post processing

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Nige Danton, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. The question however is what is "right". I'm saying a final product is
    not "right". The material to produce the best final product, even though
    not finished at that moment, is the "right" thing to get directly from
    the camera.

    Your comments aren't about that, though they certainly do require the
    use of that methodology as an inherent part of creating a final product.

    Your "abstracts" aren't the product of previsualization. You
    aren't first seeing the eventual abstraction and using technical
    skills to produce an out of camera product that best suits a
    specific abstraction. Instead shoot many images, with no real
    idea of what any one of them might produce. On inspection you
    try various parameters to see what produces an appealing result,
    even though that result was not considered when the shutter was
    tripped.

    You're dealing a hand cards off the deck, and then drawing more
    to see if a happy match occurs. Not that it doesn't
    work... just that there are two distinctly different approaches
    to the production of art. The method you use is a bit
    haphazard?

    What I'm describing fits very well with the methodology of Pablo
    Picasso and Ansel Adams, as two examples of people with talent
    and the ability to previsualize beyond the wildest imagination
    for most of us. Of course I can't even begin to approach their
    level of talent and skill, but that methodology is what I try to
    work with and develop.

    However, where our discussion has clearly lined up is that we
    both believe that anyone who thinks "get it right in the camera"
    means a straight out of the camera finished product is grossly
    limited in artistic expression.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nige Danton

    Savageduck Guest

    ....and there are times that art can be quite astonishing and only truly
    appreciated when seeing it up close and full scale. Here I am thinking
    of "The Night Watch" at the Rijks Museum which is just spectacular, and
    some of Pollock's work which is far more worthy of praise than the
    ignorant criticism he often has heaped on his work.
    < https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-C-5 >
    < http://artdiscovery.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/IMG_1847-001.jpg >
    <
    http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc...050426_nyc/ss_050426_nyc_moma.grid-10x2.jpgIn both cases the massive scale and consistent quality of the work is
    what makes them the masterpieces they are.
     
    Savageduck, Mar 18, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nige Danton

    Savageduck Guest

    Agreed. While Adams took as much care as possible to capture a scene he
    had pre-visualized, his real creative work was in post in the darkroom
    and in the production of his prints.
    The same was true of Ed Weston.
     
    Savageduck, Mar 18, 2014
  4. I think it took at least as much creativity, if not more, to get
    a negative he could use. I really don't see it as pre or post
    being more or less creative. Maybe the real creativity is how
    they connect, and all before and after is just skill at the
    craft! :)
    I think that is true of almost all really great artists, no
    matter what the media. Look at how many composers have gone
    deaf, and still continue to write music. For that matter, it
    strikes me than an arranger necessarily has to work that way!
    (I have no music talent and am in utter awe of such.)

    Painting and photography do happen to be art forms where one
    need not know what it is they are creating. It's often pointed
    out that there are no "accidentally" great paintings, while
    any dolt with a camera can produce a number of great photographs
    if they push the shutter button often enough. But by the same
    token many if not most of the world's really great paintings are
    not one off works of art. Some take months, and multiple versions
    on the same canvas, to find exactly the mix that the painter
    wants. I suppose there are two kinds of versions too, one that
    is "Well, that isn't what I was thinking of" and so it's time
    to restart that part; or the "Heh, the paint looks nice, lets
    put some over here too and see if it's okay".
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2014
  5. There are several visual experiences that have smacked me up the
    side of the head with, "Capture that and you've got a great
    photograph!", except even after years of looking at it I just
    can't figure out how to photograph it.

    I had one that did fall into place last fall though. And old
    wooden boat here in Barrow that I've been looking at for 15
    years... from the wrong direction. I just happened to be
    shooting something else and found myself in exactly the right
    place to get the picture I've been imagining... from the back of
    the boat which I normally only see from the front.

    That's a nice experience.
    I rarely post images on the Internet, even to my webpage, that I
    also print large. They're just two different things. Plus the
    prints are what I actually consider my art, while most of what
    goes on my webpage is more documentary than art.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2014
  6. Nige Danton

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Then there is
    http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1205196193_250284fb45_o.jpg
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 18, 2014
  7. Nige Danton

    Savageduck Guest

    Multicultural goofiness.
     
    Savageduck, Mar 18, 2014
  8. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    Almost right.
    Landscapes/ Whe I see something i like I shoot it. i often go to areas
    at times I think I might get a decent shot.
    Yet, I HAVE no qualms about making changes. The basic image I seek is there.

    With birds or landscape, I attempt to shoot them dong something
    interesting. After viewing, I look at the suggestion from the image.

    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Lift the Lid First.jpg>

    Or this:

    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/6Nubble impression.jpg>
     
    PeterN, Mar 18, 2014
  9. Nige Danton

    Nab Guest

    That's perfectly understandable, but I don't get
    how you sell your art if your potential costumers
    have nothing more for making a purchase decision
    than the price and print size. I guess in this
    case, you only had one real customer -- the neighbor
    next door?

    nab
     
    Nab, Mar 18, 2014
  10. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/17/2014 10:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    Also, I print the images differently for competitions. In my camera club
    the prints are viewed under a really bright white light. Prints look
    much better when printed darker and on glpossy paper. If I wanted to
    hang the same print on my wall, I would print it much lighter, how much
    depends on the print, and on a matte or luster paper. For digital
    competitions, I try to use the ICC profile of the projection unit.
    to make thins even more complex, in some competitions, such as PSA, and
    camera clubs, there is a preference for a slight vignette. I do not too
    well in many competitions, because I adjust the image to please myself.
    In a competition last year I was told my image sparked a lengthy debate.
    It was an image of two apes looking down, studying an object. It didn't
    win an award because the animals eyes were not visible. (The eyes were
    not visible because they were both looking down. The important thing is
    that I like the image.
     
    PeterN, Mar 18, 2014
  11. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    Indeed it is. i have a friend who will walk abound a subject for some
    period of time before he even puts the camera up to his eye.
    I am too much a type A to to that. He is alsoa much better photographer
    than I will ever be.
     
    PeterN, Mar 18, 2014
  12. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    If I see something interesting I may shoot it for future use as a
    texture, or background.
     
    PeterN, Mar 18, 2014
  13. I don't sell blank sheets of framed paper!

    Photography customers make purchasing decisions for many
    reasons, and while size and price are factors I'm pretty sure
    they are rarely of primary importance.

    My original point was that computer viewed images, 8x10 prints,
    and 24x36 prints are all very distinct objects. Many images
    that are terrific as one size are mundane at a different size.
    Average head shots generally make nice 8x10's, but only a really
    good head shot is great at 24x36. I.e., a life size head is
    fine, but a head 4 times normal size is too overwhelming unless
    it is special.
    People rarely buy expensive portraits of non-family.

    However, Street Photography is an example where a single person
    may be central to the image, but the subject is not the person
    and the photograph is not a portrait. It makes no difference
    who the person in the picture is.

    To be of more general interest a photograph usually has to
    specifically be of something other than the *character* *of*
    *the* *person* shown. Portraits of famous people have wide
    appeal, but non-famous people do not attract attention.

    This image was an unposed, non-studio, "head shot", and is not
    Street. Hence it would necessarily be of general interest only
    to the degree that the person depicted is of general interest.
    It is an exceptionally nice image of a very pleasant looking
    young girl (which is to say something that does generally draw
    some attention, but perhaps not a great deal).

    As mentioned before, this particular image was printed both in
    color and black and white. The color print was requested by the
    family (provided at no cost), and is in their home. The BW
    print is commercial art used as wall decoration in a public
    location. Probably more than half the local population will see
    it over the next many months, most of them will recognize the
    subject though even viewers who don't will find that particular
    image a bit astounding because the girl is beautiful and the
    image is intriguing.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2014
  14. Nige Danton

    Rikishi42 Guest

    That is the first time I've ever seen the two associated, never mind
    compared.

    To me they are completely unrelated, but if a relationship would *have* to
    be found, I'd call them oposites.

    Art versus science - to me - would be:
    subjective versus objective
    pleasing versus informing
    appreciating versus learning
    opinion versus facts
    decorating versus understading

    Not all are perfect opositions in terms and some are repeats, I know.
    Just trying to find a relation (and oposition is relation) for two things
    that I instinctively keep seeing/feeling as completely unrelated.



    How are they related, to you ?
     
    Rikishi42, Mar 19, 2014
    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.