Does anyone do "as shot" photos any more?

[Grandpa Ron]

I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?

It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot.

I am not talking about the age old exposer, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture and image closer what the eye sees. But rather the creation of an image, based on a real object, but only existing in the camera pixels, never to be seen in real life.

There is absolutely no doubt that these photos were fine pieces of art that the maker can be justly proud of. But it made me wonder, "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?'

 

[Derrel]

The answer to both your questions is, "Yes."

 

[limr29 2]

Yes.

 

[snowbear114 45]

All the time.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

Absolutely!

 

[smoke665]

"Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?

That depends on your definition of what the eye sees. An artist paints on canvas what the eye sees, but it's far removed from an exact replica. It would be a dull read if the author of a biography only strives to portray in exacting detail the life of someone, without his/her addition of insight into the person. When I was carving it was all about what my eye saw, not reality. Is the photographer somehow bound by some age old code to only render something in excruciatingly exacting detail? Man has always struggled to portray the real side of what the eye sees, and not the humdrum boredom of reality.

 

[dxqcanada1]

Yup, I'm too lazy to put that much effort into PP.

 

[AlanKlein80 19]

Capturing a moment in time is special.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?

It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot.

I am not talking about the age old exposer, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture and image closer what the eye sees. But rather the creation of an image, based on a real object, but only existing in the camera pixels, never to be seen in real life.

There is absolutely no doubt that these photos were fine pieces of art that the maker can be justly proud of. But it made me wonder, "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?'

I use a digital camera now. How do I get an "as they were shot" photo?

Thirty years ago I used to shoot color transparency film and that was pretty much the photo as it was shot.

Thirty years ago I used to also shoot negative film and I never took my negatives and framed them. So what was "as they were shot" when I used negative film? I took the negative film into the darkroom and made a print. You say you're "not talking about the age old exposure, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture an image closer what the eye sees." I always used those darkroom methods to get an image that was better than what the eye sees. Nobody told me I was supposed to be trying to get closer to what the eye sees -- I must have missed that lecture.

Were the slides "as shot" but the prints from negatives weren't? And how do I get an "as they were shot" photo from a digital camera?

Joe

 

[AlanKlein80 19]

I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?

It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot.

I am not talking about the age old exposer, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture and image closer what the eye sees. But rather the creation of an image, based on a real object, but only existing in the camera pixels, never to be seen in real life.

There is absolutely no doubt that these photos were fine pieces of art that the maker can be justly proud of. But it made me wonder, "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?'

I use a digital camera now. How do I get an "as they were shot" photo?

Thirty years ago I used to shoot color transparency film and that was pretty much the photo as it was shot.

Thirty years ago I used to also shoot negative film and I never took my negatives and framed them. So what was "as they were shot" when I used negative film? I took the negative film into the darkroom and made a print. You say you're "not talking about the age old exposure, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture an image closer what the eye sees." I always used those darkroom methods to get an image that was better than what the eye sees. Nobody told me I was supposed to be trying to get closer to what the eye sees -- I must have missed that lecture.

Were the slides "as shot" but the prints from negatives weren't? And how do I get an "as they were shot" photo from a digital camera?

Joe

Back when, even my negative film shots were pretty much out of the camera. Since I sent them out for developing and printing, the lab gave me back prints that were pretty much printed by a machine. The only thing that changed was the format. 35mm (3"2) had to be cropped to print 4x6", 5x7" or whatever. But that was left up to the processor.

Of course my chromes were put in slide holders for projection with no changes at all.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

It is true that with digital some cameras use different jpg algorisms for Landscape, Portrait, Macro etc. to enhance colors or smooth skin texture but the camera still basically taking a picture of what the eye sees.

As I mentioned while reading the details of the magazine photos, I am thinking ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture, while they are describing highly artistic image manipulation resulting in some very nice pictures. A good picture made better perhaps.

I am sure that almost any photograph I have taken could be "improved" and I do enjoy the ease at which my digital exposure can be corrected. I will also admit I find endless diddling with a photo to be a bit tedious. Still, the magazine spread made me wonder if todays photography had become the domain of the "Photoshop wizard", or if folks still enjoyed catching the moment as is. It appears many still do.

I nice thing about photography is it is a big big tent, full of all sort of ideas.

 

[smoke665]

Still, the magazine spread made me wonder if todays photography had become the domain of the "Photoshop wizard", or if folks still enjoyed catching the moment as is. It appears many still do.

While it's true most digital cameras today have different shooting modes, you have the option of turning off the extras, and there's usually a mode that allows rendering a non altered image, but you're missing an important part. The camera is a machine it has no soul, or sense of awareness it completes a mechanical function. What the camera "sees" and what the photographer's eye "sees" can be entirely different.

Back in the 60's I shot both slides and film. Other then changing film there was little you could do to alter the final image from what was recorded when the shutter clicked. For me it was mostly the same with color film as I sent it out, but with B&W, my darkroom was like the computer of today. It was where the magic happened. I see digital and post processing of today as an expansion of my darkroom of old.

To limit the image to only the mechanical reproduction of, to me is like putting a patch over one eye of the photographer. You only see part of the image. That's not to say you shouldn't strive for the best possible SOOC image, because computers can only do so much. Like the old saying "Garbage in, garbage out".

 

[snowbear114 45]

Another thing to consider . . . it may well be that some photographers wanted to do these kind of things but the difficulty and time involved for doing them in the darkroom were prohibitive. I never merged shots together for a panorama in a darkroom but I suspect it would have been a challenge.

Like publishing a book or even writing a program, the personal computer age has made it easier to a lot of things.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

It is true that with digital some cameras use different jpg algorisms for Landscape, Portrait, Macro etc. to enhance colors or smooth skin texture but the camera still basically taking a picture of what the eye sees.

As I mentioned while reading the details of the magazine photos, I am thinking ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture, while they are describing highly artistic image manipulation resulting in some very nice pictures. A good picture made better perhaps.

I am sure that almost any photograph I have taken could be "improved" and I do enjoy the ease at which my digital exposure can be corrected. I will also admit I find endless diddling with a photo to be a bit tedious. Still, the magazine spread made me wonder if todays photography had become the domain of the "Photoshop wizard", or if folks still enjoyed catching the moment as is.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. I reject it. You've placed "Photoshop wizard" on one side of "or" and catching the moment as is on the other side. You may see it as a choice between exclusive options that you have to make; you may even see it as a choice that you're happy you've fabricated, but I don't buy it. I'm not stuck looking at an "or" I have an "and."

My "and" allows me to do things that depart in the extreme from "what the eye sees" -- like this:

or even like this:

"and" still enjoy catching the moment as is.

Joe

It appears many still do.

I nice thing about photography is it is a big big tent, full of all sort of ideas.

 

[tirediron]

A camera lens is not a human eye, therefore, a photo is never going to what the eye saw. In addition to what Joe ( @Ysarex ) has said above I will add this: Often, significant manipulation is required to render an even somewhat accurate representation of what the eye saw, Vis: I have covered several Christmas parades for the local paper in the last few weeks. These all occurred well after sunset, my "as shot" files were a series of [nearly] blown highilights and deep [blocked or almost blocked] shadows. In order to produce an image that even came close to what the eye saw, with its many more stops of dynamic range, I had to do a lot of highlight & shadow work (and yes, I know that doesn't meet AP/UPI photojournalism standards, but it's a Christmas parade in a town of 24,000 )