Noise - Page 4 - The TrekEarth Forums

Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-08-2005, 09:00 AM
rosiegirl rosiegirl is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 231
Default Re: Noise

Hello Aubrey-
Noise can indeed be an excellent mood-setter in a photograph, but its pretty much a personal preferance and varies with each photo subject. (in my opinion)

As far as all this noise about photoshop-~~
Can it not be counted as an aid to photography? I disagree with true photography being only what your eye sees. That statement is thrown out the window from the first photo- I don't see in black and white. (some do..no dishonor) If you count photoshop as graphic design maker- well.. don't you want a photo to have good graphic design. Can't you mix art forms with out knit-picking about whether it has a lower status in the art world- just Adobe-ing away. Isn't the most well composed picture, made with much care and precision, a waist if its ugly as sin? Why not use technical advances and improve it? Do you rub sticks together to make fire..or strike a match..or even better, use a lighter?
I guess the only reason I have an intrest in this is because most of my photos are done with photoshop. I know I'm not the best raw photographer..no doubt at all...but I enjoy doing it. I also enjoy using technology and making it something more interesting to look at. Thanks for the topic though!

Rosie
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-08-2005, 12:17 PM
oochappan oochappan is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,385
Default Re: Noise

I noticed that some scenes that you have been shooting grows totaly differant in time within your mind ?

so I would say, your tools are
your equipment, your eyes the environment .... but in fact a photo is totally taken with your mind and all the rest are only tools to translate your unique experienced moment, your personal statement.

So what we read out of a photo is mostly your mind and all the tools like pre-postprocessing are nothing more then tools too to translate your mind.

If your mind is keen on sensation, we will read that out easily.
If your mind feels that noise will enforce your statement, we will see noise.
Pleasant is that ur creative mind has no bounderies as long you don't restrict it by subjective trends or prejudgments.
As long as you empty your mind to be fully open for its creativity you will be surprised what you want to express and that techniques are only tools to express it.
So
Create or die !
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-08-2005, 12:47 PM
joseelias joseelias is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 871
Default Re: Artificial debate

Cesar,

I must say that I feel you still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Storks from Paris carrying babies… What is made nowadays using a graphical program is made since the beginning of photography! In fact, most of the graphic program tools were created to imitate what was done in the dark chamber for over 100 years! HCB may not have used Photoshop but I bet that he used exactly the same effects in the dark chamber!

"When you use film, processing is a MUST to see your results."

Yes, and no. Yes, you need processing to see the photo, BUT, the choice of the paper you’ll use, the amount of time projecting the negative over the paper, the amount of time the paper is laid in the chemicals, etc., are pure post-processing! You vary one of these items and the photo will achieve a completely different expression.

So, each photographer chooses the variables they want, to get their desired results. It’s absolutely no different than using a graphic program, except today it’s made easier.

Besides, when you use a Canon, a Nikon, an Olympus, why are the results different with the same settings and same conditions? Because the engineers in each company decided on the way the camera post-processes the image. So, are you saying that what the engineers in Canon decided in terms of capture of colors, saturation, contrast, sharp etc., is more legitimate than your own decisions regarding the expression your photo?!!! Come on…

The photo is post-processed by the camera once you press the shutter according to an unknown person taste… If you like it, it’s ok, but that does not make less legitimate if you want to balance it according your own taste.

*********

”this is a great shot! you have the "eye"! (…)do you feel like a good photographer?”

As I said I do not clone in and out. Only rarely clone out very few details like the “can in the sand” example. But to have an eye implies that you saw a good COMPOSITION, in the right MOMENT. That’s what makes photography. Cloning out a minor detail does not alter that more than converting a photo into BW or other example already given.

*********

"(...)no matter what can be argued here my wife`s picture still resembles me what she actually is or is presented to my eyes"

Exactly, to YOUR eyes. That’s YOUR reality. If someone else saw that same photo, it would interpret it in a completely different way. So you’ve captured YOUR REALITY, not a UNIVERSAL REALITY. This one does not exist!

Also, if you look at that photo 30 years from now, the interpretation of it will also be totally different. Just look at your childhood photos and try to recall what you felt when you saw them for the first time, and what you feel now.

So what reality did you capture after all?... In photography you freeze a miniscule slice of your SURROUNDING according to your own subjective desires. According to what you wish to be remembered based on your personal and unique values, and casting out all the rest. That may be real to you but not to anyone else. Others may have a similar interpretation of that moment but will never be equal to yours. Never.

If REALITY was the same to everybody, than all the photos of the same subject would be equal, and that does not happen. So, adjusting a photo, being by previously removing a can of the sand, using a specific lens to created a DOF effect, putting a warming filter, taking to steps aside; or cloning out the can, increasing the saturation, correcting geometry or cropping in the pc is the same, because the final result will be the same:

The capture of a miniscule slice of your surroundings, chosen according to your own personal values in that specific moment.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-08-2005, 01:49 PM
kikvel kikvel is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,205
Default Re: Artificial debate

uhmmmmm

Jose,

I know all the details of what you mentioned, and still seems to me a lot different than altering the image digitally. And yes I still believe in Santa Clauss, he is a portuguese gordo named Mario! (alias bolao) :D
I think we can end in a bizantine discussion here, so I summarize "my point of view" not neccesarily anyone`s else. We do not have to agree here.

- Doing profound alterations in an image (a photography resulted from let us say using a camera) like cloning in, clon out, alter all the colors, etc etc to "my opinion" is not photography. Is digital image processing. You can do it but if you depend on "that" to get a "good photo", you are a very nice "graphic designer"! Congratulations! there is no good or bad here. Just that, if it makes you happier, is perfect!

I can insist in be called "Superman", but deep inside I know I am not a Superhero, althought I may convince others I am.

- Doing light alterations like contrast or levels, and choosing the paper to be printed in is ok, to "my opinion". Adding non existent persons, cloning out poles, wires, etc etc is not "light", is "heavy".

- Critiques received here on TE like: "you should have avoided the cable by cloning it out, the pole to the left is not well positioned, you better clon it out"..., to "my opinion" is nonsense cause your photo does not depend on how you eliminate or alter artificially (by means of a eraser or a photoshop program) your subject.
Other examples: "You better remove the noise and wrinkles of the young lady". "The white haired person would be better with a dark black hair!",

These are paradigms "universally accepted" here; we have received them, (and later on hardened deep within), and we start giving them to newcomers. These critiques to "my opinion" are intended to help the photographer "evaluate in site", in the very momento what to be avoided and is possible to be avoided in the NEXT capture.

This means that is "possible" to take into considerations all the advices and possibilities when capturing the image not AFTER this capturing process has ended.

- Considering photography like a "fast, easy see & click process" is not fair to "my opinion". This way you will simplify everything, I will fix it later with my ADOBE PHOTOSOP ®. There is always a possibility to consider what is important "in time", when you are shooting.

- They used to say, "photography is drawing with light".

One question: why do countries use a photo portrait to recognize people in passports?
Is taking a slice of reality SO difficult? and according to your statements impossible.
how are they able to recognize the person?
I am surprised!
And they have been doing this since quite a long time according to what I was told.
I know too people change, but reality changes too, photos remain as they are captures associated to a particular time.
That is why they ask you to renew your passport! Without altering the portrait with photoshop!
The discussion of reality is nonsense. I consider "possible" to have a "glimpse" of reality. I never stated that reality was the same for everyone and ethernal at the same time.
i.e.
I am in a jungle, and I see two lions coming directly to our group, the most probable thing is that ALL the group will be able to "see" the same reality, and we will probably start running away from the source of danger. Unless you are crazy, or can not walk, or you are drunk, or you want to commit suicide, etc etc. The decision of what to do next is up to you, what the perception of the coming lions should remain the same, so is possible to "perceive" reality. That is how everything works in real life.

other example:
To me Mario is a careca and a bolao. To HIM; he is a "Collin Farrel" in a portuguese version.
The "reality" thing was more in the way to "create" with software or "erase" things. Again the profound alterations.

The good thing here, is that we do not have to agree!!!
If you come and visit my portfolio, you will see the crappy pictures with wires, noise, ugly people in, cars passing by, no cropping, no nothing!, no clonning. But is ok to me! I am happier this way.

"I prefer" to stay on the streets, and spend most of the time wandering than spending more hours on my funking PC, I have too many hours already everyday at the office to be again a slave of it.

What again, we do not have to agree here,

K.
Ps.: Forgive me Malo, but you are always a good example of something bad...

:D





K.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-08-2005, 02:35 PM
kikvel kikvel is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,205
Default TOS

Only photographs are permitted. Images may not be digitally manipulated in an image editing program ie, Photoshop except for the following reasons:

Copyright notices and (straight-edged, plain) frames
Cropping, resizing and sharpening
Touching up (dust, slight imperfections)
Levels, Curves, Color adjustment, Hue, Saturation etc. for "minor" image enhancements.
Multiple exposures to get proper exposure values
Stitching for panoramic photos
Color conversion to Black and White, Sepia, Duotone etc.
Perspective correction for parallax or lens distortion.

interesting to read,

K.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-08-2005, 03:04 PM
jinju jinju is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,064
Default Re: TOS

Ive never cloned out big things. If I clone something out it would be a small imperfrction caused by something on my lens. But I do crop radically at times.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-08-2005, 03:06 PM
gringofil gringofil is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 288
Default Re: TOS

Since you LOVE to quote the TOS...here is something I found.

Read point #6 (below) and see how many people here adhere to the rule stated plainly in black and white. See...no one cares about the TOS. And, nope, not trying to turn the debate in a different direction, just illustrating a point.

Photography is how you see the world around you and that's IT. Alter it in PS if you want to, back in the day the masters of photography were doing the same in the darkroom, but now, thanks to technology, at least we don't need to get our hands dirty.

If you want to see a great film watch "War Photographer" a documentary film about James Nachtwey. There are a few scenes where he prepares prints for an exhibition and all the altering and such he is doing in the darkroom...same thing. You think HCB didn't tweak his images? Get real. He didn't crop, but for the rest of it...who knows?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critiques

6. Critiques may not contain any mention of points to be given in the future. If you run out of points, feel free to continue writing thoughtful critiques without mention of points.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-08-2005, 03:32 PM
kikvel kikvel is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,205
Default Re: TOS

Hi Filip, I do not dare to interpret your intention to interpret my thinking when I posted the TOS,

but I try to clarify my posting anyway, First I do not love to quote the TOS, I love many other things believe me, and I can post a complete list but that is not the point here. I just wondered after so much writing here, what was written at the TOS!

I did not remember then, I guess I read it more than a year ago...and that is why a doubt arose regarding our discussion and what Adam thought about post processing and the rules to post a "photo" here. Simple, as that.

And regarding what HCB did or not. My question was if he knew photoshop or not. Just that. Nobody answered me so far. I suppose he did not.

"I" can decide not to do it, individually; I have that power, (yes I am powerful). And that is my decision, and you can stick to clon in, add on, filter in, use whatever tool you want cause you are absoultely free to do it. You are powerful too.

I can affirm that if you look at my crappy pictures you will not see a "cloned in" subject or a "cloned out" was not done. Just that. Is real crap, not a fantasy.

K.
And the TOS, is constantly being violated when a suggestion of cloning in or out is made effective. Who cares? No one.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-08-2005, 03:44 PM
kikvel kikvel is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,205
Default be easy Rafal

you do not have to claim innocency here,
nobody is accusing anyone
that was not the intention, never was

K.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:34 PM
sohrab sohrab is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,214
Default Re: be easy Rafal

ok i don't agree with cesar wholly on the whole photoshop bit even though i'm a film photographer.. (while i might use it to add border on the comp etc.. it's basically the prints that matter to me) because there is processing done in the darkroom as well..

but i'm pretty much with him on the cloning bit.. it has its dangers.. and I'M TALKING PRIMARILY IN THE CONTEXT OF PHOTOJOURNALISM...

don't know how many of you are aware of this
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:46 PM.



Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
explore TREKEARTH