Digital manipulations

[Airric75]

not the way I expected the thread to run when I read the OP intro.
One of the 'raging conversations' running in some of the sports photo arenas is more to the tune of: 'with at the enhancements, photogs are relying on a computer program to correct or digitally enhance shots, whereas with films there had to be a certain level of competence with composition and perspective, etc etc...' (not my wording, just a paraphrase of the convo...
I think the underwater photography doesn't exactly run along these lines, as there is less compositional type 'enhancement' and more color tone lighting type 'corrections'.
I wonder if the OP wasn't trying to touch on this idea, as it is difficult to word without gettting just hammered. something along the lines of you have to start with a decent vision/composition/idea and then make it great...now we see alot of strictly mediocre shots photoshopped to make them just average.

 

[mikerault]

I read an article about an interview where there was a professional photographer along to catch "candid" shots during the interview (using film) of the several thousand pictures this "professional" took they only ran 2 and pulled several from stock. Yes, there are professionals that take the time to make just the right shot, light and composition, but face it, most shotgun using multiple exposures, use bracketing, burn, dodge, crop and color correct as well as airbrush to get those "Natural" looking shots. If you think they just take out the instruction book for the developer and follow the instructions down the line you are mistaken.

Face it most digitals don't capture what you see. The mind fills in the color it thinks or knows is there. Unfortunately the camera (digital or film) doesn't. Is this a problem on a well lit, sunny day on the surface? No. At depth the film or digital is probably capturing the truth while our mind is doing auto-enhance, but face it, the truth is what you make it.

I read the piece in sport diver, looking at the pictures throughout the issue I am sorry, you can't tell me none where color enhanced, had the saturation increased or weren't cropped.

Mike

 

[Zeeman]

I truly find it very very interesting to see just how many people are sold on digital and comments on this thread confirm it.. amazing how fast it took over in just the last 6 years or so

I travel a lot. I snow ski, scuba dive, rid emotorbikes.

Nothing is worse than taking an "action shot" and then, 5 weeks later, with $200 worth of processing for a X rolls of film, finding that it didn't turn out.

I can instant check it on digital, do the jump again, try and get that nudi lined up again...

It's a no brainer.

And then I can perfect the shot on my PC - it's not up to the photo lab to add more blue because they feel it works better for all photos...

From a recreational photo type persons point of view, of course...

Z...

 

[jonix]

hands down digital truly gives you more control over the look of your photo and as the op clarified, he is not against technology per se. as some posted, the level of acceptable manipulation seem to be the main point of the whole thread.

i think i had too many beers

@zee: i just remembered your Mr Softee and Mr Quickie photos hehehehe

 

[CP62]

In this long tread there some people who understand what I was saying and some did not get the point. Maybe this is my mistake because I was not clear enough. But what you say now
Is right. About video I also use a red filter and I edit on the PC but I do not enhance something else.

 

[chip104]

And this really is an endless argument. It's all about drawing lines. Where do you draw the line with what is acceptable manipulation and what isn't?

You know what's NOT acceptable????? Those dang FHM, Maxim, and Stuff magazine issues where they airbrush the upper torso of the models!!!! COMPLETELY UNACCCEPTABLE! >:-(

 

[Diver Dennis]

I can understand objecting to photos that are combined or have images added and represented as real, not art but the fact is, to come out with a great shot you have to go in with a great shot, IMHO. Even in manipulation, the photographer has to have a good eye to change the image into something that people will say is an outstanding photo. Isn't the point of photography to give the viewer an experience, whether that experience is like being there or a feeling a mood you are trying to portray? Sometimes you have to manipulate the photo just to make it look like what you saw when you pressed the shutter.

 

[Jamdiver]

All very good points........
Now if you excuse me, I need to boot up my copy of CS2 .

BTw, just so you all can see here is the OP's wonderful website..
http://home.tiscali.nl/kavalla/eng/index.htm

I don't think there is much to add, but it's obvious from the myriad of posters who are professional or semi-pro photogs, Bella, Tortuga, Mike et al......... that even with film there was manipulation, whether it be the type of film chosen, the development process in the darkroom the type of media used to print et cetera...

I think it's clear with all due to respect that your 'point' is nill and void, manipulation has always been there (even among your heroes of old), as I said before a good photo is a good photo.
You need to have the 'eye' to capture a great moment.
What we see in our 'minds eye' is very different from what the camera generally captures underwater and post-processing is used to help bring that vision that moment, that mood to reality on the screen...

 

[bladephotog]

I'm sitting here at work looking at 450 images I shot on three assignments this morning. I have another assignment in less than 90 minutes. With digital I have enough time to tell you all this, process and edit those images and still make it to my next job on time.

 

[Tortuga Roja]

hands down digital truly gives you more control over the look of your photo and as the op clarified, he is not against technology per se. as some posted, the level of acceptable manipulation seem to be the main point of the whole thread.

Yes, it should be clear that there has been nothing from anyone, including the OP, that is against digital. His comments were only about how much manipulation. The film/digital wars are like the PC/Mac wars. They just always seem to slip into everything. On that subject, I have always felt that an artist uses the tools that she/he can afford and feels best expresses what they are trying to express. That could be a pinhole camera and a homemade housing or a $150k rig.

My personal criteria for a good image is the same as it is for good music. If it makes me feel anything, it's good. I don't care if it was created with 8 different photographs from 8 different countries. I don't care if it was created with film, digital, or paint. I don't care if the colors are real or totally posterized reversals. If it stirs any emotion in me, it's good - even if I don't like the emotion it stirred. Once I think it's good, it will stay good in my mind unless I find that it was misrepresented. I.e, if it was presented as a single shot when it was actually a combination, or presented as an original when it contained someone else's work.

Now for a contest, there are rules involved, and for reporting or evidence, it must be accurate. For art, it only need be honest.

"If it sounds good, it is good!" - Duke Ellington