NikonGear'23
Images => Life, the Universe & Everything Else => Topic started by: Mongo on February 06, 2016, 00:54:50
-
There are strong opposing views at times about photo manipulation and “purity of photography”. Mongo’s view is that photography is not just a “recording method” for scientific knowledge. It is an art form where photographers can also “create”. As such it has considerable licence. It must be remembered that film photography was very much manipulated and that digital is no different (except that there are many more ways of going so easily). The only proviso Mongo puts on this is that, if the the manipulation goes beyond simple post processing and goes into the realm of real and substantive changes, e.g adding additional elements that were not there originally, then, it is perhaps appropriate to declare that. This is just a personal view but each to his own. Having said that, Mongo regularly removes the odd twig or leaf from wildlife images that would otherwise interfere with the image looking its best.
This post is not about the above philosophy, but Mongo mentioned it to show he is aware of the argument in the event controversy is raised. The real purpose was just to show some composite images.
In the landscape category, Mongo is very fascinated by skies and the effect they can have on an image. For that reason, whenever there are interesting skies, Mongo photographs them and keeps a separate library of them just for this purpose. Not sure if others do this or similar things.
When looking at these images, (except the one of the bridge and moons), imagine them with very bland skies and you will be seeing the original. Composites can be made up of additional elements being added OR by adding more of the original elements e.g. bridge and moons to hopefully achieve a better/different effect. Of course when “adding” a sky, you must make corresponding adjustments to the area below the sky to compensate e.g colour, reflections, size of reflection etc. Not always done well - but that is, after all, the challenge.
Additional disclosure:- in the last image (apart from the sky being added), some other trees were edited out to leave the "mother and child" trees only in the image.
If you have a view on this or images of this nature, please feel free to post them
-
My opinion is that these are very nice images! ☺
I personally don't edit things out, and even avoid cropping, as I enjoy the challenge and subsequent satisfaction of doing things so, and/or the luck of an immaculate scene. When I do crop or edit things out, I usually feel my satisfaction hits a glass ceiling. This is purely personal though, reflecting how much I value the process itself as much as the product, and doesn't reflect my feelings on other photographer's work.
-
thank you Tristin. A very interesting point of view and good to know. It is also very reasonable and tolerant if Mongo may say so.
-
I am very grateful that there are some many unique philosophies and personal angles behind everyone's works. Were everyone were to be in line with my angle, or yours . . . what a bland world that would be to live in!
-
I am very grateful that there are some many unique pholosphies and personal angles behind everyone's works. Were everyone were to be in line with my angle, or yours . . . what bland world that would be to live in!
True ! thank goodness for the controversy created by differences (well, at least , some of the time) ;D
-
These are very interesting images, Mongo. I have more or less the same point of view as Tristin, but cropping is sometimes necessary in my case to deliver images in the desired format. But I try to shoot to avoid that. Post-processing is a different story.
-
These are very interesting images, Mongo. I have more or less the same point of view as Tristin, but cropping is sometimes necessary in my case to deliver images in the desired format. But I try to shoot to avoid that. Post-processing is a different story.
thank you for your point of view also John. It seems more and more that there are "purist" photographers that like to shoot the final product in camera as much as is possible. This is not a bad thing at all. Indeed, no matter what you shoot, the aim is always to minimise the post processing or avoid it altogether. Of course , this is more obvious in photojournalism where you are trying to "report it as it is". In other cases, like putting together more abstract creative work, there would be a greater tendency to post process as much as needed to get that result. It seems to be horses for courses with no one at least, violently against to others' view (and there are many views at different levels of conviction).
-
I like these. The things that I appreciate in others and strive for in my own attempts are: to make it interesting, have a point, and skillful execution. In my view, your photos are successful.
-
I like these. The things that I appreciate in others and strive for in my own attempts are: to make it interesting, have a point, and skillful execution. In my view, your photos are successful.
thanks Bob - yet another point of view. You strive for three elements that would appear to be very desirable if not essential. Much appreciated.
-
The "another-world-AP" stands out for me.
I am very much a proponent of digital retouching and manipulation and it is one pet peeve of mine to the extent that I presented a paper on the subject.
Most if not all famous photographer manipulated their images, this includes HCB - Ansel Adams......etc.
We do not only use Photoshop but include 3d renders as well for even more fake reality and none is the wiser.
-
I enjoyed these very much, Mongo. Your skills match your creativity and the output is thought provoking.
I have a small problem with the first one: the sky and reflection on the water don't match, at all... I can see it as a problem, or an invitation to check closer and think about what I am seeing, or even a source for a big headache...
Olivier
-
Almass, thank you for your thoughts. It is true. Mongo wonders how many people actually know the countless hours and calculations A.Adams invested in manipulating every negative to print. Mongo has seen some of Adams' calculations and rough draft exposures for a single image and they are very extensive and probably represent a large percentage of time and effort spent to produce the final image. The works we all know and admire as Adams' work would not exist without this.
Olivier, thanks for looking in - always a pleasure to hear from you. You are correct about #1. It was one of Mongo's earliest images to have this treatment and now that Mongo looks at it, it should not have been included in this post as it does not meet the outcome Mongo was aiming for and talking about in this post. Knowing what he knows now and has learned over time, Mongo will go back and rework this image to try and get the right result. Again, Mongo's thanks - useful CC is always appreciated.
-
A friend of mine works as graphic artist for the Ford company. This way I receive a lot of insight into real world car photography without being involved into the business myself. Cars do not interest me as sports (we mentioned that earlier).
The standard "car porn" picture as they call it is done by scanning (photographing in 180°x360°) some nice natural scene and creating / editing it into a 3D-environment.
Than the car is scanned/photographed and edited too, or -- as it is cheaper, faster and more versatile -- a 3D-model of the car is put into the environment, all light beams raytraced and afterwards some dirt is added so it looks more "realistic" or more "acceptable" to the consumer.
Another way is that the car is photographed with huge light setup outside on location and later the picture is edited from RAW in such a way that the photo is a mere input and the result is a 120% drawing over of the photo.
I do not say this is "good" or "bad", I only say this is not photography anymore.
***
Having sent this idea I come back to your photo edits with a question? What do you aim for? Do you want to tell a story about an idea you have on how the world should be, a fairy tale? Then in my book, it is very nice to edit away as much as you want. Fiction is allowed to do whatever it wants, tell whatever absurd or nice or dreamed up story.
But what about burgers? Is it OK to show a disgusting piece of barly edible junk as an adorable piece of fiction for the sake of a sale? Not for me, but your milage may vary.
Same goes for models photoshopped until they satisfy some male perverts ideal of beauty, with the effect that milions of girls compare their bodies to the photoshopped fairy tale and end up with eating disorder? I strictly disregard that practice, but your milage may vary too.
***
I add a Flickr link of a wonderful composite fairy tale photographer editor here as soon as I found it.
Superkitsch Madness: https://www.flickr.com/photos/galefraney/albums/1722568
and here is his homepage: http://www.thegraphicgroove.com/
-
Photography is such a wonderful idea that it is able to encompass easily even the examples referred to by Frank.
Do keep in mind that photography is entirely and fundamentally different to the way humans observe their environment. We should focus (sic) on the outcome not the underlying process.
-
There are many paths to the goal. Value is added by the user or the viewer. Sometimes you choose one path, sometimes another. They can all serve the purpose, be well-executed, be appreciated.
-
Thank you Frank, Bjorn and Bob.
Frank, you have raised a number of aspects/issues and Mongo is not entirely sure he understands your meaning. So, let Mongo try and answer each in turn as best he can.
First, in relation to the first example you have given concerning the car and without judging the rhyme or reason for that process, on the simple question of “is it photography” ? Mongo thinks not. It might be fairer to call it digital art or something similar which suggests it has a lot of licence in the process and hardly anything much to do with a camera/photography.
Secondly, your question about “what Mongo is aiming for” by this process. Had not thought why until you asked the question. However, now that you have, the answer was very easy…….It is to create a more visually interesting image to the senses (than might otherwise be the case if left unedited). No differently than a novelist writing about fact or fiction, they try to present their work in the most interesting and engaging way possible - even those writing about something as dry as fact. If only factual books were allowed, you would instantaneously dematerialise about half the written work on the planet (and half of humankind’s imagination). The same for images.
While on this point, another peculiar example comes to mind. Some of our history’s greatest artists painted during the renaissance period. They were, effectively, the picture makers/photographers of their time - its just that cameras had to been invented yet. Interpreters of their great works these now days, make no criticism of the fact that angels floating on clouds commonly appeared in the works as did hallows around the heads of some pious figures in them. Yet, clearly, these were not visible in real life. In Mongo’s view, they were added by the artist for effect and emphasis. Indeed, when you think about it, what is acceptable or not, often boils down to what you believe. In that case, you will get very different answers from a variety of viewers and possibly never get a universally accepted answer. If you follow this line, you will get to very dangerous areas of contention e.g. is there a Santa Claus? Does God really exist (and if so, which is the real one?) etc etc. For this reason, Mongo does not look to the subjective beliefs of potential viewers or purpose to which the work will be put - he just looks at the work and asks himself if he likes it or not and why.
Thirdly, about the burger and the skinny model you refer to, it is clear from your choice of words that you wholeheartedly disapprove of the deceptive practice to sell the consumer something that is not real or not good for them through the use of “trick” photography (Mongo’s words). While this is perfectly understandable (and possibly agreed by most), it is nonetheless, a heavily personal/bias view. One man’s disgusting meat may be another man’s burger. It is ironic that the photo of the burger may well be accurate. They may go to a lot of trouble to make a perfect looking juicy buyer that looks amazing just for the sake of a perfect promotional photo without photo editing. The real irony is that any harm you are referring to often comes from the associated scripted words that go with the photo or advertisement e.g. no information about nutrition or fat, use of the words delicious, sensational, juicy, craving for more etc.
For the sake of showing his hand honestly, Mongo is not a fan of the artificial, unrealistic, skinny model complete with ridiculous broom length eye lashes and fake skin colour. Mongo happens to think that real, heathy and vibrant are just three of the qualities that equal “attractive”. Many of the stereotype models do not have any of these qualities. However, two things. First, Mongo appreciates the skills the editors of those images have (irrespective of whether or not he approves their purpose). Secondly, it seems to Mongo (rightly or wrongly) that in most cases, if photographers were asked do you want to photograph normal females or the stereotype “model” , most would say the latter. Again, Mongo makes no judgement of that but merely acknowledges its very likely existence.
Mongo looked at the work in the like you provided. Again, Mongo acknowledges the artist’s skill even though that kind of work is of no interest to Mongo.
On a final and general note, it seems to Mongo from what you have raised, that the fundamental question of “what is photography” ? i.e “what are is perimeters before it is no longer photography”? should be first answered. There is no doubt that the answer(s) will be broad, controversial and perhaps never to be agreed upon.
Secondly, does the potential answer have any part in it for the “purpose” to which the photograph will be put or is this an irrelevant subjective factor. Mongo thinks the latter. This is to be distinguished from other cases where it is appropriate to ask "has the photograph been successful or fulfilled its purpose"? e.g. where a photographer tries to bring home the futile and tragic consequences of war by emotive images emphasising that and the viewer is left shocked and thinking that war is futile and destructive. Most would say, that photograph has fulfilled its purpose.
Lastly, (and going back to the original question you asked) if Mongo asks Frank this question:- if Mongo’s purpose was to create a more visually interesting image to the senses (than might otherwise be the case if left unedited), do you like the images ?? and would it make a difference to your answer if you had NOT been told they were composites ???
Frank, your points have taken Mongo on an interesting journey he had not contemplated but for which he is quite grateful to you. Regards Mongo
-
Long and chewy answer but does make the point.
For the Creator, it is the journey. For the Viewer, it is the end result........................
.................For the Birdbrained it is anathema.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe we should lock up all painters and cinematographers..........off with their heads as they distort reality.
.
.
.
.
.
As for Burgers and Skinny models......
Next time, I will ask the World if it is OK for me to shoot AND retouch such pictures.....Big Sigh......Oh wait, I will check with the Birdbrained first.
-
Thanks again Almass. A much shorter, more concise and to the point answer. Mongo enjoyed reading it with a laugh. It's interesting that you even keep a photo of last year's burger in your library just in case - LOL !
-
Almass: I like the Burger picture very much, because it looks like a real world burger, one you can actually eat, although I would not eat it anyway, because the cheese does not look tasty. It looks like the kind of cheese they boil, form, put in a little hygenic plastc wrap, then unwrap, put on a hot piece of meat, toasted bread on top. The feel in the mouth, the texture. Not my cup of tea.
The girl photo looks like any girl photo in the magazines my wife likes to read. A lot of effort for a completly irrelevant output in my book. People waste their time and creativity to design these glad rags, others waste their lives to lighten shoot, edit and publish the renderings of them. Some people like this, call this business. I call it promotion of alienation, waste of ressources, reproduction of a conception of man I feel to be more plastic than real world. I would not go so far as to promote taking away anyones freedom to involve in this kind of vanity. Do whatever you like if it makes you happy or pays your bills, but please do not judge people who disregard what you do.
(http://fotokontext.de/Grillfleisch_dicke_Stuecke_in_Zwiebelsud_eingelegtes_Schweinefleisch_aus_Idar-Oberstein_gegrillt_auf_offener_Flamme_aus_naturbelassenem_Buchenholz.jpg)
(http://fotokontext.de/Mitarbeiter_der_Steuerkanzlei_Weber_Bonn_2010_Frank_Fremerey_Fotokontext.jpg)
real world meat and real world women
-
Dear Mongo. Thank you for your long answer, that makes me think a lot and answer in due time.
Only one thing up front: The question if I like the pictures. One by one. What I see and what I feel:
canada one: The water level hangs to the right IMO so I feel disharmonized by water pouring out of the frame to the right. The unevenly lit riparian zone feels disharmonious too. I love it that the culminating point of the sky touches the summit of the snow coated mountain, the bending trees to the left show some artifacts the origin of I cannot clearly identify.
ABB076modified: A funny play with graphics. A physical bridge cannot be built that way, which resembles some escherresque attitude.
another world: clearly a work of fiction I do not really understand what it aims for, what feeling you want to evoke or if you are in it just for a nice graphical effect. There are blobs of light and darkness in the center of the composition which seem to not fit in somehow.
Moon image: looks like 3 times the moon. What for? If you got a Venus Transit or a Solar Eclipse it might make sense to show all the phases in one pic, but what is it here that makes you do it that way?
Untiteld_2: I feel the water level hangs to the left and water pours out of the frame. The reflections in the water do not look like real reflections in my eyes, but this is sometimes difficult to say. Reality looks strange sometimes, I think of the fire in the eye of Tristins Record Cover. I love the calm water on the left side though. Light direction does not fit the position of the sun I feel. Exposition of the mountain side on the right should come from the left.
Outback tree: I like the sky. Very much so. The front image does not appeal to me and I see masking artifacts in the transition.
-
Do whatever you like if it makes you happy or pays your bills, but please do not judge people who disregard what you do.
+1.
I second that and other points that Frank mentioned.
Mongo, I like #2, #5 and #6. Honestly, I would not have known they are composite images, if you did not mention. And, it's totally ok to create those as long as it makes "you" happy. No one else gets any extra benefit, neither looses anything. :D .. Sometimes viewers may not be happy to see the results; which is ok. So, it is absolutely fine to create such images and share with the world.
I personally try to take photos as good as I can "in-camera", and then do minor retouch. Sometimes I don't even do that. I don't like to spend long hours editing/retouching one photo. I believe many others in this forum does the same as well. Many likes to spend good amount of time in darkroom or light-room; which is also absolutely fine if it makes them happy (or if it pays their bills).
What is important IMHO, have your own principles, methodology and follow them. Those you follow should mean a lot to you, and it's fine if they are worthless to someone else!
Cheers!
-
thank you Frank and Anirban.
There is no doubt that everyone agrees that you should just do what pleases you or pays your bills. It does not matter if others understand it or not or approve of it or not. It is not approval that is sought but rather a reaction from viewers to see if that material resonates with them or just with yourself. Either way, it will probably not influence what you do and continue to do.
One very interesting notion that Mongo had never before considered in relation to photography is the importance of whether something is "real" . In all honesty, it is not one which Mongo could regard as relevant, at least not for his purposes. Others may have differing views. The biggest difficulty is determining with any accuracy or consensus, what is real ? Subjective perceptions play a very big part in humans' assessment of virtually everything; including what is real. Again, this topic seems to be getting bigger and more involved than Mongo ever imagined. Mongo will be more than happy to "just do what pleases you or pays your bills" and leave it at that.
-
Mongo, I like the three moons.
It looks like the moon is moving away from Earth :)
The last image too with the mother daughter trees. The dramatic skies really work well, and I think that you should continue to create composite images. They are fun, out of the ordinary, imaginative, and show your vision.
Frank, the beautiful model that Almass shared with us is a real woman.
Here is composite image that I shot in Schwarzwald last fall. A double exposure done in camera. I wanted the sunflower to provide sunshine to the moon and make it red :)
And, not a triple drifting away moon, but a simple double bloody moon, also created in camera.
-
Do whatever you like if it makes you happy or pays your bills, but please do not judge people who disregard what you do.
People waste their time and creativity to design these glad rags, others waste their lives to lighten shoot, edit and publish the renderings of them.
But judge people when you disregard what they do?
-
Mongo,
Image #6 has just taught me something about myself. It has to do with how much I value being in "the right place at the right time." Since, I do very little studio photography where things are staged, I am often impressed with how lucky I am to be in the right place at the right time. I first saw that image on Fotozones some time ago. Its beautiful to me! I do not remember any discussion about composite image at the time and I have no problem with compositing, and I do not think that one needs to disclose it with images the we produce/take. When I saw the image again under this discussion, I had an immediate twinge of disappointment. Being in the right place at the right time holds a magic to me. This might explain why some people use terms like "dishonest" or "misleading" in these discussions.
An interesting corollary, is that I place a special value on my images which I know have a "right place at the right time" mystic. Other viewers of my images might not value this at all. The image in Fake Image discussion has a very very strong "right place as the right time" mystic if that is important to the viewer.
Those are nice photographs.
-
thank you Jakov, Charlie and Lowell for your views and contributions.
Jakov, Mongo likes your idea of a sunflower being transposed to be the sun/light source in a composite image - very creative. It is interesting how tastes vary. Mongo sees Almass’ model as fascinating to the eye and creative. Yes, she is real because she exists but not that Mongo will run across her in the street anytime soon. However, the latter is not important as it is not the reason for her creation - it is someone’s creative vision to stir the senses of possibility and imagination - and it does do that. For all of that, Mongo cannot say he finds her “attractive” - just fascinating (in which case, the image has served its purpose).
Charlie - interesting point.
Lowell, glad you like some of these images and sorry to disappoint you in some respects. You make an interesting point about whether we do this for our own creative needs (and others may like them) OR if we make them with a view to giving the viewer a magic experience. In the latter case, we would of course, not tell the viewer the reality of how they were made and let have the “experience”. Mongo does not disagree with your analysis. Unfortunately, Mongo would find it difficult to consciously “deceive” the viewer by not disclosing this sort of thing. Maybe that is a left over trait from too many photo competition rules………
Certainly, Mongo has learned that he will have to improve his technique as some of you have managed to actually see defects in the blending of the composite images. Good to have the “heads up” on this - thanks
-
Mongo,
I like all of these images. The note is to myself: 1. be careful what I assume about the timing or special circumstances of how the image was taken or created and just enjoy them and 2. don't assume the any viewer will know that I feel the image is special because of my sense of the magic of its timing. In both cases, my assumptions may be completely incorrect!
-
These guys did a testrun for a video capture, that, later on, I found it has been published under the title Lines of Lofoten (http://youtu.be/3Ah8EwyeUho) at youtube.
Flakstad, Islands of Lofoten, Norway, 2012
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14751731538_3bb6de1bcb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/otytQW)
Lines of Lofoten #4 (https://flic.kr/p/otytQW) by lumofisk (https://www.flickr.com/photos/114702672@N04/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/13497155765_ef7fc1b08c_b.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/myGsba)Lines of Lofoten #2 (https://flic.kr/p/myGsba) by lumofisk (https://www.flickr.com/photos/114702672@N04/), on Flickr
A few more can be found here (https://flic.kr/s/aHsjVLXS6A).
A year later, in 2013, the altered landscape was still visible while the start tower was gone.
-
nice sequence Thomas. The backdrop is great for this (and is not the sort of thing available where Mongo comes from). #2 has the better contrast.
-
But judge people when you disregard what they do?
It is my opinion. It governs my behaviour though my behaviour is not a norm of any kind for anyone else. I do not judge people who behave that way. I just disregard the behaviour in the sense that I reject the behaviour for myself.
If a certain behaviour (like burning coal or waging war) destroys the health and lives of innocent bystanders I am there to propose force to change the behaviour, but I have to find others who see it the same way and gather a majority vote to change the law or whatever is necessary to end such behavior.
-
I do not judge people who behave that way. I just disregard the behaviour in the sense that I reject the behaviour for myself.
Stating that someone is wasting their life seems like the ultimate judgement to me.
-
May we stick to photography, please?
Discussions of personal values may be continued in a private PM.
Thank you.
-
nice sequence Thomas. The backdrop is great for this (and is not the sort of thing available where Mongo comes from). #2 has the better contrast.
Thank you, Mongo. I think you are right. The landscape there is marvelous.
I was squeezing the captures from the fading light. The learning curve was evolving with my idea for each als well as for the summary picture. I always wanted to redo them in PP but while gaining more new photos it has not been a priority so far.
-
Thomas, I too like you sequential image of the bikes. You have inspired me to try similar in the future :)
-
Thomas, I too like you sequential image of the bikes. You have inspired me to try similar in the future :)
Thanks Jakov, I'm glad you like them. What can I do better then inspiring someone.
Hope you'll like the results and share them.
-
I'll just say that I like the images and I'm impressed with your skills.