Dynamic Range vs the truth

[Orangutan]

As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera, you can manipulate what sits in the optical path, but your manipulation doesn’t change what the photograph fundamentally is.

No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?

Is it a contest? What's the prize?

Here's my guess: a 15-second exposure of an outdoor (building with flags) night scene across a frozen body of water, probably a river (buoy lower-right? Charles?). At the right of the frame, you can just barely see Cthulhu rising from the depths.

 

[blobmonster]

As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera, you can manipulate what sits in the optical path, but your manipulation doesn’t change what the photograph fundamentally is.

No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?

It's beautiful, outstanding and wall-worthy. I would say - since I kind of agree with the sentiment of the poster above - that it is art since it is a longer exposure than what would correspond to our vision or similar documentary photograph.

 

[blobmonster]

Regarding the nonsense talk about art and photography being different...

Photojournalism does not equal photography; it is just one element or concept. It is generally done in a rush and with artisitic limitations e.g. an event is happening right now or you're about to get blown up or run over or something.

As with most things in life, the more time and effort you put in the better results you get out, imo. Regarding the concept of recording something how it is, the reality is nonsense. You can't see the atoms, the parasites the radio waves etc. Our view of reality is entirely subjective and narrowed. There is no lens in existence or theory that can show you everything, and just by being there, you are changing reality anyway.......

Production is a communist concept. Creation on the other hand is one of the fundamental aspects of humanity. Art is not a relevant word except to indicate creation that is beautiful or meaningful to the viewer / creator. The reality is possibly that most or all photography is shared creation, because so much of the process is thanks to the amazing technology used by camera manufacturers and processing software etc.

 

[3kramd5]

As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera, you can manipulate what sits in the optical path, but your manipulation doesn’t change what the photograph fundamentally is.

No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?

I’m going with “accidentally depressed the shutter release while framing for a long exposure of the beach adjacent a pier.”

 

[justawriter]

I have used this analogy before, so here it is again. DR is the gas mileage of photography. Everybody says it is important and everyone wants it to be better and we put big stickers up in the windows of new vehicles to make sure everyone can compare it to competing models. But when you actually question buyers about what went into their buying decision, gas mileage usually is mentioned about 17th, right below cup holders. (I was reminded of this because Subaru just came out with a vehicle with 19 cup holders.)

A minority of photographers will base their camera purchases primarily on DR even though everyone would prefer more DR. Most of us, like car buyers who value the number of seats, safety, or sexiness, will decide on cameras because of resolution, color reproduction, compatibility with our existing kit, high ISO noise, weight, or cup holders.

 

[Ozarker]

Regarding the nonsense talk about art and photography being different...

Photojournalism does not equal photography; it is just one element or concept. It is generally done in a rush and with artisitic limitations e.g. an event is happening right now or you're about to get blown up or run over or something.

As with most things in life, the more time and effort you put in the better results you get out, imo. Regarding the concept of recording something how it is, the reality is nonsense. You can't see the atoms, the parasites the radio waves etc. Our view of reality is entirely subjective and narrowed. There is no lens in existence or theory that can show you everything, and just by being there, you are changing reality anyway.......

Production is a communist concept. Creation on the other hand is one of the fundamental aspects of humanity. Art is not a relevant word except to indicate creation that is beautiful or meaningful to the viewer / creator. The reality is possibly that most or all photography is shared creation, because so much of the process is thanks to the amazing technology used by camera manufacturers and processing software etc.

I am a blob of bonded atoms. I see atoms bound together all around me. I don't change reality, I am reality. Stay philosophical, my friends.

Whether or not photojournalism is art or not depends on what the viewer thinks. Many of the Nat Geo photojournalists shoot art to me.

 

[jeffa4444]

I doubt the vast majority of photographers care whether its "craft", "art", "journalism" or any other monika you care to give it.

I take photographs for the pleasure of doing so whether they are landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc. In portraits in particular I'm using both lightroom and photoshop to enhance the shots much the same as I did years ago in my home lab with processing & enlarger. In landscape I'm using grads and polarisers and in wildlife long lens to pull the subject to me none of these are "normal" as the eye sees them.

In the 1920s Albert Cheney Johnston would paint onto his negatives backgrounds etc. the only tools he had that photoshop can do today.
A long conversation with the renown landscape photographer Joe Cornish he said a good photographer plans for his shots and first & foremost thinks about composition. He will go back to the same location over & over again to get the lighting he is looking for and often shoot nothing until he gets what he thinks is the near perfect shot. He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.

Photography is not DR, MPs or frames per second, its so much more than that.

 

[Ozarker]

I doubt the vast majority of photographers care whether its "craft", "art", "journalism" or any other monika you care to give it.

I take photographs for the pleasure of doing so whether they are landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc. In portraits in particular I'm using both lightroom and photoshop to enhance the shots much the same as I did years ago in my home lab with processing & enlarger. In landscape I'm using grads and polarisers and in wildlife long lens to pull the subject to me none of these are "normal" as the eye sees them.

In the 1920s Albert Cheney Johnston would paint onto his negatives backgrounds etc. the only tools he had that photoshop can do today.
A long conversation with the renown landscape photographer Joe Cornish he said a good photographer plans for his shots and first & foremost thinks about composition. He will go back to the same location over & over again to get the lighting he is looking for and often shoot nothing until he gets what he thinks is the near perfect shot. He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.

Photography is not DR, MPs or frames per second, its so much more than that.

Good post Jeff!

 

[slclick]

I doubt the vast majority of photographers care whether its "craft", "art", "journalism" or any other monika you care to give it.

I take photographs for the pleasure of doing so whether they are landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc. In portraits in particular I'm using both lightroom and photoshop to enhance the shots much the same as I did years ago in my home lab with processing & enlarger. In landscape I'm using grads and polarisers and in wildlife long lens to pull the subject to me none of these are "normal" as the eye sees them.

In the 1920s Albert Cheney Johnston would paint onto his negatives backgrounds etc. the only tools he had that photoshop can do today.
A long conversation with the renown landscape photographer Joe Cornish he said a good photographer plans for his shots and first & foremost thinks about composition. He will go back to the same location over & over again to get the lighting he is looking for and often shoot nothing until he gets what he thinks is the near perfect shot. He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.

Photography is not DR, MPs or frames per second, its so much more than that.

Good post Jeff!

But her MTF charts!

 

[Mikehit]

He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.

As Ansel Adams said
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
And man screws it up even more....

 

[Sporgon]

He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.

As Ansel Adams said
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
And man screws it up even more....

Best response in the thread !

 

[slclick]

If the in camera adjustments available today in digital were in film bodies then I would accept D&B to be compared to PP but sorry, no deal. They are similar but you have go to be kidding if you think getting it right in camera with film is as easy as with your DSLR. The darkroom is an equal partner with film, the computer well... that's up to you and how well you capture.

 

[chrysoberyl]

As an amateur, I just use my camera to freeze time. For instance, a moccasin flower with sunlight at just the right time/temperature and angle, with a nicely contrasting color boulder just behind it.

This thread took a deep turn, which I quite enjoy. You pro's are a passionate group!

In my opinion, if you degrade your photographs to just a recording then you are under appreciating the object or moment that you are recording. If you photos have no aspiration or emotional content then maybe your camera is just a recording device.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Hey Guys,

As the Post starter I want to point out that I do not want to degrade anything or ínsult anybody.
With the aggressive titel you may have noticed that I wanted to pinch some nervs.
I just wanted to see how the comunity is like
As my predecessor, I also ejoy the dynamic of this topic.

Cheers,

Stefan

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Neuro.
My guess is the capture of the reaction of a camera to a sneeze!

Cheers, Graham.
Ps you will tell us at some point, won’t you?

No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?

 

[Ozarker]

Hi Neuro.
My guess is the capture of the reaction of a camera to a sneeze!

Cheers, Graham.
Ps you will tell us at some point, won’t you?

No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?

Jefferson Memorial from across the Potomac?

 

[9VIII]

As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera, you can manipulate what sits in the optical path, but your manipulation doesn’t change what the photograph fundamentally is.

No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?

A really blurry image.
You've manipulated the environment (the direction of the camera in this case) to create a given look, but the camera was still just capturing the image with total impartiality like it would with any other content.
There is still no imagination in that photo, only photons captured by a machine, exactly as it was designed to do. It worked no differently for you in that moment than it would have in any commercial or statistical application.

The photograph is not art, you (may or may not have) made art out of a photograph.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ps you will tell us at some point, won’t you?

Orangutan was pretty darn close...

Here's my guess: a 15-second exposure of an outdoor (building with flags) night scene across a frozen body of water, probably a river (buoy lower-right? Charles?). At the right of the frame, you can just barely see Cthulhu rising from the depths.

It was a 13 s exposure with intentional camera movement, of a bridge (Mittlere Brücke over the Rhine in Basel, Switzerland). The 'buoy' is actually a river traffic signal on the bridge. Below is a still image of the aproximate scene (cropped from a wide view of the whole bridge, that and another shot are in the ICM thread).

 

[neuroanatomist]

A really blurry image.
You've manipulated the environment (the direction of the camera in this case) to create a given look, but the camera was still just capturing the image with total impartiality like it would with any other content.
There is still no imagination in that photo, only photons captured by a machine, exactly as it was designed to do. It worked no differently for you in that moment than it would have in any commercial or statistical application.

The photograph is not art, you (may or may not have) made art out of a photograph.

Earlier, you stated about a photograph, "It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera." The two images above are both 'recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera' but they are not the same. Which is 'real'? Which is true? Which is better? Those are questions with intentionally subjective answers, particularly the last one. In any case, it's an illustration that by selecting exposure parameters, the photographer is making subjective choices about how to represent the scene, in ways that go beyond 'strict recording'.

As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.

You are drawing a false distinction, namely that the photo is a strict record and editing turns it into a form of artistic expression. The above comparison clearly demonstrates that the 'artistic' interpretation can occur not only via editing (modifying the image after capture), but also prior to the capture itself. Multiple exposures in the same frame, stroboscopic lighting, intentional camera movement, selection of shutter speed to freeze vs. capture motion, exposure brightness for high or low key images, wide aperture for selective focus, are just some examples of applying the creative interpretation prior to the image being recorded.

The idea that all a camera does is strictly record reality is rather sad. If you'd like to jot down some ideas about that, I can send you a scratchpad.

 

[KirkD]

I would like to respond to the OP's "In my opinion, the real skills behind photography, patience, searching and exploring for the best composition in any condition with capturing a stunning scene just like it is, with any kind of gear...", with a special focus on "just like it is". The human eye has a higher DR than any 35mm sensor we've been yet able to design. So to me, "just like it is" means "the way it actually looks", not what the sensor is able to produce. My favourite shooting is in low light, especially dusk or dawn when the sun is still below the horizon. Higher DR means lower sensor noise in post. Yes, I can reduce the graininess in post but I also hate to lose resolution. I will take all the DR I can get in a full frame or crop frame camera. We still have a ways to go before it equals the DR of the human eye.