Am I losing the plot ??

[Woody]

Having been a member of Bytephoto for several months now I am starting to become very dissapointed with the overall concept of this site. How many times have I viewed stunning photo's from landscapes to sunsets to portraits and on nearly every occasion someone will comment on the "colours being flat" and "perhaps it would benefit from brightening a little", I mean come on guys...whats it all about. I know we are in the 21st Century and digital imaging is a wonderful thing but I feel that when we have to start manipulating images to "improve" them then it is time to hang up the camera and take up stamp collecting.

If your camera doesn't take what you see then change it, if you don't like what you've taken get rid of the image, or is it me ??

[zorro]

Hmmmm....
What I can say, picture paints thousand words.

[JCW3]

How much 35mm or slide work have you done? I mean this is a vital thing that is done even when photography started...

Look at one of the most famous B/W photographers, A. Adams. He spent a full day taking photographs of a senic location, and then spent up to 6+ months in the DARK ROOM trying to perfect the colors (tones) and effect.

I have to admit I have did A LOT of 35mm work in the dark room and its not differant there than it is with PP. Flat colors in the dark room are fixed with exposure time of paper or even color filters. Same way as wal-mart or your local drug store used digital profiles to match your needs when print out there. Since each film and camera portray light differantly, all need some type of slight changing to match what the photo really looked like in real life.

I do admit the majority of the work should be done in the field. Or thats the way I look at it, but tweaking a photo in photoshop is not much differant than doing your normal darkroom work or haveing your local developer run a color correction. I have had images printed many times at developers that looked good, but was not what the colors looked like. I mean developers get off and need correction as well.

I am one that recommends alot of others to bump the contrast or add some life to thoughs colors. BUT, the reason I recommend it is alot of these images are not able to be replaced due to lighting and such. They atleast know where the fault is in the image and now know what to do to imporve it next time, and if they want they can try to salvage the image they got and work from that.

Another thing is alot of cameras are implying mass amounts of PP incamera. I know older SONY cameras produced lovely colors, but in reality they were no wheres near reality. Same as with Fujis soft flat look. I mean its not the camera owners fault, its a know thing with them. I mean it does not stop here, many of the newer cameras have more control over the image than most people do in a darkroom or photoshop.

Should someone with a point and shoot be at a disadvange or feel bad because there camera does not have the controls that a another camera does or that of a film base body?

We are all here for fun and enjoyment. They goal is to improve ALL of our work. With that if we dont state how to improve others image, then NO BODY is learning anything!

[Woody]

Point taken..............to answer your initial question,Ihave been taking photo,s for over 40 years from B&W to colour to cibachrome developing with varying degrees of results. I will be the first to admit that a shot taken with two different cameras will produce slight colour,light and a varying degree of difference as we don't live in the perfect world. But by the same token I feel that we should display our images for what they are not what they should be that is exactly my point.

I can go back to my darkroom days and remeber the explitives that eminated from that dark tiny room when "it didn.t quite work right" but you accept that. It's just that I think that we are now moving away from the original image concept which is a shame.

Example: On a recent vist to Bangkok I took over 200 images and from those there are probably 10 or so "striking photo's" which I feel are worthy of being in my best collection. What is the point in enhancing those images ? In my book...none. I might as well have done the tour of the Grand Palace and bought the compilation photo cd on leaving thus saving a lot of heartache.

Why can.t we just show what we have?

[JCW3]

If posting a image out of the camera is what you want to go, I say go for it. I mean I have yet to read anyone comments that harase you for not editing. But I will admit if you asking for comments, I feel I then have the right to post what I feel is wrong with it. I will admit I usually even include how to improve that image. Does that make eaither one of use wrong? NO. But it then allows fellow viewers to read if they would like and maybe learn something.

As for you visit, I dont find that odd. I know my usual goal is to achive 1 good photo a month and 1 knock you socks off photo a year. Sometimes I do better sometimes I dont. Know take into consideration how many I take, well thats another story.

I have been reading a few books of John Shaw, he is one of the most well know Nature photoghers today. His goal is 1 good image a year. so that gives you a idea, even the professionals goals small. The differance is a keeper for him and a keeper for use are totally differant.

I took a few minutes to look through your gallery and never saw any comments such as the ones being discussed here. I know you stated the site and not your photos, but who said the fellow posters your talking about did not want to here that info?

I know in the few months I have been here I have seen dramatic changes in alot of areas. One of the biggest is comments. Orginally I use to remember seeing a # vote and a two or three word comment. Know its a common thing to see comments that are multi paragraphs long. Does that make it better, NO. But it sure does say that viewers are now takeing more time and give more valuable info fo others to read. In my eyes the forum repsonce and feed back has greatly improved, as well as the quality of the photos over the last few months. Sorry to hear your seeing differantly...

Maybe a recommendation is when you post a photo CLEARLY state you views on post processing. With that posts can focus more on what you did, instead of taking there time on telling you how the fix it. I mean if thats what your wanting to here, just let us know. No fillings will be hurt, since we are all here to have fun.

A old man once told me "A problem can not be fixed until the problem is found". I find it fits good here. If you dont want that kind of info posted on your pics then let us know, but as for the others, who said they did not want it?

Hope to see you posting a few soon.....

[n4rkr]

I agree...I am a complete and total amateur in the photography field. I have an old AGFA ePhoto digital, and Photoshop 6. I don't even know if my camera is a decent one or not, and I am not schooled in the ways of photography or image editing. I do, however, feel I have a decent eye for a shot sometimes, and enjoying using what little knowledge of PS6 I DO have to edit and manipulate those shots.
The point of this site, as far as I can tell, is to give everyone a chance to display their work, and to share with and learn from others who have the same interests as they. I for one am very glad I stumbled across this gem, as I feel I can learn very much from others here, and their comments. I have yet to see any derogatory or rude commenting, just people offering ideas and opinions.
I guess it all comes down to this ... no matter how an image is derived, Art is Art, Beauty is Beauty, Passion is Passion, and Joy comes from all three.
Thanks for listening !
...and by the way... if anyone see's this, I'd love any comments you are willing to impart on my photos. I hope to learn from them.

[setiprime]

It has been quite interesting to read your dialogues on the basic "Quality" issues.

Personally I believe you both have valid points in your arguments,
I have been struggling with these issues for some time.

I am an "old" Industrial Photographer (Sinar 4x5, Mamiya RB 67) and later as a 16mm Cinematographer/Videographer.

We used to get the best we could from the camera and then use whatever technology was available to get the "look and feel" of what we wanted the client to see.

Obviously, technology allows us to now do, (at little or no additional cost) what it took Labs days to accomplish.

However, getting the best out of my camera (and myself) at the shooting location, is my primary goal.

Having said that, how much can I allow myself to use Post Production to get the "Results" that were in my mind??

At what point is it a "Photograph"
At what point does it change to "PhotoArt"
At what point does it change into "Photo GRAPHICS"

I believe that a submitted Photo should be noted as to what, if any, photo manipulation is used. If it is for the viewers enjoyment - then state that up front. If it is for the Shooters enjoyment - say so.

This little discussion could go on for a LONG time.

[Woody]

Setiprime.

I agree with you whole heartedly, at what point is it no longer a "photograph".
Again the facts are that if you enjoy the final result either as the photographer or the viewer then I am 100% for it, it is just that there is nothing more pleasing to look at something completely untouched and say "wow that is stunning" as opposed to looking at an image knowing it has been doctored....it just doesn't do it for me I,m afraid.

Regards to all
Woody

[northbeach]

I know exactly what you mean. I'm not averse to a little tweaking...I crop sometimes and sometimes I adjust the brightness and contrast but that's about it. If I was using a conventional camera I might do the same in the darkroom.

I object to what is clearly a good photograph being downgraded because there's some noise in the picture. Usually indiscernable to the average viewer.

We need not forget the content of the picture is important.

I once made a lucky and wonderful capture of a hawk as it literally flew into my frame as I hit the shutter button on a pair of Blue Heron I was photographing. Someone complained because the bird was "slightly out of focus".

And since I'm grumbling I also hate it when someone give a rating and has no comment to make.

[jlpriestley]

For me it boils down to this... When I post an image I really don't touch it up too much. When I see a picture that has been dipped in a paint bucket and comes out "beautiful", I will probably think "wow, that is beautiful", but then immediately I will think it has been edited -- it takes something away from the picture for me. Personally, if I make anything changes beyond the basic, I make a note of it in my comments.

Funny, this comes up in every forum now and then. Always a hot topic.

[BytePhoto]

Here's my two cents worth....
Personally, I have my in-camera settings set at low contrast and sharpness, so as to have precise control over the final image when processing with an image editor. It's nothing more than 'darkroom' work IMO.

[setiprime]

Seems like this is progressing -

I believe that the radical changes that are happening in the "Photographic" medium are pushing us into a new and therefore unstable period of definitions.

1) There is a strong effort on the part of Manufacturers to equate the digital photo (equipment/software/output) industries with the "Old" chemical/mechanical form of Photography.

2) Today we have TWO major areas of final output: Prints and "On-screen". Anyone who has an internet connection can now share, or at least offer their photo output to a huge cross section of the world.

Point 1 - even the so called point-and-shoot cameras give the shooter a choice of options that film cameras never dreamed of; i.e. color, black&white, sepia, resolution, audio notations, ISO variations, etc.

Point 2 - The advent of the computer and its almost universal use of specialty software has given everyone the ability to modify their final output of the "photo". Some use the computer merely to clean up the original camera generated image. Others use the camera image as a starting point to produce what they consider to be somehow "better" than the original.

Using the "film" standards that we all grew up with, we are held to the rather limited variables that chemistry allowed (enlargement/cropping/dodging/burning and so forth).

Unfortunately there are no real guidlines set down by any organization or recognized authority that can help us define the various levels (catagories) of the new photography medium.

There is a lot of experimentation going on in any and all aspects of the field.

It might be a step in the right direction to have a given site (this one?) to actually set down some guidelines and catagories (with clearly defined standards) that would offer participants a solid reference for their present and future work.

This was probably just a typing exercise for me, but those are my thoughts.

Jon F.

[davemin]

We currently have perfect examples right here at BP that apply to this thread. A new poster has put two digitally created pieces of art...I'm not adept at this enough to make this bold statement...but what the hay...without using a camera of anykind. This persons name is gramus and I think that what s/he achieved is remarkable. However, does it belong here? If we decide it does, maybe a specific area should be created for this kind of art. Paul, this is where your expert opinion would be appreciated. I don't hold anything against someone who uses computer programs to create art...I just would not call it photography. There is another entrant here with beautiful photo/digital creations of angels and the like...I think his name is Rene. Could this stuff be done in a darkroom even in the eighties? I'm not sure. We cannot deny their beauty, and this form of art is here to stay. However, is it photography? Rene does use a camera to capture the main subject. But what of the rest of the photograph? ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying digital art is not great in the right place, I'm wondering what boundaries should be created to address them...or should we just enforce the rules aready set up by our leaders? I vote for the latter. IMHO

[BytePhoto]

I too just noticed those two images from the member gramus, and obiously digital art is not permitted in a 'Photo of the Week' contest. LOL

That said, I must admit they are well done.
They have been removed to the members galleries.

[setiprime]

All this could be put to rest quickly.

It is the job of the administration to determine if gudelines need to be rewritten and if the catagories currently offered are sufficient to accomodate the what is being posted.

Ratings MUST be tied in to the comments and comments need to be objective - no comment = no rating.

Photographs - cropped, color balanced and thats it !!

Photographs retouched - labeled as such.

Photo Art - basic method employed and labeled as such, with the intent inserted into the comment part of the submission.

At least this would be a start. If the admin guys don't care, then nothings going to change this site !!

There have not been any posts in the "Retouching" forum for a long time. Why not rename it to "Photo Art", announce it, and watch what happens!!

Jon F.