For the record, I'm always willing to share my post-production technique, as sloppy as it may be.
I think that what Gary is saying (and my thinking) is: If someone is going to have a photo of yours hanging on their wall, do you want that image to be truly excellent, or average? What is the relationship between your aesthetic and your process, and do you think that you sacrifice one for the other?
It's quite obvious that you're sold on your process, and that you're going to stay right where you are in terms of photographic philosophies. I'm mostly just interested in the discussion and learning about why a photographer would want to sacrifice their aesthetic for their process? Is photography not principally an aesthetic medium? But like I say, if you're marketing to people who are suspicious of the origins of images, then more power to you. I think that's more a business decision than a statement about truth though.
If I'm buying a work of art, I'm buying into an aesthetic idea by the artist. Now if there's a beautiful dusk shot, with a huge moon in the sky, I don't really like it. It's my personal taste that it looks manipulated, and is sort of cheesy. I have no beef with the fact that he manipulated the image after he took it, but more the artificial aesthetic that bothers me. Now, if he somehow photoshopped in a beautiful sky over a drab grey one, I have no probs, because I'm into the aesthetic idea of it. Same if he adjusted contrast to make it pop. When I'm hanging it on my wall, I don't care if he did something after he took the photo, I do care about what the photo looks like hanging on my wall, and what the artist was trying to achieve. I buy his vision, not his process. The process is a means, the vision is the end.
I hope this sounds clear. I too believe in being true, but only to the aesthetic that I envision. The process varies whether I'm trying to document, or whether I'm trying to create emotional reaction etc.
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
NATURE photographs with post-processing or none?Moderator: Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Maybe its just possible he's so set in his ways... he wont take the time to learn how to use photoshop?? .. not supporting his view in any way.. he just seems so stuck in his opinion that he hasnt even bothered learning and now thinks those of us who have taken some time to learn to use it (even limited learning) is too much effort for him
Tim D70 - D200/MBD200 Coming soon - Too Much Gear, Not Enough Talent
My Site: http://www.digitalstill.net My Fishing Site: http://www.fishseq.com
Dave,
Thank you, and yes. I didn't believe that this was such an obtuse concept, and I believe that I made this point reasonably clearly in the first instance. And, apart from the fact that all images are subject to PP, my perspective is that I'm simply not satisfied that an unknown and faceless systems engineer in Japan is better qualified than I am to determine how to best process the images that I've not yet even conceptualised. Perhaps Michael can explain to me why I should be so satisfied? And in the meantime, I'll just wander down to McDonalds for a barbeque seafood platter and wash it down with some of their finest Veuve NV.  g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Non issue. PP or not, nobody's business but the photographer, nature or anything else.
Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Michael, it seems you have a narrower view of PP and incamera PP than most on this board. I also claim very little PP on my images but for a far different reason to you, I am bloody useless at Photoshop 
I looked through your site to observe your point of view and I must say your above words were haunting my thoughts "I intend to be 100% true in every thing I say or do. " I noticed your comment " have put my film cameras on the shelf after buying a Pro DSLR camera.". All your shots were taken with a Nikon F5 or Nikon D70! There is no doubt that the F5 is a pro camera, but the D70 is not a pro dslr by a long shot. It was an entry level dslr when it came out and its replacement is still 2nd from the bottom of Nikon's dslr range. It is a fine camera, but definitely not pro which is what the D1, D2H, D2X range are. Might be worth changing your website rather than standing to be accused of deception 
Glen, he did mention he now has a d2x.. but your right
Tim D70 - D200/MBD200 Coming soon - Too Much Gear, Not Enough Talent
My Site: http://www.digitalstill.net My Fishing Site: http://www.fishseq.com
Hey I just got some photos processed at a Camera Store. To get the shots I wanted on the aspect ratio paper that I desired I had to crop the images....post processing?
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
What else would it be called? g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Thank You! One and all who posted on this thread, a most entertaining read on a 40 deg day for me
I only have one observation to share, one day, when I get my D2x I only hope I am able to turn off the feature that places the word "PROOF" on each photograph , otherwise I will be very disappointed
Andyt
After reading all of Michael's responses, I think I can summarise his rationale.
Basically he wants to be able to proove that the photo he's selling is the photo he took so he is happy to let the camera do as much PP as it likes (probably the more the better) as long as he has a "negative" as proof. His Raw file is is negative. Of course this means that he has to make a stance agaist Post P. just don't mention Pre P. __________
Phillip **Nikon D7000**
Phillip,
You are 100% correct and I do not have anything against post-processing, but you should tell the viewer, if the image had some, so they the viewer can consider it Digital Art. Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
Say you were at the right place at the right time and you observed a crime being committed and had your camera, and got the photo. Then you looked at the image on your computer and found the sky grey in the photo, but remembered it being blue. Would you post-process it to blue?
Would you submit your PP image as evidence, or the RAW file? This time I will trust the engineer from Japan over what you though you saw. The same way I look at animals bring photographed, free of what I though they did look like. Quote: Glen, he did mention he now has a d2x.. but your right Tim Tim, Glen was wrong, and he did make the correction, why say he was right? Michael P stewart http://www.alphapulse.com Last edited by energypolice on Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
Michael, the King James Holy Bible is a perfect example of Post Processing, it is interpretation and translation and far from the RAW image of the original text. Not that I hold any store in the original text anyway, but hopefully you can see my point. Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Greg,
No I do not see your point, but I will not break the rules in the Forum by discussing religion. Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
Wow!!! You're up and about early this morning Michael...
You have your beliefs (of various sorts) and you should be entitled to hold them... Some aspects of this thread (and other recent related threads) have slightly saddened me as I don't believe that they represent the true spirit of this forum... I believe, in the main, that most members have been (maybe slightly clumsily, pedantically or obtusely) trying to commend to you that some element of Post Processing (even if it's a slight levels / curves adjustment) may make your images POP even more and that that may not be such a bad thing to do... Of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with them... Slight adjustments of this sort are (I believe) an inevitable part of (current) digital photography and moreso may actually make your images more representative of what your eyes saw at the scene at the time. All cameras perform some processing on your image and every sensor has its limitations (at the moment). Some element of PP is therefore (I believe) almost necessary to get realistic results. Personally I prefer to look at the image that my camera captured and then sensitively play with my images to bring out the best in them... I wouldn't class it as manipulation because that is not my intent... In the main, I do it so that the resulting image is (I believe) closer to the truth (rather than what my sensor interpreted via associated software at the scene). If you wish to produce a JPG that is as close as possible to the RAW image, then that is your choice... (discounting the various algorithms and transformations that form part of the JPG conversion...) On a side note... I noticed from your website that you are a volunteer at Miami zoo... I hope that means that you get privileged access to the animals and that you get some really great photo opportunities... BTW... I know it's not your normal style of photography, but if you ever get a chance and assuming that you're willing, could you please post some photos of the Art-Deco buildings at Miami Beach... My wife loves Art Deco and I've been trying to convince her that it would be worth the trip to Miami just to see the stunning architecture there... More than anything, I hope that you stick around and enjoy everything that this forum has to offer... Last edited by leek on Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers, John
Leek@Flickr | Leek@RedBubble | Leek@DeviantArt D700; D200; Tokina 12-24; Nikkor 50mm f1.4,18-70mm,85mm f1.8, 105mm,80-400VR, SB-800s; G1227LVL; RRS BH-55; Feisol 1401
Strewth this is still going... Just goes to show how passionate people are about their photography, and the subject of Pre/Post Processing (in and out of camera) is always a contentious one and one that's so difficult to really define...
What is processing? Is it the choice of aperture to blur backgrounds, filters, adding artificial light, curves, levels, color spaces, WB and hue etc... It's difficult to define where image processing/manipulation really starts. The only easy part is defining pre and post
It's good to see and read all the different viewpoints and I admire your strength of conviction Michael and I can see where you're coming from. Spose part of the issue is that there's always plenty of images that could be misleading due to deceiptful PP and also simply poor examples of PP which I believe brings about the distrust some people have in digital imagery, and then there are those that simply attempt to extract the most detail from the image that's there... Aka Andrew
Quote:
I think that what Gary is saying (and my thinking) is: If someone is going to have a photo of yours hanging on their wall, do you want that image to be truly excellent, or average? What is the relationship between your aesthetic and your process, and do you think that you sacrifice one for the other? Dooda, My standard of excellence may be below your, since my standard is repenting an actuate image of the animal, and not putting on or taking off any part of the photo. Michael P stewart http://www.alphapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
I'm a little confused, so what is your standard? Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
pho·tog·ra·phy Pronunciation (f-tgr-f)
n. 1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces. 2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs. 3. A body of photographs. I remember reading an interpretation in an article that "photography is painting with light", the gist of it was, that the photographer, (artist) was free to use the camera as a tool to paint whatever interpretation he wished to present as an image for the viewer or himself. There is a place for all types of PP, and even if Nikon produced the "perfect" tool, image enhancements, adjustments or just global adjustments to a photograph will continue to be done by the photographer (artist) until he/she is satisfied with the interpretation / presentation sought. As always, it will be up to the viewer to judge the appeal or worth of a photograph and if that accords with the photographers original interpretation great! Just my 2 cents worth,  Andyt
World renowned nature photographer Charles Glatzer, or Chas as he's known to his friends, website is called shootthelight funnily enough. While I'm sure he gets things pretty darn accurate in camera, I'm sure he has a workflow through photoshop to get the most out of his images.
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
Quote:
I believe, in the main, that most members have been (maybe slightly clumsily, pedantically or obtusely) trying to commend to you that some element of Post Processing (even if it's a slight levels / curves adjustment) may make your images POP even more and that that may not be such a bad thing to do... Of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with them... John, I would and will post-process images of Art Deco on Miami Beach sometime soon, because these images would be of man-made objects, but things created by God should not have their images altered in PP. Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
It's hard to keep them still for long enough to get a clean shot ?
Yeah and it's hard to get them to perch without having a branch in the way. I also find it especially annoying when they decide to fly towards you aswell with the sun behind them.
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
God may have created what we mere mortals call nature but he had absolutely no hand in the creation of the digital camera. What comes out of a digital camera was not created by God - only the image and it is no longer real, just a series of pixels:!:
Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
As Chris said, what the camera created is not what the eyes (gods creation) saw. As I tried to point out earlier in this thread but you blatantly disregarded is that the eyes have a much larger dynamic range then what a camera can capture. So you either shoot a scene with light that is extremely balanced that the camera can expose correctly throughout, which is at times impossible or you do post processing (or use filters) to alter the light.
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
To make them POP!
Since most people like to see super saturated colours and that is what Art Deco is famous for. Then I would not say "no PP" done on this image, but PROOF will be there, because I do not want anyone to copy them. Michael P Stewart wwwalphapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
Hello? Having spent the last decade living in a 1930's house with strong Art Deco styling, I must admit that saturated colour is not something that springs to my mind when someone mentions Art Deco!
Actually Michael, Art Decor is based upon design Some of the most famous pieces of Art Decor are sculpted pieces without dominant colours Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Quote:
As Chris said, what the camera created is not what the eyes (gods creation) saw. As I tried to point out earlier in this thread but you blatantly disregarded is that the eyes have a much larger dynamic range then what a camera can capture. So you either shoot a scene with light that is extremely balanced that the camera can expose correctly throughout, which is at times impossible or you do post processing (or use filters) to alter the light. Darryl, You left out re-shoot which may be the best way to get a better photo. Michael P Stewart http://www.alphpulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
No, "re-shoot" seems to be out of scope for that particular situation. The tools we use in our photography (be they film or digital sensor combined with optical lenses and filters) have different behaviours/characteristics to those of our eyes. For example: Velvia "sees" colour differently, our eyes refocus all the time so our perception is of almost infinite depth of field, our eyes can cope with a wider contrast range, etc. Whatever our cameras capture will be a _representation_ of the scene: not necessarily what our eyes saw as accurate. As I discussed in an earlier post in this thread, natural history images are perceived by viewers to be documentary (even if they're artistic at the same time) even though it can be tempting for some photographers to value the creation of a beautiful image over the recording of a beautiful scene. But you have to realise that to capture images that "match" what we see with our eyes requires compromises. Photographs of moving objects taken at 1/4000s (or faster with hi-speed flash) will often show things we can't see with our eyes, and conversely exposures of several minutes can show colours we don't see directly. Taking multiple exposures and merging them to try to replicate the dynamic response of the eye is another compromise we can make. At what point do you draw a line to say "this is accurate"? Trying to do that with a technical definition such as a range of shutter speeds, apertures, focal lengths, etc will not work. I can definitely see some of the background to your (Michael's) position: I myself am the current Chairman of the Nature Division of the Australian Photographic Society (which in Australia represents FIAP) and these issues come up repeatedly. I also act as a Nature judge in various National and International exhibitions and have to make decisions as to what's a "good" nature image (however "high and mighty" such decisions may seem to some). This is in addition to being a professional environmental photographer... As far as I can see your position of "no [post] processing for nature images" is too restrictive. You deny yourself the flexibility to accurately portray your subjects (maybe you're limiting your choice of subjects as a result). There is a lot of processing that can be done and I believe is valid, and has been pointed out already there is _technically_ little difference between what your camera does in its JPEG processing and what you might do in processing a RAW file. What is important is how we use the tools of our craft (which can include everything from our choice of lens through to the grade of paper and type of ink used in the printing!) rather than which tools we use. Am I right in interpreting that you are trying to state that your images are "the real thing" in some way? Unfortunately your statement of "no post processing" might be a simplification to cater for your customers who don't necessarily understand these issues. Here as photographers we see that there's more to it than a binary technical decision and thus it doesn't seem a sensible statement.
Quote:
Am I right in interpreting that you are trying to state that your images are "the real thing" in some way? Unfortunately your statement of "no post processing" might be a simplification to cater for your customers who don't necessarily understand these issues. Here as photographers we see that there's more to it than a binary technical decision and thus it doesn't seem a sensible statement. DaveB, They are true photographs even if they do not look like the real thing, e.g. milky looking waterfalls, which were photographs shot at slow shutter speeds, or wings on a Humming bird shot at very high shutter speed. The most important thing is, was it a photograph, or art? Photograph if the camera did the post-processing, art if someone did the post-processing. This is my opinion which I may be the only one in the world with such. I think this should be the end of this discussion. Thank you all, Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com Last edited by energypolice on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
Michael, even with all the awesome discussion here and you avoiding most of the valid questions from Gary... and you possibly looking like a troll... have you posted a reply to any other topic on this site? I dont want to be rude, but in some ways, its a bit like your baiting us and stirring up this forums peaceful community..
Dave, great to see a reply from you, its some interesting information from someone in your shoes who is a chairman of the APS for the nature division Tim D70 - D200/MBD200 Coming soon - Too Much Gear, Not Enough Talent
My Site: http://www.digitalstill.net My Fishing Site: http://www.fishseq.com
Tim,
My English is not good, so most of what I write is done in Word to check grammar and spelling, and copied over here, and I am still not communicating good, because I use the wrong words to try to explain myself. God bless you all, Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
Quote: Michael, even with all the awesome discussion here and you avoiding most of the valid questions from Gary... and you possibly looking like a troll... have you posted a reply to any other topic on this site? I dont want to be rude, but in some ways, its a bit like your baiting us and stirring up this forums peaceful community..
Tim, This is my first and only post here. You be the judge and look for any lies that I have made and expose them. Michael P Stewart http://www.alpapulse.com What you see is what was shot! (NPP) D2X NAPP
I was just reading a publication from 1985 called Amateur Photographer, Better Photography Series. It was a series of booklets that my father bought when he had his Minolta Maxxum (Dynax) 7000.
The one series called "Get the light right" had a few paragraphs that I found quite interesting. Basically it discussed how light is vital to a shot, without it the photo won't exist. At the end of the paragraph it said "If we can see a subjet we can photograph it. After that the photographer's skill is interpretation of his vision and placing it on paper." So basically it's not what he actually saw, but HIS/HER interpretation of what he saw and putting that on paper, or as today the internet. Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
While you haven't stated in so many words, you've admitted and state that you're only committed to your process. Moreso than to your subjects or your vision. According to you, any aesthetic is fine, as long as you get it through the camera(only when a particular process was used); in other words, the image doesn't matter, it's how you get there. Milky long exposure waterfalls are okay (a complete manipulation of the real thing), as long as it comes from the camera, and not afterwards. Likewise with any other natural phenomena. Just two questions, I would love to have answered. 1. Are Ansel Adam's famous photographs, which underwent vigorous dodging and burning and post production, not considered photographs since they've been manipulated? 2. Do you really think that a $5000 camera has more approval to interpret --God's-- handy-work than one of his children? edit note: fully expecting you not to answer these.
Hi Michael,
Just a little helping hand. If you would like to quote someone who has posted before, rather then re-writing it all again, it may be easier to press on the quote button which you can see in the top right corner of the message, then you only have to write your answer. Hope this helps. __________
Phillip **Nikon D7000**
Michael,
And with all due respect to Phillip
There is very little pre-processing done in camera. And quite a .lot of post-processing. When will you accept this simple fact? Would you like me to prove this to you?? g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
So, if the wb and sharpening were way off beam because you've accidentally bumped one of the setting wheels on the camera (very easy to do on the D70), that's ok by you amd you'll be more than happy with the photo. Oh dear ... g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
And a portrait, under artificial light, of a person? What about one who hasundergone plastic surgery? I know there's plenty of examples of those in and around Miami. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Where, exactly, is the difference? I'm seriously having trouble seeing the deliniation. And I'm sure that people here could pull out images from the camera that you might be inclined to think were done in out-of-camera PP. I can certainly pull a variety of images from a camera, of the exact same subject abd scene and time of day, but the will look very, very different, yet you're prepared to argue thatr these will represent the truth? If they're the same subject, scene and time of day, but look altogether different, how does one determine which is the truth and which is not? And for what it's worth, I'm still of the opinion that you're acting like a troll in refusing to answer the serious questions I have asked of you. I note that somebody else has made the observation that you've not contributed to any other thread here, which I might venture to suggest is yet another troll-like trait. That's apart from the simple point of etiquette that suggests that it's rude to ignore questions asked of one's self. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Unless Ted's do the printing. I guess you could bring one of the buildings to Ted's so that they could colour match.
Michael, have you ever considered including a colour reference chart in any of your images? This would be a great way for you to prove your assertions: if the reproduction in your prints of the colour reference chart matched perfectly the actual chart, out of the camera, then you would then certainly have some solid evidence to support your claims. Of course, the whole purpose of the colour reference charts - in very wide use by such people unskilled in colour reproduction as each and every tv station in the world - is to achieve a common standard across a whole gamut of colour ranges available. But of course, I guess that common standards are of little interest to you, sine it would seem that you may know better than all of the other combined expertise available. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
SO far I've avoided a post and this thread is really starting to bore me, but I'm a glutton for punishment.
Michael, I plain don't get your line in the sand between what comes out of the camera and what happens after that insofar as the "reality" of the image, but I say this just to declare where I'm coming from. I'd reckon 90% or maybe more of buyers base their purchasing decision on things like how appealing the image is aesthetically and don't even understand what PP is, let alone care whether it's happened or not. Thus I have one very simple question for you: You say the "No PP" tag is a selling point for your work. I'd like to know how you've determined that the issue of PP is something the buyers of your work even comprehend, lete alone have used as a factor in their decision to purchase your work. I look forward to your answer. Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
I can almost see your finger twitching spasmodically above the lock button... If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
