Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Art of Photography

  1. #21

    Default

    This how i feel toward Art of photography.

    Dun just shoot for the sake of shooting.[/COLOR][B]

    Follow your heart and be original for your pic.

    Just get what u see, what u feel and it will be what you are shooting.

    As for me i dun believe in Rules.
    Cos it very subjective if u are toking abt Art.
    Dreams at Photoaid! Contact me, pls!

  2. #22
    BigAttitudeProblem
    Guests

    Default

    Some People Just Simply Cannot Take Picture.
    They Must Rely On The Small Lcd "preview".
    They Can Only Take Technically Good Photo Using Technologies.
    While Everything Else Fail, There's The Computer And Photoshop.

    Many Of Them Think Photography Are Technically Good Photography Produced And Created Using Technologies.

    They Blindly Buy Gadgets To Make Themselves Look "pro" And Then Proudly Display A Flashy Badge Calling Themselves "photographer".

    Yes, I Have Big Attitude Problem. What Can You Do About It?

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    I think the issue of digital imaging reducing reliance on skill would apply both to (1) and (2) equally. I think the issue is not that the shot is so bad it cannot be saved but that it is not really good but digital imaging helps u out. For example, if your composition is cluttered, u can easily crop out what u want. And voila! U get a decent or even great looking shot in terms of composition. It's possible to achieve the above with cropping as most of u would know.
    Not entirely true... While it is possible to crop an image to get what you want, you are doing it at the expense of losing pixels that would be useful when you want to enlarge your images on print. Sure, it may look nice on the screen, but an image with reduced pixel-count cannot be enlarged to the same size as the original itself without losing out in terms of resolution, although to a certain extent, as the pixel count of digital cameras increases, you end up with more leeway to crop. From my own experience, I found it difficult to make good A3 enlargements of my pictures taken with my G3 if I had to selectively crop away the portions that I don't want. Composition (and getting it right at the first chance) is still important even if you do have to crop out portions to eliminate unwanted elements.

    And even if photo was shot on film, that doesn't mean to say that no cropping can be done. You see them everywhere, in advertisements, in the print media, even in pictures submitted for competition. Many of these pictures are usually cropped: sometimes for the reason of advert design, sometimes for the aesthetic quality of it. Just because your camera shoots at a 3:2 ratio or 4:3 ratio doesn't mean that all your pictures have to be in that ratio for composition. What is there to stop someone from making a large enlargement of his picture from film, and then physically using scissors and cutters to crop it down to the composition he wants? Technology has just made it simpler to do something that has anyway been traditionally done, that's all.


    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    As for (1), again the issue is not to "boost" a shot that is so off that it cannot be saved but rather for shots that are middling and digital processing can help it look better. For example, in a macro shot, there was slight underexposure and the focus was not spot on. Then of course using Photoshop, this can be corrected easily.

    But the editing must not radically alter the photo such that it is no longer it was.
    Again, it may be easy to set an unsharp mask to "correct easily" the focus... But you only have what you start to work with. If the original digital image was irredeemably flawed and out of focus, there is simply only that much you can do with Photoshop. You cannot simply replace what was not there originally since the computer can only guess what is missing by interpolation. It can never reproduce 100% of what was actually there itself.

    With regards to altering a photo radically so that it no longer represents what the original scene was all about: this is a point that is undoubtedly controversial. I personally believe that if the alterations were done for artistic/aesthetic reasons, there should simply no reason why manipulation should not be allowed. I have personally seen painters at work... What they draw may not be actually what is actually seen. A lamp post in the scenery that is not aesthetically pleasing? Simple, don't draw it! In terms of photography and especially these days with digital photography, just clone it out! But I draw the line if it comes to photography for documentary / journalistic purposes: these pictures should never be edited to reflect what was not there in the first place.

    Just my further 2 cents worth...

    Regards.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAttitudeProblem
    Some People Just Simply Cannot Take Picture.
    They Must Rely On The Small Lcd "preview".
    They Can Only Take Technically Good Photo Using Technologies.
    While Everything Else Fail, There's The Computer And Photoshop.

    Many Of Them Think Photography Are Technically Good Photography Produced And Created Using Technologies.

    They Blindly Buy Gadgets To Make Themselves Look "pro" And Then Proudly Display A Flashy Badge Calling Themselves "photographer".

    Yes, I Have Big Attitude Problem. What Can You Do About It?
    So which camp are in you? Are you one of the "some people who just simply cannot take picture:?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teL
    Not entirely true... While it is possible to crop an image to get what you want, you are doing it at the expense of losing pixels that would be useful when you want to enlarge your images on print. Sure, it may look nice on the screen, but an image with reduced pixel-count cannot be enlarged to the same size as the original itself without losing out in terms of resolution, although to a certain extent, as the pixel count of digital cameras increases, you end up with more leeway to crop. From my own experience, I found it difficult to make good A3 enlargements of my pictures taken with my G3 if I had to selectively crop away the portions that I don't want. Composition (and getting it right at the first chance) is still important even if you do have to crop out portions to eliminate unwanted elements.

    And even if photo was shot on film, that doesn't mean to say that no cropping can be done. You see them everywhere, in advertisements, in the print media, even in pictures submitted for competition. Many of these pictures are usually cropped: sometimes for the reason of advert design, sometimes for the aesthetic quality of it. Just because your camera shoots at a 3:2 ratio or 4:3 ratio doesn't mean that all your pictures have to be in that ratio for composition. What is there to stop someone from making a large enlargement of his picture from film, and then physically using scissors and cutters to crop it down to the composition he wants? Technology has just made it simpler to do something that has anyway been traditionally done, that's all.




    Again, it may be easy to set an unsharp mask to "correct easily" the focus... But you only have what you start to work with. If the original digital image was irredeemably flawed and out of focus, there is simply only that much you can do with Photoshop. You cannot simply replace what was not there originally since the computer can only guess what is missing by interpolation. It can never reproduce 100% of what was actually there itself.

    With regards to altering a photo radically so that it no longer represents what the original scene was all about: this is a point that is undoubtedly controversial. I personally believe that if the alterations were done for artistic/aesthetic reasons, there should simply no reason why manipulation should not be allowed. I have personally seen painters at work... What they draw may not be actually what is actually seen. A lamp post in the scenery that is not aesthetically pleasing? Simple, don't draw it! In terms of photography and especially these days with digital photography, just clone it out! But I draw the line if it comes to photography for documentary / journalistic purposes: these pictures should never be edited to reflect what was not there in the first place.

    Just my further 2 cents worth...

    Regards.
    Well cropping will be fine if u shoot at high res enough so that u have enough pixels to enlarge. But I mean for the people whoelse was referring to, these people are trying to pass off as good photographers when what they post online are really just edited shots. So u dun really see the original (which I mention may pale in comparison to what u see online). So the issue of enlarging does not come in at all since anyway, they may not even print the photo. But I agree that if your res is not high enough, u can't crop and enlarge as u like. Most cams these days can go up to 1600*1200 and some DSLRs can go even higher. So it might not be much of problem to get 8R or S8R even after cropping and getting acceptable or even pretty good quality.

    As for your second point, I did point out that the photo must be so off that it cannot be salvaged. We are really talking of ordinary looking shots edited to make them look "good" or even "great". I think some might feel more strongly (purists? - I hesitate to use this term) and say that it is cheating...... so digital imaging can "make" u a great photographer!

    I think the point that has been highlighted in my responses, particularly the first one is that the advance of technology has reduced the reliance on the skill of the photographer (technical or artistic) such that it may not be very easy to tell if a photographer is really that good or not. I mean when I see shots posted, especially if it was shot by digital means, the first thing I ask myself is whether there was significant post processing and whether it is 100% or cropped. Very often, these info are not posted and then maybe intentionally or unintentionally the poster creates the impression that the photo he posted was straight from the camera.

    I hope everyone sees the "problem" that digital imaging can pose. It requires integrity on the part of the poster or photographer to say what kind of and level of editing was made to the original. Or even post the original. Nevertheless, digital is still a welcome advance. It helps cut costs and workflow. And it helps novices or amateurs like me to experiment and know the technical aspects of photography better so that we spend more time agonising over what to shoot rather than how to shoot.....

    BTW, teL, great photos.... I enjoy particularly the witticism of your captions and photos.... I had a good time laughing over some of them...
    Last edited by TME; 30th October 2003 at 05:06 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Well cropping will be fine if u shoot at high res enough so that u have enough pixels to enlarge. But I mean for the people whoelse was referring to, these people are trying to pass off as good photographers when what they post online are really just edited shots. So u dun really see the original (which I mention may pale in comparison to what u see online). So the issue of enlarging does not come in at all since anyway, they may not even print the photo. But I agree that if your res is not high enough, u can't crop and enlarge as u like. Most cams these days can go up to 1600*1200 and some DSLRs can go even higher. So it might not be much of problem to get 8R or S8R even after cropping and getting acceptable or even pretty good quality.

    BTW, teL, great photos.... I enjoy particularly the witticism of your captions and photos.... I had a good time laughing over some of them...
    For me, as long as it cannot be enlarged nicely on print, it is simply not good enough. Lots of competitions only accept images of at least 8R in print and 4MP size (for the final submission if your picture does win a prize). Sure, someone can always size up the dimensions to that with an image editor, or even go to the extent of using fractal/stair interpolation for that matter. But there's only so much quality you can squeeze out of there. Ultimately, a image that is only 800x600 pixels may not be of much use except as desktop wall paper/web graphics. So if the only person the photographer is deceiving with his so-called "perfect shot" is only he himself at the very end.

    Glad that you enjoyed my photos Haha... there's a certain element of fun in coming up with the captions actually, and in making people smile in reaction to them.

    Regards.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    OT here but teL, did u shoot in film or digital for those shots?

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    DEATH*
    Posts
    604

    Default

    [It use to be darkrooms, negs, trans, 1 stops 2/3 stops, processing tanks, canister, chemicals and developers and so on.]

    Haha, it's still like that for me when i take pictures for myself.

    But for commercial work, it's digital...

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    OT here but teL, did u shoot in film or digital for those shots?
    All in digital, using my Canon Powershot G3 except for the recent ones, which were taken with a 300D. And with the majority uncropped Cropping if done at all was minimal. I shoot in RAW, so all the images have a certain degree of post-processing to it (saturations, levels, sharpening, colour temperature). I have no qualms about post-processing... just like film users in the past play around with their developers/enlargers/tanks and such and have fun, I find satisfaction in tweaking my images to their very best. No cutting and pasting of subjects that weren't there though

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •