|
theHUNGERian posted:I am going to guess that he just wants to document what he sees. For example, if there is a strong blue overcast, whites will appear blue, and he would not edit that in post. And as long as he isn't photographing a bride with that mind set (leaving the dress/teeth not white), I am cool with minimal editing. If there is a strong blue overcast whites will appear white because of auto white balance.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Dren posted:If there is a strong blue overcast whites will appear white because of auto white balance. Not everybody uses AWB. Edit: If you took the west coast wild fire pictures and applied AWB, they would look very different from what the human eye was seeing. Same can apply to some sunrise/set pictures. Edit2: Or is the joke that OP uses AWB and shoots jpgs? theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
I have the same mindset about editing, but not for ethical reasons, for sanity reasons. There's nothing I enjoy less than staring at a picture on my computer for an hour trying to decide if moving one of 64 knobs or sliders in lightroom made an appreciable difference and whether that difference was an improvement or not before finally deciding to reset everything, decide its good enough as-is because the process has sucked all creative interest I have out of photography now, so I close the program, turn off the computer, put the camera back in the bag and don't take it out again for months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
I'm deffo one of the garbage posters in the thread/discord, as previously evidenced. Not post-processing my images is one of the many things contributing to that. But I think there is value in capturing the world as it is, in that moment, and attempting to share it as such. I won't say everyone who does so shares that intention, but I'll never hate on a person for trying to share something that hasn't been modified. And I just want to reiterate that the people who do post-process, especially in this thread, shoot and create better images. I think it makes people more selective in what they share by forcing them to look at an image and decide what they're trying to say with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
I tend to really only have a few sliders I really care about in LR because yeah, messing with every slider is an exercise in frustration. Unless I’m really trying to rescue a one-of-a-kind shot with real bad exposure settings I tend not to stray outside of my core toolset.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
xzzy posted:No, keep posting horizon shots with neat sunlight. They're cool. This is a drat cool shot. The stark flatness with the building blocking the sun is perfect. I went back through the rare sunrise/sunset shots I've captured and the framing is universally garbo. It's sad that I think my best one is just a stereotypical phone shot: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:I tend to really only have a few sliders I really care about in LR because yeah, messing with every slider is an exercise in frustration. Unless I’m really trying to rescue a one-of-a-kind shot with real bad exposure settings I tend not to stray outside of my core toolset. I just stick to the clarity slider myself
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
artsy fartsy posted:This is so lovely, i just wish the bright light spot was gone Although I would agree, there's something about editing out a light source in a photo that feels so unwholesome. I don't know if the little square next to it is a flare or some kind of panel/sticker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
As a hobbyist, that is, not someone who's trying to earn a living from it and just does it for fun and personal satisfaction, it was an important step for me to get to the point where it was ok to realize "everything I took pictures of today ended up terrible, even the stuff I thought looked cool though my eyes". Getting past the idea that "maybe if I just increase the saturation a little bit, it will magically make this photo of whatever bullshit into something glorious" was a big step in improving my enjoyment of photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I have the same mindset about editing, but not for ethical reasons, for sanity reasons. There's nothing I enjoy less than staring at a picture on my computer for an hour trying to decide if moving one of 64 knobs or sliders in lightroom made an appreciable difference and whether that difference was an improvement or not before finally deciding to reset everything, decide its good enough as-is because the process has sucked all creative interest I have out of photography now, so I close the program, turn off the computer, put the camera back in the bag and don't take it out again for months. This is really interesting to me, as I'm basically the opposite. While I do enjoy getting out and finding something interesting and taking the photo, it's the post-processing for hours that floods my brain with the REALLY good chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Vinestalk posted:I'm deffo one of the garbage posters in the thread/discord, as previously evidenced. Not post-processing my images is one of the many things contributing to that. But I think there is value in capturing the world as it is, in that moment, and attempting to share it as such. I won't say everyone who does so shares that intention, but I'll never hate on a person for trying to share something that hasn't been modified. Your camera doesn’t capture the world as it is though. It’s turning a real world, 3D, full sensory experience into a bunch of 1’s and 0’s that represent what colors every dot should be on a 2D plane. You’re already manipulating the image just by choosing your camera settings. If you’re goal is to produce the most true-to-world image for your viewers, and the best way to do that with your equipment is to underexpose a bit then kick up the shadows in post, shouldn’t you do that? Not that there’s anything wrong with going for straight-out-of-camera. If that’s your style it’s great. Whether it’s because you just hate post-processing or it’s fun challenge or it’s just how you like to take pictures. But not post processing isn’t an excuse for lackluster results. You have to know how to use the tools that you are going to use to get a great image. Sometimes that means not taking a picture that your equipment can’t handle, or maybe using advanced techniques (double exposure!) or approaching from a different angle (silhouette!).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
doing "straight out of camera" is just letting the camera manufacturer turn those 64 sliders for you and because of that, you cannot: quote:[capture] the world as it is you're just letting someone else do the interpretation (and lo and behold - it sucks)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:doing "straight out of camera" is just letting the camera manufacturer turn those 64 sliders for you But as long as that processing gives a relatively accurate version of what the eye saw (except for fixing horizons and perhaps cropping), that may be good enough for some people. For documentary style pictures (Tank Man, WW2, politics), this may actually be preferred as too much editing (even if it makes the image more pleasing) will get criticized for trying to manipulate popular opinion. Yes, I know that this is the SA Landscape thread, but still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
I edit my photos (some a lot, some very little) and feel like they still have a very natural look. Processing your photos doesn't mean you need to end up in some lsd fueled fantasy land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I edit my photos (some a lot, some very little) and feel like they still have a very natural look. Processing your photos doesn't mean you need to end up in some lsd fueled fantasy land. I agree. I once spent >1 hour trying to fix lens distortion, horizon, and keystone, and it was depressing to see just how subtle the changes were given the amount of time I spent on it. Edit: I should have let the OP defend his own position, and I should have also realized that the word edit has a wide range of meanings. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:But as long as that processing gives a relatively accurate version of what the eye saw A photograph, and what your "eye" sees at the scene are such completely different concepts that this is functionally impossible. The visual image you have in your mind is assembled after the fact from a ton of different exposures that are color corrected and stitched together. A ton of irrelevant information is stripped away, and different elements are shifted. theHUNGERian posted:For documentary style pictures (Tank Man, WW2, politics), this may actually be preferred as too much editing (even if it makes the image more pleasing) will get criticized for trying to manipulate popular opinion. Pretty much all documentary photos are trying to manipulate popular opinion, and it's just as easy to fake a narrative by taking 100 photos and selecting three as it is to digitally manipulate them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:A photograph, and what your "eye" sees at the scene are such completely different concepts that this is functionally impossible. The visual image you have in your mind is assembled after the fact from a ton of different exposures that are color corrected and stitched together. A ton of irrelevant information is stripped away, and different elements are shifted. My idea of "what the eye sees" is something like "blue sky, red-tinted building, an interesting car that is in focus, a couple of black shadows, a couple of bright highlights". Some people will be happy with this image because that is what they saw (that's what made the stop and photograph the scene). Others may want to lift the shadows, dial back the highlights, apply color correction because the red building is only red because of the sunset. Fart Amplifier posted:Pretty much all documentary photos are trying to manipulate popular opinion, and it's just as easy to fake a narrative by taking 100 photos and selecting three as it is to digitally manipulate them. Fine. Let's assume I said "trying to manipulate popular opinion too far toward an extremist fringe opinion that is far removed from reality".
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
There's a world of difference between photojournalists not heavily editing film prints (which they still did in pretty much every famous photo) vs posting a raw file. Raw files are not close to what the eyes see, they're purposefully stripped of data to give you headroom in editing. Posting a straight raw file is not any more pure to what the world is than slapping an HDR filter on it. "Photorealistic" photography as the eyes see is really hard because our eyes are way more complicated than a camera and it's very hard to reproduce the physics of that much less a digital recreation of it. I do think there's value in trying to achieve a hyperrealistic photograph but I think that requires a fair bit of editing but our visual memory is really bad, which only adds to the difficulty. The best way to achieve it would probably be shooting tethered and editing live on location. Content, here's a 5% crop of the only bit of clear sky I had last night. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Not everybody uses AWB. Selecting a WB is an act of editing. Choosing AWB is choosing to let your camera remove color casts. Setting the WB is to choose the color cast yourself. The joke is that "straight out of camera = truth" is a fallacy. The camera's jpg engine makes countless choices that affect how an image looks. Just choosing a brand of camera to use is an act of editing; each brand produces a distinctive look. Using editing software to make those choices after the photo is shot is no more or less ethical or valid than making them at the time of shooting by tweaking camera settings. As you get more experienced it becomes easier to make your choices at the time of shooting rather than after the fact in editing software, which saves quite a lot of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Dren posted:Selecting a WB is an act of editing. Choosing AWB is choosing to let your camera remove color casts. Setting the WB is to choose the color cast yourself. The joke is that "straight out of camera = truth" is a fallacy. The camera's jpg engine makes countless choices that affect how an image looks. Just choosing a brand of camera to use is an act of editing; each brand produces a distinctive look. Using editing software to make those choices after the photo is shot is no more or less ethical or valid than making them at the time of shooting by tweaking camera settings. As you get more experienced it becomes easier to make your choices at the time of shooting rather than after the fact in editing software, which saves quite a lot of time. Ah ok, got it. Edit: Samples > words. Here is an example of what I would call too much editing for my taste. What my brain remembers seeing: An (ugly) orange sunset with a balloon in the distance.  This is what I ended up posting on my page:  The realist in me is disappointed by the high amount of editing as there was not a shade of blue in that sunset. But the actual picture I wanted from that session didn't pan out, so I dicked around with this image, and I liked the result enough to make an exception. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
I went on a photo walk today, shot mostly b&w because it was that kind of day. DSCF1921 (2) by King Dugga, on Flickr  DSCF1913 (2) by King Dugga, on Flickr (this one could be more "street photography if I'm honest.)  DSCF1905 (2) by King Dugga, on Flickr  DSCF1910 (3) by King Dugga, on Flickr Also these are from a crazy sunset the other day with completely weird-rear end light that turned everything mauve and hard to look at. For these I set the white balance so the rear LCD looked like what my eyes were seeing.  DSCF1890 (2) by King Dugga, on Flickr  DSCF1887 by King Dugga, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
The last two rule
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
I totally agree with the points you guys made. I probably reached too far when I said "capturing the world as it is." Dren beat me to the punch on this point, but isn't it fair to say that attempting to recreate what I saw a day ago (or sometimes months ago, depending on backlog) on a computer screen from my flawed memory is detached from that scene? I recognize replication is not why most people do post-processing, or even shoot in the first place. But I like working within the confines of the camera while I'm standing there, and I feel like that picture is closer to what I experienced than if I did touch it up afterwards. I'm not very good at taking that picture, but I'm better at it now than I was 5 years ago. I want to say again, this isn't a knock on post-processing. I don't think there's an ethical concern or a question of validity when you're sharing cool art with people who also do cool art. Like, this is a dope picture and I don't really care if it was touched up or not, it's cool to look at and it makes me feel things: Finger Prince posted:
Sorry for the derail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Do you. No one cares unless someone does that over-done crap where the processing is the point. I do object to anyone using the word "ethics" with regard to processing unless it's for journalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Vinestalk posted:Dren beat me to the punch on this point, but isn't it fair to say that attempting to recreate what I saw a day ago (or sometimes months ago, depending on backlog) on a computer screen from my flawed memory is detached from that scene? Neither approach invalidates the other. Do you. Heck, keep both pictures if you like them both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Do you. Agreed. torgeaux posted:I do object to anyone using the word "ethics" with regard to processing unless it's for journalism. +1 Finger Prince posted:
Nice! Reminds me of my pre-lockdown vacation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
On the topic of editing, I will edit the poo poo out of stuff from a composition standpoint if I need to. An example, this church that always looks very nicely lit at night. I get the drone up 150 feet or so, and realize how the sausage is made. That light isn't visible from any street angles, so you never know its there until you get up high. Well, I'm not letting it ruin my shot, dammit! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:On the topic of editing, I will edit the poo poo out of stuff from a composition standpoint if I need to. Then it's no longer a photo but a composite. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Who cares, it's art, do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to claim it's something it's not, everyone hates that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
    
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Then it's no longer a photo but a composite. Editing out a light source does not a composite make. A composite is two or more put together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
These are all fantastic but these two really hit it for me. Love the gatorbeug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
Cool lighthouse! It looks vaguely sinister to me, like the poster for The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Ah ok, got it. I love this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
 Christchurch
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
 Christchurch  Christchurch  Christchurch Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
More Crows Nest
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
 IMG_8637-Edit-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 15:09
|
|
