art.. and there arent any rules.. you create a picture.
if you dont like the sky.. change it if you can and have the tools.
now serioussly.. who gives a damn if the sky was a different one.
If the Picture was posted without any explenation of the work.. would have any one noticed?
Most people in here really forget what photography is about..
Now, seriously, I do. I look at competition entries and think "how much photoshopping is done here, how fake is this image". Often it is quite obvious with colours not ever seen in real life on this planet.
I have no qualms at all when people say "composite of seven images stitched in (whatever application), or "montage of three images". But when a composite or montage is passed off as a one shot frame, now that is cheating! Now that is fraud!
Whatever floats your boat, but, Photoshop covers a multitude of photographic sins. It is the godsend of the crap, impatient and cheating photographer who can't be bothered to wait until conditions are right to take that genuine shot in one frame.
CameraLabTester: A third layer with a UFO would really smash it!
Hmm....
Come to think of it... a fourth layer would also be good:
Painted on the roof: "Aliens Go Away!"
.
Yeah, it has, but YOU trying doing it on a silver gelatin print. Find out how easy it is! Doing composites in the darkroom takes REAL skill and often years of practice. It's not click, click, click, drag, drop, click, click, done. Composites the old fashioned way can only be done on the print, sometimes on a glass plate, generally impossible on the smaller film formats and are often not that realistic either (Alexander Rodchenko for instance), they are also a one-off. The claim of "the old film guys did it" is just a poor excuse for a lack of real skill.
Clint Dunn: Want to see some world class imagery...go to 500px. There are some amazing photographers and most of them will never receive any recognition whatsoever.
I am on 500px also, I definitely won't be recognised or win any awards or be invited to give a talk, or anything really. I enjoy looking at some of the amazing work on 500px and posting a few photos.
davidrm: I probably wouldn't even make the top 30 no-hopers. Or fading no-hopers. Ah, feck.
I would definitely make the top 30 no-hopers. And the sad this is I would be pleased about it too.
Some bloke sitting on a race track in his shorts, some ugly woman smoking a fag, some old guy wearing goggles whilst cupping hands, some old fat woman sitting in a chair, a couple of Welsh rugby blokes, girl in blue dress adjusting panties with seagulls, some blown up kid, Some chick in a spotty leotard, some girl in the sea with tats, girl with hosepipe and so on...
I mean, if this is emerging talent, then I am going to go home and wet myself laughing. It's a joke really.
As one of the photogs said "To realize who I am and unabashedly let my individuality dictate my work", yeah, and all that rather crass psycho babble and waffle is complete BS.
On a positive point, I like Lisa Elmaleh's pictures. Only by virtue of using the wet plate collodion process, now that's real hard-core photography. Respect to her just for doing it.
elvedhel: puzzled as to why my name isnt up there :P
yeah, or mine. LOL.
Wye Photography: In my opinion as a former user. It is not very good at all. There are much better and cheaper alternatives. Don't waste your money. It should have been called Photoshop don't Touch it at all.
It seems that the resolution limit has been lifted. IF you have iTunes read the reviews of the iPad version before you waste your £7/£3
Wye Photography: In my opinion as a former user. It is not very good at all. There are much better and cheaper alternatives. Don't waste your money. It should have been called Photoshop don't Touch it at all.
...as in Former use of the iPad version (which is more expensive) idiots! Couldn't you work that out for yourselves without asking crass questions, but I should have made that clear.
Let me make it quite clear...
IT'S RUBBISH. TOTAL, UTTER RUBBISH.
Oh! Does it still have the limiting file size? What 2000px wide output or something? You may want to check that out first.
But, you'll spend your money only to come to the same conclusion.
The iPad version isn't worth 80p let alone £7. In my opinion I think people will buy a 'Photoshop' product expecting Photoshop functionality to some degree. And if you actually want this on both iPad and iPhone it will cost you £10. WELL OVERPRICED. In fact, in my opinion, I think it's a RIP OFF.
ADOBE PHOTOSHOP DON'T TOUCH.
In my opinion as a former user. It is not very good at all. There are much better and cheaper alternatives. Don't waste your money. It should have been called Photoshop don't Touch it at all.
Wye Photography: Perhaps the photographer can be described with the words
1) Cheat
2) Liar
3) Fake
4) Fraud
Perhaps the judges can be described with the words
1) Suckers
2) Fools
There has always been fakers (Alexander Rodchenko for example). It's VERY hard to do it with film, and its usually in the print and not the negative. Soooo easy to do with digital and photoshop. Your imagination and lack of ethics are your only limit. All the photoshop fakers will be up in arms and together they claim "the old film guys did it!" With photoshop, faking is soooo easy! You try removing a small seagull from a clear blue sky on a 12" silver gelatine print? Go on digital fakers, have a go!
I wasn't going on about film vs digital. I use both myself. I was drawing a comparison between the two. Words as you say can manipulate and indeed create a reality. The difference is you know the created reality is not real, and if you don't it is generally called a lie. And that what this is, a lie. People generally don't like lies, but readily accept it when the lie is presented visually, often calling it creativity or art or indeed, photography. It is still a lie especially if you pass it off as the truth.
Perhaps the photographer can be described with the words
1) Cheat
2) Liar
3) Fake
4) Fraud
Perhaps the judges can be described with the words
1) Suckers
2) Fools
There has always been fakers (Alexander Rodchenko for example). It's VERY hard to do it with film, and its usually in the print and not the negative. Soooo easy to do with digital and photoshop. Your imagination and lack of ethics are your only limit. All the photoshop fakers will be up in arms and together they claim "the old film guys did it!" With photoshop, faking is soooo easy! You try removing a small seagull from a clear blue sky on a 12" silver gelatine print? Go on digital fakers, have a go!
Ah! Nostalgia.
Photoshop 2.5 was my first version, running on System 7.
Personally, I don't use Photoshop anymore, have not done so for the last 3 years. For me it's Lightroom and Pixelmator. Covers all my needs.
Recent incarnations of Photoshop don't offer that much more than the previous version and at a BLOATED upgrade price.
There is only so far you can take a product. I feel that Adobe is flogging a dead horse and screwing as much money out of you as possible.
Hey! If it's of use to you and wanna spend the money - you're welcome.
Wye Photography: Use film, it's cheaper.
...and how many rolls could you shoot for the cost of your Mac/PC, software, hardware etc?
Say you do what I do, shoot on quality but ultimately cheap sub £100 camera, shoot B&W, self develop and scan. Still get real authentic results much cheaper.
Each to his/her own.
Use film, it's cheaper.