Impressive Dynamic Colors (Superficial/Artificial) vs Washed Out Faded Colors (Originality/Natural)

blogan · Jan 23, 2013

rhlpetrus wrote:

If you use the broader "documentary" photographer concept instead of that of the photojournalist, you will see, like Koudelka or Salgado, that even in film days there was a lot of lab work on those images. Anyway, I think, as you say, that each must find his own voice. I can be quite literal:

I don't doubt that at all. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. I don't think I'm even saying good or bad. I'm saying I'm not a person who likes messing with images a lot in post processing. Come on man, I'm a musician by trade. I certainly understand that there are likes and dislikes, and what works for some, does not work for others.

I can't tell you how many auditions I've been to where there are plenty of great players. Only one makes it. Why? Who knows why. Sometimes there is just that one intangible quality that strikes a chord with the person or persons conducting the audition.

My goal is to please myself. If my motivation is to please others, I am setting myself up for disappointment. And that's not to say that there aren't times when I DO have to gear my output for a certain type of listener. There is no HARD LINE. There are many ways to do many things.

Deleted1929 · Jan 23, 2013

Moderator here :

This argument is becoming far too heated.

There's a simple concept called "Agreeing to Disagree" which I would expect participants of this forum to employ.

Use more moderate and civil language and respect other people's opinions and their right to state them.

Lee Jay · Jan 23, 2013

Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith wrote:

The other shots looked similar, are you sharpening with masks?

Those were downsampled by the server and nearly unprocessed. I sharpen by exporting from Lightroom, which uses an enhanced version of Pixel Genius' output sharpening method. I leave it set to standard.

apaflo · Jan 23, 2013

blogan said:
blogan wrote:

blogan said:

glasswave wrote:

blogan said:

blogan wrote:

blogan said:

glasswave wrote:

blogan said:

ljfinger wrote:

blogan said:

glasswave wrote:

Therefore, it makes much more sense to process are photographs in such a manner as to attempt to evoke an emotional response from the viewer that may only approximate how we may have envisionrd the scene.

Click to expand...

Since that'll never happen, it makes no sense to even try.

Click to expand...

Well then, as I stated in the very next 3 words, "Or not at all..."

Our images should make some attempt to communicate something. Otherwise, why ever show them to anyone, or for that matter, even take them??

"Otherwise why ever show them to anyone, or for that matter, even take them?"

Click to expand...

Because some of us just take them for our own pleasure. Gee. What a concept. Most of the shots I have shown to others have been places I've traveled to and they were sent home merely for the purpose of showing what was going on where ever I was. I don't take pictures for others. I take pictures for myself.

Click to expand...

While I can certainly the understand taking a photo, driven simply by the fact that the act of doing so brings one pleasure, they still represent an attempt to communicate...something. Otherwise, pushing the shutter with the lens cap on would be the same as off. The mere act of thinking about, then composing, then taking a photo represents an intent to communicate...something, if even just to "show places I've traveled to and they were sent home merely for the purpose of showing what was going on where ever I was."

Gee, what a concept. :-|

Click to expand...

If there is no intention of showing a particular image to another, then there is no intent to communicate. I don't communicate with myself. If ultimately my images will find themselves under the scrutiny of a viewer, then yes I am going to try and communicate something.

Actually your images do communicate to you. Every image you like puts a concept into your mind almost immediately the instant to look at it. That is why you like an image...

blogan · Jan 23, 2013

Please look up the definition of communication. I'm not going to copy it here. Every definition says share or convey information, pass on information. We coming close to an argument of semantics. If not already there.

I have no need to communicate with myself. Please accept the fact that my style of photography does not include a lot of post processing. I am as I have stated here many many times, not stating what I think is right or wrong, good or bad. I am merely stating that I am not fond of a lot of processing. So to use the word communication, my lack of processing is a form of communication to someone who might happen to view an image of mine. They might see a more subtle or even austere look.

glasswave · Jan 23, 2013

Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith wrote:

Mark Smith145430 said:
How about this can you tell me what's wrong here, is this straight or computer enhanced?

It's very difficult to tell due to the super low resolution, but it gives me a hint of a notion that it is 3d computer graphics. it seems to me that the bump map used on the leather is a little strong and the high lights on same seem a little pushed given the lighting. The shadows also seem to perfect.

If so, it's very good CGI. I'd guess 3d Studio Max and Mental Ray.

Mark Smith145430 said:

--
There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

glasswave · Jan 23, 2013

blogan said:
blogan wrote:

blogan said:

glasswave wrote:

blogan said:

blogan wrote:

blogan said:

glasswave wrote:

blogan said:

ljfinger wrote:

blogan said:

glasswave wrote:

Therefore, it makes much more sense to process are photographs in such a manner as to attempt to evoke an emotional response from the viewer that may only approximate how we may have envisionrd the scene.

Click to expand...

Since that'll never happen, it makes no sense to even try.

Click to expand...

Well then, as I stated in the very next 3 words, "Or not at all..."

Our images should make some attempt to communicate something. Otherwise, why ever show them to anyone, or for that matter, even take them??

"Otherwise why ever show them to anyone, or for that matter, even take them?"

Click to expand...

Because some of us just take them for our own pleasure. Gee. What a concept. Most of the shots I have shown to others have been places I've traveled to and they were sent home merely for the purpose of showing what was going on where ever I was. I don't take pictures for others. I take pictures for myself.

Click to expand...

While I can certainly the understand taking a photo, driven simply by the fact that the act of doing so brings one pleasure, they still represent an attempt to communicate...something. Otherwise, pushing the shutter with the lens cap on would be the same as off. The mere act of thinking about, then composing, then taking a photo represents an intent to communicate...something, if even just to "show places I've traveled to and they were sent home merely for the purpose of showing what was going on where ever I was."

Gee, what a concept. :-|

Click to expand...

If there is no intention of showing a particular image to another, then there is no intent to communicate. I don't communicate with myself. If ultimately my images will find themselves under the scrutiny of a viewer, then yes I am going to try and communicate something.

Well now, you are just being silly. You've never ever written yourself a note? Made a sketch just to see what an idea may look like? Engaged in positive or negative self talk?

Certainly, if you have taken a photo with the goal of remembering something, then the image was taken with a communication goal in mind.

While you may have never communed with yourself, I am sure you have communicated with yourself. And quite frankly, I'd have hard time believing the former. LOL

blogan · Jan 23, 2013

All right. You know what. You win. When I was in Hong Kong not too long ago I was on the verge of being lost so I took a picture of a street corner and street sign which was on a building (they don't have actual street signs like in the U.S. ????) just so I could find my way back. You are right my friend. I'm tired and going to go and relax. I don't want to argue anymore. In the words of the Great Philosopher Rodney King, "Can't We All Just Get Along."

I mean no harm.

raymondbarlow2 · Jan 23, 2013

pretty much how I saw it... to each his own Dad always said, if you like it, nothing else matters.

--
My home base... http://www.raymondbarlow.com/

Blue-gray Tanager, Costa Rica

glasswave · Jan 23, 2013

blogan said:
blogan wrote:

All right. You know what. You win. When I was in Hong Kong not too long ago I was on the verge of being lost so I took a picture of a street corner and street sign which was on a building (they don't have actual street signs like in the U.S. ????) just so I could find my way back. You are right my friend. I'm tired and going to go and relax. I don't want to argue anymore. In the words of the Great Philosopher Rodney King, "Can't We All Just Get Along."

I mean no harm.

I didn't mean to exasperate you, I, actually, have enjoyed our little verbal parlance. I respect your opinion that over processing is too oft engaged. I did take slight exception to your "Gee, what a concept" comment because I felt it implied that I am dim, but I did concede your point. Taking a photo only for the pleasure of taking, indeed has merit.

Anyways, I never intended to offend. Enjoy your rest. Perhaps on the next forum post we'll both be ganging up on LJ. ;-)

cheers

apaflo · Jan 23, 2013

blogan said:
blogan wrote:

Please look up the definition of communication. I'm not going to copy it here. Every definition says share or convey information, pass on information. We coming close to an argument of semantics. If not already there.

Communications is my primary area of expertize. In addition to a dictionary definition, you might want to read a little deeper. Claude Shannon, in the late 1940's, started us on the way to the Information Age with a paper titled "A Mathematical Theory of Communications". It is available at <http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf>.

Other good sources to study are Rudolf Arnheim's texts on the psycology of visual perception. Note that the title of "Entropy and Art" is a reference to the use of the term "entropy" in the sense that Shannon originated. "Entropy and Art" is available online at <www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf>.

Another eye opener would be doing a google search on just two words, "communications photography"!

blogan said:
I have no need to communicate with myself.

You do though, like it or not. But this is not communicating with yourself anyway. It is the photograph communicating with you, not you with yourself.

Looking at a photograph is communicating in much the same way that listening to someone speak is, or reading a book. When you speak or when you write an article to post here on DPR the intent is to communicate information to the listener or the reader. When you make a photograph the indent is identically to communicate information via visual symbols to whoever views it (including yourself).

blogan said:
Please accept the fact that my style of photography does not include a lot of post processing.

That is a reasonable choice. But it isn't really significant to this discussion.

blogan said:
I am as I have stated here many many times, not stating what I think is right or wrong, good or bad. I am merely stating that I am not fond of a lot of processing. So to use the word communication, my lack of processing is a form of communication to someone who might happen to view an image of mine. They might see a more subtle or even austere look.

Lack of processing is not a form of communications. It is also not even apparent in any given image except through communications external to the image.

You have to realize that you absolutely do process your images. You just do it by pre-setting the camera configuration rather than post-setting an editor. If the resulting image is "perfect", it makes absolutely no difference how it was accomplished, it is the same image either way. It communicates information to each viewer.

The point of either camera configuration or post processing is to provide the most effective communications to the viewer.

Luke Kaven · Jan 23, 2013

There is only one thing that matters in this question: Is there an artistic purpose? If there is an artistic purpose, on a case by case basis, then anything goes.

Mark Smith145430 · Jan 24, 2013

glasswave said:
glasswave wrote:

glasswave said:

Mark Smith wrote:

How about this can you tell me what's wrong here, is this straight or computer enhanced?

Click to expand...

It's very difficult to tell due to the super low resolution, but it gives me a hint of a notion that it is 3d computer graphics. it seems to me that the bump map used on the leather is a little strong and the high lights on same seem a little pushed given the lighting. The shadows also seem to perfect.

If so, it's very good CGI. I'd guess 3d Studio Max and Mental Ray.

glasswave said:

Click to expand...

--

It was done in good old Adobe CS mainly Illustrator.

Osvaldo Cristo · Jan 24, 2013

You stated a good questions and I am making them in the last three decades. Follow some of my own observations:

We do not see with our sensory organs (eyes) but with our mind. It means all we see are processed by our brain to generate our impressions. One scene in the real world has different impact on our brain than when the same scene is registered on a bidimensionl paper. Changing composition, DoF and color saturation are the regular ways to try to cope with the intrisic limitation of the printed (or on screen) media and to try generate the same (or other) sensations to the brain of the viewer
In the last three generations color TV was an important part of the life. The super saturated images are a technical compensation for the general poor image quality but the collateral is the paradigm of people for bidimensional images went to more saturated colors than the actual scene
There are some people casting on the electronic (modern) postprocessing the guilt for so "distorted" color images available currently and missing "the old gold times" when it was not manipulated. Oh, what so absurd statement! I do not know a single film (either positive or negative color) that can provide exactly "real" colors. Even famous PRO medias like Velvia and Kodachrome present absolute crazy color rendering if you really look for "real colors"
Except for a few applications (usually tied to scientific activities) people are not looking for "real images", but "convenient sensations"
Probably even you if see an image rendering absolute real tones and colors will not like them. It is the "natural" human trend in their search for sensations... of course there are people that exagerate on the dosis, at last for the taste of some other ones. But c´est la vie, mon cher ami...

Best regards,

rhlpetrus · Jan 24, 2013

Luke Kaven said:
Luke Kaven wrote:

There is only one thing that matters in this question: Is there an artistic purpose? If there is an artistic purpose, on a case by case basis, then anything goes.

Ditto!

blogan · Jan 24, 2013

glasswave said:
glasswave wrote:

glasswave said:

blogan wrote:

All right. You know what. You win. When I was in Hong Kong not too long ago I was on the verge of being lost so I took a picture of a street corner and street sign which was on a building (they don't have actual street signs like in the U.S. ????) just so I could find my way back. You are right my friend. I'm tired and going to go and relax. I don't want to argue anymore. In the words of the Great Philosopher Rodney King, "Can't We All Just Get Along."

I mean no harm.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to exasperate you, I, actually, have enjoyed our little verbal parlance. I respect your opinion that over processing is too oft engaged. I did take slight exception to your "Gee, what a concept" comment because I felt it implied that I am dim, but I did concede your point. Taking a photo only for the pleasure of taking, indeed has merit.

Anyways, I never intended to offend. Enjoy your rest. Perhaps on the next forum post we'll both be ganging up on LJ. ;-)

cheers

blogan · Jan 24, 2013

Wow! apaflo,

This is getting a little out of hand. Sure your area of expertise might be communications. That's fine. You are obviously then going to be able to argue or discuss points that would not occur to the layperson when it comes to communication. But what you are talking about is tantamount to my expounding on music (my area of expertise) to the degree of stating that there is music EVERYWHERE! Which there is. So taking music beyond the dictionary definition, would mean that there is music in the simple closing of a door. It causes a disturbance in molecules or atoms which then generates frequencies which can then be related to tones based on the harmonic structure of said frequencies. Which then translates to a musical pitch.

So sure, there is communication in everything. I guess simple urination could be considered communication, although you will probably argue against that. But if definitely could be considered musical.

Anyway, my point again, is that yes there are tons of great images out there that are truly captivating and eye catching. As for me, I just do not like going through the whole process it takes to get those images.

As I stated before, I'm into the more relevant, important, non-superficial things like making sure my hair and attire is such to attract the opposite sex.

glasswave · Jan 24, 2013

ABA DABA · Jan 24, 2013

Personally I don't care for a shot of a brightly colored "porcelin vase looking" parrot flying in a asur colored sky.

Paphios · Jan 24, 2013

rhlpetrus said:
rhlpetrus wrote:

If go back to photography development, you'll see a change from naturality to harsher visions. Cartier-Bresson and Salgado are two good examples, the former used a camera to portray people and situations in a very naturalistic approach. Salgado uses contrast and grain for impact, very successfully.

Edwar Weston and Ansel Adams were almost contemporaneous, but also different: Weston went for a more natualistic vision, AA processed images much more.

I think what matters is final result, don't get stuck to formulas, develop your own vision. Don't fall into the traditionalist/realist trap of saying PP is forbidden, it makes no sense, AA used a lot of processing, only in a wet environment.

Impressive Dynamic Colors (Superficial/Artificial) vs Washed Out Faded Colors (Originality/Natural)

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts