.png){kind=logo}
Since I don't have the permission of the photographer to use his photo I'm not going to post the image or share the link, so bear with me in my description.
I'm not going to lie - I've gotten so used to admiring highly processed photos that I've almost come to accept them as real and kick myself for not producing images of the same quality. So before I answered my friend's question I had to think about it logically.
Let's look at this photo for a second. First of all, it's a great shot. The sky is interesting. The tree is exceptional. It's framed well. Then I started breaking down the photo. I've seen clouds. I've seen blue sky. But I've never seen blue clouds, as they appear in this photo. Then I looked at the grass: neon green? Neon yellow? And there appears to be a spotlight of sunshine around the tree, which seems unlikely with that level of cloud cover.
I quickly came to the conclusion that this photo had been created using HDRI, a method in which multiple exposures are used to create a wide dynamic range between the lightest and darkest areas of an image. It's pretty cool - and the results are, well, unreal (literally).
I'm not writing this post to bash people who use HDRI or other methods of post-processing (see previous post on my experiences with Lightroom). I truly believe that as consumers of digital photography we have skewed perceptions and expectations of what is real. I recently saw a highly touted (by photography forum members) photo that depicted the most surreal purple sunset. I thought, "Wow, what a fantastic moment - this photographer was really lucky to capture that." And then I realized that the water had a purple tint. As well as the grass. And the branches and leaves on the trees. The whole photo had a purple tint and in all likelihood there wasn't even a hint of purple in the sky that day. But we're so awed by these images that we don't stop to think that maybe, just maybe this wasn't how the scene truly presented itself.
And that's why I respect photographers who accurately portray what they see through the lens. A photo that I know is real. Photographers who spend more time more pre-shutter release than post exposure. Who don't try to fool the viewer into seeking out a scene they'll never be able to recreate because it doesn't exist. Being true to the scene while still creating an interesting image is the real skill. That's the kind of photographer I want to be.
A few things-
ReplyDelete1- After being linked here from my flickr stats page, I was annoyed that you referred to my shot without asking (even if you didn't post it). Please don't refer to others' photos without asking for their permission. It's a common courtesy, and as a photographer you should understand.
2- I believe your post is well written, and gets most of it correct. Your analysis of my photo is spot-on except for the 'spotlight' as it was there on one of those magical days where the sun peaks through and illuminates certain things perfectly. It is very hard to get a shot as one sees it in real life right in camera. Many people, me included, fall back on post processing if the photo is lacking. However, I find it increasingly annoying that people who don't have post-processing skills tend to whine and complain about results of those who have those skills. Post-processing is the norm these days, and perhaps it is a bit overdone, but it's the way you must make things 'pop.' I seriously doubt a single photo you've greatly admired lately hasn't used post-processing.
3- What you may miss is that your camera can never capture what you see in your lens. In my mind, post should be utilized minimally to do that.
4- Photoshop is what got me into photography and it's a fairly easy thing to learn. It should be used as sparingly as possible, and I find myself only using a few tools these days as I get better with in-camera work. I highly suggest anyone wanting to get into photography spend as much time shooting as practicing their photoshop skills.
That is all.. good luck with the site.
I have to agree with Jeff here. I think it is totally misguided to think that a photographer has to avoid photoshop. Photoshop is actually a tool to complement the digital camera, just as film photographers use an enlarger. Cross processing, double exposure, and dodging and burning are just post processing techniques of the film world. People have been doing "photo manipulation" since the first negative was developed. The modern day HDR photo has been around since Ansel Adams really explored the practice using a mix of chemicals and dodging and burning techniques. You can learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xanb3J81EA I think the majority of the photographic world consider him a "real" photographer. Dodging and burning is just one of the techniques taught in Photography 101 with film cameras and the old enlarger. Like Jeff said the camera can simply not reproduce what the human eye can see. We have learned ways to "fix" this over the past century. As the technology changes so do the tools.
ReplyDeleteHey guys, thanks for reading the blog and for taking the time to comment - I'm always intrigued to hear the insights of seasoned photographers. It appears we're all on the same page; I agree that there's no reason photographers need to avoid Photoshop. I don't think I said that, but I'm sorry if my post gave you that impression. Did you see my previous post, "Editing in Lightroom," where I discuss how I'm using Lightroom and would like to improve my post-processing skills? The purpose of my post re: Photoshop was to 1. support the widely accepted notion that the program is best utilized as a tool to enhance our photography, not give it a total makeover (I think you were saying the same thing, Jeff), and 2. that it seems the average digital photography consumer or enthusiast has a difficult time deciphering what has been heavily processed and what hasn't. Again, thanks for following and I hope we can have similar discussions in the future.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Jack, thanks for the Ansel Adams link - he's one of my favorite photographers. Jeff, I removed the link to your photo and I apologize for linking to it without your permission. I checked out hundreds of your photos and I'm totally impressed - keep up the solid work.