Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by MickLL, Jan 29, 2014.
Join the club, Catriona. I only got two acceptances (out of 8 submitted!!).
That was good with this one! I got nothing. I really stepped out of the zone with this one though, so serves me right going my own way.
The usual acceptance rate seems to be one in four to one in three. The Salons I have hated and crossed off my list, were the ones who only reported Award winners and Acceptances, so I got no idea how badly I did. The ones I liked were Belgium, Germany and Cork (Ireland). I felt a little more at home in those.
I always look for other Scottish entrants and am pleasantly surprised to see people doing really well!
PS I'm on 19 acceptances so far. Debating whether to plod on or not...
What are your opinions of removing chromatic aberration, sharpening, exposure blending and contrast adjustments to get a more realistic image?
I'm personally not a fan of the overcooked look and like photos to look reasonably realistic. I don't think there's anything wrong with changing the white balance to suit the mood, or boost contrast, but don't like the overcooked HDR look
Just out of interest then ..... what did you think people did when they developed photographs from film? In effect, it was photo manipulation.
There is a difference between adjustment and manipulation.
IMHO adjustment allows you to correct exposure (levels), adjust white balance, minor cropping, dodging and burning, and a little sharpening, to improve what is there or to make the photograph look like you imagined it when you took it.
Manipulation, overcooking HDR, adding things that were not there in the first place, and trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, is not photography; it may well be art, though, if you like that sort of thing.
Manipulation was certainly possible with film photography, but a lot more time-consuming, and probably only practised by the ultra-enthusiast. Simply developing photographs from a film is/was not manipulation.
Re: Digital Art - For Roger
I have at last studied the links that you gave. I was fascinated and had no idea about either Barbey or Uelsmann. I always knew, of course, about multiple printing (even tried it myself a couple of times) but had never seen it used in that way before.
Thanks . I've learned quite a lot.
I haven't even heard of most of them, I just line up the shot, focus and zoom how I want and take the picture, if I don't think it's come out right I might take several pictures. If they come out how I want, brilliant, if not then I either delete the picture once it's on my computer or keep it as a reminder of how not to fudge it up again.
Transfer it to the print paper, that bit I'm not sure on, then dunk the print in the chemicals to develop it. I haven't had a film camera since I was about 17 at the latest so never actually developed my film photographs myself, but the only really bad picture on my camera (other than attempting to photograph a rodeo in the USA) was when my sister tried using my camera and cut my head out of the shot.
Re: Digital Art - For Roger
You are more than welcome. I hope your houseful of sick people is feeling better!
So a bit of a lucky dip then? What most of us would describe as the "skill" of a photographer is to be able to be sure of getting them to come out how you want more often than not.
It might be time for me to dig this pic out again
...and that comparison doesn't take account of all the "manipulation" we did "in-camera" with film, Phil.
From using filters and prisms in front of the lens, through to double (or multiple) exposures. Most enthusiast-level cameras were built to allow such manipulation - such as a button to over-ride the double exposure prevention mechanism.
And no-one would question the fact that all the jiggery-pokery that we got up to with film - whether in the camera or in the darkroom - was "photography".
Very good point - I may add that in before the next time i use the image
99.9% of the time I get the perfect image first time, I only get a poor quality photograph when the wind moves my subject, I get the aza shakes or I'm doing something experimental, for example testing out camera functions or a new style. Part of this might be that I will happily wade out to waist depth in a lake mid-winter or lie down on the ground in the mud to get the shot I want, or maybe I just have a natural eye as has been suggested in the past. I don't generally need to edit my photographs because I have achieved the image I wanted, and usually it takes me about five seconds to line up the shot. Is that luck or a natural skill?
I don't use a professional camera with interchangeable lenses either, I have a bridge camera, all be it low end, which I was given as a gift at Christmas and the point and click camera I owned before that was one of only two cameras I have bought myself. I am, and always have been, working class so there's no way I can afford to buy expensive equipment, I can't even afford to have a weekend away to change the scenery of my photographs.
All that aside, just because I don't know what the terms mean and don't use any form of manipulation in my photography, it doesn't lessen my work as a photographer. I'm unlikely to ever own anything beyond a bridge camera and I'm happy with that and I'm happy with the work I produce, there's always room for improvement and no one will ever be 100% accurate or 100% perfect (even if they think they are) but that's what makes those photographs all the more special, the tiny imperfections, the slight blur of the wind moving a leaf, the flash reflecting off of mist at night, they're all beautiful and unique so why try and alter the natural beauty of imperfection?
Or, for that matter, a consequence of the kind of pictures you choose to shoot?
I might have preferred to have seen a negative in there Roger. "....the kind of pictures you choose not to shoot."
Even then, though, I'd be delighted to get anywhere near 99.9% success. Guess I just don't have the luck, the natural skill or the ability to discriminate between what I can or can't do.
It's other people that should decide that.
I hope this doesn't sound harsh, but you don't seem to understand the limitations of a camera and that what you consider to be improper manipulation can in fact be making a photo more realistic. For example, when you look at a tree against the light, do your eyes see bright blue or orange fringes on branches? When the camera captures that it's a fault of the lens (chromatic aberration) and can be simply removed in Photoshop. There are more examples which can be made
Me too. In fact I'd be happy with a 9.99% success rate. Maybe I'm too harsh a critic - I'm always binning stuff that SWMBO thinks is amazing.
Me too. Although I think I am reasonably competent there are only a handful of images taken over the years that I actually think of as not bad and one of those is technically awful.
Well, I know what I can and can't do. And one of the things I can't do is get it right 99.99% of the time.
This suggests to me that either I don't restrict myself to subjects that are totally undemanding or that I am slightly more demanding about the quality of the pictures I take. I chose the former and more generous interpretation.
But what do I know?
I think you are right Roger.
If I am taking photos to use on eBay, I may achieve 90%+ success rate, if I am taking 'creative' photos then my 'success' rate is 0.90%!
Maybe my success rate is due to low self esteem or poor judgement, but if I'm not happy with my work then would anyone? If I like the picture I consider it a success whether it's technically sound or completely "wrong" and if you aren't happy with yourself and your work, how can others be?
Separate names with a comma.