Something a little differen from me :)

[Wulff 0]

Hey guys want your opinions (C/C) on something.

 

Normally, I'm a minimalist when it comes to post processing. Less is more in my books. One it saves time and two editors prefer it and three, I don't care for photos that look "overdone". Alot of people feel the same about photos being over done. However, peoples definition of overdone varies and thats ok. Photography is subjective.

 

Getting to the point.

Had some shots that I was going to delete, however 1 shot had something that I thought...Hmmm, maybe I can play with this and turn a deletion into a keeper.

 

Heres where you come in.

If I post it on a hunting forum, hunters will likely say..."Great Shot". Then again, everything looks great to them, most aren't photographers of any level. Kinda like families, everything we do looks "great" even as we (photographers) stare at a glaring flaw..blown whites, soft, back ground distraction...whatever.

 

If I post if on a photography dedicated forum, where everyone is hardcore photographers from advanced to Pro. They will pick up on the little things and say..Looks nice, but its baked (manipulated)..That does not mean "over cooked) neccessarily. Thats ok, I know they are there to . We are often too picky. Im guilty of it myself at times. Ever look at a photo your own or someones elses and "nitpick"?? What the hell, but I guess thats part of the equation now.

 

Theres enough guys here though who know enough the differences but also might not care.

 

So my question is. I understand that by telling you up front its baked (manipulated) that might skew perceptions. To my eyes I see the tell tale signs. Then again I know exactly what elements I've manipulated.If it were someones else I still might see the tell tale signs then again I might not. The problem is every time I look at...I see them like I'd see a pile of coal in a snow field and I reach for the delete button

 

[Peterjay 0]

The photo looks fine to me. Whatever you did to it doesn't alter the fact that it's a nice picture of a duck landing on the water with realistic autumn late-in-the-day colors. If I looked at it hard enough, I could probably pick up some of the stuff you did to make it, but then I'd be missing the point entirely. It would be like looking at a Ferrari and wondering what brand of bolts were used to secure the suspension system. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "the image is the thing." Not a whole lot else matters. Unless you're working in journalism - in any of its forms - where there are certain lines you probably shouldn't cross, there ARE no rules except those of the self-imposed variety. (If you're working on someone else's dime, it's a different story) The notion, often voiced by assorted internet "experts," that everybody who picks up a camera is bound by the "no manipulation" edicts of the Image Purity Police (whoever they are) is unadulterated BS. That's like saying that the guy who goes jug-fishing for catfish is bound by the same code as the dry-fly purist who casts only to the rise on tuesdays during blue-moon months. The "photography" sites that John mentioned are infested with self-appointed arbiters of style, taste and method, whose sole purpose in life seems to be minding everyone else's business but their own. I've never posted a picture on those sites and I never will, not because I'm afraid of criticism, but because I'm choosy about the company I keep and my work has already been well-received in the quarters that count. (and this is one of them) Besides, I'm brutally critical of my own work and I don't need the lame old "it doesn't work for me" crap to tell me what I already know. I've been an visual artist and a musician for most of my life, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that the people who talk the most trash usually have the weakest chops. There are exceptions, but most of the time you can take it to the bank. If you take a look at the work being done by the most vociferous critics, you're going to find an ungodly amount of trash. (that is, the critics who have the guts to display their stuff in the first place) Starting to sound like a rant? You bet your a** it is, and I'm not finished yet. My real problem with self-styled standards-setters (including far too many art teachers) is that I've seen their incessant nit-picking crush the creativity out of a lot of talented people, especially young people, who are more in need of nurturing and direction than harsh criticism. It takes a very thick hide to deflect that kind of crap, and a lot of up-and-comers just aren't ready for it and end up throwing in the towel. (one of the great things about The Photography Corner is that none of that stuff goes on here) When it comes to photography, there are all kinds of reasons that people use cameras, everything from backyard snapshots to shooting weddings to creating fine art, but the one thing that all photographers have in common is that they start manipulating the image the second they look through the viewfinder. Filters, exposure compensation, image stabilization, sensors, film, sharpening, telephoto and wide angle lenses and a million other things all distort reality. Some people just can't get that through their thick skulls. In John's field, a certain degree of realism is required to get his foot in the door, but there's absolutely no reason not to be creative, as long as he isn't submitting pictures (and expecting them to be published) of hot pink whitetails or duck hunting with lasers. Whatever tools he uses are his own business and nobody else's. Of course, it's just my opinion - OOMV.

[Houndog 0]

Wulff I'm not a photographer, but consider myself someone with a camera. I tend to be a bit picky about my own work and therefore look at photos a bit different than my wife or friends, sometimes I wish I did not look so hard

 

Last week I captured a picture of my dog jumping a couple of feet off the ground for a snowball, it was very out of focus and had a terrible background, one I would have deleted but I processed it do to pier pressure and the dog lovers really liked it. I used a 'Charles Schwab' type effect to hide the obvious focus flaw.

 

Interesting shot you have posted, for me just because of the pose at capture I really like it. I'm not sure what PP you did (add reflection?), but I am glad you did not delete it! If I had to change something it might be the crop, possibly tighter with more open room to the right.

 

Jeff

 

 

 

[the saltydog 0]

I'm a point and shoot guy, the best pictures I have ever taken was when I was boozed and got lucky with composition.

 

That being said, I think you captured a great piece of action and like the way you caught the water in the air. Looks like you might have done some computer stuff on the lower right...maybe

 

I think its a better picture and not worth deleting.

[Tybugs1 0]

I agree with Peterjay. I come here in preference to other sites for alot of the same reason. Friendly help and Friendly critiqes.

 

You use all the tools at your disposal to make the best possible picture. I don't think there is a wrong or right. I guide stillwater. Will there be those that poo whoo the stillwater techniques of going subsurface--sure. There are some who wouldnt be caught dead with a full sink line. To each his own. Can I catch fish like a Dry Fly purist--sure can and do I like it--sure do. Now can I fishing stillwater--oh yea I use a variety of lines, rods and flies to be as successful as I can be. Doesn't make me a slacker or less of a fisherman.

 

 

 

Will ever picture make to National Geographi--no. Will someone somewhere like the picture yes. Just because it doesnt make it doesnt make the picture any less than one that does.

 

I say use all the tools you can

 

The picture looks great. But then again what do I know

 

What were your complaints about the picture John?

[willhunsaker 0]

wow that is some good photography work

[Wulff 0]

Thanks guys.

Just so know I agree completely with Peter.

 

However my own preferance runs on the minimalist side of things. This image was worked on quite a bit and looks nothing like the orginal. The oringal was shot in dull flat lightt, basically taken on any other typcial dull grey winter day. In short its boring. However there are traces of reflections and so I thought what the hell. Lets see what I can create. So for the most part everything from the lighting, to the fall colours are a creation.

 

So it's not so much a question of right/wrong as it was....Is it Overdone. To me it does, hence why I reach for the delete button. But then again I know what Ive done and can see the tell tale signs.

 

 

[Peterjay 0]

I still don't think it looks overdone as long it represents something that actually exists. The late Eliot Porter, who was best known as a bird photographer, readily acknowledged that he did a great deal of color manipulation and his reputation didn't suffer for it. In fact he is pretty much remembered as a master. The only real problem I'd have with a shot like that is if it turned out that you'd photographed the quacker as it landed in the middle of the city dump and had lifted it out of the original and placed it on another shot of Lake Ontario. Even then, if you'd labeled it a photo illustration instead of a photograph, I don't see how anybody would have a legitimate beef. National Geographic had an "integrity crisis" a few years ago when they moved one of the pyramids to improve the composition on a cover shot. They really brought it on themselves, since all they had to do was label it a photo illustration, but they tried to slip it by everybody and got caught. (It also turned out that the photographer had paid a camel driver to parade his animals through the foreground, but that's neither here nor there) If it had been an Art News cover, it wouldn't have caused a ripple, but for a publication that's pretty much the gold standard of photojournalism, it was a (well-deserved) major embarrassment. I guess the real ethics questions are more about context and labeling than what you do with an image that you own.

 

A lot of folks who began their photographic careers after the dawn of the digital age might be surprised to learn that this discussion has been going on for well over 100 years. Photographers who more or less belonged to the late 19th - early 20th century Pictorialist Movement practiced manipulation to the extent that it became an art form. Guys like Alfred Stieglitz would use brushes, needles, special soft-focus lenses, filters, sepia toning, anything and everything they could get their hands on to manipulate negatives and prints in order to get what they wanted. (they would have loved Photoshop) Impressionist painting was much in vogue at the time and had a big influence on their work. Their contention was that the subject matter was secondary to the finished picture. When Ansel Adams and his crowd came on the scene, their own work was a backlash to what they considered to be the unrealistic style and excessive manipulation techniques that the Pictorialists practiced. Of course, the Adams crew immediately began manipulating negatives, dodging, burning, etc,. etc., which rendered the whole argument a bit silly. Of course Ansel also would have jumped on Photoshop in a second, and he said as much when he correctly predicted that the future of photography would be electronic, rather than film-based. So what's the point of this rambling discourse? Beats the hell out of me, except that the discussion we're having is anything but new. I think it's healthy to keep it going - like John said, there's no right or wrong. Honestly, I didn't mean to launch an art history lecture, but a friend of mine does this for a living and my mentor when I was starting out was a modern Pictorialist of great ability, so I managed to pick up some of this stuff by osmosis. For anyone who's unfamiliar with the Pictorialist style, here's an example I did in Photoshop.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vito1 0]

Like mentioned before, I think a lot of us come here to see nice photos. Some of us are far from professionals and probably can't recognize where/how a photo has been altered. I edit mine sometimes. A lot of my photos are of fish and I want to get them back on their way as quickly as possible. I don't always have time to play with the settings and I don't know enough to find the necessary settings quickly. Sure it might be considered cheating, but I'm not trying to impress anyone and no one is buying my photos (not saying you are trying to impress us John ).

 

There are some photos that I see that I assume are "over cooked". But I like those too, I just like them for different reasons. For what it's worth John, I assume your photos have very little to no editing. That is why I am very impressed with your skills with a camera (even though aren't trying to impress us ).

[Houndog 0]

Interesting style Peter, coming from a Harness Racing family I really appreciate the finished product.

 

 

Still liking the initial picture in this thread regardless of the PP, nice work

[JayMorr 0]

John,

 

I really like this photo. You managed to keep the sharpen and colors in tact without over working the photograph. Honestly, I think the action in this shot is great. The colors are a nice touch. It is subtle enough that most will not understand or even know what you did to the photo. You were able to pull out the wing clarity pretty good and the reflection is a nice touch to the photograph. Again, awesome action.