|
| |
[< Gallery Home | Latest Images | Top 100 | Submit Picture >]
101437 Pictures << Previous Picture | Next Picture >> Avebury
[381 x 550 jpg]
 Print
Unless otherwise stated, this image is the copyright of the submitter. Contact them for permission to reproduce it. |  | | Description | Forgive me taking liberties with your photo, Angie. This version is the so called "enhanced" super saturated horror that is often seen in digital camera magazines. Ghastly! |
| Posted Comments: AngieLake
(2006-03-24) | Ouch, Peter!! | KenWilliams
(2006-03-24) | Euchhh!! Your reading the wrong magazines! | Andy B
(2006-03-24) | He might have exaggarated slightly for fun but this sort of processing is very common and not to be encouraged. | KenWilliams
(2006-03-24) | Absolutely right, it could contaminate film purists who might get all sorts of wild ideas about using orange and red filters with black skies in their black and white prints and who's to say, they might even lose the plot altogether and start using dodging and burning in the darkroom??!! Should ban computers now while there's still time to preserve the craft(y)... | whatisthat
(2006-03-24) | Hmmm... I rather like this one. How do you dooo that Sir Thor of Grim? Whoops.. sorry I'll get my coat.. :-) | Thorgrim
(2006-03-24) | Well Ken - what can I say? Black and white is a non realistic medium and so is infra-red. Skies were always the problem and without filters and darkroom burning, you got white skies with invisible clouds. So coloured filters were introduced to bring out the clouds that the film couldn't capture on its own. So the aim was to overcome the shortcomings of monochrome film in attempting to reproduce what the eye was able to see - albeit without colour. The eye could see what the camera couldn't. That led to black and white photography as an art form similar to pencil or pen sketching. I'm sure you know that the word "photography" actually means "drawing with light". Now film is fast becoming obsolete and some of us regret that. Some of you youngsters probably have never used it much or at all. OK - you don't know what you have missed and the magic of the darkroom, but that's not your fault. Some digital photographers aim to represent nature in her true colours. Others like to try to acheive similar effects to black andwhite or infra-red photography. Fine, they will always fall short, but I applaud their endeavours. Some digital photographers will play with colours and come up with startling effects, colour changes and fantasy stuff. Great - a new art form should find its own way and explore new frontiers.
Then there are the others who haven't quite got it right - they enhance colours, super saturate them, make everything "oh so dramatic", add backcloths of lurid orange, purple and red sunsets. Result is a garish mess - IMHO. Each to their own and some of you may like that sort of stuff - so be it. I am entitled to my opinion and you to yours. | KenWilliams
(2006-03-24) | You could call the rock carvings at Loughcrew, Knowth and Newgrange a mess, maybe there were those who called it that at the time. The point of creating is expressing yourself, not conforming to the general mindset, photography will become boring mimicry if individualism is discouraged in favour of conformity to the old ways of manipulation in the dark room rather than the new ways. This is probably always the case when the means to be truly creative become accessible, it encroaches on the self appointed elite. Thats probably why I'm all in favour of the digital medium, it allows anyone who is creative to express that in a way pleasing to them. Grumbling about side-issues like image quality at billboard size and nostalgia for the old ways of enhancing images is just anti-creative and elitist in my opinion. There is no 'beautiful image' filter in photoshop, you have to have the vision in your head and the creative eye to realise that, same as it always has been in photography or any other art form. People should just get on with making images that please them in whatever medium they want without being badgered by the nostalgia police. The final image is all that really matters, if its succesful the person can rightly be proud of it, if its not then criticise their artistic judgement, not their means of creation. | Thorgrim
(2006-03-24) | Ken - what are you saying? No one is badgering anyone. If you put your pictures up on a public website, then you must take what comes. I have always praised your work, but don't expect everyone to do so. Nobody is knocking your stuff, but you do seem a tad over sensitive. I have already said that I am in favour of new art forms (ie digital) exploring new ways. There is no nostalgia policing here, but I reserve the right to comment as I see fit. You will never convince me that digital printing can match inkless chemical printing. That isn't nostalgia. Its like saying that a colour poster of a Van Gogh can never have the texture and quality of the oil painting. Its got nothing to with elitism either! We have photographers of all abilities and budgets and when we run competitions on the Portal, we try to discourage excessive photoshoppery - Not everyone has it and so we like to judge photos that can be produced by everyone on an equal footing. | KenWilliams
(2006-03-24) | "this sort of processing is very common and not to be encouraged", a few posts up from the portal owner.
In the nicest possible way, the only thing I'm over sensitive to is the hypocrisy, intentional or unintentional, of distinguishing between darkroom enhancement (because its established and The Greats all did it, and every roll of film sent to a lab is enhanced during developing/printing by a good lab) and Photoshop (because most of The Greats do it now but not all admit it, and so can anyone else). Personally, I spend an average of 7 or 8 minutes making an image presentable in photoshop (and this is always necessary since I switch off all in-camera enhancement that most people post as 'straight out of the camera') compared to the many hours waiting, watching and deciding when to press the button. To have all that effort invalidated because I prepare the image myself rather than let a lab do it does generally get my goat though. Why dont you discourage extensive darkroom manipulation? How many people on the portal have darkrooms? The argument that photoshoping should be discuoraged because not everyone has it doesn't stand up. If you take that to its logical conclusion, why dont you accept disposable camera film only?
I dont want to be antagonistic or get anyones goat on this, I just think the prejudical commenting on digital photography is meaningless considering darkroom practices are praised, and its a little insulting to those who are new to photography and choose to prepare their images as they see fit. | Bone man
(2006-03-24) |
Anyone for cricket :-) | Thorgrim
(2006-03-24) | Oh dear - wot a strop! Look - Andy is entitled to his view and he is someone who is exclusively digital. I am most of the time for web work. So it's not about film versus digital. Its all about the resulting images and that has to do with personal taste - some you like and some you don't. I still use film for my work with English Heritage because they insist on film. For web shots - digital is more convenient and I don't have to fiddle around with a scanner. As regards your point about praising darkroom practices and condemning digital manipulation - I plead not guilty. I will praise the superb darkroom skills of someone like Tyson and ignore (rather than condemn) the bungling of someone should they send us grey, dust speckled horrors from a darkroom. Same goes for digital images. if they are handled well and produce fine photos, then I will praise them. If they are garish travesties of nature then I will again ignore them rather than offend by condemnation. We are not discouraging the use of Photoshop - I use it all the time to improve contrast and sharpness. We are discouraging what we perceive to be the misuse of it. There is no right or wrong way, but those who view photographers can express their delight or dismay. No hostility is intended in any views expressed. Join a camera club if you want some real hostile criticism! | KenWilliams
(2006-03-24) | Similarly no 'strop' was intended or expressed. I am a member of a camera club and some of its members are conservative too, some are more liberally minded like me and some are indifferent. None of them state what should be discouraged or encouraged in the process of finishing an image, only what works/doesn't work in each specific image. They tend to avoid generalising about one particular methodology. This was never about my own photos and who likes them or doesn't, the only opinions that matter to me in any meaningful way are from my wife (who likes very, very few of my images) and one or two other like minded people. Visual impression is what matters most to me and I'm open to anyone's particular way of achieving that and dont feel a particular way should be discouraged. Thats all I wanted to say. I dont take any criticism or opinions from others in any way personally but I usually do state my position on this if I think it needs to be said. | AngieLake
(2006-03-24) | Shall we call it quits now?.... (3-3)... otherwise this is going to rumble on, and end up like my Yar Tor Summit (cairn), where we had 30 comments on the 'is it?- isn't it?' of that one! I really don't set out to court controversy, but it seems to find me now and then!! | Bone man
(2006-03-25) | You do want to play cricket then ? Baggy's first in. | Thorgrim
(2006-03-25) | Lively debate such as this is all too rare on the Portal. But it's time to move on. Ken has read more into my posts than was written and neither Andy nor myself have condemned digital photography or Photoshop. Ken objects to Andy's comment "this sort of processing is very common and not to be encouraged" but Ken's own comment on the same picture was "Euchhh!! Your reading the wrong magazines!" So that would suggest that Ken also dislikes super saturated excesses.
| Andy B
(2006-03-25) | I didn't say photoshopping should be discouraged, the thing I object to is when an image with increased saturation is trying to pass itself off as reality. There is no skill in increasing the amount of saturation. For the same reason, I'm not a fan of graduated filters from the old days, it's the same process of tarting up an otherwise poor photo. Both processes detract from the efforts of people who go to great lengths to capture absolutely the right natural lighting in a landscape. In contrast, no one is going to mistake a creative black and white or infra-red print for reality. It is a work of art in its own right. Nor do I mind colour manipulation as an artistic process, as I said I don't like it when it is trying to be passed off as reality. No one mentioned your photos Ken - you brought them up. | KenWilliams
(2006-03-25) | I didn't bring up my photos, in between these posts Thorgrim posted a comment on a Dowth picture I posted yesterday saying that he didn't personally like it but it was nothing to get upset about. I think its fair to assume then he meant I was getting upset in these responses about criticism of my photos. There is no skill in upping saturation as you say, niether is there skill in reaching for a roll of velvia from a shelf or under-developing/bleach bypassing in the darkroom or twisting a polarising filter on a lens. These are side issues that are used in a pejorative way only in the case of digital rather than film, similarly there is no rule to say a colour print cannot stand as a work of art in its own right no matter what the process used to create the effect. The assumption that people are trying to 'pass off' saturated colours as accurate is misplaced, there are documentative photos and their are artists working with photography as a medium. Poets and writers play with words and rythms, visual artists play with light, form and colour. We dont assume a poet is trying to pass off their poems as journalistic comment, they use words as expression rather than depiction, I see photography as a way of doing that with light and colour. | Thorgrim
(2006-03-25) | I'm not going to continue this. I agree entirely with what Andy has just posted above. Ken has seen fit to interpret general comments as specific attacks on his pictures. Why? I like most of his stuff and gnerally score it highly. The recent dark brown Dowth photo was IMHO not up to his usual standard. Unlike TMA where it is rare for anyone to comment on a photo, here we encourage it. So if you don't want anyone to comment on your pictures don't post them here! | KenWilliams
(2006-03-25) | This will also be my last word on this and I really do apologise for it being so lengthy. I did not interpret any of this to mean my photographs, I am not so insecure about what I do, I was talking in general about the seemingly selective appreciation of darkroom enhancement versus the digital darkroom. Consider Andys point above 'In contrast, no one is going to mistake a creative black and white or infra-red print for reality. It is a work of art in its own right.' which really needs some thinking about. Why exactly is it that super-saturated colours cannont be a work of art in its own right? Andy Warhol would not agree or Vincent Van Gogh. It is plainly obvious to any viewer that this is outside normal human visual experience and is quickly pointed out as such. Choosing or converting to Black & White is an artistic transformation chosen by the artist/photographer and I can see absolutley no reason at all why similar transformations in colour should be 'discouraged', except for it not being 'traditional'. The same argument was made against impressionistic painting which did not abate until photography took over as a means of recording reality. If colour photography had always been standard since the start, a sudden trend to B&W would seem a gimmick and a short-cut to transforming the average photo to art. Just as digital photoshoppery is now. It takes no effort to select B&W film or infra-red. As it happens, over-saturation like the photo above is not to my taste at all but despite my distaste I dont see a reason for it to be discouraged, there is plenty of room for all types of imagery and it doesn't detract one bit for the people standing in the field waiting for the perfect light (as I do most weekends). It is not possible to capture on film or digital media exactly what the eye sees, there is no natural photography because the perspective, colour response and dynamic range of human vision and photography are so very different. Capturing 'natural' colours is always a trick and a compromise, whether in the chemistry of the film of the software in the camera. Our brains adjust the temperature of the colour our eyes see without us knowing it, cameras (film or digital) need our intervention to make true colour look 'natural'. Thats why indoor photos look blue with daylight film, the film is closer to reality than our brains percieve so we have to 'balance' the film chemistry. Pure, natural photography is as much a human creation as fiddling in photoshop is.
On a finishing note, I post photos here because Ireland is sadly lacking in many photographs and I like sharing my personal take on these monuments. I take the good comments with the bad with a heart and a half but I dont take offence or feel I should only be praised. At least I hope I dont come across as so shallow. |
To post comments first you must Register! | |
Megalithic Portal eGallery, images of megaliths and prehistoric sites worldwide, free to view. |
Main News