Teenager

The_Traveler · Jan 1, 2007

For my part, I could not care less how the image was made, as long as it conveys what the photographer sees in their mind's eye and it conveys this to me.

Every film and sensor 'sees' color different from the 'unedited' human eye. We chose sensor type, exposure time, place, aperture, focal length to create the image. To me, it is artificial to say that our choice in creating the image must stop at some arbitrary point.

For me, photography is control over the medium to produce what the photographer wants. A good picture made by chance falls into the 'even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while' category. I wouldn't take any pride in a great shot made by accident.

markc · Jan 1, 2007

She's a cute girl, but the on-camera flash kills it for me. The camera was turned for a vertical so that the flash is off to the left a little bit, which gives a little modeling, and it looks like it might be a shoe-mount rather than a built-in, but it's still too close and direct for my tastes. The fall-off is extreme. I don't know if you edited it to be even darker around the edges, but it doesn't work for me.

Tyson · Jan 1, 2007

The_Traveler said:
For my part, I could not care less how the image was made, as long as it conveys what the photographer sees in their mind's eye and it conveys this to me.

Every film and sensor 'sees' color different from the 'unedited' human eye. We chose sensor type, exposure time, place, aperture, focal length to create the image. To me, it is artificial to say that our choice in creating the image must stop at some arbitrary point.

For me, photography is control over the medium to produce what the photographer wants. A good picture made by chance falls into the 'even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while' category. I wouldn't take any pride in a great shot made by accident.

Good point, you made me think a little.

The_Traveler · Jan 1, 2007

Tyson said:
Good point, you made me think a little.

Thank you! The nicest thing anyone's said to me - or about me - in a while.

Look at the link below for an example of 'I don't care how he did it' beauty.

Not mine, I wish it were. The title is 'sensuous circus' and is explanatory but not necessary for the photo.

http://www.photozo.com/forum/download.php?id=14337

midnitejam · Jan 1, 2007

The_Traveler said:
For my part, I could not care less how the image was made, as long as it conveys what the photographer sees in their mind's eye and it conveys this to me.

Every film and sensor 'sees' color different from the 'unedited' human eye. We chose sensor type, exposure time, place, aperture, focal length to create the image. To me, it is artificial to say that our choice in creating the image must stop at some arbitrary point.

For me, photography is control over the medium to produce what the photographer wants. A good picture made by chance falls into the 'even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while' category. I wouldn't take any pride in a great shot made by accident.

The_Traveler, You and I could be 'kindred spirits'. You've expressed my own personal take but more eloquently than I ever could have.

Today I can do more in photoshop in 60 minutes than what once took an entire Saturday afternoon in a darkroom.

None of us have ever seen an Ansel-Adams-published image that we didn't like. But don't nobody dare do with photoshop the same tweaks he did in his dark room--that would be cheating and wouldn't be 'pure' photography LOL. He often did 100 attempts in his dark room at one image before he was satisfied with it.

There is nothing in the pic above that I couldn't have done in my Dad's old dark room. But I dont dig mixing chemicals and baths, struggling to keep temperatures constant, accuratising my Dad's analyser for each new batch of paper, and then hanging nine 8x10's on a line stretched across my basement with layers and layers of old news papers placed on the carpet below so the chemicals don't drip on the carpet. An entire afternoon of work and only 9 prints (less than nine if I didn't get the new batch of paper calibrated on the first attempt) to show for my efforts when I can do it all in 60 minutes in photoshop.

Many people who claim to be purest have never seen the inside of a dark room and have never developed a single roll of film. They shoot their roll of film, send the exposed film to fotomat for development and printing where some technician determines how his batched machine's process calculates how he thinks the original scene should have appeared. Sup wit dat?

Hooray for Digital! I can now process my images exactly how I want them to appear. I don't have to ship my film to a shop and accept what a technician thinks it should look like. And for those "Purest" who do--shame on you.

So maybe someone downloads a picture and blows it up 1000-1500 percent in order to see flaws. So What? He's in the wrong field of interrest if he's looking not for beauty/enjoyment but looking that hard for flaws and imperfections.

I asked for criticism and comments and I am more than pleased with the response. Thanks, everyone. I've benefited from each and every opinion expressed.

Emma said:
Hi...It's a nice shot, however, you have gone way over the top on her eyes with Adobe. You have a film over her sweater from over processing. Sorry to be negative, but this photograph has been Adobied off the face of the planet. Im sure she didnt need it, she seems like a good looking girl, and you seem like a competent photographer... PUT THE ADOBE DOWN AND MOVE BACKWARDS WITH YOUR ARMS IN THE AIR!

Emma, it's only a snapshot LOL. Personally, I thought for a mere snapshot it was nice. Photoshopped? Yes. So what?

PNA · Jan 2, 2007

The points expressed above are all valid, but.....

Just a thought.in the Photo Critique thread it would be great if the poster would include the original for comparison to the shot they are requesting help with. In fact make it a requirement, then it becomes a true critique with lessons to be learned from experienced replies.

That way the poster would not be offended, hopefully, and understand exactly what the "critiquer's" points applied to.

I posted this under suggestions and hope someone takes it seriously.

Paul

midnitejam · Jan 2, 2007

acsonpg said:
The points expressed above are all valid, but.....

Just a thought.in the Photo Critique thread it would be great if the poster would include the original for comparison to the shot they are requesting help with. In fact make it a requirement, then it becomes a true critique with lessons to be learned from experienced replies.

That way the poster would not be offended, hopefully, and understand exactly what the "critiquer's" points applied to.

I posted this under suggestions and hope someone takes it seriously.

Paul

Paul, I would gladly post my original--if I still had it.

I don't have enough storage on my hard drive nor my web host for my original snapshots in addition to their edited jpg versions.

Sorry.
MJ

The_Traveler · Jan 2, 2007

Buy a bigger hard drive or dump some music.
Don't throw away pix.

PNA · Jan 3, 2007

The_Traveler said:
Buy a bigger hard drive or dump some music.
Don't throw away pix.

Especially if you shot RAW!!!!

Alex_B · Jan 3, 2007

I am sorry to say so,

but I do like the original image posted in this thread

midnitejam · Jan 3, 2007

The_Traveler said:
Buy a bigger hard drive or dump some music.
Don't throw away pix.

LOL
Buy a bigger hard drive? I have 3 computers with a total of 1,320 Gig between them.

#1 Computer
C:\ IDE- 120 Gig
D:\ IDE- 80 Gig
E:\ SATA- 320 Gig
..........9,406 files 50 Gig (JPGS/PDS files from Jan-June-2006)
..........3,719 files 24.5 Gig (JPGS/PDS files from Jul-Dec-2006)
F: SATA- 320 Gig (JPGs backup)

#2 Computer
C:\ 160 Gig
D:\ 200 Gig (JPGS backup)

#3 Computer
C:\ 120 Gig
D:\ 60 Gig

I don't have any music on any of the computers.

I've just recently switched over to RAW. RAW is the only format I'll be shooting from now on.

Most of my originals are .pds format. All their edits are .jpg.

midnitejam · Jan 3, 2007

Alex_B said:
I am sorry to say so,

but I do like the original image posted in this thread

I'm afraid posters will become discouraged from posting If it becomes too inconvenient to post.

I'd have to store duplicate files on my host site in order to post one single file on a forum. concievably, managing the host site and my storage for dupes would increase the workflow.

midnitejam · Jan 7, 2007

Alex_B said:
I am sorry to say so,

but I do like the original image posted in this thread

Since re-reading these threads, I've become aware in other forums as well that there are more than just a few camera purest who echo their resentment of post editing in their critiques (even when they aren't certain about what specifically has been retouched). At first, my only qualm about posting my originals was the inconvenience of double posting and double hosting. But another twist on posting originals has recently occured to me.....The purest, when seeing with certainty the post editing after it has been pointed out for him may present his critique more easily skewed with his resentment and he may not be concerned as much with the finished product as he would be with how it got that way.