|
|
NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
This week's AP is dedicated to realistic landscapes - that is producing pictures that look like the scene that was being photographed. So often now we see heavily saturated colours, high contrast, and added warmth applied to landscape work, as well as blurred water that looks like smoke - sometimes to the extent that the final print looks nothing like the original view.
Do you try to enhance what you see, or do you strive to faithfully represent reality? And actually, does it matter?
The central theme here is landscape, but the question can apply to any subject matter.
Head to the Home Page to let us know - is your photography truth or fiction?
Thanks for playing.
damien
|
|
Fen
|
|
(BAD WOLF)
|
|
29/03/2008 16:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Can we have an option for mostly the truth, but with a little bit of fiction?
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Can we have an option for mostly the truth, but with a little bit of fiction?
^WHS^
|
|
JonD
|
|
(journeyman)
|
|
29/03/2008 17:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I'd third that too. I think the definition of 'too far' is when you can't tell what you started with anymore...
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Can we have an option for mostly the truth, but with a little bit of fiction?
I sort of agree - but I'd much prefer people to tidy up litter before taking their shots than leave the blasted litter there & photoshop it out of their masterworks.
As for the rest of the new mag - can't agree more, really nice to see a backlash against the oversaturated **** that landscape photography seems to have degenerated into - with the recent trend to HDR being the (ultimate?) nail in the coffin. Lots to digest, I've only just scratched the surface of the content, but IMHO the best issue in ages. Non subscribers, start saving for a copy 
|
|
AGW
|
|
()
|
|
29/03/2008 19:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I fear that the awfully apt word that sums up my attempts is......SPIN.
Graeme
|
|
Rhys
|
|
(Sasquatch)
|
|
29/03/2008 20:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Is my photography truth or fiction?
Hmm, I once tried to take photo's of objects so as to give a different meaning (the objects became less recognisable for what they were in order to make the viewer think of something else) so is that classed as fiction even though no changes have been made to the image in terms of saturation etc. from what lay in front of me?
|
|
cpfc12
|
|
(newbie)
|
|
29/03/2008 20:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Definatly raw, as in not messed about with. Hate smokey water and all that suspended movement. That's not how my eyes see it. Do my best to remain faithful to what I see when shooting.
|
|
Wheelu
|
|
(member)
|
|
29/03/2008 21:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
A bit of both in my case!
I recently visited the Ansel Adams exhibition in Edinburgh, where his work is displayed alongside that of the contemporary photographer Lindsay Robertson.
Both sets of images are attractive but they are very different. Adams lets the scenes speak for themselves while Robertson uses wide angle lenses, prominent foreground objects, contrast and very large prints to get more impact.
Robertson's work is more immediately eye catching, but that of Adams more beautiful, to my mind. While I was at the exhibition, I was wondering if either would still be regarded as great photographic art in 20 or 30 years time.
I was reminded of this when we had the debate about the new Fuji folder, with a majority clamouring for wider angle lenses. For the type of photography I would do with a folder, somewhere near the standard focal length would do fine. 
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Reality sucks Sometimes I'll try and record a scene as I saw it but most of the time I'd rather record what I'll remember a place for (if you catch my drift!).
I guess with macro it's a straight no even with a "straight shot"...unless the world really does exist on a narrow plane of focus with an out of focus background 
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
That'd be telling...
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I don't believe photography actually can represent reality in anything other than a purely transient sense (and not really even then), and once captured, an image no longer reflects current reality anyway. So I make no pretence that I attempt to portray reality; rather I try to portray my impressions. Sometimes that's close to what might be perceived as reality, sometimes it's not. I think Joe Cornish's comments in this week's edition sum up my thoughts rather nicely, even if I'm not at all sure his photos necessarily do.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
and once captured, an image no longer reflects current reality anyway.
Oooh, deep stuff, special relativity, Mach cones etc. In fact it doesn't even do that, the light that formed the image was recording a reality that already no longer exists by the time it reaches the camera!
But isn't the essence of a photograph that it captures a two-dimensional map of the smoothed average of whatever portion of the real Universe was seen by the camera lens during the exposure?
|
|
john_g
|
|
(Pooh-bah Hoo-ha)
|
|
30/03/2008 10:36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I try to capture what I see, but then I enjoy photography because it makes me slow down and, with any luck, see more than I do when I'm just wandering through the day. In practise this means that I choose the focal length of the lens and the camera settings carefully, frame the shot knowing what I want in and out of the picture, maybe wait for the light to fall as I want it or even defer the shot for another day if conditions aren't right. Having done all this, I try to minimise the manipulation I do in RAW conversion and Photoshop work, but I do often tweak levels, maybe distort the image to correct verticals and even, if absolutely necessary, remove small intrusive elements of the picture that don't tally with what I 'saw'.
So I do aim to end up with what I saw but not necessarily with what another person would have seen. It's a personal reality, not an absolute one - the filter I use the most is my imagination. Isn't this what makes photography more than just using a scientific instrument to capture record shots? A strict demand for reality would preclude Henri Cartier-Bresson from waiting for the decisive moment and Ansel Adams from thinking it important to have caught "Moonrise, Hernandez" rather than "I just happened to be here now, Hernandez".
|
|
Hotblack
|
|
(Dead Horse Flogger)
|
|
30/03/2008 10:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I definitely enhance what I see, so in that case what I present is a fiction, but I only enhance to certain degrees. I'm not a big fan of overdone HDR, highly saturated shots. I suppose that makes my pictures a bit like a docu-drama; a dramatised but still recognisable document of the scene in front of me. I'm trying to capture an impression or an essence of the scene and a bit of tittivating is used to convey that impression (hopefully) to the viewer.
And is a mono shot of a landscape not also a fiction? To accentuate form and shape? I believe that the current trend of HDR and oversaturation is a bit of a fad and one day will look very dated.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
And is a mono shot of a landscape not also a fiction? To accentuate form and shape?
Possibly, but it's a fact that (a) in dim light the eye sees "monochrome" rather than in colour, (b) the eye reacts far faster to shape changes irrespective of colour than it does to changes of colour, which indicates that the way the eye is seeing is sort of LRGB with the luminosity signal being the most important. The sensitivity of the rods used in low light is in the blue-green region which is probably why monochrome images taken with an orange or red filter can look unnatural.
I suppose it does depend a lot on whether you look at photography from the artistic point of view or taking the scientific image sensor approach. Sometimes deliberately exaggerated or even completely false colouring can show details in the image which are not apparent to the eye; so can image processing techniques like edge detection; this can be useful for scientific recording work, and the results can be beautiful even if totally unrealistic. So what I'm saying is that sometimes literal falsehood can expose the hidden truth. However, IMO, that's not what traditional pictorial photography is about.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
In passing it's the cones that detect colour. They are outnumbered about 20:1 by the rods which have greater sensitivity particularly to blue light. Hence pilots wearing red glasses to preserve night adaptation.
Anyway back to the question. I find myself in difficulty with the condemnation of smokey water. With a large frame camera one is working at small apertures and longer shutter speeds so water is bound to be blurry.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I find myself in difficulty with the condemnation of smokey water. With a large frame camera one is working at small apertures and longer shutter speeds so water is bound to be blurry.
Well it does depend on how fast the water is moving. But with streams or beach waves you generally get enough motion blur at around 1/8 sec; it's the multi-second shots which blur everything to the consistency of candyfloss which seem to annoy people. Even if you're using Velvia at f/32 then you should be able to get 1/8 sec assuming the light is reasonable.
|
|
DaveS
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
30/03/2008 18:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
At the risk if being prescious, I would say i try to record the truth of what I saw and felt. I don't mind blury water for effect, but wouldn't overdo it. To a large extent I find myself in sympathy with the Group f/64 school of thought, even to buying a 10x8 and making contact prints. I agree that ansel Adams's prints are beutiful, but it should be remembered that even he talked about "creative departures from reality", though if the effect applied draws attention to itself rather than the photograph then it, and the photographer have both failed. What I do very strongly object to is a photo trying to pretend it's some other art-form eg watercolour. A photo is a photo and should be proud of that, not shamefacedly try to pretend to be somthing else.
wow what a long and rambling post 
Dave
Oh, and a BTW, this week's issue is the best for a long time, just brilliant!
|
|
parisian
|
|
(Over the hill and far away...)
|
|
30/03/2008 21:23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
About 70/30in favour of impressions.
|
|
|
|
Your photography: Truth or Fiction? Truth ....
|
|
... although, sometimes, it's the truth that people
wish was fiction 
Cheers,
Jack
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
and once captured, an image no longer reflects current reality anyway.
Oooh, deep stuff, special relativity, Mach cones etc. In fact it doesn't even do that, the light that formed the image was recording a reality that already no longer exists by the time it reaches the camera!
But isn't the essence of a photograph that it captures a two-dimensional map of the smoothed average of whatever portion of the real Universe was seen by the camera lens during the exposure?
Indeed. however, it doesn't capture what the eye sees, and that's really why I contend it's not reality - to be more accurate, I should argue that it's not the same reality that a person would observe. As photographers, we toy with perspective, with depth of field, with colour or indeed monochrome, and with the stopping - or blurring - of a moving object in a way the eye doesn't. That for me is the power of photography - it captures something real enough, but in a way that's never entirely real.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Hooray! At last the backlash against candyfloss water, brown ND grad clouds and intense saturation begins!
I've been waving the current issue of AP under peoples' noses and telling them "told you so: I've been banging on about this for ages" like a crazed loon.
Truth or fiction? How can you tell if the act of observing something doesn't change what it is you're observing? (Wanders off mumbling about the sound a tree makes if it falls in a forest without anyone to hear it. Fails to hear said tree falling and promptly gets squashed).
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
How can you tell if the act of observing something doesn't change what it is you're observing?
It always does, however Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle sets an upper limit on the change that is possible.
|
|
Per
|
|
(old hand)
|
|
31/03/2008 12:38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
It seems that good photography is inherently 'true' to the photographer's vision. There are lots of truths in the landscape, some generally overlooked, so singling out one or two (and a healthy passion for the subject) gives the truth more impact.
Personally, I see the fiction approach as a side show/distraction to improving my own work so try to avoid it. After all, free time spent in front of the PC is time not taking landscapes!
[BTW I'm pretty chuffed to have some images in the Gallery this week - happy happy happy ]
|
|
Hotblack
|
|
(Dead Horse Flogger)
|
|
31/03/2008 14:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I thought that must be you, Per. Congratulations. 
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Do you try to enhance what you see, or do you strive to faithfully represent reality? And actually, does it matter?
Dunno. I'll ask Monet, Turner and Renoir what they think at our next seance .....
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I think photography has always had two distinct functions:
1) To represent reality - eg as in photojournalism, recording for the purposes of illustrating how something actually appears , and dental photography.
2) To interpret reality. By choice of lens, film, filter, developer, developing technique, print paper, filters for contrast, dodging, burning, etc etc and all the digital equivalents.
If I want or need to represent something as it is I do it, but to me the 'art' of photography allows an individual's choice of interpretive techniques to achieve something that didn't actually exist, even for an 8000th of a second. So I was in the minority ticling the second box.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I think photography has always had two distinct functions:
1) To represent reality - eg as in photojournalism, recording for the purposes of illustrating how something actually appears , and dental photography.
2) To interpret reality. By choice of lens, film, filter, developer, developing technique, print paper, filters for contrast, dodging, burning, etc etc and all the digital equivalents.
If I want or need to represent something as it is I do it, but to me the 'art' of photography allows an individual's choice of interpretive techniques to achieve something that didn't actually exist, even for an 8000th of a second. So I was in the minority ticling the second box.
^^^WHS^^^
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
01/04/2008 15:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Do you try to enhance what you see, or do you strive to faithfully represent reality? And actually, does it matter?
damien
Often I try to reproduce what I thought I saw... Camera's on the other hand have an irritating tendency to reproduce what was actually there....... 
At other times I try to end up with a picture that gives visual satisfaction to me (and hopefully others) regardless of whether the result is a 'faithful' reproduction of of the scene.
Does it matter?
Not to my way of thinking. Reproduction of a scene has always been subject to variations in the observer and even if we leave him/her out of the equation then variations and limitations in the make-up and or specification of the capture medium - be it paint, silver halide or photo-voltaic cells - will mean no scene is going to be reproduced perfectly. As long as the end result is enjoyable the degree of veracity is of peripheral importance - unless the image is for forensic or record purposes of course.
Not sure I'd like to live in a world where all pictures had to be utterly true to life - which often isn't all that pretty any way...
|
|
Zou
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
01/04/2008 19:24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I don't believe photography actually can represent reality in anything other than a purely transient sense (and not really even then), and once captured, an image no longer reflects current reality anyway. So I make no pretence that I attempt to portray reality; rather I try to portray my impressions. Sometimes that's close to what might be perceived as reality, sometimes it's not. I think Joe Cornish's comments in this week's edition sum up my thoughts rather nicely, even if I'm not at all sure his photos necessarily do.
I take that quote and write it as my own. But that's the kind of thing 96.4% of landscapers would do. So I'll just say I agree with it totally.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
When I was a nipper my art teacher asked me what colour a pillar in the classroom was. "Yellow".
"But you could say right now it's black because it's backlit by strong sunlight and it looks black".
So is the truth recording the real colour we know something is, or the colour it looks to our eyes under whatever the ambient light is? In any case we'll probably fail miserably due to the limitations of our kit (and skill).
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
In any case we'll probably fail miserably due to the limitations of our kit (and skill).
Most of us have kit that is a great deal more competent than my skill 
|
|
Per
|
|
(old hand)
|
|
02/04/2008 10:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
My partner (Marian) read Damien's article last night and read his last sentence out loud (p25), exclaiming that it really summed up what she thought too, as a non-photographer/observer.
And yet the poll shows most of us think our photography is telling the truth. Anyone care to explain the apparent inconsistency? Have we got so used to dragging the sliders that we've forgotten what realism looks like?
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
02/04/2008 12:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
And yet the poll shows most of us think our photography is telling the truth. Anyone care to explain the apparent inconsistency? Have we got so used to dragging the sliders that we've forgotten what realism looks like?
It's probably more indicative of our conviction that we are telling the truth as we think we saw/remember it. I was watching a piece on the telly the other night about photo-fit pictures and how much witness descriptions of the same scene or individuals can vary. I suspect that our memories of what the scene really looked like are likely to vary to much the same extent.
Couple that to a desire to produce a good, satisfying picture and you inevitably have a recipe for tweaking.
Unrealistic reproduction is hardly the sole province of digital either. Velvia IMO produces colours that are every bit as unrepresentative of reality as anything PS can do - especially if a polariser is involved...
|
|
Per
|
|
(old hand)
|
|
02/04/2008 12:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Velvia IMO produces colours that are every bit as unrepresentative of reality as anything PS can do
I'm right behind you there, and this is one topic that Damien covers with a Velvia/Astia/Provia comparison. It's an excellent article, worth the cover price.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Velvia IMO produces colours that are every bit as unrepresentative of reality as anything PS can do
I disagree absolutely. Firstly, I think it represents the colours I see better than any other, but more importantly, it's the only film that differentiates between shades of green. Kodachrome produces basically two shades - a dark green, and a sickly yellow-green. And that's it - now for me, that's completely unrealistic colour reproduction, but some people seem to think it's more realistic than Velvia. I've never understood that rather bizarre position, TBH.
|
|
Zou
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
02/04/2008 13:22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Velvia IMO produces colours that are every bit as unrepresentative of reality as anything PS can do - especially if a polariser is involved...
Rubbish. The film only reflects the technique of the user. Look at the recent AP (March something) with the winners of a Velvia competition. You can get unrealistic results with any film, especially if you use filters.
I would agree that a lot of users do expose Velvia so as to increase the blues, and that can look garish, but the film itself is just a starting point.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
02/04/2008 13:23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
There's a difference between simply differentiating shades of green and differentiating them and reproducing the whole gamut with an intensity that is unnatural......
Velvia seems to be the Marmite of the film world - you either love it or you don't. I'd place myself in the latter camp with one small caveat - in low light conditions it is in a class of it's own.
Oh and I rarely bother with Ektachrome these days - far too blue... God knows how Kodak managed to screw it up so badly...
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
But I don't see it as at all unnatural - how come your eyesight is so dodgy that you do?
Seriously, I think we all see colour differently, and in normal use, I don't actually think Velvia is at all unnatural in colour. Whack on a pola and it is, for sure.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
02/04/2008 13:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Not rubbish. Velvia is intended to produce vibrant saturated colours which, as I say above, it does exceptionally well in low light conditions. However the as soon the lighting is even average it starts to overdo it.
I have a feeling that there was a fairly recent AP interview with a well known photographer who prefers to use Sensia in good light for that self same reason...
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
02/04/2008 13:33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
But I don't see it as at all unnatural - how come your eyesight is so dodgy that you do?
I've been a trained colour matcher and shade sorter for more years than I care to admit to... Perhaps I'm a bit more sensitive than the average man in the street...
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Seriously, I think we all see colour differently,
Sure. There was a program on the TV recently which showed the very different proportions of "red" and "green" sensitive cones in the retina of people with allegedly normal colour vision ... the variation was from approx. 20:1 ratio in favour of the greens to 20:1 in favour of the "reds". I suppose it's remarkable that we can even agree on what colours approximately match.
Quote:
and in normal use, I don't actually think Velvia is at all unnatural in colour.
It is unnaturally "warm" - somewhere between an 81A and an 81B filter, by my eyes, compared with the colour balance of Fuji's other transparency films ... all of which are "warm" in comparison with Kodachrome. Which one is most accurate does of course depend on the lighting at the time the image is made. However there can be no argument about Velvia making images more saturated than they really are - in dull or flat light, this can help rescue an image from being completely lifeless, but it's also very easy to let the saturation overwhelm an image. If that's the effect you're looking for, then fine, but don't claim it's real.
Quote:
Whack on a pola and it is, for sure.
 Surely polarizing filters are supposed to be colour neutral?
OK, in practise the polarizing effect is less at the extreme short end of the spectrum (violet), but I still wouldn't expect a significant colour shift. OTOH polarizers tend to increase colour saturation, and Velvia already has that in spades.
Must admit that I haven't used a polarizing filter with Velvia ... I used to use one quite a lot with Kodachrome 25, but IMO Velvia's characteristics are such as to not need one. A ND grad is in any case a better way of darkening (and therefore saturating the blue of) the sky, if that's the effect you want.
|
|
DaveS
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
02/04/2008 17:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I don't like Velvia, never have (But I'm glad it's back for those who do). Much more an Astia man, when I used to use colour film. Althouh I would defer to El Sid's expertese, I did have my colour vision checked when I aplied for a job colour matching in a paint factory and came out "perfect" what ever that is.
BTW, didn't get the job, ah, well never mind, it was near 20 years ago.
Dave
|
|
Mojo_66
|
|
(Rain Kat)
|
|
02/04/2008 22:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I disagree absolutely. Firstly, I think it represents the colours I see better than any other, but more importantly, it's the only film that differentiates between shades of green. Kodachrome produces basically two shades - a dark green, and a sickly yellow-green. And that's it - now for me, that's completely unrealistic colour reproduction, but some people seem to think it's more realistic than Velvia. I've never understood that rather bizarre position, TBH.
WHS. I find Velvia can give very realistic results if exposed well, and it's one of the few films that records bluebells blue. I've found that results from Velvia most accurately record the scene as I remember it, whereas with other films I'm sometimes a little disappointed with the colour balance and saturation.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I find Velvia can give very realistic results if exposed well, and it's one of the few films that records bluebells blue.
Bluebells are not the only "blue" flowers which easily turn pink when photographed. No problems with other flowers though - e.g. Germander speedwell seems to come out right whatever you do.
I remember checking this out, it seems that some blue flowers including bluebells are very reflective in the near infra red; colour films tend to pick this up as "red" causing the pink tinge; to cure the problem, use an IR cut filter which causes no shift in colour balance for normal objects but removes the pink tinge from blue flowers which are bright in the near infra red.
Presumably Velvia is less sensitive than most colour films to near infra red; so are most digital cameras, in fact these manage to lose a considerable amount of the visible deep red as well. Having said that, photographing bluebells in sunlight is pretty well guaranteed to go wrong, even with Velvia. Shoot them in the shade, or on an overcast day, if you want the colours to appear natural. Or, as I say, use an IR cut filter.
|
|
Adesw
|
|
(The phantom flasher)
|
|
03/04/2008 08:24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Of course mine is fictional. We live in england!!
|
|
DaveS
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
03/04/2008 11:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
It would be an interesting experiment to try looking at bluebells (Or other "blue" flowers) through an Ilford SFX filter to see if they are "bright". The normal human vision extends to roughly 770-780 nm, ie into the near photographic infra-red (By deffinition, true infra-red starts where human vision ends). I know I can see the potassium K lines at 768 nm, and can see the "infra-red effect" through a SXF filter if there is enough light.
Dave
|
|
Hwntws
|
|
(addict)
|
|
03/04/2008 13:14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Of course mine is fictional. We live in england!!
Ahem, Do we ??
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
03/04/2008 13:36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course mine is fictional. We live in england!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahem, Do we ??
Yep... Wales is just that bit where they speak really funny........
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course mine is fictional. We live in england!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahem, Do we ??
Yep... Wales is just that bit where they speak really funny........
Thought that was Birmingham?
Whoops, I've just remembered - Birmingham is in Wales. Well, according to Huw...
|
|
AGW
|
|
()
|
|
04/04/2008 08:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Ah ha....more fiction!
Graeme
|
|
Mojo_66
|
|
(Rain Kat)
|
|
04/04/2008 12:02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
It would be an interesting experiment to try looking at bluebells (Or other "blue" flowers) through an Ilford SFX filter to see if they are "bright". The normal human vision extends to roughly 770-780 nm, ie into the near photographic infra-red (By deffinition, true infra-red starts where human vision ends). I know I can see the potassium K lines at 768 nm, and can see the "infra-red effect" through a SXF filter if there is enough light.
Dave
Isn't it more UV that bluebells reflect?
|
|
DaveS
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
04/04/2008 15:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Im sure they do reflect a lot of UV, but both film and vision have a similar UV cut-off point, and in any case the thick layers of glass in lenses (Esp high RI types) will block anything below about 380, or even 400 nm, vision going down to about 396 nm, the H and K lines of ionised calcium in the solar spectrum. The discussion was about blue bluebells and other blue flowers turning purlple due to excessive IR response of colour film, and some sensors, beyond the human red limit.
Dave
|
|
Learning
|
|
(Ethelred the Ill-Named)
|
|
04/04/2008 21:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I see the gentle manipulation of colours and contrast as enhancement. I see the removal or addition of subjects ito a photograph as fiction or fakery. That was the point, which I made badly, if at all, of a recent thread which I started about what one could do in NX as opposed to Photoshop. I also feel that there is an enormous grey area in between. I think that I know the difference but I cannot fully explain it and I accept that everyone will have their own opinion as to where the line lies.
As to my own photography, it is mostly truth, not because I am particularly honest, but because I don't yet have the skills to manipulate the fiction as I would like.
|
|
Learning
|
|
(Ethelred the Ill-Named)
|
|
04/04/2008 21:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Whoops, I've just remembered - Birmingham is in Wales. Well, according to Huw...
No Birmingham is not in Wales; the Brums just pinch the water from Wales.
|
|
Monobod
|
|
('Phantom' of the forum!)
|
|
05/04/2008 19:33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I think truth ends when a photograph sets out to decieve. Removing a couple of people from a landscape does not change the landscpe and the image tells the truth. Te people are transitional and might not be there tommorrow.
Removing the sky and adding a vulcano with lava runs and overcast sky is obviously a lie and intended to decieve.
But if that is made clear, then it is just a manipulated image done to achieve an effect. No harm done.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Most of my colleagues give me patronizing looks and shrug their shoulders when I say I do not like to Photoshop my images unless it is absolutely necessary (to the extent of eliminating some minor detail that may be ruining a photo) and try to be absolutely perfectionist from the picture taking moment. The only thing I may do is perhaps a monochrome conversion, some unsharp mask and some saturation play and not much more.
At the same time, I am more of a supporter of the artistry of the lens, technique and the traditional darkroom manipulation where one's skills really come to light. But even the extent of manipulation in the darkroom has limits unlike the digital format. I see many people throwing technique out the window because they feel they can always photoshop everything. And that's what peeves me.
|
|
gollum
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
08/04/2008 23:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Its an art, and if its visually pleasing in someway then thats fine no matter if its fact or fiction. Personally I can't claim to know enough about digitally enhancing yet but im learning all the time and probably will use it if i think it adds something to the image.
Did someone mention photo jornalist portraying the truth....yeah right!
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
On another site I was in deep s**t for giving my wiew of a vastly over colored shot. After many viewers had swamped it with ooh`s and ahh`s. Talk about the emperors new clothes it was unbelievable. Dark grey skies and a blue sea. John Constable would turn in his grave if he saw some of these shots.
|
|
Monobod
|
|
('Phantom' of the forum!)
|
|
10/04/2008 00:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Most of my colleagues give me patronizing looks and shrug their shoulders when I say I do not like to Photoshop my images unless it is absolutely necessary (to the extent of eliminating some minor detail that may be ruining a photo) and try to be absolutely perfectionist from the picture taking moment. The only thing I may do is perhaps a monochrome conversion, some unsharp mask and some saturation play and not much more.
At the same time, I am more of a supporter of the artistry of the lens, technique and the traditional darkroom manipulation where one's skills really come to light. But even the extent of manipulation in the darkroom has limits unlike the digital format. I see many people throwing technique out the window because they feel they can always photoshop everything. And that's what peeves me.
I think, perhaps, there is a fundamental misconception that Photoshop can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. It cannot IMHO. If an image is poorly framed, badly timed or simply the subject is dull and boring, no amount of manipulation will overcome that. It can improve on poor exposure or a shifted colour balance, but it can never add the 'Wow Factor' that makes an image stand above the crowd.
There is also a misconception that it is easy to modify an image in Photoshop. The old addage that you just hit the 'done' button. To get the best out of Photoshop requires a great deal of practice and skill, as well as good old fashioned 'intuition' to apply the numerous tools and techniques correctly, so that the final image looks as if it had been taken that way all along. This is what sets the secret art of the lightroom 'Chefs' apart from the hum drum 'cooks'. 'Master Chefs' is what we all strive to become,both before and after taking the photo.
|
|
alanS
|
|
(Dr Dust)
|
|
10/04/2008 11:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
I see many pictures that are moved too far from what I'd ever see if I stood at the spot the shot was taken from all year round.
It's not just a photoshop issue either as filters can also be used to remove the shot from reality, and that's before setting the shutter speed to blur water.
There's a place for a higher degree of artistry but I think it gets done to death, or at least published in mags to death.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I don't like Velvia, never have (But I'm glad it's back for those who do). Much more an Astia man, when I used to use colour film
You mean there's someone else out there who uses Astia? I thought the rest of the world and his/her dog only ever used Velvia
|
|
Monobod
|
|
('Phantom' of the forum!)
|
|
10/04/2008 16:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
No, I use Provia 100F and I love the natural colours.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
I think, perhaps, there is a fundamental misconception that Photoshop can turn a sows ear into a silk purse.
My perception of it is photoshop can turn a silk purse into a sow's ear. Seen any postcard stands lately? They're slowly turning into a nightmare of computer-'enhanced' colours.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
10/04/2008 17:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think, perhaps, there is a fundamental misconception that Photoshop can turn a sows ear into a silk purse.
My perception of it is photoshop can turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.
I'm an expert in that department!....
Quote:
Seen any postcard stands lately? They're slowly turning into a nightmare of computer-'enhanced' colours.
True... after years of being generally wishy washy you now need a full radiation suit and welding goggles to even approach one....
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
as we all see color in different ways it is very hard to make a comment which is not subjective. e.g when we put glass beads in photoshop I am seeing a slightly different hue then my wife so it agrees with the saying don,t let the facts spoil the truth.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - Your photography: Truth or Fiction?
|
|
Much as I would like to be able to produce truthful images, I am very aware that 'What I Saw was Not What I Got' ... (WISWNWIG) rather than the wanted WYSIWYG. Look at the TVs in any AV store and you will be subjected to some of the most appalling examples of how people perceive colours; I know a number of people who do colour-matching for the film industry and am amazed by their ability to perceive very subtle variations in colours and more importantly, making the required colour corrections. It is, a 'Black Art' and a skill which very few people possess. I am told that the receptor cones in the eye are more sensitive to certain areas of the colour spectrum, which the brain automatically compensates for, but this 'processing' is also subject to the emotional states we are in at the time of taking the image, and later on, when we generate the end result of our efforts. So, the chances of us producing a truthful reprentation of what we originally saw, is very slim. Maybe this is why in commercial photographic studios, they employ colour-swatches in the corner of an image.
As for the scene and ensuring that one conveys the feelings that the particular scene portrayed when you take the image, that is probably just as murky a situation. I suppose the only way one could ensure that an image gets across what you saw when photographing something, would be by also presenting with that image, a section of text which puts across the photographers feelings. There is that old hackneyed phrase, 'A picture says a thousand words', but unless they are presented in text, an image will be subject to misinterpretation because generally, text is not included with the image you are looking at.
|
