What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Positive or negative

Q.G.

It is not a matter of when postproduction was invented.

Digital gives much more and easier ways to adapt the original that less attention is paid to make a good picture at the time it is made.

That gives less talented people and people who do not have a good operating standard a chance to change or repair what they should have done right at the time of the shoot.
 
Hi Paul,

> Digital gives much more and easier ways to adapt the original that > less attention is paid to make a good picture at the time it is made. > > That gives less talented people and people who do not have a good > operating standard a chance to change or repair what they should have > done right at the time of the shoot.

True enough. It's also true for scanning film as well.

But, their are some people who are very talented with the postprocessing tools (PS for ex&le), far more so than I am. But, for me it's a bit philosophical...if I do all this processing in PS, is it still photography? To me, the more "pure" the photograph is, the happier I am with it. At least for my own work that is.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hello Austin,

You are right that processing an image afterwards can be an extra pportunity to achieve a great result.

I was refering to operators who do not get it right in the first lace and merely use the digital domain to repair sloppy work.

There are filmdirectors now that do not take enough time and do not rely on the services of a good crew that lightens a scene as it should be done because they will see to lighting in postproduction.
That is where I think new facilities are misused and good chances to make great images are lost.

BTW Wilko is seriously studying the 203FE matter of modification to accept the CFV back.
He offered to take my 203FE apart and test the electronics.
lol.gif
lol.gif


I think I will offer him one of the glassless lenses first and see how it goes.
 
Hi Paul,

> BTW Wilko is seriously studying the 203FE matter of modification to > accept the CFV back. > He offered to take my 203FE apart and test the electronics.

As a note, even if the camera could be modified as I stated to provide a trigger over the "databus", the back would have to be modified to decode/accept the trigger over the databus.

I have a 205, but am not willing to take it apart for this project...since I have no intention of getting a CFV back. I'm pursuing trying to get better documentation, from an intellectual curiosity perspective.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin

You will never be able to turn a bad (digital) image source into a really good image just by using PS . If the prerequisites are not there , PS can't help .

The same is valid for a conventional darkroom . If your negative is bad , dodging and burning will not turn that negative into a good image .

I use PS only in the same way as I used to do dodging and burning in my darkroom .
But that is a part of the process to achieve a good result . And I can't see what is wrong with it .
 
Hi Jurgen,

> You will never be able to turn a bad (digital) image source into a > really good image just by using PS . If the prerequisites are not > there , PS can't help .

I disagree. I have been able to take some very bad negatives and get very usable images out of them. Not spectacular, and I certainly would have preferred to have had better negatives to begin with...but none the less.

> I use PS only in the same way as I used to do dodging and > burning in > my darkroom . But that is a part of the process to achieve a good > result . And I > can't see what is wrong with it .

Never said anything was necessarily "wrong" with it...but reality is, there is a lot more to PS than simply "dodging and burning". My point was, it, IMO, is far better to get the image "correct" on the film/scan/digital in the first place, than to rely on PS to make up for a badly done image. But, sometimes it happens, and this has really little to do with "dodging and burning".

Regards,

Austin
 
Actually, in many respects digital photography (especially earlier digital capture) revealed "sloppy" film photographers that got away with murder for a long, long time ... even so called "pros"... with wedding shooters leading the pack IMO.

As these photographers migrated to digital, their poor exposure habits became more apparent than with the more forgiving negative films they had used. The labs "fixed" their film mistakes as best they could ... which in many cases provided a "usable" proof. But digital is absolutely unforgiving of over-exposure compared to film's latitude in that respect. Even expertise in PhotoShop cannot show what is not there in a digital image.

PhotoShop is indeed an overused tool, but that is mostly when in the hands of rank amateurs who do not have any taste in the first place. They are enthralled by all it can do, and damned if they don't do it all .... sometimes to the same image. It just seems so epidemic now due to the proliferation of cheap digital cameras and the internet.

In the hands of someone with a sound grounding in photographic technique ... and better yet, with darkroom experience, PhotoShop is a powerful tool for expressing one's vision, talent and taste.

Neither film nor digital capture are infallible and have their limitations. Master darkroom practitioners and good PhotoShop technicians can overcome many of those limitations.
 
Austin

If you reread my last post , you will find : To get the image correct (as correct as possible) in the first place , is a prerequisite for me . That's the base and that is what I wanted to say .
If the information in the shades or lights is not there , PS can't make them for you . Right ? ?

A painter might use a smaller or wider brush , or a more or less intensive colour to express what he wants to , this is normal and part of his work .

And in the same way , i use PS to make my "base" to show my image , in the way I want it to be . This is part of an "image process" . No matter if analog or digital or hybrid .
 
Hi Marc, do we sense a slight aggitation in tone? Pray, do not get upset! arf! arf!

"PhotoShop is indeed an overused tool, but that is mostly when in the hands of rank amateurs who do not have any taste in the first place".

Photoshop is just a tool like the enlarger was in the darkroom. Digital photography is possibly just as unforgiving as transparancy film is however, there are far more combinations of rescueing a poor digital capture than a transparency with photoshop, as you will know.

I share your view with regards to sloppy photographers but are not perterbed by this, we all started off somewhere and if someone is foolish eneough to pay for this sort of photography then best to them. Photoshop is a great learning tool as a replacement for darkroom techniques with regards to colour correction, exposure control and preparation for print.

Photoshop can not be overused, as it all adds to the experience, realising perhaps that hours spent on photoshop could have been prevented by more care in the exposure stage.

Even some of the best photographers in the world have tests done on a strip of film before processing the whole roll or will do a test on a sheet film with the D & P lab before the final exposure is progressed. This is teaching a gran to suck eggs ;-) so it is for those who need the experience, all the best
 
Jürgen,

"To get the image correct (as correct as possible) in the first place , is a prerequisite for me . That's the base and that is what I wanted to say .
If the information in the shades or lights is not there , PS can't make them for you . Right ? ?"

Not quite.
Even with perfectly exposed and processed negatives, split grade printing and all that are very usefull.
You can indeed get more out of the negative with different "post-processing" techniques than straight printing can.
These thingies were not 'invented' to cover up, or revover from, mistakes!

That, Paul, is the point. Post-processing really adds quality, and is not something to be frowned upon.
But i think you're absolutely right, the digido makes post-processing a bit easier (only a bit: the tools are different, but you still have to know what you are doing), and with it increases the temptation to be sloppy 'because you can fix it in PS' later.
 
"Photoshop is just a tool like the enlarger was in the darkroom."

Way more people have image editing programs on their computers than all the darkrooms ever installed in hobbyist bathrooms or basements. More people process their own photos now than in any time in history.

"Digital photography is possibly just as unforgiving as transparency film is however."

Amateur consumers didn't shoot transparency film nearly as much as neg. films. When was the last time you saw a disposable loaded with slide film? How many rolls of tranny films have you seen in the Grocery Store kiosk?

In addition, very few wedding photographers used or use transparency films, which was the context of my statement.

My reaction is aimed more at so called elite expert shooters who weren't expert after all, and digital flushed them out.

Carl, you contend that having to work hard in PS teaches the shooter to take care in shooting. I, on the other hand, doubt it. I teach a lot of wedding shooters who never seem to learn ... they just get better at PhotoShop.

Those predisposed to photography techniques pretty much get it right away, those that don't tend to excell in post work ... usually overdone post work.
 
Geeeze
z04_975.gif
...what I've been able to discern from reading the above (and other threads) is that, as respected professional photographers and artists, we're all DOOMED!
uhoh.gif
The sloppy PRAY & SPRAY photographers have taken over the world and have succeeded in selling the public a substandard bill of goods which they've bought hook, line and sinker...at bargain basement prices I might add. The impatient budget minded consumer has accepted the "close enough" as EXCELLENT and have gone about their merry way. (If you don't believe this, have a print made at a major nationwide chain and compare colors to your PS file or Epson print.) What are we to do? Hold fast to our standards and hope someone notices, or join the fray? Man.....I think I'm getting a headache...where's my beer anyways
z04_cowboy.gif
 
G'Day Melton !

As a "Texas Cow Grower", you know that the CREAM always rises to the TOP. (Been there, done the milking cow thing on my parents Aussie farm by the way.)
z04_cowboy.gif


Hold your standards. Do good work. Charge accordingly. I am not a professional (i.e. depend on this income from the work), but I do have a relatively small client base who want dependable and good work. Mainly, they have all learnt the hard way.

Not so long ago, I was turned down by a (referred) local agency who had asked for a quote, only to be contacted later and asked if I could please find time to do the little job for them. Turned out the hot shot art school graduate gave them everything but useable images. (I like art school graduates by the way, just not hotshot ones with bad technique and business skills).

Of course, "due to other circumstances causing me to shift other jobs around" my fee went up 25%. They still got me to do the job. Maybe they will ask again. Whatever.

Keep doing good stuff. People notice, even if they don't say anything for fear it will cost them more next time.
wink.gif


Cheers,

Colin
 
Colin,

I always give praise where it is well earned.
So far I have not been disappointed by people who do a good job.
Not only money motivates people to do a good job but also the fact that it is noticed and appreciated.

Paul
 
Q.G.

The point is with more postproduction facilities available at low cost and relatively easy to apply sloppy operators are given more opportunities to correct,repair sub standard images.

In the hands of talented operators PS and other programs offer extended possibilties to improve their work.

Some corrections are still only possible in the darkroom.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top