If you follow the thread and a couple of my responses, you'll see what I'm talking about here. There are some photographers that refuse to accept the idea that certain techniques are possible, plausable and practical using software tools such as photoshop. My point in the above thread is not that one is better than the other, or that the photos used in the example are any less beautiful. It's all about making these broad statements like "You just CAN'T get that effect in photoshop"...even resorting to calling photoshop techniques "paltry parlor tricks".
Photography is such a rich field with so many different ways of doing things that it's sad to see people close their minds off to different perspectives or techniques. I totally respect people who can do in-camera magic, but I also equally respect photoshop wizards. The true photographer balances a lot of different techniques when realizing their vision. It's personal choice - not right or wrong.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I read that thread and I agree with you. This is not to take anything away from Mark's work, which is very nice. I tend to believe that the more techniques you have at your disposal, the better.
There are a couple of issues here. One is whether or not it's technically possible to create the "look" or "effect" of a T/S lens in Photoshop. The only way to evaluate the result fairly is to compare several pairs of images in a blind test, and I doubt any of us will take the time to do that. But let me say that there is a lot that can be done with the new 'lens blur' effect in Photoshop. I should also add that even though an effect can be done in Photoshop, it doesn't mean that it can be done easily, or that everybody can do it.
Another issue is whether fiddling with an image in Photoshop "devalues" or "detracts" from the final product. I think this very much depends on what your goals are. If you evaluate your work solely in terms of whether the client (let's say someone other than yourself) is happy, then I don't think it matters as all. If the image has been altered drastically in Photoshop, it doesn't matter if the client thinks the results are wonderful and wants to pay big bucks for it. But if you photograph only for yourself (e.g. as a hobby) and prefer a more traditional approach, it makes sense to do as much as possible in-camera and limit post-processing to traditional darkroom techniques.
Eric
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
Another issue is whether fiddling with an image in Photoshop "devalues" or "detracts" from the final product.
[/ QUOTE ]
But isn't "fiddling" with reality with a tilt and shift lens just doing the same thing with a different tool? Neither one is a representation of the scene as seen by the human eye, and both are a form of "art," are they not? Does it matter whether the alteration of reality was done with hardware or software?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
personally I think a memorable and identifiable signature style is the hallmark of creativity. technique is simply a means to an end. as for choice of technique, if you don't know where you're going, any road will take you
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
But isn't "fiddling" with reality with a tilt and shift lens just doing the same thing with a different tool? Neither one is a representation of the scene as seen by the human eye, and both are a form of "art," are they not? Does it matter whether the alteration of reality was done with hardware or software?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, I personally agree. Some people don't feel that way, however, insisting that the fiddling has to happen "in camera" in order for it to be considered "pure," whatever that means. I wonder where does one draw the line with photojournalism? If someone took a portrait for the LA Times and then post-process blurred parts of the image in Photoshop, that would be considered unacceptable. But what if someone got the same effect in-camera using a T/S lens and then did nothing in Photoshop. Would that be ok?
Eric
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
Some people don't feel that way, however, insisting that the fiddling has to happen "in camera" in order for it to be considered "pure," whatever that means.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm...sounds a lot to me like the arguments some have used for why photography can never be "art" in the sense that painting is. Using a machine as part of the creation is "fiddling." It seems to me that fiddling should be fiddling no matter how it's done, and "art" is in the eye of the beholder. If it creates an emotion, it's good. If it's tranparently poorly done and fails to create that emotion, it's bad. Or something like that.
It seems to me that documentary or news photography may often be one thing, while portraiture and other forms of photography may live by another standard. But, on the other hand, take for example the type of photography I do...racing. Racing photography is, at least in one sense, documentary. I shoot for racing publications, which then use my and other photos to document the event. Among racing photographers it is quite common and acceptable to use slower shutter speeds and panning as an "in camera" technique to create motion blur to add the feeling of speed to the photos to make them more dynamic. This is generally considered to be acceptable but is not a reflection of reality. When you view the same race with your eyes, you do not see this effect any more than you could see the "tilted wheels" that the old-style shutters created.
When we do this in camera, pretty much everyone accepts it as normal and real, but when you step over the line to motion blurs that have essentially no crisp content (as is very common in Formula 1 photography today), zoom-blurs, or do the effects in Photoshop, the controversy about what is real and acceptable begins.
Personally, I prefer doing the motion blur in-camera, not only because I think it looks more believable ("real") than the same effect done in Photoshop (but is that because I simply can't do it as well there?), but also because there is a personal satisfaction to having done it well the "traditional" way. Be that as it may, it is not real no matter how I do it. And yet it is routinely accepted as normal done one way and "phoney" done another, or "artsy-fartsy" when taken to extremes.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Polaroid transfers is another technique that I have seen people duplicate in Photoshop. I've also heard that you can reproduce the sound of an $80,000 concert grand piano on a computer...
Rick
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
