| Author |
Message |
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 18:34
Reply
On the original picture, the window at the top were darker :
SoI tried to hihlight this window. And I posted the picture on Woophy. But the borders of the changed area were visible, and ugly.
I made a second release (this final picture above)
I had a second picture of the same scene - taken some seconds before this one - with the same window highlighted. So I cropped the highlighted window, and pasted it on the first picture. The result was better, of course, in term of quality. the paste was invisible.
But I was not at ease with this trick. I changed again for the original one, even it was not as good.
As I said, I'm now near to change a little my mind.. and for the moment, I let the second release on Woophy.
|
|
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 18:50
Reply
But after these exchanges .. Ok, I admit now we have the right to touch pictures, but I still have the feeling my final picture is more a 'personal construction' than something else. Not bad, but not so worthy of respect.
And I would like to hear more of you before be able to fully appreciate reconstructed pictures as your one, Marcos, or your, Bernadette... Dont be offended, please, you are very good photographs, no doubt at all. just these pictures remain for the moment .. in my limbo.
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 20:03 - Edited by: de stilte
Reply
It is a creative process I think. When I started with digital photography I wasn't in for retouching of anykind. It wasn't real........ I thought.....but then I realized that the same work was done in the darkroom ( I've worked with a B&W darkroom). Some of the terms you see in PSP or Photoshop were also used in the darkroom, like lighten, push crop and so on.
But surprisingly today I made a serie of the opening of the culture season in Enschede....all the pictures that were made inside "Levity II" didn't need much work....to be honoust I've only cropped some....
here's one .......
What I'm trying to say is that when it is NOT necessary to retouch a picture.....don't do it......
But look at this guys what they are doing with their pictures, sometimes it is awesome....:)
http://www.worth1000.com/
|
rezz50
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 21:36
Reply
The image that the lens records and the image the eye sees and the mind recalls are often quite different; we remember objects, colors, and patterns rather than the overalll image. (Ever notice how a full moon appears larger on the horizon than it does overhead?) My goal in editing is to create an image that is close to what I percieved and communicate it to others. Playing with the photos I take is also a lot of fun.
|
Marcos
Moderator
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 22:04 - Edited by: Marcos
Reply
Wow, Ruud, the work of those people is amazing, look at this images I saw there !
!
!
v
AMAZING AND FUNNY !
Greetings !
|
Martin de Rijk
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 22:28
Reply
This is one of the sites I meant. Lots of created photo's from people with an overdose of imagination and fantasy. Great and worth the time watching.
|
tientje
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 23:51
Reply
I am stunned and surprised on what I see here...
And proud that I hardly done any adjustments, because I simply don't know how to do it...
Althought I love a lot of the pictures shown here , I can't agree totally. You can "smuck up" a pic by improving contrast and light , yes, even add a frame, crop it or put it in B&W to make it more "strong"...but add another pic in it goes to far on me.
Maybe its just because I am new, maybe becuase I can't work with Photoshop, but in my eyes its still kind of cheating...
It's not real...not what you saw in your eyes/lens and wanted to show other people.
Only imagination realized because you have the ability to use programs for that?
This picture was only cropped, but I am very happy I didn't NEED to do anything, and that I was lucky to be in the right place in the right time..Isn't that what photographing is all about? For me it is...
And if some pics aren't that "flashy" or "eyecatchers" for the woophy raters? Well, then I didn't do a great job as an amateurphotgrapher ;-)....
And I just keep on trying , over and over again =)
|
|
Marcos
Moderator
|
# Posted: 18 Sep 06 00:15
Reply
Hi again !
As I said before, I believe photo editing is ok
For example, in the anual Nikon Photo Contest, edited pictures can enter and they not mean cropped pictures, high contrasted pictures or framed pictures, they mean created pictures, last year, the first prize in a category I dont remember now was a totally created picture, I think the "photographer" or "creator" took a picture in the street and he started playing with colours and drawing things, the finall work was really amazing !
I believe photo creating is art, maybe not the same we spect in Woophy but is art anyway.
I dont know how to create a picture starting from nothing but I would like to know how.
I dont know how to create what Fred did but I would like to know how... I mean, the picture I edited, the one of the tree in B&W, It took me a lot of time, cropping the tree, moving it, erasing parts, cloning, etc. the finall work was what I was waiting for and I am proud of that picture but ¿whats behind that picture?
26 August - I went to the local Monument to the Jewish Holocaust and I took the picture that I has been thinking for 3 months, f8 aperture and automatic exposition, vertical and horizontal, more zoom and less zoom, closer and further and then the final work in the computer so what I mean is that behind an edited picture, there is the same work tientje did.
I am not trying to change your mind and I respect your opinion. ; )
Best regards,
Marcos Rowinski !
|
leilani
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Sep 06 06:05
Reply
there is an art site that i frequent who has covered this topic over and over.
A lot of photographers feel the only retouching someone should do if they still want it considered photography is things that can be done in a darkroom also.
anything else is considered either photomanipulation or graphic art.
|
|
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Sep 06 08:45
Reply
@ De Stilte : The picture above is wonderfull. As some of others on your forum opened about this exhibition, "The architects of Air". Thank you !
I like the definition of limit in touching for photography as "what can be done in a darkroom". It is exactly what I felt, speaking about brightness, saturation, contrast changes.
Yes, beyond that, it is something else than pure photography. Can be art, no doubt, but another category. As the Bernadette's picture, or pictures of the site De Stilte quoted. Even I'm often not fond of.
I'm not so at ease with the pictures located exactly on the border between these 2 categories...
|
Marcus de Wolf
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Sep 06 11:38
Reply
I totally agree with aline, tientje and leilani
I only make changes 'as in the darkroom'.
two big reasons;
- i dont now how to use photoshop
- i see photography as an art to display reality. So i can accept changes which imo make the maximum of the photo which is IN it, and don't like to add things that are NOT in it.
For example; making a video of my wedding; for me it is ok to cut, and to change contrast or the volume of the sound; but adding actors, or a nice sunset (that not happened that day) would give me an unfair feeling. Of course i would directly admit that a nice sunset is more beautiful than a rainy day, and of course i could be impressed by the artship of the actors, or of the added sunset-scene; but i would have a 'guilty'feeling when showing it to others and pretending this is what happened.
Well, i think the same about photography (and fortunately, so do the newspapers..) But still; the expamples which are shown above are great peaces of art, only another kind of art then i what to practice (maybe i should say; it is a combination of two arts; photograhy and editing-photos).
so, thats why no photoshop on my pictures (but still sometimes amazing colours i think...)
|
|
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Sep 06 18:10
Reply
I like specially the first picture. Congratulation, Marcus !
|
Bernadette
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Sep 06 23:28
Reply
 
I submit to your advice the 2 photos I used to edit my compo "red istanbul".
They are not retouched. I just take the sky of the second one, turn it at 180° in order it was just on the top of Blue mosquee, and make the menu "traitement arithmetique" (dont have the equivalent in eng. and average on PSP. But at the origin there were 2 PHOTOS i HAVE REALLY DONE AND REALLY SEE;.
So OK, editing is not pure photographic art, but you need some acceptable photos to do that. and there is no offence is you tell what you have done and if you don't let others think that this is a "real" photo.
Nevertheless, I agree with you Marcus, the result must be without any doubt, you must see that this is a composition. So like you I disagree to change the sky of a particulat event, because it gives a false impression of what the event was, or as I have already said in this topic, to place a people in a situation he has never been.
So now, to finish, I understand POV of "pure" photograpers who begin with dark room. But I don't know this job. For me I am like a lot of people, when I had an argentic camera, I had no other choice to give the film to a specialiesed shop, and wait for the result.....(and very often... boff... I was a bit dispointed by the result)
Good night to all
|
fred snijders
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Sep 06 14:07
Reply
@Bernadette:
Both pxs are okay but not very thrilling. The combination is a great one.
|
bere
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Sep 06 17:04
Reply
@Aline, I agree 100% with your view about touching photos!
The limit for me is within the range "what can be done in a darkroom"
[b][/b] and this is cropping, brightness, saturation and contrast changes.
Anyother technique produces something different, but in my eyes it's not a photography anymore.
The example may not be correct but there are similarities with doping in sport...maybe it's too harsh!
Greetings to all participants!
|
|
fred snijders
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Sep 06 08:59
Reply
@Bere
It's the old discussion whether photography is just a registration of "reality" or a form of "art". Also in painting this controverse existed. The impressionists didn't want to paint "reality" any longer but to express the "feeling" that they had at the scene. IMO this is also true for photography.
|
|
bere
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Sep 06 10:53
Reply
@fred snider,
thanks for the reply. I still disagree because when you see a painting you would nowadays not expect to see the 'reality'.
A photography is different. Until one start to 'manipulate' it's a document with of course a very personal view of the object. But still: A document.
If this argument will not convince you, how about that: Woophy's intention (in my eyes) is to show the world (as it is) with that specific personal view and not what might be.
I feel that the 'conservative' standpoint in this subject has the more valid arguments so far. Marcos standpoint 'If we have the possibilities to do that, why not? ' brings me back to my doping comparisson.
This is may be a rather academic discussion and I'm no academic at all.
I'm looking forward to any replys!
Bernd
|
|
Marcos
Moderator
|
# Posted: 20 Sep 06 22:33
Reply
Hi !
I believe I have a different point of view because I did never used a dark room and I dont know what the possibilities are, before I start using difital cameras, I used to go to Kodak, Fujifilm or any other photographic shop to print my pictures but I have never used a dark room. Maybe I have to agree with you in somethings, for example I would not put a person in a place he have never been, perhaps joking but not seriously.
I would like to know what will happen in some years when most of the photographers will dont know (maybe) what a dark room is... what will people believe about what we are saying? : )
Greetings !
|
|
tientje
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Sep 06 22:46
Reply
Marcus, I believe this knowledge will not disapear totally...
For example, my teenage daughter is at art school, and they have to learn in class "photographics" all about that to...Positive thing =)
|
|
Martin de Rijk
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Sep 06 23:55
Reply
Hi all,
I have to agree wih Fred on this issue. If we look at modern photoart we see more and more impressionistic photo's, people playing with reality in a great often surprising, defiant way
Fortunately we see more and more of them on Woophy. I love to see them play with the opportunities they (we) have, using all the modern technology.
@bere
You're comparisson with doping is way beyond me. Doping is going against rules, it's forbidden so to say. In art there are no such rules, fortunately, otherwise we would have missed a lot. Not to offend you, but I find this way of thinking a bit conservative.
And as for Woophy, showing the world in all its diversity means also showing people's personal view of this world by creating their personal images.
The picture I've added is not the realty as it was, but the reality I felt at the moment and for the future.
|
Online now: Guests - 1 Members - 1