Messages

1

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 06:21:03 PM »

lol...sorry...but lucky looked lonely in the one edit.. I think he's happier now with his family...LOL

2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 06:10:29 PM »

My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)...  I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic?  I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope.  Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be.  They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out.  They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation.  Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene.  LOL...  in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....

Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.

But I agree on your point.

Ok...so as you can see there...never been to cambodia to know it's not epic...lol...

3

Software & Accessories / Re: Flickr is now 1 Terabytes!! For everyone!!

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »

not sure if someone posted this already... but take a look at some of the thoughts behind the new flickr....

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/21/rip-professional-photographers/

Kind of surprised that 3 pages in here and only one has brought this up....

"there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers, when there’s everything is professional photographers. Certainly there is varying levels of skills, but we didn’t want to have a Flickr Pro anymore, we wanted everyone to have professional quality photos, space, and sharing.” – Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Event, May 2013

I am not a user currently (I have an account, but, never use it).  I think that I will continue to not use it if this is their viewpoint on photography (and unfortunately...this will bleed into the real world...how many more potential brides will look to this quote when thinking why spend $$$ on photography...even the CEO of yahoo thinks theres no such thing as a pro....

4

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:01:01 PM »

wow...so I'm gonna go ahead and add this wrinkle to the debate ---http://www.slrlounge.com/flickr-steps-towards-improvement-and-leaps-towards-stupidity

So apparently all this talk of ethics and what a true photograph is doesn't matter at all....truly disturbing...

5

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 02:33:14 PM »

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

i agree completely with this notion, as i tried to state before. i understand people who have not considered this topic before trying to hash out their position on this but it has been a longstanding discussion in photography going back to the late 1800's.

the fact is that photography is incapable of depicting "truth". it can only depict a singular viewpoint and "manipulation" begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder and "chooses" what will be shown in the frame and what will not be shown in the frame. nevermind any post that occurs after the fact.

it brings to mind the images that came out of the aftermath of Katrina, in particular there was an instance where news outlets ran a photo of a white family "scavenging" for supplies while an almost identical photo of a black family doing the same thing had headlines attached stating they were "looting". truth in photography is a myth. it is simply a means of communicating an idea, story, or feeling and in the end it falls upon the viewer to determine what truths a photograph holds for them.

so if you want to subscribe to contrived notions of what makes a photograph real or true or whatever...you are welcome to it. i personally don't want to limit my own ability to tell a story how i want to tell it by applying a set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense considering that manipulation has been inherent throughout the history of photography since its inception.

oh, an National Geographic is far from being the standard bearer for for what "real" photography is. on the contrary, it is a very narrow slice of what photography is and can be.

What is "truth"?  If you can answer that, then what is the meaning of life?

We've been here before Carl - The answer's 42 

  Kudos!!!!

6

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 02:30:43 PM »

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

Disagree, I think both pixel peeping and photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum, even a rumors forum (since there are sections meant to discuss things other than rumors).  12 pages is nothing on here, some of the threads go to what, 30 or more pages?

I do agree that worrying about whether an image has been altered or not, can be more of a trivial waste of time, in this day and age. 

However, I also agree with Don Haines, because pictures with an intent to deceive, could very likely be done by some of the same sort of people who would use the IRS to gain political power, or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap!  "The end justifies the means..."

Agree wit hte former here...how many pages worth of endless debate are here regarding Dynamic range?  This is a nice change of pace actually

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 02:27:42 PM »

You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.

OMG!@!!!!!  I knew it...Cats do live on the moon...... 

8

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 01:25:51 PM »

If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.

They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.

Dont believe me? Then give it a try.

so what your saying is its ok to have my raw settings, picture style/saturation/sharpness etc  set in camera, but if i zero out everything and do it in my raw converter then its not ok? 

that makes no sense to me whatsoever !

Bang on again.....

If I set up everything before the shot, then the out-of-camera jpg is acceptable.
If I take that RAW file and apply the exact same settings, it is evil.
And strangely enough, If I take that RAW file and make a B/W jpg out of it.... that's OK ?!?!?!?!?!
And all this from the magazine that publishes photos of "Bart the Bear" from Wasatch Rocky Mountain Animals as wildlife? That's like me heading of to the Papanac Zoo and shooting pictures of the wild animals.

As Spock would say.... "Highly illogical"

Step further....grad ND filters ----OK
But don't you dare take 3 bracketed images and composite them together (which is essentially the same thing...)

9

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 01:06:14 PM »

My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)...  I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic?  I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope.  Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be.  They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out.  They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation.  Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene.  LOL...  in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....

10

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 12:30:32 PM »

I so want to comment and discuss so many of the posts in this thread but currently struggling with time. Shooting a feature and it requires 15 hours of my time. The heat is killing. But I will do when I can.

Will quickly say now: Image manipulation is part of the game - done in camera or in post.

Am attaching a photo I took on vacation with my 12 year old. There is no post and it was done in-camera. When I showed it to my 12 it daughter on the lcd of the camera, she said "All photographers are LIARS."

Even a kid can see that. Yes, I am slowly but surely getting convinced that ALL photographs are MANIPULATION. Perhaps I am being too quick in thinking like that...?

Nice --- in one of my replies to this I brought up how often the surreal nature of night long exposure works makes people say ---that's not real.. or that's a painting...and I get similar comments when I shoot sunset portraits with external lighting...

11

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 12:14:03 PM »

If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood.

I personally wouldn't buy a print like this, just not my thing...but...if it were, and the image drew my eye enough to want it, why would I care about what was done to it...whatever was done obviously just made me want it more, hence why I have it on the wall.  If I were that person and I found out after buying that the clouds were added in, would I really take it off the wall and burn it then send nasty letters to the artist?...  I wouldn't...but then again...what do I know - when this sells for 1.9 million...maybe none of us know anything...lol - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/nude-bea-arthur-painting-by-john-currin-sells-christies-auction_n_3284898.html?utm_hp_ref=arts

12

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 12:08:13 PM »

As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision  ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.

+10^99999

If I were to buy a print to hang on my wall, I would have chosen #2. Whoop-de-do, he played with the sky, but the essence of the shot remains the same.... three big wild cats. If you want to carry the logic through, people should not sharpen images, or color balance, or crop.... Even the act of pointing the camera or zooming in/out is to modify what is being represented.

Put things in perspective, it's not like Godzilla is walking along the skyline...It's a nice image. I like it.

LOL!!!!

13

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 12:00:16 PM »

Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.

Bingo.

Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?

Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.

Loving this topic, it's one of those topics I try real hard to read everything before replying, but, well, I guess I am breaking that rule..

As shown here - HDR - is it still photography?  Others say that even just a composite isn't photography.  If this set of bracketed images where taken as layers in photoshop and manually combined - is it less or more of a 'photograph' than the hdr?  ANd yes, as pointed out below, this is pretty much the poor mans way of preserving dynamic range in the image because yes - you could create a very similar effect grad ND filters and polarizers..

Given the tools we have to push and pull images..when is the line crossed?  reading through this link that was brought up earlier - http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching, a lot of what we're doing is really been there done that - new tools and tech make it easier, but I do remember back in the days of the darkroom - in my first photography classes in 1992 being instructed on how to take a print and use markers to add color (yes, the dreaded selective color!!!!). 

Getting it in camera ---yeah, its an awesome and amazing feeling - I love using external lighting to create images - I show my clients what things are looking like on the camera back and they say - that looks more like a painting.  But, sometimes like on a wedding you just don't have the time to set all that lighting up.  Your also not picking the time of day to shoot, and its generally in high sun, 2-5 PM, worst time of the day for shooting.  So you end up with a shot that has the people exposed right but the sky overblown.  I will often take a single image (depending of course on how overexposed the sky is), duplicate it, process one for sky and one for the people the people, then export to PS and merge/composite. 

We toss around these words - manipulation, graphic art, digital art, true photography...where is the line?  Unless we back track and make cameras that lock images so what you see at the time of exposure is what you get ---it's all manipulation.  So you used a grad filter in lightroom...it's still manipulating the image..  Like in the process above - duplicating then pushing one and pulling another -- it is something that can be done in camera, with the use of external tools (lights).  I'm attaching an unedited image here, showing a scene that uses external lighting to balance the sky and the people - camera exposing for wonderful sky, lighting for the people or they'd just be dark shadows, part of the landscape, not the subject.  what would happen here if I did not have those extra lights (or a reflector/multiple reflectors)?  You'd be stuck exposing for the family at the expense of the surrounding environment.  The only way around that is to be creative in post, or go the other way of shooting on a tripod, and using 2 images (one exposed for sky, one exposed for people) - or the quick and dirty way of pushing and pulling duplicate images and merging... selective brushing, digital grad filters, or snagging a purely landscape shot and using that sky ....or just sucking it up and saying bye bye sky!

this is only scratching the surface of this --- when you consider all that can be done in post...I'd say doing a composite to preserve the DR of a scene is a much more true photograph than one where you remove every facial blemish, remove the double chin, wrinkles gone....poof, you look 20 years younger...or wow, I just puppet warped you and now your 20 pounds lighter!  Where is the line?    I often struggle with this for portrait/wedding clients --where you want them to be beautiful, but, if you take it too far, yes they look wonderful but then you get people saying ---I didn't even realize that was you!

yes, landscape/.nature work is different than portrait/wedding work...I do both !  And you know what, one of my fav things to do is night time work, long exposures (I'd love to do day time ones, just don't have enough ND filters to slow things down enough) - and more times than not right out of camera the image is surreal.  With both of these kinds of shots (externally lit and long exposures) most assume it's all photoshop trickery. 

So again, where is that line in the sand? Is it as simple as ---if you can pull it off in lightroom it's real, but the moment it hits photoshop it isn't?  Oh wait, there's that spot removal tool in lightroom...

Really now, why do we shoot in RAW at all if we aren't going to push and pull our images??  If a real photo is a non processed image - then why don't we all just shoot in jpeg and save our $$$ by not buying software, what comes out of the camera is real and that's that?

14

Canon General / Re: Which lens for my new 6D (my first DSLR)?

« on: May 20, 2013, 11:24:52 AM »

He's doing landscapes. 7d with 24-105 might be too tight unless he wants to try panorama.

That's correct, that's why I bought what I've got now - 60d + the very reasonably priced 17-40L is ok for landscapes, and it's a full frame upgrade path unlike an ef-s lens.

the 6d is a beast in low light so being limited to f4 shouldn't hurt too bad

... except if you're shooting high dynamic range scenes, because less iso noise on the 6d cannot repair the fact that dr takes a hit also on the 6d, though not as bad as the crop sensor: http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_6D.html

...

DR is gonna be an issue either way, and if the DR in the scene is too much then bracketing the shot will have to happen (or get some grad ND filters...)

Note that in my original reply, not making a judgement based on the OP buying his first DSLR.

As for first DSLR and lenses --- FF vs crop.  each do have their place.   Landscape vs lowlight -- again each area is different - and what kind of low light are you talkig ---low light portraits...low light landscapes, low light waterscapes?  For low light, a good tripod may be a better investment, unless your shooting people...then even with a good low light body you may still want a flash for fill...

SLR's give you options --- but for limited budget first time investment ---it is almost too many options (due to cost, because each option is pricey!!!!!)

That's why I stick to saying ---if you go FF - get the 24-105.  then over the course of the year, check you shots and see what you shoot at the most...if your staying in the 24-35 range and wanting wider - then your in UWA territory.  But if you find that your at 105 a lot and cropping, then you may want a 70-200...  or, if you find all your shots at 50mm and want more control over DOF and OOF areas, snag a 50mm.  This is all stuff you have to find out on your own though, only way to know is have it and shoot.  Which is again why I say grab the kit lens ---it may not be the best at everything but it is a great jack of all trades lens (also ---it is L series and L quality so if you do choose to sell it in favor or something more specialized it will retain its value pretty good unless you smash it or something.)

15

Canon General / Re: Which lens for my new 6D (my first DSLR)?

« on: May 20, 2013, 10:55:22 AM »

EDIT: i fotgot to mention, i will be doing lot of landscapes and low light photography

What ranges?  That makes a huge differnece - a 50mm is nice but tight.  Gotta agree with the rest of those replying - the kit 24-105 may be your best option.  It isn't the best lens out there, but it is versatile and the 6d is a beast in low light so being limited to f4 shouldn't hurt too bad (plus, if this is your first DSLR, going with a fast prime may be difficult - the DOF at 1.4 will be hard to manage.)