Recipe For a GREAT photograph

[Kristie]

Where do you draw the line with "untouched"?

untouched to me is a photo that's come straight from the camera (digital or film) onto paper. One that hasn't been manipulated in anyway on photoshop or other programs. Raw and unedited.
Dont get me wrong, I think those programs are wonderful and do amazing things for most photos, but I still think some of the best are completely untouched.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

'Great' photos happen by accident, not design. But you do have to have the right person in the right place at the right time.

 

[Alex_B]

untouched to me is a photo that's come straight from the camera (digital or film) onto paper. One that hasn't been manipulated in anyway on photoshop or other programs. Raw and unedited.
Dont get me wrong, I think those programs are wonderful and do amazing things for most photos, but I still think some of the best are completely untouched.

Nothing comes out of the camera untouched. be it film or digital.

In the case of film the first "manipulation" is the choice of film, it's grain, how it handles contrast and colours and all, i other words its characteristics. There are good reasons why there are so many different types of negative or positive film. There is different film for different purposes and different tastes.

Then there is the point how that film is processed, unless you let that be done in an automated lab there are many options to influence the outcome. And then the step from the negative film to the positive print, again, so many possibilities.

With the same camera, the same settings, the same light and same scene, but different types of film with varying processing parameters one can create a multitude of images which will all have their own mood and look pretty different.

You have to choose a film, and you have to process it, else you cannot see any image in the end. So you have to make all those decisions and there is no standard. So what is manipulation here? And what is a "straight out of the camera picture"?

So, now for digital ... a RAW file is not a really viewable file. Once you open it in any sort of RAW-coverter/viewer, a whole bunch of processing is done before it is even displayed on the screen. I won't go into the de-mosaicing procedure, for which there are different algorithms, but speak about contrast and colours alone. And here the RAW file is not translated by means of linear curves, but by curves wich are supposed to represent the sensor's characterisics or just give images which look pleasing. A RAW file which would be translated into something viewable by a linear curve (which means simple linear translation of RGB signal values into digital image information/RGB values), would look very flat with almost no contrast. RAW converters offer you a choice of what characteristics/parameters to apply when displaying the image on screen and/or translating them into a TIFF or JPG. Some of these parameter sets might even mimic characteristics of certain types of film and their processing.

Again, as for film, there is no standard way, but a lot of parameters have to be chosen on the way. If you take the JPG straight out of the camera, the RAW conversion is done in-camera. This only means you rely on the camera's manufacturer idea of which parameters are best for you, just like you would rely on the automated lab to know how best to process your film. But again, this choice of parameters is totally arbitrary.

So what is a non-manipulated straight-out-of-the-camera image? You could say, it is an illusion It does not exist. If you do not change any parameters, that only means someone else has chosen them for you, but it does not mean they are not applied.

Sorry for this thread hijacking .. almost like ranting ... but I'm just on a mission today

Enjoy the Easter days everyone

 

[Alex_B]

come straight from the camera (digital or film) onto paper

Well, here ony two things come to my mind:

1. a polaroid camera

2. Canon's infamous direct print button

 

[Alex_B]

'Great' photos happen by accident, not design. But you do have to have the right person in the right place at the right time.

That translates exactly into what I said earlier ... "There is no recipe" ... it is just something which you might find in a photo when you look at it later.

 

[LaFoto]

Thanks for the "rant", Alex. May I copy it into WORD and dig it out again any time we get the discussion of "Is pp software application cheating or not?" on here again? For I have written up something similar only a short while ago (forgot where) and am sure will have to draw up an answer of this kind any time soon again.

As to "What makes a great photo?" I am having this discussion on my pic of the cemetery momument in Photo Critique, which I addressed directly to MaxBloom for I wanted his answer, and we have carried the discussion to a higher level and some answers might be found in that discussion, too.

And I once asked the question of "Is there anything like 'objective' critisism" - in the Photographic Discussion, I think - and I tried to find out if there are things (being taught in Arts of Photography classes, for example) which clearly and "objectively" say: this element and that element and this third element make a photo/image/canvas/drawing "good" or even "great".

That discussion ended without any really CLEAR answers...

 

[zendianah]

Remember all recipes can be changed. So can photography be viewed as a recipe Alex? A little salt.. less sugar maybe nothing at all.. changes that recipe? OR maybe you decide hmmm Im gonna add a little spice to my "recipe" photograph? I'm going to add something that has never been added...

I guess the recipe view to me is not a fixed view. A recipe to you maybe fixed... I'm creative in the kitchen and never follow a recipe... I cook from the heart thats where I take my pictures.. Whether they are good in a pros eyes or not.. They are from my heart.. AND I think they are good.. If a red dot painted on a blank canvas is art... to some... Then beauty in a photograph leaves it to the eye of the beholder...

Gotta say love the philosophical photograph discussion...

 

[Alex_B]

Remember all recipes can be changed. So can photography be viewed as a recipe Alex? A little salt.. less sugar maybe nothing at all.. changes that recipe? OR maybe you decide hmmm Im gonna add a little spice to my "recipe" photograph? I'm going to add something that has never been added...

I guess the recipe view to me is not a fixed view. A recipe to you maybe fixed... I'm creative in the kitchen

So am I, ... well, if I am it often goes wrong though in the kitchen

As for recipies, I would say, photography is less limited than cuisine and there is much more freedom (you cannot poison anyone by a photographic experiment which went wrong ... if it comes to food, well, different )

But if you refer to say certainy spices which spice up your stew (image), I agree, there are some tricks which can make a good image better. But I doubt from the spices alone you can create an edible stew, you need some main substance, and this most important thing does not come from recipies.

But that of course is only my humble and very personal opinion based on my limited experience

 

[Alex_B]

Thanks for the "rant", Alex. May I copy it into WORD and dig it out again any time we get the discussion of "Is pp software application cheating or not?" on here again? For I have written up something similar only a short while ago (forgot where) and am sure will have to draw up an answer of this kind any time soon again.

Actually, after I wrote this, I thought the same .. since I remember i wrote something similar not too long ago Maybe we should build up a database of lengthy replies to questions or discussions which always re-appear

Feel free to copy it and reuse it if it helps

 

[Kristie]

I dont know why my opinion was considered "wrong" and needed to be addressed.
Yes, we can go deep into what is and isn't untouched, I was just saying to ME a great photograph is one that hasn't been touched by what I consider programs that change images (ps, etc).

What that means is every once in a while (NOT very often) someone can capture the right picture, at the right time at the right distance in the right light. How often can this happen? probably 1% of the time, so again I'm not saying those that use photoshop or other software are cheating or not a good photographer (actually, they in some ways are better) I'm just saying a great photograph to me (again 1%) is one that someone pretty much lucked out on.

I'm not dissing those that use software, because I'm hoping to learn how to use them more to make my photos look better. Nor am I saying that if you use them you're cheating, because that's far from what I'm saying.

 

[Alex_B]

I dont know why my opinion was considered "wrong" and needed to be addressed.
Yes, we can go deep into what is and isn't untouched, I was just saying to ME a great photograph is one that hasn't been touched by what I consider programs that change images (ps, etc).

What that means is every once in a while (NOT very often) someone can capture the right picture, at the right time at the right distance in the right light. How often can this happen? probably 1% of the time, so again I'm not saying those that use photoshop or other software are cheating or not a good photographer (actually, they in some ways are better) I'm just saying a great photograph to me (again 1%) is one that someone pretty much lucked out on.

I'm not dissing those that use software, because I'm hoping to learn how to use them more to make my photos look better. Nor am I saying that if you use them you're cheating, because that's far from what I'm saying.

Think you got my post wrong then ...

And you did not offend me in anyway, even could not, since I am not a heavy manipulator of images anyway.

All I was saying, is that there are no untouched images. Of course the sort of "touching" I refer to is something different from what you would maybe call "heavily manipulated". (Without using "manipulation" as a negative word here BTW.).

 

[Kristie]

Of course the sort of "touching" I refer to is something different from what you would maybe call "heavily manipulated". (Without using "manipulation" as a negative word here BTW.).

Yes I would probably say that's true. Everyone has there own idea of what's "manipulating" and yours is different from mine
(Again, manipulating is not negative in my books either!)

 

[Alex_B]

Yes I would probably say that's true. Everyone has there own idea of what's "manipulating" and yours is different from mine
(Again, manipulating is not negative in my books either!)

to me, "manipulation" my PS is a different form of art, and it appears to be pretty similar to your definition. but "touching" an image for me is normal part of the processing

confusing if different people use different terms

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There seems to be a lot of confusion of terms in this thread.
What do we mean by "good", and what do we mean by "great" when we apply them to Photography?
Are we talking in the personal sense? Or in the Art History sense?
I might think that a picture I took of my Uncle Ralph is great, but it isn't ever going to get auctioned at Sotheby's.
And we are having the same problem with the definition of "manipulation".
It could be considered 'manipulation' to get people to pose for a picture. You are getting them to do something they would not normally do so you are 'manipulating' them.
At what point does manipulation start and 'acceptable tweaking' end?
And where do we draw the line with PhotoShop?
If you step back and take the objective view (or as near objective as is possible) then you will realise that just by being present with your camera you are 'manipulating' reality (albeit in a small way) - trapping light that would normally have died a natural death for one thing. And people behave differently when they are in front of a camera, too. A photograph is not, therefore, reality but a re-presentation of reality. So the whole question of 'how much manipulation is too much?' becomes pointless.
ALL Photography is manipulation to some extent. It is up to the individual to decide where the line is drawn for them and to remember that this line does not (and should not) apply to anyone else.

 

[Alpha]

A typical Max Bloom answer to such a question.

Mix well in a double boiler or bow set over boiling water: Seeds from one vanilla bean pod. 3 cups cream. 2 egg yolks. 3/4 cup of sugar. Slowly bring to a boil, then cool to room temperature. Pour into tart shell. Cover with sliced fruit and fresh berries. Bring a simple syrup to a boil, add a few sheets of gelatin and dissolve. Cool to room temperature, brush over tart. Refrigerate.

I don't shoot ugly people. I'm a photographer, not a magician.

Many wonderful nudes are shot from the neck down. Therefore, they are perfect photo-ops for people with fantastic bodies but mediocre faces.

Stop taking photographs of barns, sunrises, sunsets, and puppies.

Don't forget to remove the lens-cap if you're shooting with a rangefinder.

If you own a digital camera, quit spending so much damn money on "accessories"

Follow these easy steps and you will surely be a brilliant photographer. I will accept a couple easy payments via check or money order.

I think it's the wine talking.