Processing vs Photography Skill

[weepete]

I was watching a video where a guy replaced a sky and added reflections in the water using Luminar 4. The result was impressive but now it's got me looking at landscape images trying to figure out if the sky is a replacement or the original.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I see a lot of fake glow over mountains in milky way shots or it's setting sun combined with night. Always looks off to me and puts me off those shots.

 

[beddingfield]

You cant even trust the photos shown on the websites for the company that make our cameras and lenses. Way to much digital editing.

It was once considered an accomplishment for a photographer to be able to do a double exposure shot correctly.

Now you can superimpose the persons face onto a penny in 5 minutes with digital software.

Or you can take the photo of your friend standing in front of a white wall and import them into a photo taken during the d day landings.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

You cant even trust the photos shown on the websites for the company that make our cameras and lenses. Way to much digital editing.

It was once considered an accomplishment for a photographer to be able to do a double exposure shot correctly.

Now you can superimpose the persons face onto a penny in 5 minutes with digital software.

Or you can take the photo of your friend standing in front of a white wall and import them into a photo taken during the d day landings.

Jeezzz, that means I can put myself right in front of Neil Armstrong and be the first one on the moon!!
Now if I could only find myself a real spacesuit!?! I don't imagine a Halloween costume would cut it!!!? LoL
SS

 

[malling]

I’m defiantly in line with Dan on this one, it’s distinctively different skills that belongs to different trades.

All are necessary components in allot of projects, in some case a single individual might posses all the necessary skills and knowledge to make the end product, but that is not always the case. Sometimes the different aspect is taken care of by different individuals, dos it make any of the involved lesser photographers, artists etc. I don’t think so, I have been hired by digital artist because they did not have the necessary skills or technical understanding for a specific project, but I had no hand on in the final product, dos it make any of the involved lesser skilled. I would hire someone who has better editing skills if it is required, dos in means I’m a lesser photographer.

It just happens to be that allot of skilled photographers are also skilled artist and editors, but that doesn’t mean all parts belong to the same trade.

And for what I have seen over the years, those with great editing skills isn’t necessary the best photographers nor are the best photographers the best editors. Both require allot of time spend in each fields and one who spend most of the time in one field would typically be better equipped in that field then one who spend 50/50.

I have seen allot of creative digital editing/creation but where the basic phots used where somewhat lacking. Just like I have seen the opposite, there are great examples of both in this thread, there are few like Lindsay Adler but even she draw from other people.

 

[407370]

a single individual might posses all the necessary skills and knowledge to make the end product, but that is not always the case.

The vast majority of hobby photographers (like me) use what they have. I dont hire a better photographer / editor / nor do I hire lighting equipment / studio to get the best possible end result. I make do with what I have in terms of skills and equipment.
This is a fundamental difference between hobby and pro photographers. I would not dream of handing any part of my work to anyone. I own 100% of the success or failure of a particular photo project.

Its the sum of all the parts that makes a photo. If a photographer is deficient of skills or equipment in one or more parts of the workflow it does not stop a photo being produced. Its the sum of the parts of the individual photographer that add up to their individual style. Personally I am not a fan of outsourcing any of my work but I can understand why other people do it.

 

[TWX]

I see a lot of fake glow over mountains in milky way shots or it's setting sun combined with night. Always looks off to me and puts me off those shots.

You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?

 

[weepete]

You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?

If it's light pollution I don't think you'd see the milky way.

 

[407370]

You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?

If it's light pollution I don't think you'd see the milky way.

or badly done HDR

 

[SquarePeg]

You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?

If it's light pollution I don't think you'd see the milky way.

You can definitely still see the MW with distant light pollution.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I spent some time debating the merits and faults of post processing but in recent months I decided I was on a fools errand. Who am I to say what constitute fun and statifaction for others.

If you are a professional photographer you need to develop the skill set and use every trick available to create what the public or your sponsor wants and will buy. As individuals we have absolutely no control over what fad the public will support next, be it music, art, dress and yes, digital images. However, if you make your living at it, you had better know and produce what will sell.

As a hobbyist, well things are different; after readings comments that some people post about someone's picture, I find some have merit and some, to me, are simply knit picking. I am far less concerned about the technical aspects of a photo, then what it conveys to the viewer. I like my photos to tell a story of sorts and will often comment on the circumstances.

I guess you might say, I shoot photos trying to capture the viewers interest in the subject, which usually means minimal or no post processing.

I would think that others find pleasure tweaking their photos, just as a painter does with that last touch of color on the canvas; hoping to create the perfect photo.

 

[Indrajeet]

I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer? Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?

You raise a very relevant point, one I have often pondered, a good number of photographer friends of mine rely on their skills on the computer rather than with the camera. Being from days of film when I started out in this hobby when every shot counted and you had to wait a few days before you saw the results, one learned to get it right "in camera". Modern cameras permit one to see the images right away, alongside the spray and pray ability of these cameras may have made photographers lazy. For me, minimal PP and the less time spent in front of a computer is better spent in the woods, where I enjoy my hobby.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I am working my way through the Ansel Adams trilogy. In his first book on the Camera he clearly states that though people classify him as a realistic photographer, he clearly is not.

Ansel's approach to the scene is not to capture it as is, but rather to portray it as he envisions it in his mind. He discusses how he uses his camera, filters, depth of field, light, shutter speed and the multiple adjustment of his view camera to to produce an image on the film, that he will chemically manipulate through his knowledge of developer properties, then visually manipulate through his mastery of the printing process.

Basically, this years of dark room experience allowed him to know, before he pushed the shutter button, what needed to be done in the taking, developing, and printing processing, to get the image he visioned in his mind.

Digital folks have it easier because they get real time feedback of their ideas but they are doing the same thing. They are trying to capture the scene as their mind sees it. Painters do this all the time. Digital does not make you lazy, digital allow you to experiment with ideas you could not afford to wasted a shot of film on. So yes, you can see what if it is possible to get a better angle if your buddy hold you upside down by your ankles.

Adams makes it clear that he teaches his methods, not so you can duplicate his work but so you can use his technique to create your own interpretation of the scene.

 

[flyingPhoto]

i find it easier to use a CPL to deal with reflections and to prevent them and to use a lens hood to deal with light flares then it is to purchase photo shop and try to figure out how to remove them

 

[smoke665]

Basically, this years of dark room experience allowed him to know, before he pushed the shutter button, what needed to be done in the taking, developing, and printing processing, to get the image he visioned in his mind.

Digital is no different than film in the creative aspects. Thinking through the backend process before you snap the shutter is still the most important part of the process

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

If you can’t say what you need to say in a photograph without heaping layers of software filters or resorting the latest trends in post processing, you’re probably not saying much of anything.


-C.J. Chilvers