Aur: I don't understand the point of them having to provide raw files. I know canon has provided all the data any developer wants about their RAW format and how to parse if. It's not some kind of secure format that is not open to tinkering. All the info on how to tinker with RAW files and do so without detection is out there.
The only way to force them to be honest is to force ppl to shoot JPEG or film, by limiting the medium, some predetermined cameras, once you allow ppl to shoot in RAW, manipulation can't be stopped. It's pointless trying to stop it otherwise, since the RAW format can be tinkered with without detection.
A good reason that this RAW post processing should be stopped, an Italian photographer took pictures of Belgian city charleroi, and manipulated them , ppl of the city and the mayor were upset.
"“You will not find one single inhabitant who will recognize his city in these pictures, not to mention the captions that look more like a settling of scores than a reportage.”
"The only way to force them to be honest is to force ppl to shoot JPEG or film"
Most cameras today have "styles and looks' applied to JPEGs in-camera. So is that manipulation? And what if you use a Color Checker Passport profile in LR? Is that manipulation of the RAW? How can you determine an "absolutely unmanipulated" for any image today? As someone posted above, Where or What is the line?
What are they going to do with the RAW files, process them to their own standards and compare them to the photographers? Then say the photographer was wrong and unethical. And who's to say their standards, whatever they are, are the absolutely correct in the world.
And what right do they have discussing photo ethics. Press photo ethics, sure, but not photo ethics.
SawanHembram: So another big question...
Who gets copyright for pics shot with CAMERA-TRAP?
My thought exactly. You mean all photos ever taken by a Nat Geo ( or nature or hunting or whatever magazine) photographer through the means of a camera trap are not theirs of the magazines? And what about a self-timer. No one actually took the photo. Are every shot taken with self timer up for grabs.
Jeff Seltzer: More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.
Thank you Jeff for taking the words right out of my fingers. So predictable are those here on this forum. The work presented here has forethought and vision, not just a click of a shutter that yields the next cat, flower, sunset, blah, blah and on and on.
I believe I've shot this barn also. It would be the wall that is on the left and cropping out of your frame. Great photo.
It's sad that the weight of today's cameras don't even have enough weight to stretch the straps that they hang from. And everyone complains how heavy their cameras are.
The Sony A900/850 had a big prism mirror box and looked much like a 70's/80's designed camera and people weren't up in arms over those. My Leica Digilux3 has a dedicated shutter speed dial with actual shutter speeds on it. So this Nikon is really only a morph of what's been and what's out there now. If it has the simplicity of operation and build of the original FM's, then I am for it if the price is realistic.
And yes, the teasers do get old, fast.
Spectro: this is actually a useful article. Most of the tip article in the past yo have to dig around on this site. Most people using photoshop might already now this, but still good for beginners.
"dig around on the site" Agreed. I had suggested a while back to have a Post-Processing Forum for all the various software and techinques that are out there. The Retouching forum will touch on some of this information, but is a specialized sub-set of post-processing in general.
Bali_Mirage: Wonderful.........crashing on startup.
And same here.
chkproductions: Here's my video made from stills back in 2009. From the 2 days we spent with our daughter and her sister in NYC, All photographs in order of our stay, everything we did, everyone we encountered all in 1 minute.
Thanks. Sorry for the quality, it get's so compressed when it's posted.
Here's my video made from stills back in 2009. From the 2 days we spent with our daughter and her sister in NYC, All photographs in order of our stay, everything we did, everyone we encountered all in 1 minute.
Tome gun: As a newbie, I have a question. I have Aperture, Lightroom 4 and Elements 10. Can Elements 11 now replace them all?
Has anyone used PSE11 on a dual monitor system yet? I've used all iterations since the beginning of time and some versions worked and some didn't. My current 10 originally let me put the organizer on one screen and the editor on the other, but decided at some point it wouldn't do it anymore.
chkproductions: HDR, when use correctly, is the same intent Ansel Adams, Minor White, and Edward Weston had when developing and using the Zone System - the ability to manipulate exposure, developing times and printing to capture details throughout the range of reflected light of a subject from film that could not otherwise record the scene as those photographers wanted it presented to the viewer.
HDR is the current interpretation of that process and when used correctly, does well at allowing the photographer to present a scene as they want it seen and can also be used well to capture and present a scene in the reality of tonalities as it was seen.
Agreed. Perhaps it's "to create a realistic look" but even reality is subjective.
HDR, when use correctly, is the same intent Ansel Adams, Minor White, and Edward Weston had when developing and using the Zone System - the ability to manipulate exposure, developing times and printing to capture details throughout the range of reflected light of a subject from film that could not otherwise record the scene as those photographers wanted it presented to the viewer.
You don't "explain" a photograph. It defeats its purpose.
Dvlee: I've done alot of aerial photography from a helicopter and I've used a remote controled model helicopter. Actually going up in the helipcopter is way more fun than using the RC platform.
Making great pictures is only part of the reason I got into photography...the other is that the act of taking photographs is so much fun.
The willingness and ability to be in he right place at the right time is one of the reasons we are hired as photographers. But now they are going to hire a technician to mount the camera and the photographer does not even have to be on the scene to take the shot...he could be locked away in a mobile vehicle far away from the location like the TV crews.
That takes all the fun out of it.
I agree. Today's photography is more about equipment than vision. It is less a craft, and more a technology.
openskyline: so fake. buy canon f1.8
Agreed. Not even close to real shallow DOF. Zeiss 135 ++
All this change, whether for better or worse, is here to stay. But really, hasn't it been the technology that has driven this change and not really the need of the process (visual communications)? It seems just because we "can" we "do"
I've been working as a photographer/producer/director for many years and remember well the days that an editor and I would be in disgust that we had to shoot and edit a project in video and not film.
Now a vid is cut in Starbucks in an afternoon.