July 22, 2014, 06:30:07 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 95
766
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:05:10 PM »
I heard something on the radio yesterday - along the lines of techno electro pop fusion. It was created de novo on a computer, no instruments were used at all.  The DJ called it a song. I bet if I'd Shazam'd it, I'd have found it on iTunes.  Was it music?  Is the person who produced it a musician or a programmer?  Does it matter?

Its true, it does not matter as long as it is music to the ears. :)

767
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:03:18 PM »
I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees.  Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination. 

Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.

Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different.  Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place?  The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it.  For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field.  Why do we want them?  So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour.  The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide.  Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial.

Yes....!!! As photographer I want to present everything the best it can be. Regards.

768
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:00:34 PM »
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

That's an interesting question.

The way I see it, photography is cheating. By its own definition. It's about offering a fragment of reality from a perspective that you choose, carrying a visual message that you choose. It's not different from fiction, theatre, music, dance etc. If someone expect a pic to be a faithful reproduction of reality it's his problem, because it's like watching Harry Potter and thinking that Hogwarts actually exists.

Retouching is retouching. Making a composite, IMHO, is not ethically different from smoothening someone's skin, removing blemishes, saturating colors, etc.

You are either a purist that doesn't touch his RAW files (and who would want that?), or when you start compromising and editing then the acceptable limit of that is debatable. It actually becomes a mere matter of making sensible, tasteful retouches.

I think you are saying it better than me. Photography IS cheating. AGREE.

769
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:57:32 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

More like look, a close up wide shot of the western gebes courtship and here's another of them tele compressed.

Which one is better? Neither, they're both good. That's were I disagree, one shot was easier to get and the other was extremely difficult but the end product is the same.

The end product is not the same. Simple FACT of the matter is...you could NEVER get that close to a courting Grebe couple in the first place! You would scare them off LONG before you ever got close enough to photograph them as more than two black and white specks with the A1400. That all assumes you aren't arrested first for encroaching upon the habitat of a protected bird.

Your hypothesis only works in a dream world where there are no environmental and wildlife protection laws, and in which birds are completely unafraid of idiotic human activity. You CAN NOT get that close to a Grebe, especially a courting couple. There are matters of respect that must be addressed. If I saw a photographer like you out in the wild at some protected migrating bird stopover, sloshing through the water so get a snapshot of a couple grebes, I'd happily nark on him and get his ass arrested for being a disrespectful jackass.

You can wish and hope all you want, but it's still absurd to think you can literally "get the shot", hell "get any shot" with a $100 P&S wide angle camera, in any situation. You can't.

At this point, it's obvious your just trolling. Your making absurd arguments just for the sake of making absurd arguments. That's fine...it only really hurts you. I think it's clear no one here believes a word you are spouting anymore, so I'm quite happily done with the conversation.

It is obvious that RLP has never tried bird photography and so is talking so ignorantly... Sad...

770
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:55:46 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

hahahaha. Well said!

771
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:51:56 AM »
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.

Appreciate the encouragement.

772
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:51:27 AM »
Compositing isn't necessarily 'digital art'...may I present from 1946 http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching


So true!!! I hope all who claim otherwise see this... Thank you..

773
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:49:52 AM »
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

Yes you did alter nature - the sky is part of nature.

Did you do anything wrong?  What are you claiming?  If you are claiming that is the image you took, yes you are being dishonest.  If you present the picture as "art" and you can sleep at night, then you did nothing wrong.

Bottom line - two thing IMO are important.  Are you being honest about the image (if you don't claim it was as shown in the 2nd print you are fine) - but you decide where to draw the line?  And can you sleep at night?

After giving this a long hard look now I can sleep easily... :)

774
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:47:58 AM »
Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

Even HDR?
Ansel Adams pushed the technology of the developing and printing but it was all there in the negative.
Putting something into the frame that wasn't there is something else, and not what I would call photography - more like graphics arts.

Would we not reserve the term 'graphic arts' to something that involved graphics? And ALL SORTS of effects are possible in the negative.

I am a motion picture cameraman and before computer animations evolved we would easily add clouds by MANY techniques including mattes, glass painting etc.

775
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:45:09 AM »
Well said and agreed.  It would be like saying that if in someone else's opinion you take it too far, then perhaps we should ban digital photography all together and simply shoot film.  Although as you aptly put, those of us that worked with film, pushed the processing in film as well...

Is there a line which creates a dichotomy between photographer and artist?  Perhaps some are "Artographers".  If so, perhaps it is all subject to the Artographer's vision?

I'm not offended or dismayed by anyone's vision of what they did with their photos.  It's "theirs" not mine, whether I like it or not...  ::)

In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.

Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference.  There is no absolute.  Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality.  Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating.  If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.

The idea that great photos are created in the camera is a myth.  True, some great photos are created in the camera alone.  I won’t argue that.  However, Adams was notorious for spending hours in the darkroom in order to push his negatives and prints to replicate what he saw, his interpretation of reality.  Take a look at how dark half-dome is in some of his most well-known photos.  Take a look at the cemetery stones glowing in moon rise.  Then watch a few documentaries or read a few books about him (not by him) and see what people say about the time he spent in the darkroom on those photos alone.  The idea that beauty is created when the shutter is pressed isn’t fair, nor is it reality. 

Reflecting reality the way you see it is just that, reflecting reality.  It isn’t reality in and of itself.  We don’t have to get into a philosophical debate and start citing Kant.  But art is, I assume, wildly recognized as reflecting.  You can choose to reflect it anyway you want.  Some may think that it is bad art, but it is still art.

I’m often reminded of one of my favorite long-running best-friend adversarial relationships.  Wordsworth and Coleridge.  Wordsworth represented that his poetry was written on the fly, that something struck him and this beautiful complicated language rolled out of his head and on to his page.  He even started to name poems in a way to imply this “Lines composed a few miles above Tinturn Abbey”.  Excuse my butchering of his title.  Coleridge, suffering from addiction and a raft of other social problems tried so hard to replicate Wordsworth’s easy-going technique.  He suffered so much trying to let the words just flow.  Instead he suffered, he wrote for hours on end, locked himself away for months to get the right rhyme or pattern.  He did write some of the best Romantic poetry ever written – Ancient Mariner, Kubla Kahn.  But he suffered.  Funny thing is Wordsworth was having him on.  He worked just as hard.  The poetry didn’t spill out of him, he agonized over it, just like Coleridge.  Difference is he never let on. 

Long way to say, I think that this type of mentality, that beauty just spills out, particularly when there are dozens of tools in photography, and there always has been, to manipulate the raw negative, is way-of-base.
If Adams, Man Ray and their buddies can manipulate an image to reflect the reality they wanted, then so be it.  It’s their art.  It’s still a photo.

I do think that photos will suffer when pushed to far.  I do like your image, but if you look at the fur, it just doesn’t look at good in the manipulated version.  It suffers from the electronic manipulation.  Noise, degradation.  That doesn’t mean that it can’t be art though.

Krob all this manipulation is available even if we shoot film as we can scan and photoshop. :)

776
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:43:28 AM »
In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.

Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference.  There is no absolute.  Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality.  Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating.  If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.

The idea that great photos are created in the camera is a myth.  True, some great photos are created in the camera alone.  I won’t argue that.  However, Adams was notorious for spending hours in the darkroom in order to push his negatives and prints to replicate what he saw, his interpretation of reality.  Take a look at how dark half-dome is in some of his most well-known photos.  Take a look at the cemetery stones glowing in moon rise.  Then watch a few documentaries or read a few books about him (not by him) and see what people say about the time he spent in the darkroom on those photos alone.  The idea that beauty is created when the shutter is pressed isn’t fair, nor is it reality. 

Reflecting reality the way you see it is just that, reflecting reality.  It isn’t reality in and of itself.  We don’t have to get into a philosophical debate and start citing Kant.  But art is, I assume, wildly recognized as reflecting.  You can choose to reflect it anyway you want.  Some may think that it is bad art, but it is still art.

I’m often reminded of one of my favorite long-running best-friend adversarial relationships.  Wordsworth and Coleridge.  Wordsworth represented that his poetry was written on the fly, that something struck him and this beautiful complicated language rolled out of his head and on to his page.  He even started to name poems in a way to imply this “Lines composed a few miles above Tinturn Abbey”.  Excuse my butchering of his title.  Coleridge, suffering from addiction and a raft of other social problems tried so hard to replicate Wordsworth’s easy-going technique.  He suffered so much trying to let the words just flow.  Instead he suffered, he wrote for hours on end, locked himself away for months to get the right rhyme or pattern.  He did write some of the best Romantic poetry ever written – Ancient Mariner, Kubla Kahn.  But he suffered.  Funny thing is Wordsworth was having him on.  He worked just as hard.  The poetry didn’t spill out of him, he agonized over it, just like Coleridge.  Difference is he never let on. 

Long way to say, I think that this type of mentality, that beauty just spills out, particularly when there are dozens of tools in photography, and there always has been, to manipulate the raw negative, is way-of-base.
If Adams, Man Ray and their buddies can manipulate an image to reflect the reality they wanted, then so be it.  It’s their art.  It’s still a photo.

I do think that photos will suffer when pushed to far.  I do like your image, but if you look at the fur, it just doesn’t look at good in the manipulated version.  It suffers from the electronic manipulation.  Noise, degradation.  That doesn’t mean that it can’t be art though.

Enjoyed reading your story. Agree agree that 'great photos are only created in camera'.
I will reedit the photo and fix the fur. Thanks for pointing that out....!!

777
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:40:19 AM »
it's your work
you were honest about it being photoshopped instead of trying to pass it as a legit photo
I would not call it photo anymore, rather it's photo based artwork.
Looks good

Artwork? Must humbly disagree with this. It would be 'photography based artwork' ONLY if any artwork was involved. And thank you for the compliment. :)

778
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:39:00 AM »
I think that kind of editing is fine - but you should disclose what edits youve made to those interested. I think something looks wrong with the horizon of the edited pic. Its too soft, though i may not have came to that conclusion if i didnt see the original.

Yes Wilmark the horizon does have a problem and I will find time to fix it. :)

779
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:37:34 AM »
for me, photography (or a camera) is a "tool" to visualize an idea. sometimes it's not possible to visualize this idea just with photography and the reality. so you have to add another tools like photohop (or flashlights, or graduated filters etc.) to reach your goal.

Yessss!

780
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:37:12 AM »
.
Photography ethics?

Given the history of this genre that's almost oxymoronic.

The only real "ethics" I know in photography relate to serious photojournalism.

The most idealistic of street photographers will usually follow the photojournalistic ethics, but not all.

I think you probably owe it to the creatures you photographed to put them in the most visually pleasing context possible, so do what you will.

As for altering nature -- you alter nature with every breath you take! Human being ARE nature -- we are not somehow apart from it.

:) :) Thank you...

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 95