Digital or Digitized ?

[ellery]

grin I think you do not do very much darkroom work. If you did you would know there are parrells in what is down in PS and what is done in the darkroom. Getting it right in camera is imporantant but refine it to excellence is a must if excellence is what you are after. Note digital is almost similar to film if you can not get it right in capture you may not be able to do too much to it afters - gross errors are unrecoverable - example blown out high lights remain blown out unless you take another frame - even raw files can only do some much.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice how much you want to DI and how real looking you want the finished to be. there is no right or wrong.

 

[vince123123]

I would opine that the photograph is only a type of documentary evidence to proof or disproof a certain point. Doesn't matter if its film or digital based. In any event, you would have to print it out anyway.

hmmmm.....now this topic bring a rather interesting thing to me...

can someone tell me, in the eye of the law, which format of photography in recongised. Film or digital? I know film is one format that is accepted but let say if the digital one have not been edited and its the original as in straight from camera, in the eye of the law, would they still view it as a evidence or a proof againest someone or something?

 

[vince123123]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

grin I think you do not do very much darkroom work. If you did you would know there are parrells in what is down in PS and what is done in the darkroom. Getting it right in camera is imporantant but refine it to excellence is a must if excellence is what you are after. Note digital is almost similar to film if you can not get it right in capture you may not be able to do too much to it afters - gross errors are unrecoverable - example blown out high lights remain blown out unless you take another frame - even raw files can only do some much.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice how much you want to DI and how real looking you want the finished to be. there is no right or wrong.

 

[rhythm_traveller]

theITguy:
I guess what you are saying is that every thing needs a makeover ?

obewan:
totally agree. I'm not saying we shouldn't edit, but at least not overboard. If i require a photo that really sucks, and the only alternative is to enhance it to a presentation stage but not superimposed.

sriram:
exactly what i'm saying. Because of digital camera technology, everyone is moving towards digitization of the photos. No more true blue "this is the natural photo" thingy. One good thing here is that when every acknowledges the photo, they did not suggest to edit the photo, but they do comment on the framing, lighting etc. That itself i really appreciate.

xpose:
from what i know when the photo is used as an evidence, it will be presented to the defendant for acknowledgement. Defendant should he plead not guilty, it will be decided if this photo should be an evidence at all. Of cos if the photo is digital, the defense always could dismiss this evidence as it maybe digitally modified. Well these are from law and order, so not sure how true :bsmilie:

 

[rhythm_traveller]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

relax bro. Its all words and discussion

 

[ParkertR]

Anyone want to demonstrate take 3 pictures to create 1 picture just to see for fun?
Someone did a good job creating a NG mag last nite.

errr... what do u mean?

 

[Xpose]

theITguy:
I guess what you are saying is that every thing needs a makeover ?

xpose:
from what i know when the photo is used as an evidence, it will be presented to the defendant for acknowledgement. Defendant should he plead not guilty, it will be decided if this photo should be an evidence at all. Of cos if the photo is digital, the defense always could dismiss this evidence as it maybe digitally modified. Well these are from law and order, so not sure how true :bsmilie:

thats what i've been thinking also.....if lets say you met wif a car accident and if both party do not want the police to be involve, you take out ou digicam and start snapping while the other party starts shooting with film and since it a accident, definitely both party would take shots that will add to their advantage and when it streams down to the insurance side, the other party start accusing you of manupliating the images, is there any way to prove that you have not been manupliating with the images? Cos my dad friends who is a car machanic told us that digi images will not be taken in as proof be it in court or private claiming againest the other party insurance company :dunno:

 

[rhythm_traveller]

grin I think you do not do very much darkroom work. If you did you would know there are parrells in what is down in PS and what is done in the darkroom. Getting it right in camera is imporantant but refine it to excellence is a must if excellence is what you are after. Note digital is almost similar to film if you can not get it right in capture you may not be able to do too much to it afters - gross errors are unrecoverable - example blown out high lights remain blown out unless you take another frame - even raw files can only do some much.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice how much you want to DI and how real looking you want the finished to be. there is no right or wrong.

In fact, i do not do any darkroom work at all. I just send my photos to a local film developing store and well it always turn out petty good. Obviously the guy doing it is pretty good at developing films. Definitely i agree with you the excellence is achieved thru photo editing but what i'm trying to say is that sometimes this masked the true image thru extreme editing. I guess this don't fall into all categories especially print news where the actual photo image is important and the essence is more important than excellence. Where in studio shots, its the other way around. However i feel most of them time, this is the case.

 

[theITguy]

theITguy:
I guess what you are saying is that every thing needs a makeover ?

No, what I am trying to say is that you are trying to say everything do not need a makeover. A makeover is according to what you want to tell others about your picture. To do it or not is up to personal preference.

 

[firestone]

DI artist here, guess no one manipulates an image more than I.

Very often,some shots are impossible or too costly to shoot, costly as in time and money. Purist will find it hard to survive in the mkt as Professionals.

Digital Imaging is here to stay...
Hmm, to me it almost sounds like saying 'Don't use a zoom-lens, cause you were not standing so near to the subject...'LOL

 

[loupgarou]

xpose:
from what i know when the photo is used as an evidence, it will be presented to the defendant for acknowledgement. Defendant should he plead not guilty, it will be decided if this photo should be an evidence at all. Of cos if the photo is digital, the defense always could dismiss this evidence as it maybe digitally modified. Well these are from law and order, so not sure how true

hah. this I can say is almost bullshit.

a) shoot in RAW,. we know raw can't be modified. thus can act as a digital negative.

b) shooting in digital, alter image, print to film, then say lost negative, vs to shoot in film, scan, alter image, print to film, then say lost negative, any output difference (other than the lack of grain in the former..8)

 

[denniskee]

hi

I noticed almost 90% the pictures posted here has been digitized using either PS or whatever software. I used to have the passion and belief that taking photographs is a hunting sport. It freezes the target in its ultimate moment making it a legend with the colors, motion, lighting true to that moment only.

It seems like these has faded away with new digital technology. Meaning that with digital cameras, photographers not only are able to anyhow shoot, but even worse anyhow edit the photos to their liking.

The point is that 90% of the photos posted here have been edited. Why is that so ? Photos on film are edited by enhancing their color at the film shop, but now digital photos are edited with special effects, fake colors, cropping and other non essential addition to achieve what the photographer wants and not what the photographic moment should be portraying.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I do minimal editing. That maybe my demise, but i strongly believe to freeze the moment at the very best I could without editing. In australia, the photographers actually despises those who edit their photos profusely making a photograph into a picture, a newspaper article into a magazine centre piece.

This might be harsh, but don't flame me I just wanna know if anyone feels the way I do. To see a photo the way it is, depending on the moment, skill, timing away from home, instead of depending on digital technology to gain what you want at home.

So are you a passionate photographer or a passionate photographic editor ? :dunno:

I thought even in the era of B&W photography, when color negative is still not popular / expensive, they also do post processing, burning, dodging? So is that a difference just because we use software to do it instead?

Anyway, post processing of film used to be for the pros, than it spread to the greater masses. But the no. is no where near what it is now, since most have computer and the software to do it. Is that not better to for the photography community?

Just my opinion.

 

[rhythm_traveller]

hah. this I can say is almost bullshit.

a) shoot in RAW,. we know raw can't be modified. thus can act as a digital negative.

b) shooting in digital, alter image, print to film, then say lost negative, vs to shoot in film, scan, alter image, print to film, then say lost negative, any output difference (other than the lack of grain in the former..8)

Well its from law and order, its a show after all

I think afbug is correct and logical :thumbsup:

 

[whoelse]

errr... what do u mean?

Nothing I boliao was refering to this thread:
http://forum.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=118799

 

[student]

My limited understanding is this - and I refer to editing the image. I do not differentiate the method of editing.

Editing is inherent in any image making. There is no such thing as an unedited image. What lens you use, where you stand, what to include, what to exclude are all edited the instant you press the shutters. The editor of the highly respected photo magazine Lenswork, recently commented that "There is no truth in photos". They are all edited.

I shoot film. With the already edited image (edited during image capture) in the negative, I edit the image some more, with burning, dodging, flashing, bleaching etc. Sometimes this editing is to bring what is in the negative closer to actually what my eyes saw. Example: a landscape. When I look at the sky, I saw some light, but definite clouds. But when I exposed my negative for the fields, the sky became over-exposed. This happens because the camera mens cannot open and constrict the way our pupils can. So I edit the image in the negative to bring the final print to what was orginally my vision at the time of the image capture.

Of course some times, I edit the image to radically depart from reality - to make an image or a statement or something like that.

I think editing is inherent in any image making. We can't run away from this fact. What method one uses to edit is another matter and a decision based on preference.

 

[Cheesecake]

To me, it is one simple question : do you want to be a lazy photographer and a photoshop expert, or a good photographer?

there are hardworking photographers who are equally efficient in the photoshop software. and there are good photographers who are equally adept at photoshop and photography.

most professionals are uing digital cameras and using photoshop as their editing tools. cameras are just a medium and the photoshop itself is but a tool. how u choose to use them is but a figment of ur imagination.

no confinement = boundless possibility + areas for creativity.

digital is here to stay. photoshop and other image editing softwares are but an extension of a photographer's imagination.

what is real? what is natural?



cheers!

 

[FIR]

There is never an disagreement whether to edit or manupulate an image. People do it all the time, we put creme on our head because our hair is lack volume. Digital advancement does add interesting consequences to photography for example one of the nature researcher commented about a magazine cover where the magazine editor manupulated the image by adding some animals which are never a native of that country. For a non professional who is not into wildlife, you cannot tell that some of these animals never exist when the picture was taken. Many researches study old photograph as record of events of animal behavior but photograph in future may not be creditable at all because you can not longer trust what you see in picture in the very near future.

It is like plastic surgery. It use to be a taboo. It no longer seems to be now. The attitute today is that most people doesn't care whether the b-o-o-p-s is real or not. As long as it looks good, nobody will care.

Photography today reflects the same situation. It doesn't care whether the image is manupulated, as long as it looks good, nobody will care. However, there are areas where it may be a concern for example people who are naturalist who want to preserve the very moment and condition when the shutter were triggled. Let say the contrast of the lighting condition is less appealing and ofcause one can manuplulate it to make it more attractive. However, the less appealing picture may actually represent the correct moment when you take the picture. To take a good picture in less appealing condition is the key. Take for an instant; if someone is shooting for pass time, he can choose to come back if the light is less appealing and re-shoot another day. But let say you are a professional journalist and have to cover a event of disaster like 911, coming back another day is not an option. To cover it in difficult condition is the key, it require alot of skill. That makes a big deal between a good photographer and a medicore one.

Now, alot of similar portraits posted here can be a question of whether person A can manuaplulate better then person B shooting the same model, same day. A person again can manupulate a few of other's work and create one that is one of it's kind too. This is common in graphics artists decades ago and nothing new. The artist may not even have to know how to use a camera for example. It is wrong? no, not at all. So, it is not a question of to manupulate or not. It is something more but an option nevertheless.

While it may be an interesting development, one should not really concern much if he is interested in exploring the natural side of photography. I demand my picture to be best the time I press the shutter. I demand them to look good even without cropping. I crop to meet special requirement if it needed but I depend my composition to be good even without cropping or editing. Whether I can do it consistency is beyond the subject here. To improve is to have high demand for myself.

 

[mudsoap]

i think that cropping/editing a photo is no big deal. Like what ParkertR mentioned, it's the final output people are looking at.

Say if two wedding photographers are hired, one took good photos without editing, the other took comparable photos after editing/enhancements, wouldn't you think they deserve the same pay? Unless you want to reward the non-editing photographer some bonuses for his great skills. :dunno:

Even though I will always really really... respect those who can take perfectly framed/ adjusted shots sans editing, I also admire those who can produce equally good photos after digital enhancements.

However in the case of a rich but unskilled photographer with a 12 MP cam had to crop his shots to 8 MP, but a 8MP took a similar shot with good framing thus not requiring any cropping. Of cos, this former photographer wasted his camera's capable resolution, but that's HIS problem. As a third party/viewer, it doesn't matter to me if the two shots are equally good.

Ultimately, i think there's just two groups good photographers, one is well trained in capturing the right moment with great framing and colour, while the other is able to compensate his skills with professional PS skills. Maybe sometimes, you can tell the non-perfectness of digitally manipulated photos. But in the case where you can't tell the difference, then heck! who cares whether it is edited or not.

after saying so much, I feel like I'm defending myself.. h :bsmilie: why? cos i'm one of those who edit my photos (but of course I don't pass them off as 'original'/untouched' photos lar.

 

[mattlock]

In fact, i do not do any darkroom work at all. I just send my photos to a local film developing store and well it always turn out petty good. Obviously the guy doing it is pretty good at developing films. Definitely i agree with you the excellence is achieved thru photo editing but what i'm trying to say is that sometimes this masked the true image thru extreme editing. I guess this don't fall into all categories especially print news where the actual photo image is important and the essence is more important than excellence. Where in studio shots, its the other way around. However i feel most of them time, this is the case.

anyone who sends his film to a lab and then complains about people editting their work obviously has no idea of how film works and how he gets a nice image from his negatives.

 

[rhythm_traveller]

anyone who sends his film to a lab and then complains about people editting their work obviously has no idea of how film works and how he gets a nice image from his negatives.

since you are so clever, lets hear from you then. Your education to the mass might work.