Dynamic Range vs the truth

[3kramd5]

Personally, I am not so sure that DR is really among the top 3 most important things in MODERN digital photography and post.

Phrased a little differently many, including myself, would agree:

The differences in recorded DR between most modern cameras isn’t significant enough to stand as a reasonable product differentiator.

[stevelee]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

I sincerely hope we have no photograpers in CR.

I took some very nice, some would say artistic, photos back when I was shooting color slide film.

[bwud]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

This is a preposterous statement, IMO.

A photographer is one who creates photographs. Whether extensive post processing (like color alterations, localized edits) or preprocessing (most notably lighting, or makeup) is used, it’s still photography, and its creator a photographer.

[Don Haines]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Why can't it be both

[bwud]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Why can't it be both

The former sounds like an even more restrictive version of “record the scene as it really looked” mantra (which due to how the medium works often requires alterations after the fact).

[Don Haines]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Why can't it be both

The former sounds like an even more restrictive version of “record the scene as it really looked” mantra (which due to how the medium works often requires alterations after the fact).

You need technical ability.... selection and operation of the equipment.... but you also need an artistic vision. Just the simple process of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter is artistic vision.... you have selected a particular view at a particular time to capture and that is editing reality. How far you go in post processing is immaterial, you are already far down the path....

For example, the cat slept on my lap for two hours while I worked on the computer. I chose the time she yawned to take the picture, so that is the segment of reality presented. It was not typical of the vast bulk of the time. I have edited reality to present an exception as the norm....

[dak723]

I guess what I wanted to say is:

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Cheers,

Stefan

Not sure if you are being funny or sarcastic here - but if not...

As someone who IS an artist - and then got into photography, doing little or no post processing is not the defining factor with whether the resulting photo is considered art or artistic.  If you have to post process to make a photo artistic, then  - quite frankly - you have no idea what photography is all about.  I would strongly suggest some classes in composition among other things.

As for DR - the idea that more DR is always better makes me laugh.  Yes, it is better that cameras have that capability, but as DR continues to improve, photos have less contrast  -and thus look flatter.  In many (if not most) cases, this means more post processing to bring contrast levels back to a point where the photo is acceptable as art! 

Just my opinion, of course.  I realize that most here will not agree.

[Orangutan]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Why can't it be both

The former sounds like an even more restrictive version of “record the scene as it really looked” mantra (which due to how the medium works often requires alterations after the fact).

Just the simple process of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter is artistic vision

I agree.

How far you go in post processing is immaterial, you are already far down the path....

I disagree.  You can expose and edit a night scene to make it appear to be daylight (except for the lack of shadows), and you can expose/edit to make day look like night.  Cropping, contrast, minor exposure adjustments, sharpening...all of these are edits that would not surprise a viewer of the image, and would not be interpreted as distortion.  For me, the test is subjective but also fairly clear: imagine the viewer had an opportunity to compare the image to the live scene; if he/she would be surprised by the difference then you have distorted.  Distortion is not inherently unacceptable but, IMHO, should be disclosed with the image.

[Don Haines]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Why can't it be both

The former sounds like an even more restrictive version of “record the scene as it really looked” mantra (which due to how the medium works often requires alterations after the fact).

Just the simple process of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter is artistic vision

I agree.

How far you go in post processing is immaterial, you are already far down the path....

I disagree.  You can expose and edit a night scene to make it appear to be daylight (except for the lack of shadows), and you can expose/edit to make day look like night.  Cropping, contrast, minor exposure adjustments, sharpening...all of these are edits that would not surprise a viewer of the image, and would not be interpreted as distortion.  For me, the test is subjective but also fairly clear: imagine the viewer had an opportunity to compare the image to the live scene; if he/she would be surprised by the difference then you have distorted.  Distortion is not inherently unacceptable but, IMHO, should be disclosed with the image.

Yes, but I can play with depth of field to make the background disappear, or I can move in real close for a distorted perspective, or telephoto compression to make the moon look absurdly large, or time exposures to make the Milky Way pop out, or slow shutter speeds to get a silky flow on a waterfall..... you can greatly distort the scene before you ever get to post processing......

The following picture was taken today in downtown Ottawa today. The background is the parliament buildings. By shooting with minimum depth of field, One makes them vanish.

[Orangutan]

Yes, but I can play with depth of field to make the background disappear, or I can move in real close for a distorted perspective, or telephoto compression to make the moon look absurdly large, or time exposures to make the Milky Way pop out, or slow shutter speeds to get a silky flow on a waterfall..... you can greatly distort the scene before you ever get to post processing......

The following picture was taken today in downtown Ottawa today. The background is the parliament buildings. By shooting with minimum depth of field, One makes them vanish.

The question is simple: would someone who looks both at your photo and at the scene believe that your photo was distorted, or that it misrepresented what was actually there?   I think the answer is clearly no.  Humans are remarkably good at selective attention (inattentional blindness), and the blurred background does not change the "truth" of the photo.

But I think we're derailing the thread...

[bwud]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Why can't it be both

The former sounds like an even more restrictive version of “record the scene as it really looked” mantra (which due to how the medium works often requires alterations after the fact).

Just the simple process of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter is artistic vision

I agree.

How far you go in post processing is immaterial, you are already far down the path....

I disagree.  You can expose and edit a night scene to make it appear to be daylight (except for the lack of shadows), and you can expose/edit to make day look like night.  Cropping, contrast, minor exposure adjustments, sharpening...all of these are edits that would not surprise a viewer of the image, and would not be interpreted as distortion.  For me, the test is subjective but also fairly clear: imagine the viewer had an opportunity to compare the image to the live scene; if he/she would be surprised by the difference then you have distorted.  Distortion is not inherently unacceptable but, IMHO, should be disclosed with the image.

Yes, but I can play with depth of field to make the background disappear, or I can move in real close for a distorted perspective, or telephoto compression to make the moon look absurdly large, or time exposures to make the Milky Way pop out, or slow shutter speeds to get a silky flow on a waterfall..... you can greatly distort the scene before you ever get to post processing......

The following picture was taken today in downtown Ottawa today. The background is the parliament buildings. By shooting with minimum depth of field, One makes them vanish.

+1, a thousand times.
Most good photos don’t look the way a similar instant looked to a human, whether the scene be black and white, or express a tiny depth of focus, or have milky smooth water, etc.

[bhf3737]

I guess what I wanted to say is:

Photographers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Perhaps by "Photographer" you mean "Photo Journalist" who may have certain restrictions as you mentioned by their hiring agency. Everyone else is a photographer.

[9VIII]

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

I sincerely hope we have no photograpers in CR.

Most of the time I hate anything people call “art”.

Cameras are recording devices no different than a microphone or a pen.

[Mikehit]

Hey Guys,

there some great comments in here, which make me realize once more that other people have other goals and priorities

I guess what I wanted to say is:

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Cheers,

Stefan

P.S.
End of story: Get some kind of gear, learn it, enjoy using it and be satisfied with the results you get.

So is Ansel Adams a photographer or an artist.  The amount of post processing he did is legendary - and yet many would say his images are realistic. Post-processing and 'realism' are not mutually exclusive.

[jolyonralph]

In the world of macro photography we use stacking to generate images to show an image with an unrealistic large depth of field of an object (something you cannot see with the naked eye or with any magnifying device).

Is this image more "real" than an image showing the limitations that the laws of optics force on us. I say yes.

Post-processing doesn't always make something less 'real'.