Posted by David Redding on June 11, 2006 at 10:10 PM
I was uploading a few shots to my portfolio on PhotoPortfolios.net and started looking around at others work when I noticed something. A lot of people on there state that no digital enhancement has been done. I was just wondering if they just click the first option or what?
Almost every shot that comes out of my camera (D50) has to have some adjustments done be it curves, saturation, horizion and crop etc......
I noticed the same thing, David. Unless a person is shooting jpeg with a fair amount of in-camera saturation/sharpening, etc., I agree. It's a rare RAW that doesn't take some manipulating. Perhaps people are using their own judgment on that one, and not selecting the "enhancement" check-off unless they go past what is commonly considered a "film" parameter. Yeah, I know, considering the array of films and their distinctive features, there is no "film parameter" per se. Also, some photo editors continue to resist digital, so perhaps it's a way to broaden the market for the images.
If I am only using levels, curves, sharpening or saturation along with croping I indicate no digital enhancement. If I do some minor cloning in addition I indicate Digital Retouch. I do have one image where I moved a cloud from one image to another. This is indicated as a composite.
Posted by Jerry Greer on June 11, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Again, here we go with the manipulation/enhancement thing! When I was scanning large-format film I did the same thing as I now do with digital. When I think of manipulation I think of adding a full moon or something of that nature not level, sharpening, color sat...! What is it with this manipulation hang up? Everybody just needs to get over it! WE ALL MANIPULATE or ENHANCE THE IMAGE! WE ALL DO IT! If you use Velvia, Provia, E100VS, digital capture we ALL DO IT! Black & White shooters really do it! So what is the problem? Damn, lets move on! If you scan film or use digital capture you enhance or manipulate the images, period! There's no way around it!
Posted by David Redding on June 12, 2006 at 12:52 AM
Jerry,
I was just wonder thats all, because I was seeing some amazing shots and was wonder how they were shooting to get them right out of camera thats all.
Myself, the three shots I have posted all are a blend of two or more exposure and I choose to check off Retouch instead of Composite.
I wasnt trying to start a moral issue with whats digital enhancements and whats not. If you ask me the whole art of photograpy is one big enhancement of nature and reality from using a fill flash all the way to tweaking the mid tone with a PC.
Yes, you are correct! It's all enhancement...film, digital, color or B&W. I really don't see any difference between using ND Grads and blending exposures to correctly capture a sky. I think that you are correct about selecting retouch. I'd feel a composite is when you add a new sky or a moon or a bear in a meadow or something like that. Ed did right by choosing composite when he moved a cloud from one image to the other.
Marketing is all about creating appearances. Just ask a marketer what their slogans actually mean and how they can prove them and you'll see one very confused individual.
Hey, my neighbor just pulled out of his driveway in his "ultimate driving machine". Gee, my car is only "moving me forward". Oh well, at least it doesn't drive "like a rock".
Obviously there is some confusion about which box to check according to how much "manipulation". When I first created my portfolio, I checked retouch for most photos. The last time I updated it, I think I clicked none for just about all of them, assuming that the normal RAW processing, sharpening, saturation, contrast etc. is really not manipulation. Perhaps some more specific guidelines as to what's expected on photoportfolios.net would help, just so everyone's on the same page!
Thank you, Ed and Alice, those were the perspectives I was looking for.
Jerry, I'm a moderator on the "bird watching" and "photo sharing" boards on another forum, and have been a member there for five years. There are 25,000 members. As new members come along, they ask questions that have been asked before, questions about how the site works and about how certain conventions operate. It does little good to lose one's temper over this, as it's simply human nature to wonder about that which we do not know. It's also human nature to ask the question after using a search feature and not finding anything (which certainly could have been my operator error in this case.) And, at times, Jerry, it appears it's human nature to bite off the head of the person who asked the question, especially when the biter misunderstands the bitee's question. I was not interested in debating the value/degree/marketing of enhancement, I simply was unfamiliar with when a person, in their portfolio on this fine site, should check that particular box. I think that was David's original message, too.
I just keep reading these retouching/manipulation posts and it's getting ridiculous. It’s just so funny how the issues of film vers. digital comes into play when this issue is thrown on the table. Just as noted many times by many people. We all manipulate the real world when we trip the shutter. It doesn’t matter what capture we choose to use. When scanning film we do all the things we do with a digital file.
No temper lost here. Sinking my teeth into the head off the asker was not my intent and I apologize that I came over that way. I was really just preaching to the choir!
No prob, Jerry. I've been a newsman in weekly and daily newspapers for 15 years, and have developed all the scar tissue that implies. It takes a REALLY big bite to separate my head from my shoulders.
Why is there debate? I think most people just have not thought about all the 'manipulations' that are done to create a photograph. Some are in their control, some are not. People who shot Kodachrome 64 used to complain about Velvia as being 'unrealstic.' I see that as exactly the same sort of debate, at a lower intensity.
Only when I started doing digital photography did it occur to me that none of it is real. That is obvious, but most don't think of that way.
I suppose you can fret about what things really look look, but I find it more fun to try to make photographs the show 'real' things in an exciting and interesting way. I just happen to be more interested in realistic depictions. I am occasionally charmed by highly manipulated versions of reality ....
I never anticipated a debate. Nor did I want one. This issue has long been settled in my mind. This is why I don't enter into discussions like the other one here about "how far is too far?"
Photography, for a photographer, is not "reality." It is expression. All photography is manipulation of "reality." Film, digital, whatever.
I simply awaited an answer to a simple question, and I got that.
Sigh. Never mind.
Posted by David Redding on June 12, 2006 at 10:20 PM
Sorry if I opened up a can of angry worms here I was just curious if these certain photographers had actually "Touched up" there shots. Touch up to me sounds like just that, touching up a shot. By not checking that box, it looks like the photographer is saying that he took the RAW file, converted to Jpeg and posted, thats it. If that was the case then I was just looking to get some tips on getting such great pictures with no laptop time....thats all, sorry for the problems
David, raw files are simply not meant to be used "out of the camera". Either way, light is measured by analog means and converted to digital information so the fact that you have a computer file of any time is in itself "digital manipulation" of the light.
As Cliff suggested, it's about definitions, but as most everyone else alluded to - there is no hard and fast definition so it's really up to personal interpretation.
Hey all, I feel that photography is an art. The photograph is the medium, just as the canvas is the painters medium. The ability to use a program to manipulate the photograph to create the finished product is the art, just as the painter uses oils, brushes, etc to create his finished product, the oil painting. Most anyone can take a photograph, but can they create art? Some photographers are just that, photographers. Others are true artist for they carry photography to the next level by manipulation (as some call it). I am a true photographic artist. Without this ability by photographs would not be appreciated as much.
Discussion
16 repliesAlmost every shot that comes out of my camera (D50) has to have some adjustments done be it curves, saturation, horizion and crop etc......
Are these guys just that good?
I was just wonder thats all, because I was seeing some amazing shots and was wonder how they were shooting to get them right out of camera thats all.
Myself, the three shots I have posted all are a blend of two or more exposure and I choose to check off Retouch instead of Composite.
I wasnt trying to start a moral issue with whats digital enhancements and whats not. If you ask me the whole art of photograpy is one big enhancement of nature and reality from using a fill flash all the way to tweaking the mid tone with a PC.
Read my lips... "n-o m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n".
Marketing is all about creating appearances. Just ask a marketer what their slogans actually mean and how they can prove them and you'll see one very confused individual.
Hey, my neighbor just pulled out of his driveway in his "ultimate driving machine". Gee, my car is only "moving me forward". Oh well, at least it doesn't drive "like a rock".
Guy
Pete D.
Jerry, I'm a moderator on the "bird watching" and "photo sharing" boards on another forum, and have been a member there for five years. There are 25,000 members. As new members come along, they ask questions that have been asked before, questions about how the site works and about how certain conventions operate. It does little good to lose one's temper over this, as it's simply human nature to wonder about that which we do not know. It's also human nature to ask the question after using a search feature and not finding anything (which certainly could have been my operator error in this case.) And, at times, Jerry, it appears it's human nature to bite off the head of the person who asked the question, especially when the biter misunderstands the bitee's question. I was not interested in debating the value/degree/marketing of enhancement, I simply was unfamiliar with when a person, in their portfolio on this fine site, should check that particular box. I think that was David's original message, too.
No temper lost here. Sinking my teeth into the head off the asker was not my intent and I apologize that I came over that way. I was really just preaching to the choir!
Why is there debate? I think most people just have not thought about all the 'manipulations' that are done to create a photograph. Some are in their control, some are not. People who shot Kodachrome 64 used to complain about Velvia as being 'unrealstic.' I see that as exactly the same sort of debate, at a lower intensity.
Only when I started doing digital photography did it occur to me that none of it is real. That is obvious, but most don't think of that way.
I suppose you can fret about what things really look look, but I find it more fun to try to make photographs the show 'real' things in an exciting and interesting way. I just happen to be more interested in realistic depictions. I am occasionally charmed by highly manipulated versions of reality ....
Pete D.
Photography, for a photographer, is not "reality." It is expression. All photography is manipulation of "reality." Film, digital, whatever.
I simply awaited an answer to a simple question, and I got that.
Sigh. Never mind.
As Cliff suggested, it's about definitions, but as most everyone else alluded to - there is no hard and fast definition so it's really up to personal interpretation.
Guy