Do we get too obsessed by "real"?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
11

The thought behind the question of how much do we process our images led me to post a few of my own on that thread.

Thinking a bit harder it occurred to me that we spend far too much of our time trying to make real into "more real".

I have to submit some of my efforts at making a photograph into art. Phart for want of a better word. It is not just a case of running an image through a filter and trying in the process to improve its visual impact. More like destroying the image and calling it "art".

Not to everyone's taste. But it is a valid offshoot in my opinion.

"Endeavour" replica

Miner's cottage Daylesford

Is it art? The sign said so ...

I am sorry about these images, but I wanted to show the sort of "stuff" that I tend to capture.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Here is a portrait
3

"Not adapted"

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
From Theatre
3

Shakespeare's "King Lear" Not adapted, but you might get the drift

"Heathers"

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

paulhoppe_photography
paulhoppe_photography Regular Member • Posts: 135
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
1

Quite OT for "Adapted Lenses" I guess bit still an interesting question. I feel that by processing images to be even more "real" (like fixing exposure, sharpness, color grading)  we actually make the images unreal. Sure they look more real but they are still heavily processed. Your "pharts" (really? are not much different. Heavily processed but simply in the other direction to look "surreal". I actually l like the first picture quite a lot. I could even imagine printing it and hanging it somewhere.

-- hide signature --
 paulhoppe_photography's gear list:paulhoppe_photography's gear list
Fujifilm X-E4 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS 7artisans 12mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 R WR +8 more
John Crowe
John Crowe Senior Member • Posts: 1,847
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?

I hate getting involved in these, but what the heck, I am prepared for ridicule again.

I took art all through high school, did some engineering, and chose an education in Industrial Design instead of Architecture.  I stopped painting 41 years ago and chose photography instead.

For ME photography is about real images printed on photographic paper to recreate the reality as much as possible.  If one is going to print on canvas, and/or destroy a photographic image to make it look like a painting, then why not simply paint it in the first place.

On the opposite approach, I must say I am extremely impressed by those painters who paint images that look like photographs.  That is an insane skill but I suspect I have more appreciation for the artist than the actual work.

All in all, I really should try painting and even rendering again, as my daughter has taken to it a bit over the past few years.

Having said that, I do like the colourful store front, but I think it could stand on it's own as an original photograph.  Perhaps I sense a weakness in my own argument!

 John Crowe's gear list:John Crowe's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4x Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D +15 more
OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
1

paulhoppe_photography wrote:

Quite OT for "Adapted Lenses" I guess bit still an interesting question. I feel that by processing images to be even more "real" (like fixing exposure, sharpness, color grading) we actually make the images unreal. Sure they look more real but they are still heavily processed. Your "pharts" (really? are not much different. Heavily processed but simply in the other direction to look "surreal". I actually l like the first picture quite a lot. I could even imagine printing it and hanging it somewhere.

Thanks, I have used this style of processing quite varied really and the original image needs to be right fro any given style or the time is simply wasted.

Portraits, for example, are family-personal unless the subject is famous in some way or another. But portraits as art are much more capable of being universal appeal.

I have hesitated to show these image styles du to the almost universal appreciation of only liking perfect ‘photographic representation’.

Of course published image, especially in magazines, often are heavily tweaked …. And why do women wear make-up?

Such images to obviously made-over are mostly regarded with stunned silence, followed by the notion that they have been fixed or simply made-over by using a filter-wash.

My photograph of that little roadside take-away shop in a small hamlet in rural Victoria, Australia looked quite good in its original capture. But as reworked I think that it does make a better statement.

We tend to see and walk past quickly forgetting what was seen other than the necessary thoughts of navigating past it. There were several other establishments there living off what passing trade might care to stop and patronise them. But the shop of Chrissie Ries. Has now passed into worldwide circulation.

If you are ever passing through Skipton, pop in and say hello and tell Chrissie that she has been noticed from afar.

Perhaps that is my point as a straight snap of the establishment would not ring any bells at all.

That this sort of processing is just a filter is not the point - the particular process requires much more work from the artist-skill than simply pressing a shutter button on a camera.

It is also more interesting than making a thousand snaps and leaving them rot on a hard drive.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Just for the cost of the frame …
1

John Crowe wrote:

I hate getting involved in these, but what the heck, I am prepared for ridicule again.

I took art all through high school, did some engineering, and chose an education in Industrial Design instead of Architecture. I stopped painting 41 years ago and chose photography instead.

For ME photography is about real images printed on photographic paper to recreate the reality as much as possible. If one is going to print on canvas, and/or destroy a photographic image to make it look like a painting, then why not simply paint it in the first place.

On the opposite approach, I must say I am extremely impressed by those painters who paint images that look like photographs. That is an insane skill but I suspect I have more appreciation for the artist than the actual work.

All in all, I really should try painting and even rendering again, as my daughter has taken to it a bit over the past few years.

Having said that, I do like the colourful store front, but I think it could stand on it's own as an original photograph. Perhaps I sense a weakness in my own argument!

Your points are well made John.

In order to understand my motivation:

I think that I have some born-talent in composition skills.  This I say in all modesty.  I think that quite a lot of photographers either have or learn these skills.  A well composed photograph can be so excellent that it hurts and we can all feel a pang of jealousy that we did not have the opportunity to make it ourselves.  With our supercalafristic Woebegone camera and special lens with swirly bokeh of course.   We are always so involved in our gear that we sometimes forget that even the simplest and most crude gear has made the most memorable images since man lived in caves and I am not just talking about painted art.

With early photographs the painters might have mentioned that the machine did all the work and therefore the result was talentless.  Now perhaps adding art to a mechanical capture has become regarded as perhaps denying the skill that was used before the shutter button was pressed.  Or are we still looking for the perfect camera gear that will make the most evocative image with utter reliability simply by pressing that button?

Unfortunately I have not had the spare time and also suspect that the talent is also missing for the serious artistic skills that my acquired (mental) composition skills would demand if I had become an artist.  Nor have I ever been willing to live in a garret with my family fed hand to mouth waiting to become a recognised artist so that every painting would become worth a small fortune by the avid collectors of ‘my style’.

Taking photographic images and making them into art is something that I can do.  They will never make me rich, but of course most art-painters will also not be rich either and at best they may have to supplement by teaching in order to make a living.

These processes allow me to experiment with style for my own satisfaction from images I captured photographically myself.

Eugene Atget, an early photographer in Paris, made a living by capturing  images to sell to painters who would rather paint from them in their studio than sit for extended time in the open air. Maybe that is where I am coming from in a modern round-about manner?

It is also rather quaint that the famous artist has to mess around for years developing a style that investors might buy from their efforts and then spend the rest of their later careers replicating the style and making huge amounts of money.  The famous sought-after artist has also to be a businessman.  But most of the money is made by the astute investor after the artist is dead.

I chose a conventional career working as a professional in an area that I actually quite enjoyed - just as much as we must agree that the professional artist must necessarily enjoy what they do - even if they might never become rich - it could also be classified as ‘a hobby’ and and displayed in local art shows and occasionally someone might like to pay something for it -  even if it is only the cost of the frame

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

GnarlydogOZ
GnarlydogOZ Senior Member • Posts: 1,499
what is real?
1

I am under no illusion that a 2D image is "real", printed or electronic, not even close to representing reality.

What I do understand it that convention has lead us to believe that an image is representation of reality. So how far has convention lead us? is a bit of tweak of saturation, color balance and contrast OK? our eyes seem to see that is real life...

But where do you put black&white? and yet we believe it is "real"

I for one no longer treat photography as depicting reality but an artistic expression instead. Anything is fair game but of course I not necessarily like everything that people do to their images 

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?

i agree what does this have to do with adapted lens. at least the Op should have mentioned what brand of camera adapted lens. Otherwise this thread should be moved to open topic.

Lightshow
Lightshow Veteran Member • Posts: 7,666
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
3

All is fair between photography and painting/drawing with the exclusion of reportage, so if it brings you or others joy, do what you want, there are no rules to creativity only guidelines which are meant to be broken(at some point), ignore anyone who says different, they are conformists, "You must conform to my ideas of creativity".

-- hide signature --

A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/31518420576_7916966b11_b.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1962/31024497798_85526ac8ca_b.jpg
Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/602/20236258313_c604dd9522_n.jpg
-An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

 Lightshow's gear list:Lightshow's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony a7R Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 Super Wide Heliar +20 more
Lightshow
Lightshow Veteran Member • Posts: 7,666
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
5

Brokenland wrote:

i agree what does this have to do with adapted lens. at least the Op should have mentioned what brand of camera adapted lens. Otherwise this thread should be moved to open topic.

I don't mind an odd off topic thread once in a while, especially if you only frequent a few forums, 90% of the topics I view on DPR are in this forum, why ask strangers in another forum when you can ask friends that enjoy similar approach to photography as I do, after the thread dies it can be moved to remove the clutter, that's my .02c

-- hide signature --

A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/31518420576_7916966b11_b.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1962/31024497798_85526ac8ca_b.jpg
Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/602/20236258313_c604dd9522_n.jpg
-An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

 Lightshow's gear list:Lightshow's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony a7R Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 Super Wide Heliar +20 more
Lightshow
Lightshow Veteran Member • Posts: 7,666
Re: Just for the cost of the frame …

Tom Caldwell wrote:

John Crowe wrote:

I hate getting involved in these, but what the heck, I am prepared for ridicule again.

I took art all through high school, did some engineering, and chose an education in Industrial Design instead of Architecture. I stopped painting 41 years ago and chose photography instead.

For ME photography is about real images printed on photographic paper to recreate the reality as much as possible. If one is going to print on canvas, and/or destroy a photographic image to make it look like a painting, then why not simply paint it in the first place.

On the opposite approach, I must say I am extremely impressed by those painters who paint images that look like photographs. That is an insane skill but I suspect I have more appreciation for the artist than the actual work.

All in all, I really should try painting and even rendering again, as my daughter has taken to it a bit over the past few years.

Having said that, I do like the colourful store front, but I think it could stand on it's own as an original photograph. Perhaps I sense a weakness in my own argument!

Your points are well made John.

In order to understand my motivation:

I think that I have some born-talent in composition skills. This I say in all modesty. I think that quite a lot of photographers either have or learn these skills.

All the learning in  the world will never surpass pure talent, you can get close, I used to love drawing, but I have no talent, which is why I gravitated to Photography.

A well composed photograph can be so excellent that it hurts and we can all feel a pang of jealousy that we did not have the opportunity to make it ourselves. With our supercalafristic

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Woebegone camera and special lens with swirly bokeh of course. We are always so involved in our gear that we sometimes forget that even the simplest and most crude gear has made the most memorable images since man lived in caves and I am not just talking about painted art.

With early photographs the painters might have mentioned that the machine did all the work and therefore the result was talentless. Now perhaps adding art to a mechanical capture has become regarded as perhaps denying the skill that was used before the shutter button was pressed. Or are we still looking for the perfect camera gear that will make the most evocative image with utter reliability simply by pressing that button?

Unfortunately I have not had the spare time and also suspect that the talent is also missing for the serious artistic skills that my acquired (mental) composition skills would demand if I had become an artist. Nor have I ever been willing to live in a garret with my family fed hand to mouth waiting to become a recognised artist so that every painting would become worth a small fortune by the avid collectors of ‘my style’.

Taking photographic images and making them into art is something that I can do. They will never make me rich, but of course most art-painters will also not be rich either and at best they may have to supplement by teaching in order to make a living.

These processes allow me to experiment with style for my own satisfaction from images I captured photographically myself.

Eugene Atget, an early photographer in Paris, made a living by capturing images to sell to painters who would rather paint from them in their studio than sit for extended time in the open air. Maybe that is where I am coming from in a modern round-about manner?

It is also rather quaint that the famous artist has to mess around for years developing a style that investors might buy from their efforts and then spend the rest of their later careers replicating the style and making huge amounts of money. The famous sought-after artist has also to be a businessman. But most of the money is made by the astute investor after the artist is dead.

I chose a conventional career working as a professional in an area that I actually quite enjoyed - just as much as we must agree that the professional artist must necessarily enjoy what they do - even if they might never become rich -

As the saying goes, if you love what you do, you'll never work a day. I wish I listened to that advice.

it could also be classified as ‘a hobby’ and and displayed in local art shows and occasionally someone might like to pay something for it - even if it is only the cost of the frame

-- hide signature --

A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/31518420576_7916966b11_b.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1962/31024497798_85526ac8ca_b.jpg
Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/602/20236258313_c604dd9522_n.jpg
-An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

 Lightshow's gear list:Lightshow's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony a7R Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 Super Wide Heliar +20 more
OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Re: Just for the cost of the frame …

Lightshow wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

John Crowe wrote:

I hate getting involved in these, but what the heck, I am prepared for ridicule again.

I took art all through high school, did some engineering, and chose an education in Industrial Design instead of Architecture. I stopped painting 41 years ago and chose photography instead.

For ME photography is about real images printed on photographic paper to recreate the reality as much as possible. If one is going to print on canvas, and/or destroy a photographic image to make it look like a painting, then why not simply paint it in the first place.

On the opposite approach, I must say I am extremely impressed by those painters who paint images that look like photographs. That is an insane skill but I suspect I have more appreciation for the artist than the actual work.

All in all, I really should try painting and even rendering again, as my daughter has taken to it a bit over the past few years.

Having said that, I do like the colourful store front, but I think it could stand on it's own as an original photograph. Perhaps I sense a weakness in my own argument!

Your points are well made John.

In order to understand my motivation:

I think that I have some born-talent in composition skills. This I say in all modesty. I think that quite a lot of photographers either have or learn these skills.

All the learning in the world will never surpass pure talent, you can get close, I used to love drawing, but I have no talent, which is why I gravitated to Photography.

A well composed photograph can be so excellent that it hurts and we can all feel a pang of jealousy that we did not have the opportunity to make it ourselves. With our supercalafristic

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Thanks,I am obviously a bit short on my “supercali” as well ….  

Woebegone camera and special lens with swirly bokeh of course. We are always so involved in our gear that we sometimes forget that even the simplest and most crude gear has made the most memorable images since man lived in caves and I am not just talking about painted art.

With early photographs the painters might have mentioned that the machine did all the work and therefore the result was talentless. Now perhaps adding art to a mechanical capture has become regarded as perhaps denying the skill that was used before the shutter button was pressed. Or are we still looking for the perfect camera gear that will make the most evocative image with utter reliability simply by pressing that button?

Unfortunately I have not had the spare time and also suspect that the talent is also missing for the serious artistic skills that my acquired (mental) composition skills would demand if I had become an artist. Nor have I ever been willing to live in a garret with my family fed hand to mouth waiting to become a recognised artist so that every painting would become worth a small fortune by the avid collectors of ‘my style’.

Taking photographic images and making them into art is something that I can do. They will never make me rich, but of course most art-painters will also not be rich either and at best they may have to supplement by teaching in order to make a living.

These processes allow me to experiment with style for my own satisfaction from images I captured photographically myself.

Eugene Atget, an early photographer in Paris, made a living by capturing images to sell to painters who would rather paint from them in their studio than sit for extended time in the open air. Maybe that is where I am coming from in a modern round-about manner?

It is also rather quaint that the famous artist has to mess around for years developing a style that investors might buy from their efforts and then spend the rest of their later careers replicating the style and making huge amounts of money. The famous sought-after artist has also to be a businessman. But most of the money is made by the astute investor after the artist is dead.

I chose a conventional career working as a professional in an area that I actually quite enjoyed - just as much as we must agree that the professional artist must necessarily enjoy what they do - even if they might never become rich -

As the saying goes, if you love what you do, you'll never work a day. I wish I listened to that advice.

it could also be classified as ‘a hobby’ and and displayed in local art shows and occasionally someone might like to pay something for it - even if it is only the cost of the frame

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
2

Welcome to the Adapted Lens Forum

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Re: what is real?
1

GnarlydogOZ wrote:

I am under no illusion that a 2D image is "real", printed or electronic, not even close to representing reality.

What I do understand it that convention has lead us to believe that an image is representation of reality. So how far has convention lead us? is a bit of tweak of saturation, color balance and contrast OK? our eyes seem to see that is real life...

But where do you put black&white? and yet we believe it is "real"

I for one no longer treat photography as depicting reality but an artistic expression instead. Anything is fair game but of course I not necessarily like everything that people do to their images

Thanks,  I just point out that the most effort across all photographic fora is on better lenses, better sensors and more realistic images.  There is another “picture” which effectively involves destroying the original authenticity in the process of making it into art of a sort.

Early photography was more dreamy simply because of the technical difficulties in making images.  But as the medium and the gear improved the photographic world became obsessed by “f64” utter realistic representation.  It continues today with constant chat about the best lenses and for ever request for yet another new sensor.

Nothing wrong with that but some of the old pictorialist images were pure art.  Early photographs often mimicked art and art often used photographs as a source of detail where the artist did not have to be there.  Painting from photographs - is  not this what I have done here?

Of course the pictorialist style never was approved of by the f64 set. In fact it died a death.

I am not suggesting that anyone change their attitudes. Photography is a discipline of its own but its representation can be made in many ways.  A society photographer for magazines might slim, remove blemishes, and make other adjustments to attempt perfect. All this to make an unreal reality that vis accepted without question.  It is not seen as “art” simply because the changes are subtle and not obvious.

We all mostly play with RAW files. This is also not always apparent and can involve all sorts of tweaks to “improve reality” or otherwise.

I think that there is room for art in serious photography and as much as real art with paintbrush has critics and most painter-artists have to rely on a very small circle of appreciation so must Photographic Art be doomed to be just Phart.  It need not be simply a filter run over a standard image and the level of reality is quite wide and involves quite a lot more work than simply clicking a shutter or processing through the RAW file.

All this of course is in response to the previous thread asking how much do we process our images?  Of course I do this to channel Gary Winogrand’s remark as: “just to see what art I can make out of a photograph” (Originally: “to see what something looks like when photographed”).  It is far from always successful and not all images are suitable for “arting”.  But it is a process that I play with from time to time,  it saves me forever hunting for yet another elusive image that might make me famous and is mostly done for my own pleasure to regurgitate images from my earlier collections.

Unfortunately not adapted lenses - but I have tried to show another side of photography that is little discussed.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

GnarlydogOZ
GnarlydogOZ Senior Member • Posts: 1,499
Re: what is real?
2

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Unfortunately not adapted lenses - but I have tried to show another side of photography that is little discussed.

And yet, on a slightly different tangent, adapted lenses are indeed way more suited to create "art" than modern ones, at least for me.

With all the weird bokeh, swirls and bubbles I feel I can create a much more surreal photograph that a modern AF zoom lens that contain so many glass elements to take away any hint of "unnatural".

While editing might not play a great part in some of my images, the selection of a vintage lens for a given idea certainly does.

image created with adapted lens: projector Aldis 8.5cm f2.5

Kit Lens Avenger
Kit Lens Avenger Senior Member • Posts: 1,264
Portraying "Real" is a Challenge

Opting for the frivolous is failing that challenge.

-- hide signature --

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good.

OP MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,683
Re: what is real?
1

GnarlydogOZ wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Unfortunately not adapted lenses - but I have tried to show another side of photography that is little discussed.

And yet, on a slightly different tangent, adapted lenses are indeed way more suited to create "art" than modern ones, at least for me.

With all the weird bokeh, swirls and bubbles I feel I can create a much more surreal photograph that a modern AF zoom lens that contain so many glass elements to take away any hint of "unnatural".

While editing might not play a great part in some of my images, the selection of a vintage lens for a given idea certainly does.

image created with adapted lens: projector Aldis 8.5cm f2.5

Very good.  Interesting character.  One might wonder if any human mind could imagine this interesting artful image unaided by your optical friend.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

spiffariffic
spiffariffic Forum Member • Posts: 83
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?
1

Tom Caldwell wrote:

The thought behind the question of how much do we process our images led me to post a few of my own on that thread.

Thinking a bit harder it occurred to me that we spend far too much of our time trying to make real into "more real".

"Endeavour" replica

I think this one is genuinely great!

You make an excellent and extremely important point and I'm glad you did it, wrote it, and shared it.

I am sorry about these images, but I wanted to show the sort of "stuff" that I tend to capture.

There's no apologizing in art!!

There's an endless rabbit hole in pursuit of Quality (aka Perfection with a capital P) and falling down it can be really destructive because there is no such thing.

I ended up in a place where I didn't like my technically excellent camera, picked coolly and rationally for Quality, and I didn't like the way my photographs looked with it — they left me cold — and I didn't like taking photographs I didn't like, so I quit taking them altogether for a long time.

That's what the obsession with "more real" can cause.

But also… many of us loved film, right? I fell in love with photography on film. And film is never "real." Every single film stock is tuned for something specific. And no map is the territory anyway.

To that end, here's a definitely non-real, intentionally overexposed photo from my Pentax Q. It's fewer megapixels than today's cell phones. It's also not reeeeally what the scene looked like. It feels like a memory. And it's the first non-phone photograph I LOVED taking in years.

The real scene was much grittier but I like this better this way… and I overexposed it in camera, no editing

petrochemist Veteran Member • Posts: 3,234
Re: Do we get too obsessed by "real"?

I also find the endeavour particularly good.

Much of what I shoot is infra red, which doesn't look real even when it is.  Some digital art created from photographs is very pleasing to my eye, but I don't personally play at creating it much (perhaps due to spending many hours in front of computers at work)

I've also come across loads of heavily processed photos where I really don't approve of the finished result, but think I would have found the original capture quite acceptable!

 petrochemist's gear list:petrochemist's gear list
Pentax K100D Sigma SD14 Pentax K-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Pentax Q +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads