Reading mode: Light Dark

What's Good Taste?

Go to last post
I

Isabel Cutler62850

Forum Pro
Messages
11,174
Reaction score
1
Location
Western, NC, US
Decided to start this thread for people to post their honest views about which retouching efforts really ADD rather than detract from pictures....when to use them and when to hold back...the difference between subtle and blatant...when to use either effect.
Here is some food for thought:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
 
Isabel Cutler said:
Decided to start this thread for people to post their honest views
about which retouching efforts really ADD rather than detract from
pictures....when to use them and when to hold back...the difference
between subtle and blatant...when to use either effect.
Here is some food for thought:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
Isabel,

That's an extremely difficult question to answer, at least for me...

bernd

 
Good taste is what I like!

No, seriously, taste can be discussed from now to eternity. Trust yourself. If you like it, It's OK.

Duke Ellington often broke musical rules. He often said "If it sounds good it is good".
Isabel Cutler said:
Decided to start this thread for people to post their honest views
about which retouching efforts really ADD rather than detract from
pictures....when to use them and when to hold back...the difference
between subtle and blatant...when to use either effect.
Here is some food for thought:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
 
Isabel Cutler said:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel
Click to expand...
Hi Isabel

I believe the frame should compliment the subject. I am sterting to learn Elements (v1) and trying to get something reasonable.

Please may I have your comments (& anyone elses) on this pic where I have tried to use a dark frame to bring out a white subject.



Regards
Pete
--
Pete Williamson
Johannesburg, South Africa
Nikon CP4500
 
The color of the frame certainly compliments the subject, but I feel it is too overwhelming for the very closely cropped subject and demands too much attention. I think a drop shadow effect might have been better.

...But...as has been expressed above, taste is very subjective. I tend to go for simple in the way I dress and the way I decorate my home!
Isabel

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
 
Isabel, I love your inputs in this forum. So many contributions!

Talking about frames, the best frame is no frame. What I want to say is, the aim is to make a picture which is so good, that it is does not need a frame or maybe just a subtle on. In no case should the frame distract from the picture. A picture is more important than the frame, no question about it. What would a frame be without a picture in it?

Kind regards

Hans
Isabel Cutler said:
The color of the frame certainly compliments the subject, but I
feel it is too overwhelming for the very closely cropped subject
and demands too much attention. I think a drop shadow effect might
have been better.
...But...as has been expressed above, taste is very subjective. I
tend to go for simple in the way I dress and the way I decorate my
home!
Isabel

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
 
Isabel:

What a great idea for a post!

Here are some thoughts of mine:

1. The camera doesn't see what I see. My eye has a much greater dynamic rnage, much more selective focusing, and can pick up subtleties that a camera can miss. Anything that I do to a photo to recreate how my eye saw it is legitimate, I think.

2. The camera doesn't see what my mind sees. Everything that passes through my eyes is filtered by my mind. I choose not to see things, and to see others with startling clarity. I apply my own conceptual and cultural framework to everything I see. Anything I do to my photos to capture my mental image of a scene is legitimate, I think.

3. If I take an image, or a series of images, and create something new or original - that never existed in nature is that so bad? Do we not respect writers, painters, and sculptures for just that ability? If I was using a traditional darkroom - people wouldn't think twice about it.

4. Retouching is an artisitic process, and art in my opinion involves some risk that you will not be understood or appreciated. An image should say something, and not everybody will like what you say, or how you say it. Retouching gives you the ability to say the same thing in many different ways if necessary, or to refine your vision until you get it "right" either in your own mind - or in the minds of others.

5. I don't like effects, color treatments, or retouching done to a photo just for its own sake. The treatment should say something new about the image, enhance the existing meaning of the image, or add to its contextual framework. Although merely modifying an image to something that looks cool is OK - I think that that is not "art" per se. Not that I am an artist - just a goof with a camera.

Regards
Toad
http://www.pbase.com/willdabeest
Isabel Cutler said:
Decided to start this thread for people to post their honest views
about which retouching efforts really ADD rather than detract from
pictures....when to use them and when to hold back...the difference
between subtle and blatant...when to use either effect.
Here is some food for thought:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
 
What's good. Well I don't think a frame on a photo is a professional presentation, if your photo is really good it should have a real "frame" on it, not a happy hands at home frame.

BUT, if you are doing something for the web, that is different, then a frame seems most appropriate, or perhaps sending a photo through email, a frame is nice. I just don't think to hang on your wall or even in an album it makes a nicer presentation.

As for retouching, unfortunately, most people do way to much work on a photo, removing all the character from someones face, ie: wrinkles, is not flattering. Less always seems better.

Finally, it seems to me all these opinions are a very individual thing, sort of, "in the eye of the beholder". I just had this conversation with a friend this week, I feel I don't have to like a certain style or something but I know when it is good or not. She disagrees with me strongly.
 
Petewill said:
Isabel Cutler said:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel
Click to expand...
Hi Isabel

I believe the frame should compliment the subject. I am sterting
to learn Elements (v1) and trying to get something reasonable.

Please may I have your comments (& anyone elses) on this pic where
I have tried to use a dark frame to bring out a white subject.
Click to expand...
Well I like it, Pete, both the subject, which surely MUST come first, and the frame. Can I please ask you to tell us how you did it, the frame I mean. Are we to assume you ussed Elements? If so, please spell it out.

To answer Isabel's original question: I reckon that if a frame adds to a picture then use it. I always do.
Petewill said:


Regards
Pete
--
Pete Williamson
Johannesburg, South Africa
Nikon CP4500
Click to expand...
--
Ray Medford



Just the one camera, but what a one - it's my UZI
 
(You know...frogs are really princes in disguise?)
Wonderful reponse!

You are so right about the camera not seeing what you see...and I think that has much to do with the three dimensions in which we see. I was at a fair today and saw some wonderful things with my eyes that my camera just didn't see. It was very discouraging...and then I had shutter lag to deal with. Never took so many pictures of the backs of amusement park ride seats!
Your comments give much food for thought.
Isabel

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
 
Isabel Cutler said:
Decided to start this thread for people to post their honest views
about which retouching efforts really ADD rather than detract from
pictures....when to use them and when to hold back...the difference
between subtle and blatant...when to use either effect.
Here is some food for thought:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
Toad is right!

Do you what pleases you because you are the the photographer and are expressing yourself. If the viewers like it or not their head swivel so they can look away.

As far as editing/enhancing goes; the final image is what is important. Even the great Ansel Adams 'enhanced' his images. All of the photographic masters did and do.

As far as frames go. I only frame images when they go on the wall and not in the computer. Many of those I do frame I print smaller than the paper size and with a drop shadow. Then I hang them in a very simple black of aluminum frame so the viewer sees the image and nothing else.

--
Darryl Cox
 
Isabel Cutler said:
(You know...frogs are really princes in disguise?)
Wonderful reponse!
You are so right about the camera not seeing what you see...and I
think that has much to do with the three dimensions in which we
see. I was at a fair today and saw some wonderful things with my
eyes that my camera just didn't see. It was very
discouraging...and then I had shutter lag to deal with. Never took
so many pictures of the backs of amusement park ride seats!
Your comments give much food for thought.
Isabel

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
Isabel your comments are wondered by allot of Photographers. Sometimes we shoot someting and it comes out totally different. I am amazed that when I take portraits of agents and I look throught the lens and say wow this is going to look great and what I get back looks terrable. But a long time ago I had the opertunity to speak to a couple of professionals and they said the trick is to make it look like what you see on film. The professional taking a landscape sees with his eyes a field of grass with colorfull flowers and a blue cloudy sky. The problem is the film does not have the ability to copy what the eye sees. If you expose for the grass and flowers the sky is to bright and vise versa. So what they do is they use filtration to compensate. They use a split filter clear on the bottom and netrual density on top to bring the sky into the films range. Thats what made Ansel Adams so great, he could blend all of these into one great photo. The problem with most of us is we cant afford all the attachments we need. Thats why I like digital you can make the end result look like what you see,if you can remember. I agree that to much retouching is no good but I have to say that I got a great Idea from this forum and thats the soft touch. I use it on my older subjects, it beats my soft foucus filter.
 
Darryl Cox said:
Isabel Cutler said:
Decided to start this thread for people to post their honest views
about which retouching efforts really ADD rather than detract from
pictures....when to use them and when to hold back...the difference
between subtle and blatant...when to use either effect.
Here is some food for thought:
What makes for a good frame?
What's more important, the frame or the subject?

Isabel

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
Toad is right!

Do you what pleases you because you are the the photographer and
are expressing yourself. If the viewers like it or not their head
swivel so they can look away.

As far as editing/enhancing goes; the final image is what is
important. Even the great Ansel Adams 'enhanced' his images. All of
the photographic masters did and do.

As far as frames go. I only frame images when they go on the wall
and not in the computer. Many of those I do frame I print smaller
than the paper size and with a drop shadow. Then I hang them in a
very simple black of aluminum frame so the viewer sees the image
and nothing else.

--
Darryl Cox
Click to expand...
Hey Darel I agree with you. Photography is self expression. EAch photographer has to do what pleases them. Thats why we have so many different styles of paintings and photographs hanging in art galleries.

There was a mention of Ansel Adams. Well he really didnt touch up his work. He used a zone system. He measured everyting in varying grey tones and metered the subject that way. He then had a zone system for printing and dodged and burned and changed exposure for differnt areas to get what he saw with his eyes.Since him several people have tried to duplicate his system but to no avail. He wrote books that I think only he could understand but his work was great.
 
Hans E. Strak said:
Talking about frames, the best frame is no frame. What I want to
say is, the aim is to make a picture which is so good, that it is
does not need a frame or maybe just a subtle on. In no case should
the frame distract from the picture. A picture is more important
than the frame, no question about it. What would a frame be without
a picture in it?

Kind regards

Hans
Click to expand...
The frame is unavoidable and no frame is still a choice of framing since something, the wall likely will surround the picture.

It is better to frame the picture as tp control the color of it since it will determine the perceived colors of the photo itself. Experiment with surrounding a picture with black and then with white and you won't believe it's the same photo

Complementing the colors of the photo by that of the frame isn't as necessary when the mat is of neutral color like a beige or a shade of gray. Yet it is still a nice touch.

I wouldn't use a very elaborate frame, someting like a sculpture, unless it is thought out as part of the art piece itself.
--
Jean
 
A really fine image stands on its own.. it will have the "WOW" factor built in. If it doesn't then Photoshop the hell out of it and add the "WOW" factor if you can.

Frames don't do it.... but can add to the presentation of a good image. Visit a good art gallery and see if its the frame or the picture you remember an hour later.

As to "good taste" well I like Sirloin with oysters and salad... Others prefer Hamburgers.... Who gets the most enjoyment????

MikeF
--
A few of my images... Watch out! there's some nudity about.
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~mikefinn/
 
I looked it up. This book looks great! I ordered it right away.
Thank you very much, Isabel!

Hans
Isabel Cutler said:
Thanks for reminding me about this. When I was deep into my film
camera study years, I bought more than one Zone System book. Don't
know what happened to them...just did an internet search and found
this interesting site that had some references to digital
photography: http://simplifiedzonesystem.com/
Isabel

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top