Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Let's have a heated debate

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318443 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:29 PM

Well let's keep it slightly cool...or at least no ravaging attacks on each other.

The Before and After gallery has created quite a stir...some good opinion is being delivered in the forums and on individual images, but I have a question.

It's an age old grumble of some that photos should be photographs and not art. And maybe all this over-cooked digital photography shouldn't be encouraged.

So to the question: If you have a dull scene, is it wrong to light it digitally?

My view: I do it regularly and see no problem. I'm not the best digital artist, but neither am I the best natural photographer (Sadly this site takes up so much of my time I don't get much spare time after sleep) but if I was a fantastic digital manipulator I'd be dead annoyed if someone criticised my shot for not being a "real" photo.

In my view, casting digital lighting is just as good as waiting for God to do it.

If I can recreate the same shape of shadows, the same colour of light, the same rays and the same contrast...why not? If you are extremely skilled, and understand light, there's no reason why you cannot get damn close to nature...in fact you can exaggerate and improve on nature. Because you're only playing with the same pixels that the lens is using to paint the natural scene.

I do disagree with people palming digital off as natural, and that's the beauty of the B&A gallery, we see the before and after. The down side is the traditionalists will often see an average shot in the before example and wonder why the photographer didn't take more time getting a better exposure/lighting.

Have I upset anyone...probably...let's have a debate Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
11 Sep 2007 - 5:29 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

dougv
dougv Site Moderator 108376 forum postsdougv vcard England3 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:36 PM

I have no problem with people digitally enhancing photos.

If I did, then I'd never be able to upload anything! Wink

I must agree that passing heavy manipulation off as straight out of the camera is a no no.
Smile

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012603 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:37 PM

Oh my god did you sound the warning siren for moderators to stand by Wink


Quote: I do disagree with people palming digital off as natural

yep agree with that, all else is fine by me, personally think it takes great skill to produce something decent when you have light as flat as a pancake.

CathyT
CathyT e2 Member 87276 forum postsCathyT vcard United Kingdom18 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:38 PM

I'm sitting on the fence ......for now.


Is this debate mainly about landscape photography??

Last Modified By CathyT at 11 Sep 2007 - 5:41 PM
MeanGreeny
11 Sep 2007 - 5:38 PM

You can do what you like as long as you don't lie or conceal and tell it like it is up front.

If you go too far you might find a more appreciative audience over at deviantart.

I can see one or two getting bent out of shape over this

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:42 PM

Did you take your Pills this morning Pete? Or have I gone back in time the 20th century?

In my view, photography does not begin and end with the image capture. Unless you shoot Polaroid, all forms of photography need a post capture stage to get to the 'finished product' - with film you develop in a dark room, and with digital you develop on a computer.

danbrann
danbrann e2 Member 10473 forum postsdanbrann vcard 15 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:43 PM

Are we producing images or photographs? In general people like me who have little digital manipulation know how tend to dislike the manipulated images. Personally I couldn't care less.I simply want to see the finished article.

CathyT
CathyT e2 Member 87276 forum postsCathyT vcard United Kingdom18 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:43 PM

Is this about Daves (tandberg) landscape shot?


Cathy reaches into the kitchen and pulls out a big wooden spoon.. Wink

Last Modified By CathyT at 11 Sep 2007 - 5:44 PM
csurry
csurry  129230 forum posts92 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:45 PM


Quote: I'm sitting on the fence ......for now.


Is this debate mainly about landscape photography??

Watch out for them splinters Smile

KatieR
KatieR  106197 forum posts6 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:48 PM


Quote: no ravaging

That's me out, then. Darnit.

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:49 PM

There are two thinks that do annoy:

1) Where a digital photographer uses post capture manipulation to propagate a lie. For instance, take a close up shot of a rare animal in a zoo, then change the background to suggest the animal is in the wild, and say 'look what I managed to photograph in the wild'.
(if the photographer was open about the work carried out, then that is fine).

2) People who make the assumption that all digital photography is a lie (because of point 1).

csurry
csurry  129230 forum posts92 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:51 PM

The only issue as I see it is when posted and not categorised in digitally manipulated - it sets unreal expectations for novices.

As someone that does very little PS work apart from sharpening and curves I admire the skills needed, can't be bothered with them, but I admire it as another skill to be learnt if you want to.

conrad
conrad  1010874 forum posts116 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:51 PM


Quote: If you have a dull scene, is it wrong to light it digitally?

Not in my book. As long as any kind of photo (preferably your own - although there are some justifiable exceptions, you probably know what or who I mean...) is the basis of the image, I think it has a place on ePhotozine.

Whatever you did to improve the original photo, whatever you added later, that's all irrelevant imho - although interesting. (Unless, of course, you're trying to pass it off as 'real' or as 'photo journalism'.)


Quote: if I was a fantastic digital manipulator I'd be dead annoyed if someone criticised my shot for not being a "real" photo.

Yes, see what you mean. People who only want 'real' photos would be disappointed in the real world anyway - there has always been manipulation, even in the darkroom, and there will always be manipulation.


Quote: casting digital lighting is just as good as waiting for God to do it

Or at least it can be quicker, sometimes... Wink


Quote: The down side is the traditionalists will often see an average shot in the before example and wonder why the photographer didn't take more time getting a better exposure/lighting.

Not sure that's a downside - I do feel that if you could have taken a better shot under the given circumstances, it's disappointing that you need software to compensate for what you did wrong or didn't do to get a quality shot.

But sometimes certain circumstances can be so difficult that software adds possibilities that you didn't have when you were taking the photo, so I don't see why you shouldn't use those possibilities in post processing.


Quote: Have I upset anyone...

Not me!


Quote: let's have a debate

Oh, goody, yes let's...!

Waits excitedly for whatever it is that's coming...

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:51 PM


Quote: Oh my god did you sound the warning siren for moderators to stand by

Perhaps it's been a bit quiet today, and Pete wanted to boost the traffic numbers for this week.

I notice Pete has not been back since starting this, so maybe he's a troll?

Last Modified By mattw at 11 Sep 2007 - 5:53 PM
Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318443 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
11 Sep 2007 - 5:53 PM


Quote: Is this debate mainly about landscape photography??

Absolutely not, the same has been said about studio lighting before. And I'd say if you clever enough to add lighting, go for it.

Quote:
Is this about Daves (tandberg) landscape shot?

Not specifically it's about any photo of any subject.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.