Is there a way to lighten up a photo without expensive software?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Jennifer Murphy, Dec 16, 2013.

  1. Jennifer Murphy

    Savageduck Guest

    ....and that takes us right back to the subjective nature of art.
    That images captured with the sole purpose of scientific quest in mind,
    can be appreciated as creations of astounding beauty, and which stir
    emotions, and feelings far beyond the intended purpose of the image.
    However, those images can hardy be thought of a deliberate "art". It is
    those viewers who see beyond the intentional purpose of those images
    who declare it to be art. Sometimes in the face of denials of
    intentional art creation by those who developed the technology to
    capture the images to interpret for their scientific purposes.

    Then there are those other images captured with imaging machines,
    without the intended purpose of creating art.
    < >
    Savageduck, Dec 21, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jennifer Murphy

    PeterN Guest

    Apropos to our discussion, Picasso also said: “You mustn't always
    believe what I say. Questions tempt you to tell lies, particularly when
    there is no answer.”

    I neither see, nor intended any such implication in your summary of my
    comments. I also expressly made it clear that such meaning was never
    intended. So let's move from the diversion.

    I am far from perfect. my photography is even further.
    Again we disagree.
    I have a difficult time producing anything that even approaches good
    art. I don't consider any mage that i produced as a memory, to be
    anything approaching art. If I produce an image, intending it to be an
    impression of something I see, that would be art, which may or may not
    be good.
    If it didn't I wouldn't use it on that image.

    Do you have any clue why you

    Do you know what these tools do to make an
    Irrelevant. (That is my point.
    Irrelevant. There are times when I like the effect one tool produces.
    e.g. I will sometimes sharpen the luminosity layer, in LAB, to produce a
    certain effect. I don't need to know why it works. To you it may be
    important to know the why, for me it is not.
    Thank G-d we agree on something.
    See my Picasso quote, above.
    PeterN, Dec 21, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jennifer Murphy

    PeterN Guest

    True. But not when you trim in such a manner as to show incorrect
    attribution. We all make errors in trimming, but with you it is
    consistently in such a manner that it is difficult to determine who said
    PeterN, Dec 21, 2013
  4. Jennifer Murphy

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/21/2013 1:21 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

    I know of one instance where a dog went for a swim, rolled in dirt, and
    then climbed into a car. The odor in the car ws inspirational.
    PeterN, Dec 21, 2013
  5. How can you consider them anything else? You don't think they
    are "Straight Out Of Camera" shots with those colors do you?

    Or that there are not composites?

    Or that they ever release any such photo that hasn't been
    seriously manipulated by an "artist"!
    No, it's just any viewer who looks at the art that NASA decided
    to release. NASA decided that it was not just art, but
    exceedingly good art. They were right too.
    Show us anyone at NASA claiming there is no art there...
    Is that a "photograph", or not? If it is, it is art.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 21, 2013
  6. Spend a little time looking at what Picasso did with art, and it
    becomes obvious that the "What isn't?" crack was no lie.

    He obviously thought the question was absurd.
    But that *is* what you are saying!
    But it is art.
    See above. You can't have it both ways.
    Don't you see the contradiction in that statement? You say on
    the one hand that "produced as a memory" is not art, yet if it
    is "an impression" that of what you see it isn't??? They are
    the same thing! Your "impression" is a memory.
    So you just try each to see what the effect will be. If you know
    what the tools will do to the image you can 1) not even bother
    with those that will not produce a result you want, 2) narrow
    down the range of experiments needed to pin down the exact
    parameters for tools that produce the result you want, and 3)
    pre-visualize much better what potential any given image has,
    knowing what can be done.
    That's like saying it is irrelevant when digging a ditch to know
    the different effects of a pointed shovel, a squared off shovel,
    or a pick.

    In fact it is extremely relevant!
    So for example... you have a nice portrait made with a D800, all
    36MP of it... but you crop it from a 3:2 aspect ratio to a 5:4,
    and you want to post it on the web, so you resample it to
    1000x800 pixels and save it as a JPEG. How do you sharpen it?
    With Sharpen or USM, or both. If both, which is used first?

    Ah, but you later decide to also have a print made, at 20x16, so
    you do what?

    You could resample the JPEG. Or do you go back to either the
    RAW file or any intermediate that you made, and crop that to
    6155x4924, and then resample it for 300 PPI at 20x16 (6000x4800

    Oh, do you sharpen it again, and if so once again the question is
    with Sharpen, USM or both?

    Your stated philosophy is that it either doesn't make any
    difference, or that you will try all of them and compare to see
    which you like the best. That isn't too hard with the web
    image, but that print means running of a total of 4 different
    20x16 prints at a minimum.

    Wouldn't it be better to know the difference between Sharpen and
    USM, just to narrow that down a bit?
    Apparently not. "Shown above" didn't mean yours, it meant the
    one *above*.
    And learn what it meant in context.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 21, 2013
  7. But your logic is not.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 21, 2013
  8. Jennifer Murphy

    Savageduck Guest

    Art yes, deliberate art no.
    I understand that the NASA, JPL, and Hubble images do not appear as
    they are presented "straight out of the camera" and that they are
    "False color" processed. The fact that there are amazing and moving
    images of astounding "artistic" quality produced is incidental to the
    purpose. Hubble was not placed in orbit to produce works of art for
    NASA & JPL to sell to the public so they can have neat wallpaper.
    They have been "seriously manipulated" by serious technicians to
    produce images for scientific analysis, that they have "artistic"
    qualities is a secondary, not a primary result.
    The folks at NASA & JPL are accidental artists.
    I agree, many of those images are undeniably astounding works of art,
    which through the processes used to produce them have produced amazing
    images of a universe exposed to the human imagination. From there we
    have been able to be awed by the complexity and beauty of the universe,
    yes the result was art, sometimes unbelievably wondeful art, sometime
    not so good (they haven't been that selective in what has been made
    available to the public).
    Not after they saw the first of these results and declared that they
    had to be shared. NASA understood the impact of those images as art.
    Those images have been used to awe the public and to encourage Congress
    for patronage (sometimes not that successfully) just as the artists of
    renaissance needed patrons.

    While some radiologist, or some "artist" might well mount some of those
    CT scan, or X-Ray images to present as art, they only become "art"
    when they are presented as "art". A viewer of such might comment on the
    ingenuity of presenting those images as art, but they were not art
    until that transition had been made. The initial intent was not, and
    still is not to present them as "art".
    They are diagnostic tools and the professionals using those diagnostic
    tools use them for a purpose of far greater value than mere "art".

    I still maintain that intent for many images captured for professional
    purposes does not always produce "art".
    For example, I have seen and taken thousands of crime scene and
    evidence photographs, shot with Polariod, 35mm & digital. I can assure
    you there is no artistic value to crime scene and evidence photographs.
    While WeeGee might have taken great street shots at crime scenes they
    were not forensic crime scene photographs.
    Savageduck, Dec 21, 2013
  9. It is *very deliberate*. Those images are soley for marketing
    purposes, not for science. Granted that the same data set is
    also used for science, but not that image.
    Not at all incicental. The make those beautiful images on
    purpose, to impress you and me, and Congress.
    Not those images. Their primary purpose was and is art.
    The are very purposeful about it. It's not an accident at all.
    So what's your problem with recognizing it as art?
    But that was exactly what you argued!
    Exactly, and it is no accident. And get past the idea that the
    art was used for science, it wasn't.
    So it wasn't even a photograph, until some "artist" decided it
    could be interesting and changed it from something not made with
    light to something that is made with light.

    In this case yes that is done for science, because it allows the
    information in the data set to be seen with human eyes. And
    since that creates an image that conveys information, and
    clearly was designed to be visually interesting, it is art.
    But the transition *was* made.
    That doesn't diminish the fact that they are art.
    So what? Barking at trees doesn't turn a tree into a fox.
    I assure you there is artistic value to crime scene and evidence
    photographs. Not seeing it is mindful blindness.

    Your logic concerning WeeGee is amusing. It's not valid thoug.
    His photographs weren't the same as Winogrand's or Frank's, but
    that does not make any of the three less an artist, less a
    Street Photographer, or less valuable.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 21, 2013
  10. Jennifer Murphy

    Savageduck Guest

    Then you haven't seen some of the forensic images I have seen, and I
    have seen thousands. Not one of them from a shot of a bindle of rock
    cocaine to coroner shots documenting a postmortem would I consider as
    deliberate works of art, and I doubt that if given the opportunity,
    none of the "artistic" photographers in this NG would either. Not one
    of the crime scene and forensic photographers I have worked with would
    consider their work product "Art".

    I have a shot available which I am not doing to post to this or any NG
    as it is a disturbing reminder of violence among the gangs found on our
    streets and prisons.
    I am more than happy to email it to you for evaluation as a work of
    art. I certainly wouldn't have it framed and hanging on a wall in my
    home. You might.
    The only artistic thing about this particular shot is the way the
    subject met his end. Those killers were real artists, and I don't care
    to show their work here, but let me know and I will share it with you.
    I am in no way slighting WeeGee's role as a photographic artist, an
    important and stylistic one at that, but the purpose of his art was to
    feed himself, not to produce forensic imagery.
    Savageduck, Dec 22, 2013
  11. Jennifer Murphy

    PeterN Guest

    You have dashed my expectation of having an exchange of viewpoints,
    without personal insults and rancor have been dashed by your lack of
    exposure to sunlight.
    For me, EOD
    PeterN, Dec 22, 2013
  12. Jennifer Murphy

    PeterN Guest

    Here is a link to some of the most artistic photos I have ever seen. the
    photographer states that the images are right out of the camera, and his
    use of Photoshop is minimal.

    PeterN, Dec 22, 2013
  13. Jennifer Murphy

    Savageduck Guest

    deliberate and intentional art. All very possible to create in the
    camera without the assistance of Photoshop.

    Obviously you have been a part of this discussion, and we had our
    differences regarding how you felt about some images captured with a
    camera meeting your qualification as "photographs" and others you
    deemed mere "pictures". I feel that there are great, good, mediocre,
    and truly awful images produced with a camera, all photographs, some
    lifted to the level of art, and many not.

    What I contend is, not all photographs are art, having started with a
    purpose far removed from intentional art. That they have been
    recognized as art is a secondary, not primary result of the work of the

    The image I have referred to above was shot in a morgue, and I am not
    going to post it to a NG I will only share it via email with those who
    can assure me they will not abuse my trust by reposting it. I know
    there are some here who would not care to be exposed to it. Far from
    being "art" it is a cold dose of reality showing a truly ugly side of
    our society.
    Savageduck, Dec 22, 2013
  14. Peter if you cannot stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen to
    start with. I have NOT used "personal insults and rancor", and
    what I say follows *directly* from your comments. Pointing out
    that something is illogical or factually fallacious is not
    gratuitous, not a personal insult, nor is it rancor.

    As usual though, *you* do have to fall to the level of gratuitous
    personal insults, and childish ones about "lack of exposure to sunlight"
    at that!
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 22, 2013
  15. What does any of that have to do with it?

    The problem is that you want your personal decision as to what
    is art and what is not. It doesn't work that way. Neither you
    nor I nor the fence post is the authority on what is or isn't
    art. *Everyone* and *anyone* inclusively decides. For all practical
    purposes art is art if any one single person can in any way think
    of it as art.

    That is objective, it is not individual and it is /not subjective/, and
    you cannot decide that it isn't art of it qualifies for someone else.

    What we each can and do judge is the /very subjective/ qualities that
    make art good or not good.
    But you just did slight WeeGee's art in a very illogical way.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 22, 2013
  16. Jennifer Murphy

    PeterN Guest

    From a philosophical standpoint, we agree. The only difference is that
    for purposes of a sub-thread, I stated the context in which I was using
    the term "photograph."
    I promise I will not redistribut the image, and since I can stand to
    lose some weight, will look at it right snack time.
    PeterN, Dec 22, 2013
  17. Jennifer Murphy

    Savageduck Guest

    PK! OK! I bow before the weight of your insight and wisdom, everything is art.
    Naah! If I really wanted to slight WeeGee, or Arthur Fellig, I would
    have pegged him for what he was, an ambulance, and/or police siren
    chaser who took opportunistic shots to sell on the competitive tabloid
    press market. He was for the want of a better description a NYC
    emergency services paparazzi.

    Paparazzi, now there is another fine group of photographic "artists".
    Savageduck, Dec 22, 2013
  18. Jennifer Murphy

    Savageduck Guest

    Then check your email, and you can report your opinion as whether this
    quite technically good photograph is publishable (outside of a
    courtroom) art.
    Savageduck, Dec 22, 2013
  19. Why be such a contrite asshole? I've specifically said it isn't
    my insight or wisdom, and the point is that *it isn't yours*

    The one who continues to claim to be the arbitrator of what is
    art and what is not, *is you*.
    I didn't say that you "really wanted" to slight him, I just
    pointed out that whether you meant to or not, that *is* exactly
    what you did.
    You just can't get past being judgmental and the belief that
    your judgment is suitable for everyone.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 22, 2013
  20. Jennifer Murphy

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Well, ignoring the "Is this art?" question, and addressing the "Was he
    a scum-sucking low-life benefiting from the misery of others?"
    question, how is it really different from the photographer who takes -
    and sells - photos of wee starving African children with bloated
    bellies and blow-flies around the mouth?

    Or the photographer who goes to a civil war-torn country and
    photographs the wounded and dying and sells his photos through Getty
    Images? Or, the combat photographer who earns his living from those
    heartstring-pulling photos of the devastation of war?

    We don't need photographic documentation to know that starvation,
    genocide, and war create misery. It's not like the forensic
    photographer who pursues his/her job in order to aid in the conviction
    of a guilty person or to establish conditions of death.

    What the public wants, the public gets.
    Tony Cooper, Dec 22, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.