Frustrations with post and in general

[weepete]

I know what I want to do in my head, but don't have the skills in PS to get there.

One thing really confusing for many is there are "multiple ways" to accomplish the same task. Some might work better one time and others might work better on the next image. The easiest way I think short of taking a class on Ps, is to pick an operation, be it layers, blending, Luts......and watch every video you can find on it. Then run a video while following along doing the same thing. Eventually it will start to click as you expand your skills.

That's the plan currently mate, bullishly plow on regardless

I'm pretty sure there are ways to do what I'm trying, I think I may need to break it down and define a workflow.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I've thought a bit before posting this, but then thought, "what the heck." I'm not trying to tell you how to do anything, but I think my point of view may help you. But it is a different point of view and a different mindset, and I often find that many are not receptive to this. I'm not saying that a technical understanding is bad, or won't help. What I'm saying is that to understand how a camera works you must see as the camera sees, but to understand why we respond to images then you must understand that you need to look through human eyes.

Two images of baked bean tins in a cupboard. In one they are all stacked precisely so all the labels are showing correctly and they all conform to a proper and logical grid arrangement. The other they are literally just thrown in the cupboard and left where they landed.

I bet you’re looking at the images as though they’re the objects to be analyzed, looking at them to see how the effect is created. What processing, how the camera was used, what composition, what properties in the image create the effect.

You’re still looking at as though how you process the image dictates the mood, you do something to the image and it creates an effect that you see. So you learn how to create effects and control the values in the image.

But what if it’s the other way around and it’s your mood that dictates the image rather than the image that dictates your mood?

Now you ask how you can control it, where is the anchor that allows me to rationalise and see how it relates to actual and real image values? What if there isn’t one, and it doesn’t. Now you’re wondering how on earth you can control the mood of the image if there’s no logical progression between the values in the image and the mood you feel.

Eureka! An image doesn’t possess an absolute quality or absolute meaning. It isn’t an absolute entity controlled by the values it possesses. Which image creates the most tension in the OCD sufferer, the neat one or the random? What really drives the tin can images, what we do with the camera and software or an understanding of the human mind, (do they reveal an understanding of composition, or do they show how we felt when we came back with the messages…) ?


Here’s what I see when I look at your third castle image. I see a view which you’ve captured as a technical exercise, exposure is set so all the tones are within the range that a camera can capture with some detail, focus is set so everything looks sharp. I see this continued through the process so no detail is lost, no property that you deem important in the camera is lost or degraded in the image. The logic of the camera has dictated the image.

It’s well done and controlled but ultimately it looks fake and machine controlled. I don’t see light that matches my memory of how I expect it to look, I don’t see how you feel about it, I don’t see how I should feel about it. All I see are the qualities of your camera and lens.

In terms of tin cans they are all perfectly arranged and presented, they are stacked in the most logical sequence. But why not just pick them all up, throw them back in the cupboard then stand back and see how you feel about it? Instead of trying to fit the image into a sequence that makes logical sense why not examine only how you feel when you see illogical patterns? It is the cans thrown in the cupboard that remind us of human emotions, not the neatly stacked ones…


Here is one of mine to try and illustrate. I have not thrown all caution to the wind when I took the image but exercised control and judgement with focus and exposure. The difference, and why the image fails to fully convey the difference is that I *got it right in the camera* and *decided how I would process before I pressed the shutter* and I did this with an understanding of how I wanted the finished image to look and not how the camera captures the highest IQ. There are flaws in the original negative they are deliberate, they are the cans thrown in the cupboard rather than stacked correctly, the ones that convey irrationality rather than logic.

The first is processed to preserve the detail and IQ, the *visual reality* of the scene. The second is processed to reflect how I felt when I stood there, I just played with things until they looked right, until the image evoked some of the same memories as standing in the actual room. Many will see something different, a lot of forum photographers will prefer the first because it fits better within their logic and understanding of the camera, lends validity to their photography. They won’t even see the way the image is abstracted from reality, the way it look false. In a way if you view images with an understanding of how the camera sees then reality becomes transparent. But what I aim for is for the camera to be transparent.

See what you think, which is more abstracted, which more real? Which is more clinical, which more atmospheric? What is the difference, technique or a fundamental shift in emphasis from understanding what the image is to understanding what the viewer sees?

 

[smoke665]

I've just got that facebook phenomenon (where because you just see other's really good posts you get a false impression). I

I have come to believe there is no rhyme or reason to why some photos get so many likes on FB, Instagram or other social media type sites. Ive seen people ooh and aah over some crappy shots and barely notice a really good one. Frankly it's gotten to the point, I'm thinking seriously about taking a hiatus from everything online, to give my mind time to clear and concentrate on the direction I want to go, without out all the mindless background chatter.

 

[weepete]

I've thought a bit before posting this, but then thought, "what the heck." I'm not trying to tell you how to do anything, but I think my point of view may help you. But it is a different point of view and a different mindset, and I often find that many are not receptive to this. I'm not saying that a technical understanding is bad, or won't help. What I'm saying is that to understand how a camera works you must see as the camera sees, but to understand why we respond to images then you must understand that you need to look through human eyes.

Two images of baked bean tins in a cupboard. In one they are all stacked precisely so all the labels are showing correctly and they all conform to a proper and logical grid arrangement. The other they are literally just thrown in the cupboard and left where they landed.

I bet you’re looking at the images as though they’re the objects to be analyzed, looking at them to see how the effect is created. What processing, how the camera was used, what composition, what properties in the image create the effect.

You’re still looking at as though how you process the image dictates the mood, you do something to the image and it creates an effect that you see. So you learn how to create effects and control the values in the image.

But what if it’s the other way around and it’s your mood that dictates the image rather than the image that dictates your mood?

Now you ask how you can control it, where is the anchor that allows me to rationalise and see how it relates to actual and real image values? What if there isn’t one, and it doesn’t. Now you’re wondering how on earth you can control the mood of the image if there’s no logical progression between the values in the image and the mood you feel.

Eureka! An image doesn’t possess an absolute quality or absolute meaning. It isn’t an absolute entity controlled by the values it possesses. Which image creates the most tension in the OCD sufferer, the neat one or the random? What really drives the tin can images, what we do with the camera and software or an understanding of the human mind, (do they reveal an understanding of composition, or do they show how we felt when we came back with the messages…) ?


Here’s what I see when I look at your third castle image. I see a view which you’ve captured as a technical exercise, exposure is set so all the tones are within the range that a camera can capture with some detail, focus is set so everything looks sharp. I see this continued through the process so no detail is lost, no property that you deem important in the camera is lost or degraded in the image. The logic of the camera has dictated the image.

It’s well done and controlled but ultimately it looks fake and machine controlled. I don’t see light that matches my memory of how I expect it to look, I don’t see how you feel about it, I don’t see how I should feel about it. All I see are the qualities of your camera and lens.

In terms of tin cans they are all perfectly arranged and presented, they are stacked in the most logical sequence. But why not just pick them all up, throw them back in the cupboard then stand back and see how you feel about it? Instead of trying to fit the image into a sequence that makes logical sense why not examine only how you feel when you see illogical patterns? It is the cans thrown in the cupboard that remind us of human emotions, not the neatly stacked ones…


Here is one of mine to try and illustrate. I have not thrown all caution to the wind when I took the image but exercised control and judgement with focus and exposure. The difference, and why the image fails to fully convey the difference is that I *got it right in the camera* and *decided how I would process before I pressed the shutter* and I did this with an understanding of how I wanted the finished image to look and not how the camera captures the highest IQ. There are flaws in the original negative they are deliberate, they are the cans thrown in the cupboard rather than stacked correctly, the ones that convey irrationality rather than logic.

The first is processed to preserve the detail and IQ, the *visual reality* of the scene. The second is processed to reflect how I felt when I stood there, I just played with things until they looked right, until the image evoked some of the same memories as standing in the actual room. Many will see something different, a lot of forum photographers will prefer the first because it fits better within their logic and understanding of the camera, lends validity to their photography. They won’t even see the way the image is abstracted from reality, the way it look false. In a way if you view images with an understanding of how the camera sees then reality becomes transparent. But what I aim for is for the camera to be transparent.

See what you think, which is more abstracted, which more real? Which is more clinical, which more atmospheric? What is the difference, technique or a fundamental shift in emphasis from understanding what the image is to understanding what the viewer sees?

Thanks Tim, that's some really good feedback and I appreciate it.

I think you are right that I've been neglecting to use the visual language to give a viewer clues to mood and feel in my shots and that's probably something I should consciously think about.

I'm afraid you'd loose that bet, though I can understand why you'd think that. Most of the time when I shoot I have a final image in my head and give little to no consideration of effects at all.

2 is more abstract, reality is subjective so they both have an equal weight in those stakes, 1 is more clinical, 2 is more atmospheric. You've given us good visual cues here so the slight warm tint implies nostalga, even with some affection but the darkness gives undertones of unease and combined with the flaws provides a sense of unease. What I find really interesting is that the focus is shifted between the two images, the first is weighted towards the door and the back of the room but the 2nd has a centrality in the pews.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I don't mind losing the bet.

What I'm trying to say is try *not* to think and just see how it turns out. It is the problem with a logical approach is that it always comes from what you already understand. Often to get some stimulus you need to break out of the same logical process and patterns to see something new, break out of the old habits rather than remain within them.

 

[weepete]

I don't mind losing the bet.

What I'm trying to say is try *not* to think and just see how it turns out. It is the problem with a logical approach is that it always comes from what you already understand. Often to get some stimulus you need to break out of the same logical process and patterns to see something new, break out of the old habits rather than remain within them.

I'll give it a go mate! It's already given me another idea for editing the castle shot, I might well try it tonight if I can get some time.

 

[weepete]

I've just got that facebook phenomenon (where because you just see other's really good posts you get a false impression). I

I have come to believe there is no rhyme or reason to why some photos get so many likes on FB, Instagram or other social media type sites. Ive seen people ooh and aah over some crappy shots and barely notice a really good one. Frankly it's gotten to the point, I'm thinking seriously about taking a hiatus from everything online, to give my mind time to clear and concentrate on the direction I want to go, without out all the mindless background chatter.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about images I had posted up on facebook, I severely limit what I have on that platform as the tendency toward groupthink and mundane nonsense is more than I can tolerate. Not to mention when they started arresting people for what they said on that platform I just bugged out.

I was more on about the phenomenon which was first identified in facebook, that because you only see peoples highlight reel you get a false impression of how good their lives are and that can make you feel worse about yours.

I suppose the difficulty with online art is that it can lack context and many people need that context to identify. For example if an artwork is featured in a gallery people are more likley to assign it significance, because of the assumption that if it's in a gallery there must be reason for it to be there. Same with music, there was a famous violinist who played a concert piece on the underground as a busker, very few people recognised that it was a world class musician playing an accomplised piece