My first go at HDR photography

[corydoras]

I think the more old fashioned of us or less technologically minded, feel a little insecure having to compete with this sort of new art form that is available, and while I absolutely love to look at the photos that are presented on this site and am greatly impressed by the cleverness of supposed amateurs, I have no urge to delve into this area myself and often feel slightly put out that photos taken from a camera which pretty much only captures what it sees, and the art is left purely in the hands of the person holding the camera, is a dying art form. I was very very proud when my snail photo won an early competition, because it was my idea that won, not the fancy alterations, which Thank God are still not allowed in the Competitions. In fact if there was enough interest on the site and someone else to organise it and take the burdon off Steve, it might be interesting to have 'PhotoShop?! Competitions'

Music is music. Whether it is played on a Strad' violin or on a Moog changes nothing. Do you think that Mozart would not like to jam with a synth if he had the choice? It's the same with photography, just that with digital photography ANYONE can cheaply process there own 'film'.

 

Do you think that traditional photography uses no tricks? Never herad of push/pull processing, dodging and burning, not to mention just getting the airbrush out? It is the same with digital photograpy. Just these days you don't need to have a dark room full of smelly chemicals do do all this stuff.

 

The art of photography never was 'just in the hands' of the person looking down the viewfinder, it was always a partnership between the photographer and the chemist. Now it the chemist has been replaced by software, thats all.

Edited July 26, 2006 by corydoras

[corydoras]

'Eastard', sorry mate, I have a very strong personal view on digital 'cut and chop'! Simply it aint "photography as we know it (Jim)"

 

Personaly, I see it as cheating in photographic terms. It could be treated as a seperate art form perhaps, ie, painting is producing an image but it aint photography, infact I would put it somewhere in between, They did not think much of Picasso in his early days.

 

I take your IT conection as even worse, surly you would want to get away from it? . . . no, I supose not, if the cap fits But it still aint Photography, despite the tricks I know the old hands got upto in the dark room. Enjoy it mate, but sorry, I canot join you enthusiasum.

 

Your obviously not a photographer mate. You can't 'cheat' at photography just like you can't cheat at war.

[Steve Randles]

Firstly with apologies to Eatlord for semi hijacking his thread.

 

I think this will be or could be as big a debate as using keepnets or not or barbed v's barbless hooks as we all have differing views on this subject, some stronger than others.

 

To be honest when I first started investigating digital photography I was half amazed and half appalled at what could be done and was being done to photographs both now with digital and also since the dawn of photography. All my views of the great photographs I had ever seen where trivialised when I realised that probably not one famous, printed or publiscised photograph had been to my mind "meddled with"

 

“No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.” Ansel Adams - US nature photographer (1902 - 1984)

 

I like the above quote, and think its fitting to be displayed here.

 

As I delved deeper into the editing side of photographs ( I was already involved with web graphics, flyers and promotional brochure work, add to that my job at the time was in the print industry) I noticed that all was not as it seems as people where editing their pics for different uses. Some where editing for web display (sRGB colours) others for print, others where editing for website use, for long term storage or cross platform compatibility, its becoming a minefield!!

 

With each one there would be size issues, extremely small size to become a permanant part of say a website template or front page, larger still for web display and email ( before the advent of high speed broadband ) and the thumbnails for the former also. Larger images still for online fine art galleries, stock photo or advertising agencies. Cross compatible formats such as tiff or RAW for long term storage and its associated huge file size, okay, now we have the minefield!!

 

The real issue here is the multitude of uses as the very small and rough guide above lends to the argument "to edit or not", your dealing (for the most part) with jpg file that are lossy, meaning that once you edit (resize) and save it you have lost quality and all manner of things can be lost from your picture, quality is the first thing to go.. Now where does that stand with the "Its not the picture that was taken" issue? This is why editing happens, its a method of putting back what was lost from what the photographer saw through the viewfider or adjusting to what the photograher saw when the viewing medium and so the conditions change, whether that be print or screen.

 

Another interesting comparison can be made with the use of lens hoods, shooting so that the sun is in front of you, but not directly into the lens, with and without a lens hood will give two different photos, but edit the photo took without the aid of a hood, a quick level adjustment and you have the same photograph as that which was seen by the photographer, albeit with one piece of equipment less. Food for thought.

 

But after saying all this, there is of course the other side of the coin, editing photographs for other uses. This may involve for example adding a blue tint to a photo of a company Head Office that will be printed on the front of its next annual sales report and therefore fitting in with the company livery. Its still a photograph, not what was taken or seen through the viewfinder but a photograph none the less, just altered for that particular use. After all a filter could of been used on camera to achieve the same results.

 

But to bring us back to Eatlords posting, there is also this type of editing that make for very compelling images, its still a photograph but one that has been changed drastically to create an image which I'm sure you'll agree if it was matted and framed then hung on a wall would make an interesting picture, especially if it fitted with the rooms colourscheme in mind.

 

But this is just my fivers worth of thought, I myself edit very little as I want the photo to be my memory of that time, but I will edit further if its intended use is for another purpose other than displaying a photo that I took yesterday..

 

Steve...

[corydoras]

Well said that man. I always keep my editing to a minimum and I NEVER overwrite the original files that I downloaded from the camera they go straight to a DVD and are archived just in case I want them back again. Apart from that I normally just play with the tonal range a bit and sharpen my images slightly before I post them on line.

[Guest CJS2]

Quote, CJS2;

I'm sure its fun, but is it reality? Only a personal opinion, each to his own?

 

Enjoy it mate, but sorry, I canot join you enthusiasum.

 

Quote, Corydorus;

Music is music. Whether it is played on a Strad' violin or on a Moog changes nothing

 

Your obviously not a photographer mate. You can't 'cheat' at photography just like you can't cheat at war.

 

Quote, Steve Randles;

But this is just my fivers worth of thought, I myself edit very little as I want the photo to be my memory of that time, but I will edit further if its intended use is for another purpose other than displaying a photo that I took yesterday..

 

 

 

As for my thoughts, I stand by them. Such 'photographic' manipulating is for the birds and advertising. Steve says it all, 'a memory of that time', for me, my loved ones and any with whom I wish to share.

 

Eatlard is entitled to his pleasure, as much as I am entitled to my opinion.

 

Music, yes, music is music, the question is who's doing the playing, I could imagine Mr Mozart producing some amazing sounds on modern electronic instruments, 'more maestro, more'. Problem is most of this modern tosh is not produced by musicians, but by a back room technician and a computer!!! Mike 'O', we love ya! (hay, that word 'nerd' is spinning in my head again ) Manufactured, music, groups, photographs, look around, we live in a fantasy world of fauls expectations. We are 'sold' a life that is unreal in its expectation, the consequences of which are seen every day in broken lives, life did not live up to expectations

 

Me not a photographer? . . . you are entitled to your opinion But that will not stop me enjoying pointing a camera about. Cheating at photography? yes you can, Ealtard has proved it! What this has got to do with war??? I have no idea

 

Don't forget, this is only my humble opinion

 

[corydoras]

Well said Steve. This reminds me of an interview I saw with Lord Lichfield, the famous portrait photographer before he died. The interviewer assumed that LL would not 'dirty his hands' on a digital camera or by using digital techniques. He was a bit gobsmacked when LL anounced that he had not touched a traditional film camera for about five years.

 

Digital has democratised photography. When I started I was told that I need to practise a lot, to shoot yards and yards of film. That's all very well if you can afford it, well now I can. Now I can go out and shoot 360 shots in an afternoon and I don't have to worry about the cost of development.

Edited July 26, 2006 by corydoras

[corydoras]

Quote, CJS2;

Cheating at photography? yes you can, Ealtard has proved it! What this has got to do with war??? I have no idea

 

Don't forget, this is only my humble opinion

 

So if Ealthard had shot it on Ilford with a Box Brownie and all the processing was done by a chemist or by the photographer in the dark room would that be cheating? or would that be a 'real' photo.

 

PS You can't cheat at war either.

[Guest CJS2]

So if Ealthard had shot it on Ilford with a Box Brownie and all the processing was done by a chemist or by the photographer in the dark room would that be cheating? or would that be a 'real' photo.

 

PS You can't cheat at war either.

 

 

I will not get drawn mate, this is going no where. No point in getting into a round and round, go no where dialogue, you chew on it if you wish

 

 

 

CJS2

[Eatlard]

Interesting conversation this has bought up. Talking of manipulation, surely this starts as soon as you have lenses for particular jobs doesn't it? That's manipulating your image right there, any zoom any wideangle etc....but I'm quite happy that everyone has their opinion. I try to get a reaction of some sort with my pictures whatever that may be and if they get people talking....then it's all good

 

Happy snapping!

 

As it's my thread ( can i say that?) I thought i'd just put you right on one detail...

 

My name

 

So far i've been called Eastard, Eatlord and Ealtard <--- i like this last one best.

 

it's EATLARD..

 

There..thanks for listening.

[Guest CJS2]

Interesting conversation this has bought up. Talking of manipulation, surely this starts as soon as you have lenses for particular jobs doesn't it? That's manipulating your image right there, any zoom any wideangle etc....but I'm quite happy that everyone has their opinion. I try to get a reaction of some sort with my pictures whatever that may be and if they get people talking....then it's all good

 

Happy snapping!

 

As it's my thread ( can i say that?) I thought i'd just put you right on one detail...

 

My name

 

So far i've been called Eastard, Eatlord and Ealtard <--- i like this last one best.

 

it's EATLARD..

 

There..thanks for listening.

 

'Eatlard'

OK mate, at least you have a balanced view, sorry, I seem to have got your name wrong. We can agree to have different views. I will admit to playing about when 2 million pixs was the bees knees! Now I like to keep it simple, photographically and personality

 

Lenses, mmm? interesting idea to go out with just one primary lens (50mm?) and see what could be achieved, food for thought, 50mm is supposed to be equivalent to the human eye??? or perhaps a 28mm I bet we have all got a 28'ish lens. My current interest is looking at old photos and zooming/cropping producing a totally different picture to the original, 'new from old'. Puts some real impact into some originally bland shots, yeah, I know manipulating, but in its simplest form, and still in dark room terms? I'm a bit retro in my thinking these days, OK, an 'old fart', but I like it that way

 

All this said, I still think the picture you took of a watery flower, is one of the most haunting macro shots to appear on this site, another personal view.

 

 

This one, I love it, I regularly view it, thank you.

 

Cliff, CJS2

Edited July 26, 2006 by CJS2