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

Why Photoshop?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 1:11 PM


Quote: Total rubbish in my case and I guess the word 'Most' should perhaps read 'some'. I worked in my own colour darkroom and quite agree that PS is the modern version of a darkroom.

Most. I wrote most and meant most.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Jul 2013 - 1:11 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

EileenH
EileenH  1 United Kingdom
3 Oct 2013 - 7:55 AM

The fact is that every photo is manipulated, if not in post production, then within the camera as it is being captured, (manipulated by the settings in the camera).

Kind regards.

Lucien hoebeeck

[link removed, sorry against site T&Cs]

Last Modified By Moderator Team at 3 Oct 2013 - 1:24 PM
Gundog
Gundog  1624 forum posts Scotland
3 Oct 2013 - 10:31 AM

One of my pet hates - the term "post production" which, when you think about it, is nonsense.

Processing in Lightroom, Photoshop or whatever is part of the production sequence, not something that takes place after (post) production has been completed.

I prefer the term "post-exposure processing" to describe everything that happens between pressing the shutter release and lifting the print from the printer's out-tray.

Another (and much more common one) is "shutter speed". Totally erroneous concept. The speed of the shutter is constant. It is the duration - i.e. the amount of time it is allowing light to pass through -that varies.

Pedantry rules OK!!

Wink

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 12:48 PM


Quote: Pedantry rules OK!!

Shouldn't that be:

Pedantry rules, OK!!


Smile

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 12:56 PM

Actually, it should be just the one exclamation mark. Wink Unless of course he is asking for the approval of his pedantry and it should then be followed by a question mark. Wink

Post production occurs after the initial capture of the video or image. It always has.

Last Modified By keithh at 3 Oct 2013 - 12:58 PM
mikehit
mikehit  46108 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 1:45 PM


Quote: Actually, it should be just the one exclamation mark. Wink Unless of course he is asking for the approval of his pedantry and it should then be followed by a question mark. Wink

Post production occurs after the initial capture of the video or image. It always has.

The 'capture' is actually a load of 1's and 0's - the raw image has no form. So producing any visible image is 'post production by that definition and even an out-of-camera jpeg is 'post production'. No-one ever referred to printing in the darkroom as 'post production' to turn a 'meaningless' negative into a viewable print.
So while I aree semantically (pedantically) with Gundog doing it in 'post production' is the same shorthand that used to be referred to as 'doing it in the darkroom' for film cameras.

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade  1014708 forum posts England216 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 1:47 PM

I met a guy with some woods who does post production - for making fences with

franken
franken e2 Member 113030 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 2:11 PM

I never considered in the days of film that the process of developing the films and then printing them off to how I wanted them would be classed as post production.

All that's changed in the digital age is that it's easier.

I used to burn in areas and lighten areas in my prints in those days.

Unsharp mask and layers come from the days of film.

Ken

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 2:51 PM

You may not have considered it as post production but that's what is was.

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
3 Oct 2013 - 5:59 PM

One of the first things I was taught as a trainee press photographer was how to 'hold back' the ball in a football pic and 'print in' where you wanted it. Manipulation is nothing new.

The one trait I don't like in digital photography is the laziness it can engender. Look at landscapes now - amazing skies, massive feature in foreground from ultra wide angle etc etc....cliche after cliche. HDR comes along, the first time you see it it makes an impact, then everyone and his dog jumps on the band wagon telling themselves they are being creative.

The thing I like about the best photographers is the same thing I like about the best writers. They show you the world through their eyes, not the banal gloss of technical facility. I would draw a parallel with one of my other great loves, guitar playing and players. I admire the player who can take a song and make it his own, not the one who can dazzle with the fastest rendition of it.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014407 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 6:36 PM

Some of that strikes a chord with me Lemmy, pun intended.Wink I view some of today's photography, and one word generally comes to the forefront in my mind, sterile. Some of it is too perfect for me. I browse the sites of some of my favourite photographers, and I still get a magazine or two each month, and the best still produce work that is breathtaking, it just grabs you, not because of any manipulation skills, but you see right away that it was mainly photography skills that produced those elements that make their work stand out above the crowd. There's nothing wrong with manipulation, if that's what one wants, and some of the work is amazing, but the work of the master photographers is recognisable for its minimalist style, imo.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014407 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 6:51 PM

recognition-5270376.jpg

A manipulation from me.Smile

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
3 Oct 2013 - 7:12 PM

Nice pic. But I have to tell you that I object to you papping me and my family Grin

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014407 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Oct 2013 - 8:38 PM

They're recognisable, aren't they?Grin

redhed17
redhed17  8635 forum posts England
4 Oct 2013 - 1:45 AM


Quote: The one trait I don't like in digital photography is the laziness it can engender. Look at landscapes now - amazing skies, massive feature in foreground from ultra wide angle etc etc....cliche after cliche. HDR comes along, the first time you see it it makes an impact, then everyone and his dog jumps on the band wagon telling themselves they are being creative.

I doubt most people are telling themselves they are being creative, just doing pictures they like. :-/

Something becomes clichéd because it is done so much, and seen so much. In the days of film the same percentage of people (of serious photographers) may have been doing the same types of subjects, but there was not the number of outlets to see people's work as there is now. Now there are over a dozen camera mags every month, and the internet for everyone to see everyone else's pics, with similar subjects and styles. With the internet especially, instead of a new style or technique taking years to become popular, it can become widespread in weeks rather than years.

With film, you may have read how the photographer took a certain pic, or you may have had to work out how a certain effect was done, now you may be able to instantly read the settings from the EXIF data, or the details attached to the image in an article. You may even be able to easily contact a photographer to ask them a question. Things that were virtually impossible 20+ years ago.

Distant locations are more within reach to more people than ever too, so once exotic locations become relatively common place.

If you can always produce original work, without cliché, then well done. Smile You may have a lot of people copying you if it becomes popular though, by being so original. Wink lol


Quote: Some of that strikes a chord with me Lemmy, pun intended.Wink I view some of today's photography, and one word generally comes to the forefront in my mind, sterile. Some of it is too perfect for me.

Some people are doing too good a job. :-/ One persons sterile, may be another person's perfect. Wink


Quote: There's nothing wrong with manipulation, if that's what one wants, and some of the work is amazing, but the work of the master photographers is recognisable for its minimalist style, imo.

Depends who you feel are 'master photographers'. :-/ And everyone's taste is different. Styles become cliché because they are popular, ie, a lot of people like it.

And I know popular doesn't always mean good. Wink

Thankfully the ability to get very good images has become within reach of more people because of the digital camera revolution and the technological advances, and added to that is also image editing, which is more easily available to a higher percentage of photographers than dark rooms ever were. Also, the knowledge to do most things with a camera, or an editing program is few clicks away.

As photographers, we live in amazing times. Styles, techniques, locations are within reach of many. It may be harder to be original, but that is the same with any artistic endeavour. A lot of things have already been done before. Wink You can just hope to do whatever you do the best you can, and editing images helps more than it hinders imho.

Last Modified By redhed17 at 4 Oct 2013 - 1:59 AM

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.