To digitally alter a photo or not?

Camera Gear, How-To, Questions
User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3707
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: To digitally alter a photo or not?

Post by Waffle Stomper » May 9th, 2016, 8:07 am

Steve20050 wrote: Even someone such as Ansel Adams used his zone system to try and find formulas that produced what he wanted. Thanks Waffle Stomper. :) I wasn't sure whether to bring up Adams or not. Lets face it, photography is a lot of math as most things are. Understanding the basic equations then learning how to manipulate those numbers is a key part of getting what you want. It could be that wide open aperture to flatten the field of view so the flower is in focus and the background blurred. Perhaps the smallest aperture for much more depth of field in a landscape. We are always manipulating what we see to suit our individual tastes. Waterfalls usually on cloudy days, with slow shutter. Or a fast shutter to freeze action at a race, etc.
Somebody had to bring Ansel up. :lol:

I often think that when people are put off by manipulation it is when colors are super saturated or if parts of a photo. Just the difference between how our eyes view a scene and a camera (film or digital) captures the image there will always be the need to make decisions prior to shooting and while processing. There will always be some differences between reality and the image and two people at the same location standing side by side will see a different reality both because of point of view, where our eyes are focused, differences in our vision (we even see color differently). Even camera sensors don't match exactly, our lens choices also matter.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir

User avatar
sprengers4jc
Posts: 1036
Joined: October 22nd, 2013, 11:35 am
Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: To digitally alter a photo or not?

Post by sprengers4jc » May 9th, 2016, 10:42 am

Waffle Stomper wrote:
Steve20050 wrote: Even someone such as Ansel Adams used his zone system to try and find formulas that produced what he wanted. Thanks Waffle Stomper. :) I wasn't sure whether to bring up Adams or not. Lets face it, photography is a lot of math as most things are. Understanding the basic equations then learning how to manipulate those numbers is a key part of getting what you want. It could be that wide open aperture to flatten the field of view so the flower is in focus and the background blurred. Perhaps the smallest aperture for much more depth of field in a landscape. We are always manipulating what we see to suit our individual tastes. Waterfalls usually on cloudy days, with slow shutter. Or a fast shutter to freeze action at a race, etc.
Somebody had to bring Ansel up. :lol:

I often think that when people are put off by manipulation it is when colors are super saturated or if parts of a photo. Just the difference between how our eyes view a scene and a camera (film or digital) captures the image there will always be the need to make decisions prior to shooting and while processing. There will always be some differences between reality and the image and two people at the same location standing side by side will see a different reality both because of point of view, where our eyes are focused, differences in our vision (we even see color differently). Even camera sensors don't match exactly, our lens choices also matter.
Great point, Waffle. HDR tends to put most people off, as there is no way that could possibly look natural.

Great conversation, everyone. Nice to see everyone's different ideas on what constitutes manipulation and art.
'We travel not to escape life but for life to not escape us.'
-Unknown

User avatar
SWriverstone
Posts: 96
Joined: January 26th, 2016, 8:28 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon

Re: To digitally alter a photo or not?

Post by SWriverstone » May 25th, 2016, 6:26 am

Just a thought: for various reasons the "HDR look" has come to be known as somewhat...artificial and almost has a bad rap—mainly because people push it too far. Which is too bad. Because the one thing I do pretty much 100% of the time in editing photos is bring up the shadows in high-contrast images exposed for the sunlit areas (e.g. bright sunlight with dark shadows).

I do this because invariably the shadows are basically solid black in the photos...which is definitely not how my eyes and brain viewed the scene. Humans are capable of seeing the deep blue sky, make out details in the white cumulus clouds...and see detail in the shadows—all at the same time.

So I like to think of doing this (raising shadows, pulling back highlights) as "Authentic HDR." :-) (As opposed to "silly painting HDR.")

Scott

User avatar
texasbb
Posts: 1174
Joined: July 26th, 2008, 8:16 pm
Location: Tri-Cities, WA

Re: To digitally alter a photo or not?

Post by texasbb » May 25th, 2016, 12:26 pm

SWriverstone wrote:... the "HDR look" ... has a bad rap—mainly because people push it too far.
Bingo.

My new camera has an HDR mode that I initially dismissed as a gimmick, but upon trying it out I like it a lot. It does a very nice job of subtly bringing up shadows and knocking back whiteouts to render believable results on otherwise impossibly contrasty subjects.

Webfoot
Posts: 1759
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: To digitally alter a photo or not?

Post by Webfoot » May 25th, 2016, 12:46 pm

I hope soon we have image viewing devices capable of real high dynamic range, making photography far more lifelike and "HDR effect" amusingly antiquated. Being able to compress a 100000:1 scene into a 50:1 print in a compelling way is impressive but only truly necessary due to the inability to reproduce the original.

Post Reply