Tungsten sunsetSaturday, April 16. 2005Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Thanks for sharing this gorgeous image and for your thoughts on image processing
That’s a good question...where is the threshold? As a veteran of both b&w and color darkrooms for many years, my threshold is only doing in photoshop what I could do in the darkroom. For me, anything more than that is too much. This photo does not seem over done to me. I especially like the deep blue that frames the top of the frame.
What matters to me is what the photographer wants to show and the effect the image will have on its viewers. As such I don’t think I have a fixed limit on digital manipulation; for some pictures just a few corrections are enough and for others you can go mad with photoshop and it’ll still please me. As for this shot, I love its soft tones.
Beautiful image, and thanks for explaining how it was done. I also play with white balance in the RAW converter, but haven’t tried it in this sort of situation. I don’t think there’s a single right answer to what kinds of PS manipulation are acceptable; it all depends on the type of photography you’re doing (e.g., photojournalism vs. fine art) and what you’re trying to accomplish.
I like what you have done with this photo, then again my tastes sometimes lean towards darker images.
I accidentally left the D70 WB calibrated for a tungsten setup the other day and shot a whole bunch of outside photos. Needless to say I was very happy that I shoot RAW. So is the white balance just some sort of meta data accompanying the RAW file? That would seem to make the most sense. If so, then it would seem you ought to be able to swap WB files with other photographers.
I tend to agree with Matt on this one. At some point you cross a line from photograph to computer generated graphic design. This photo is nowhere close to that line though. And on the flip side there are some pretty bizarre things you can do to a photo in the darkroom that go way beyond “nomal” processing, so that analogy probably breaks down at some point. I really like the sky writing in the wisps of cloud.
I often use my PC for corrections; one of the features of street photography is that very often there’s no time for hassling with the camera’s settings, and so many times I end up with images that are over or under exposed. Other than that it’s important for me to put my ‘stamp’ on my photos; to add my own interpretation. Street photography is about documenting the streets but unlike photojournalism it’s also about creating strong images of things we see everyday. It’s not an easy challenge but it can be done if the photographer adds their own interpretation to the scene. This is where Photoshop can be useful. As long as we stay honest to the original scene, things like adding contrast, cropping an image or enhancing the colors can help in making a statement.
And by the way, when I printed my photos in the darkroom, so very often people advised me to take it easy with the filters as there is “too much” contrast to my prints… in fact, I developed my “anti-correctness during my darkroom days!
I agree with Leigh, the deep blue framing the top of the image is excellent. I like this photo and would not say its been manipulated - its the final image that counts.
In my opinion photography is about “making” an image. Using computers to manipulate an image will not alter an awful image and make it excellent. The photographer has an image in mind and tries to transfer that to a photograph - a computer is just a tool. My digital camera is set to minimise any manipulation by the camera on board computer as it can be done better within photoshop.
Jerry, yes it is as you say. The white balance is just a set of “curves” (in the photoshop sense) that are applied to the image. If you shoot JPG the curves are applied before saving the image. In RAW they are not applied until you import them in Photoshop (or you use the software provided by your camera manufacturer). The RAW file only has an EXIF keyword telling which white balance setting the camera was; the white balance files are not included with the photo but should be included in the software processing the image.
I have recently read that Photoshop will not support one of the Nikon D2X cameras because their “white balance” curves are not public and Adobe doesn’t want to risk being sued for reverse engineer them. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1524203
I really like the colors, and the image, i share the opinions of all of you, it all comes to “what the photographer wants to show” or the way he remembers it, the idea in his head. One should be able to use anything one can to express. As of shooting method (RAW or WB) i can’t say much, as my camera is not that good, as i am a student and have not enough money to afford a better one than a Canon Powershot A75, which is great for it’s type by the way! it’s got different whitebalancing settings, including auto and Custom, you can set a nice balance using that last feature. I really enjoy reading your texts as well as watching your photos, great Blog!
Art is art - manipulating an image can be part of the artistic process as far as I’m concerned. The most important thing for me is that the final image matches up to what it looks like in my mind’s eye. If that means curve bending, contrast adjustments, dodging, burning, cloning... so be it. This is, of course, assuming that it’s not intended to be a photojournalistic image.
That being said... I think that as photographers, we do owe it to ourselves to learn to use our cameras as well as possible instead of just taking random snapshots and then manipulating the heck out of them in Photoshop. I think your manipulation here is relatively light, and is tastefully done.
A very interesting result, which makes we want to try something similar myself. I’ve thought about your question a lot lately. I don’t think I have a predetermined threshhold. On occasion, I have liked photos that have been altered to within an inch of their lives. But extreme manipulations can also turn me off. Sometimes, PS effects will enhance the impact of a photo, but other times they just turn a dull photo into a dull photo with a cheesy effect. I think it all depends on the particular photograph, and the artist’s eye. As for my own photography, I tend not to do extreme photoshopping, but that doesn’t mean I can’t like the results when I see this done in other photos.
Add Comment
|
Calendar
QuicksearchCategoriesBlog Administration |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||