Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I hope not
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
( where's that tin 'at!??? [It's been months!] )
Quote: [It's been months!]
You need to get out more
I've not read the whole thread, but I've never really understood why people get so self-righteous about getting it right in camera - as if you're a lower form of life if you have to lower yourself to do some manipulation.
That attitude sucks - you get people like that in every area of life. Purist tossers who like to look down their noses.
But in this case it's best to get it "as right as possible" in camera - things like:-
correct white balance
avoidance of distractiond
All save you time when at home editing
Not such a biggy if you're doing it for fun, but you're shooting yourself in the foot time-wise if you're trying to make cash from the shots.
Record as accurately as possible what I see...
or, record what I see in a certain way, so I can use it for manipulation on a computer.
I enjoy digital photography because you can work beyond the camera, but that doesn't mean I don't want to be a good photographer.
Quote: You need to get out more
( I do Adrian - but you're never there!! )
You make a good point Ade...
Quote: correct white balance
avoidance of distractions
If one is shooting digital then post-production is inevitable.
Shooting film however requires a different approach - and different considerations - to achieve those key points that Keith identified (so correctly) on page one,
Quote: That attitude sucks - you get people like that in every area of life. Purist tossers who like to look down their noses.
I suspect that only accounts for a tiny percentage, for most it will be fear of computers and not understanding how to post-process an image, or understand why its necessary when the film they are or were used to taking is sent off to a lab and returned as a finished print.
Quote: ( I do Adrian - but you're never there!! )
Threeche mon ami!!!
( I speak it fluently!... )
Sometimes they're straight out of camera. Sometimes I like combining images with manipulation. It's like painting: discovering nuances in an image and having new ideas about interpretation and colour. They develop into images as I work on them. I do like having the facilities to paint an idea into an image or bring out new ideas in an old photo.
I find that often the people that preach that it has to be 'right in camera' and has 'absolutely no manipulation' are those that have all sorts of settings on their jpegs, such as saturation, sharpening etc, which are, of course, manupulation. They get most miffed if you point that out too, especially when you also point out that in those cases you have let the camera dictate all those things and it's the same every time, as opposed to the finer nuances and differences you can get processing them yourself. However, I think, as several others have said, that fear of that there computery thing plays a large part in this dogmatic approach...
Katy for me 90% in camera is good enough, especially using film. The other 10 involves the removal of dust spots, dodging and burning and so on.
Quote: Hi Fraser.I think your photos are over manipulated,eg the sky in your last upload
Thanks for your helpful contribution Lawrence. I'm still working on my PS skills
I can understand the no-editing attitude from journos and record photographers. I can also understand why people can't be bothered spending time pfaffing about on the pc if that's not their thing but photography, for me, is about trying to bring a little creative slant to my life (I'm a scientist and engineer). I want to do more than just record what I see - I want to bring my interpretation to it. If I get an image straight from the camera that I like fine and dandy, but if it needs a bit of manipulation I'm happy to indulge. I'm not going to tie my own hands because of some self-imposed rule.
And if you think Ansel Adams images weren't "manipulated" in the darkroom, despite everything he knew about getting it right in-camera, I'd suggest you read his autobiography.
Quote: Katy for me 90% in camera is good enough, especially using film. The other 10 involves the removal of dust spots, dodging and burning and so on.
Yes, it wasn't really a dig at anyone in the thread, just an observation from the majority of people I've met that have stuck with this that they only ever re-size for upload in PS or to enter in comps or whatever. You probably manipulate in post processing more than me if you dodge and burn (although I did learn about that recently lol)
Taking the scene exactly how I saw it isn't always that straightforward.
We have to practice seeing the scene as the camera will take it, which often isn't at all how we see it.
We see a captivating scene, but as photographers we have to spot see the ghastly power cables that our brain filtered out.
We don't have a power cable filter (if only!) on the camera and there's no angle that will get the scene and miss them out.
What I might do, in that example, is file the raw as a factual record of what was really there, then edit out those damn cables to produce what I really saw, and then maybe do some more fiddly stuff with curves or levels to get what I'd like to see. Or it might be a case of changing the mood. If I want to. Or not.
The other day I moved a horse. Stupid horse was standing in the wrong place. Moving a wild horse in a photo is a lot easier than moving one in real life. Safer too.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar