Does anyone do "as shot" photos any more?

[thereyougo!]

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.

You may be assuming that there is a mode where the camera takes and shows and exports the image exactly as your eyes see it. We know that with a RAW image, we have to process it. With a jpg there is no such thing as straight from the camera. If you attach no profile, it doesn't mean that the creation of the jpg by the camera is exactly as the eyes see it. I don't think I would want that version. it would be like giving a person that enjoys driving a car that drives itself.

As far as moving elements within a scene, I would agree with you - for me (and other people's mileage may vary) moving elements within a scene isn't photography.

 

[Ysarex]

For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever. He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.

OK, so yes it would seem from first reading the opening post the comment involves constructed and composited photos. But then I'm reacting to the way the question is presented I guess. How about an analogy:

I'm in the waiting room and pick up a fashion magazine. Looking through it I see things like this:
http://www.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/body/2012-04-07/images/10.jpg
https://www.modelmanagement.com/blog/library/uploads/oddfashionblog2.jpg
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/70/67/41/14907515/3/920x920.jpg
and this:
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/730195/84521578.jpg

And I ask the question, "Wow! Does anyone wear normal clothes anymore?" That's kind of an off response to seeing those images.

Joe

 

[thereyougo!]

For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever. He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.

Sorry but when an OP phrases a question in a certain way, why are posters at fault when they take that question at face value? Surely posters should be clearer about their intention with their title in the first place. Having a go at posters because the OP could be clearer is a tad unfair.

 

[Ysarex]

I do enjoy constructing images from composite components too, but when I do it's obvious that I'm not presenting photographic reality. Here's a recent favorite of mine.

Joe

 

[limr]

Sorry but when an OP phrases a question in a certain way, why are posters at fault when they take that question at face value? Surely posters should be clearer about their intention with their title in the first place. Having a go at posters because the OP could be clearer is a tad unfair.

Tell me which part was unclear, or where he said that he is talking about unprocessed SOOC shots.

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.

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.

Ok folks you are reading far to deep a meaning into my simple question.

As already pointed out, just as an artist can take brush to canvas and move the location of a tree for a better rendering of the scene. Photographers can now cut and paste with relative ease. From the artistic stand point this is a good thing, we can eliminate the clutter and enhance the subject. Still, in our effort to improved on an image have we, like the painter, have we created an entirely new an non-existent scene?

To me "as shot" means the object, scene or location you captured in a photo would be recognized by anyone viewing the same scene with you.

True they might crop it differently or perhaps tweak the exposure, but if they stood by that waterfall, or canyon or tree or flower etc. they would recognize it from the photo.

No, I'm not having a go at anyone, but I am also seeing a conversation that is devolving into the "SOOC vs processed" dead horse when that wasn't even the original question. Just interested in keeping things on topic.

 

[limr]

For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever. He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.

OK, so yes it would seem from first reading the opening post the comment involves constructed and composited photos. But then I'm reacting to the way the question is presented I guess. How about an analogy:

I'm in the waiting room and pick up a fashion magazine. Looking through it I see things like this:
http://www.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/body/2012-04-07/images/10.jpg
https://www.modelmanagement.com/blog/library/uploads/oddfashionblog2.jpg
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/70/67/41/14907515/3/920x920.jpg
and this:
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/730195/84521578.jpg

And I ask the question, "Wow! Does anyone wear normal clothes anymore?" That's kind of an off response to seeing those images.

Joe

Fair enough

 

[Grandpa Ron]

As I said, photography is a big tent full of marvelous ideas and techniques. Fortunately we live at a time where technology allows us manipulate those ideas. As Ysarex has shown you can do a lot to "improve" a photo to your liking without changing the scene.

His final photo is perfect, there is little argument there. But personally, I would have added a bit of contrast to his second photo and called it a day. I spend a lot of time out of doors and I see a lot of great scenes, but I very very rarely see perfect.

It is not a right or wrong issue, it is simply marching to a different drum. I would be a dull world if we all had the same like and dislikes.

 

[petrochemist]

With a jpg there is no such thing as straight from the camera.

Nonsense. It's not straight from the sensor but if all the processing is done in camera, it's straight from the camera!
Most of the time this would be using the settings when the shot was taken, but even if one of the camera's digital filters is selected afterwards it still SOOC. This won't be as the eye see's it but photography practically never is.

 

[smoke665]

. This won't be as the eye see's it but photograph

So to clarify your answer to the OP's question " "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?" Is no as it isn't possible?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Again a bit of overthinking the question.

How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."

 

[Ysarex]

Again a bit of overthinking the question.

How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."

The vast majority of people take snapshots of course. But this is a photography dedicated forum. It doesn't take any obsessing for me to get a photo the way I want it. I've had forty years of doing this full-time to become pretty fluent at it.

Joe

 

[zulu42]

This highly loaded question begs for overthinking.

How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."

Why isn't adjusting location, camera settings, and framing the shot being called obsessive? You forgot scouting the location, waiting for the right weather or light, maybe some test shots, too. That's not obsessive, but bringing up the shadows or removing a power line in post is?

For me, it is all obsessive at times. Other times not so much. But, it is all great fun!

 

[smoke665]

Again a bit of overthinking the question.

How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."

In your original post you say "It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot", then you further clarified the question to "But it made me wonder, "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?'". Now you seem to be leaning away from the original question posed to somehow suggest that editing post is "obsessive". If I've misread that then please accept my apology.

Joe brings up a valid point that your "post is in a photography forum", how can it help but stir up strong opinions because there are strong feelings either way? To suggest that those dedicated to producing the very best image that can come from a bucket of data, or a strip of film by post editing are obsessive is somewhat like me saying that those "purist" who believe they can only show what came out of the camera are obsessive (the pot calling the kettle black?). I think most everyone on here, is only desirous of increasing their skill in the manner/method they feel will make them most productive and fulfill their expectations. As a result there will be some strong feelings either way on editing or SOOC, that's only natural. If a photographic rendering in it's purest form is your aim, then you'd be better served going back to a completely manual film camera. I've viewed some fabulous work over the years by those who produce a beautiful images in it's simplest form with only a pinhole camera. I don't condemn their decision to work that way, to the contrary I applaud them, and the skills they've mastered to be able to do it. Likewise I've seen some mind blowing digital artists who can create an image from nothing more then bits and pieces, something that doesn't exist in the real world. I applaud them and their skill set as well.

Back up the line in this thread I suggested that the answer to your OP was "That depends on your definition of what the eye sees". As noted from the variety of comments herein, the definition remains elusive, because it means different things to different people at different points in their life, We are constantly evolving in our tastes, our skill set, and advancements in technology. Look at cell phones - some of the most popular ones on the market are those which feature the ability to modify, and enhance the image beyond the actual scene. I personally say enjoy what you do, keep an open mind to new ideas, strive to improve, enjoy the beauty created by others, and don't fret the process.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I think Zulu42 pretty much presented the case. Is obsessing before the shot any different than obsessing after the shot.

Obsessing before the shot you can adjust the view to enhance your subject, perhaps even add a filter or select a film to enhance certain colors or contrast. On some digital cameras, you can even do a some of the post processing changes. So yes, in that respect Pre and post processing is about the same.

However your camera cannot remove the trigs and brush, widen or reposition the cloud cover, clean up the dirt smug on and iceberg, or as I saw in a tutorial, change the color of an athlete's lipstick to enhance her facial features as; she is returning the serve.

That is what I mean when I say "as shot" or what your cameras "sees". I like those pesky distraction because they seem more natural to me. They look like the woods look when I am running my dog. Others I am sure, dislike those distractions and choose to remove them.

If I made a living with photography, I would do whatever the market demands at the time to sell my photos. It is a business not a hobby and staying in tune with what sells is a prime concern.

 

[Ysarex]

I think Zulu42 pretty much presented the case. Is obsessing before the shot any different than obsessing after the shot.

Obsessing before the shot you can adjust the view to enhance your subject, perhaps even add a filter or select a film to enhance certain colors or contrast. On some digital cameras, you can even do a some of the post processing changes. So yes, in that respect Pre and post processing is about the same.

However your camera cannot remove the trigs and brush, widen or reposition the cloud cover, clean up the dirt smug on and iceberg, or as I saw in a tutorial, change the color of an athlete's lipstick to enhance her facial features as; she is returning the serve.

That is what I mean when I say "as shot" or what your cameras "sees". I like those pesky distraction because they seem more natural to me. They look like the woods look when I am running my dog. Others I am sure, dislike those distractions and choose to remove them.

If I made a living with photography, I would do whatever the market demands at the time to sell my photos. It is a business not a hobby and staying in tune with what sells is a prime concern.

So this has to beg the question: What you don't know doesn't matter, right? In other words if you can't tell..... Say I show you three photos:

And I don't tell you anything about them and you can't see that they're not just SOOC images other than cropped. Does it matter if you later find out they are all pretty radically altered from the physical reality that the camera saw?

Joe