| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
norte
Super Nomad
Posts: 1163
Registered: 10-8-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
Might be your thread, but this is a public forum.... or so someone reminds everyone of that sometimes.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
How about thanking Carlos Fiesta for keeping the Calendar alive and ordering some for Christmas or yourselves?
Cheers! |
Why don't you just tell us ahead of time what we should and should not write.
... and what we should also do.
What are you - the poster and moderator all rolled into one?
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
It really is not artificial, it is processing. However, sometimes the results can look artificial.
|
I can't believe you said that.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
It really is not artificial, it is processing. However, sometimes the results can look artificial.
|
I can't believe you said that. |
I guess it is because I have come to love some of the really processed pictures, some of the real HDR stuff as an alternative photography art
form----impressionist stuff. Some of the same stuff that others think is cartoonish, fake and ugly. Over the Top HDR I really disliked the photo in the link when I first saw it on a photo forum----but the more I looked at it, the more I liked
it. I am now a real fan of this mans work.
That said, if the photo shown here was in a different context and setting, I would probably appreciate it more---but I do not see it for a group of
what I would expect to be more natural looking nature photography. I think the expectation is to see Baja as it is, and not interpreted---think you
said something like that.
I don't see this photo as artificial, just processed in a way that, to me, does not fit the bill and looks artificial---maybe a melted gumby gone
rogue. 
Seriously, do you see this type of processing as artificial? We need to be careful---we have been told not to discuss it here.
[Edited on 11-9-2009 by DianaT]
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
I don't see this photo as artificial, just processed |
 There you go
again.
Why would a photo of Balandra, one of the most beautiful natural settings in Baja, need to be enhanced? Who's ideal does it not meet? You can't fool
people who have been there so, this must be for the unsuspecting folks who haven't and who might, someday, design a trip to the area based on the
fantasy in the calendar. Is that ethical, honest?
These photos were shot for commercial purposes, not for reflections or appreciation of natural beauty.
I really don't give a chiit why the shooter made the photos. It's my steadfast feeling that if reality has been altered in the interest of commerce,
the viewer deserves to know that in advance. Otherwise, he's just been sold a lie.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
I don't see this photo as artificial, just processed |
There you go
again.
|
Busted. Guess I am stuck there.
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
NEWS FLASH
Every serious digital photographer uses a photo editing program processing their prints.
In fact every film photographer that processes their own work does the same in the darkroom. From the type of paper used, the type of film, the use
of filters over lenses. Hell, a polarizer filter on a fim camera will produce very similar results to the photo you're discussing in the calendar.
HDR is a digital version of a techinque used by film photographers for decades.
My 2 cents.
Ken
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
HDR is a digital version of a techinque used by film photographers for decades.
Ken |
That is interesting and thanks for the information. I know zero about film photography other than my old point and shoot automatic. It had to be far
more difficult then. HDR is very new to me and I do want to learn more about it----with digital.
However, I recently went to a 1/2 lighting presentation and the presenter has left digital and gone back to film---those really large framed
cameras---but he still uses a computer for processing. But as he said, he only shoots a few pictures at any one time---very expensive and the cameras
are quite large.
Curious, what do you think about this photo? As will all photos, it really is a matter of opinion---
Diane
[Edited on 11-9-2009 by DianaT]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64838
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
This post is an ad for a calendar... it is in the classified ads section... I did so to help Carlos Fiesta get the word out until he gets back on
Nomad. The only replies (here) should have to do with ordering questions. IF I posted this in the Baja Photos forum, you would have a valid place to
talk about the photos... maybe better if you saw them in person and not just a web page image of a calendar photo?
Now, I don't recall anyone saying anything about the Baja Calendar photos BEFORE it is in their hands, in all the years before... This is only to
inform people the calendar is available one more year. Several Nomads including myself have had their photos in the Baja Calendar... Ken Bondy's blue
whale tail being one of the famous ones.
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think he is a very talented photographer. The shot in question, however is too saturated (the color of the water is too extreme) for my taste. I
would want to see the print as he printed it to make a final judgement. For instance when you print with a matt finish it subdues the colors that pop
on a digital screen.
It is very easy to oversaturate when processing, simply because it looks so dramatic. I was told by a couple of Photographic Judges at the County
Fair in San Diego, that the number one reason a photo submitted gets tossed is that it is too saturated!
Sorry if I got too technical in my answer.
Ken
|
|
|
Natalie Ann
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2819
Registered: 8-22-2003
Location: Berkeley
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
This post is an ad for a calendar... it is in the classified ads section... I did so to help Carlos Fiesta get the word out until he gets back on
Nomad. The only replies (here) should have to do with ordering questions. IF I posted this in the Baja Photos forum, you would have a valid place to
talk about the photos... maybe better if you saw them in person and not just a web page image of a calendar photo?
Now, I don't recall anyone saying anything about the Baja Calendar photos BEFORE it is in their hands, in all the years before... This is only to
inform people the calendar is available one more year. Several Nomads including myself have had their photos in the Baja Calendar... Ken Bondy's blue
whale tail being one of the famous ones. |
David - Please quit telling the rest of us nomads how to think and how to post. You're over your head in this one. Might be best now to just.... be
quiet.
nena
Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.
.....Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
Hell, a polarizer filter on a fim camera will produce very similar results to the photo you're discussing in the calendar.
|
Beg to differ with you on this point, Ken. A polarizer would have cut out a lot of reflection in the water but, it wouldn't render the water as a
pool of opalescent acrylic as the overdone P-Shop application has done.
My point was, beautification techniques took the scene out of the realm of reality. It wasn't presented as an abstract. It was presented as,
"Beautiful Baja."
It certainly is beautiful but, it ain't Baja.
It was a poor job of enhancement that turned into unbelievable manipulation. "Poor job" is the operative phrase here and none of this conversation
would be taking place if the "artist" would have been forthcoming about his techniques. It's just way more than a photograph.
Remember the compressed Pyramids of Giza on the cover of Nat Geo? They were drawn together to fit the cover foremat of the magazine and the stuff
around the world hit the fan. It had altered reality without a word. This case is the same. The effort was no less a statement that Baja on her own
isn't beautiful enough and Adobe is going to school us on the real meaning of beauty.
I really don't think that was ever their intention but, they can't be responsibile for those who misuse their product.
And just one more thing for those here who think this picture is above criticism....it isn't. The picture is a Gawddam lie.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
I think he is a very talented photographer. The shot in question, however is too saturated (the color of the water is too extreme) for my taste. I
would want to see the print as he printed it to make a final judgement. For instance when you print with a matt finish it subdues the colors that pop
on a digital screen.
It is very easy to oversaturate when processing, simply because it looks so dramatic. I was told by a couple of Photographic Judges at the County
Fair in San Diego, that the number one reason a photo submitted gets tossed is that it is too saturated!
Sorry if I got too technical in my answer.
Ken |
No, I do understand---and I know I have to be careful and try not to oversaturate----or over sharpen. Thanks for the tip on the matte paper.
And yes, I liked a number of the photos on his web site, liked some A LOT.
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
i missed this whole thread otherwise i wouldn't have popped mine under baja photos today after i got the mailer.
i was in class all last week.
Chuck "Carlos" is a friend of mine. if he's reading all this he is laughing out loud.
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
....i was in class all last week.... |
Have you met any cheerleaders yet?
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
I have become a fan of some of the really processed photos---like some of the HDR that take on a real impressionistic look---I am beginning to see it
as a different art form, not better nor worse than the more natural photography, just different. |
Photography seems to be going through a transitional period, Diane. There seems to be little agreement any longer about what constitutes a good
photograph.
There was a time when photography was it's own unique art form because no painting could capture the detail of reality as well as a photograph. Nor
could a moment in time be captured by a painter like a photograph. So a sharp image with a rich range of tones was considered a hallmark of great
photography (Ansel Adams defined 10 zones).
Many people are holding on to that. Others seem to feel that those restrictions are no longer necessary. Heavily photoshopped images are often
referred to now as 'photoshop art'.
Most photographers on the websites I frequent don't take HDR very seriously. In fact, once the shooter reports that it's an HDR image, the posts
almost disappear as people stop commenting on it. Those are my observations.
The argument goes like this. If more information is good then why would you want to eliminate most of it in the processing. Say you image has 15
shades of yellow, why would you want to posterize it my reducing it to 3 shades. Wouldn't that reduction impoverish the work? In most cases that's
true. The more pixels the camera captures, the richer the images is potentially.
But photoshop gives you the opportunity to turn your back on photograpy and just start with a photograph and use it to whatever you find attractive.
Personally I'm still old school, mostly. I believe that photoshop should be used to correct the camera's limitation in capturing reality. For example,
in most light situations you can't get a good sky and a good landscape with one exposure. So you meter for the sky with one exposure and meter the
mountains with another exposure. Then you combine the 2 exposures into a single image with photoshop. Actually, that's what photoshop was initially
designed to do.
Let's face it good taste is good taste no matter where it is. If you use photoshop to add 'punch' to an image so that it will knock you down. Well,
many buyers like that. It sells. Six stories below my office are street vendors who sell that sort of thing every day here. And photoshop lets you
make those sort of modifications fairly easily.
Looks like DavidK took his marbles and went home.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
I have become a fan of some of the really processed photos---like some of the HDR that take on a real impressionistic look---I am beginning to see it
as a different art form, not better nor worse than the more natural photography, just different. |
Photography seems to be going through a transitional period, Diane. There seems to be little agreement any longer about what constitutes a good
photograph.
There was a time when photography was it's own unique art form because no painting could capture the detail of reality as well as a photograph. Nor
could a moment in time be captured by a painter like a photograph. So a sharp image with a rich range of tones was considered a hallmark of great
photography (Ansel Adams defined 10 zones).
Many people are holding on to that. Others seem to feel that those restrictions are no longer necessary. Heavily photoshopped images are often
referred to now as 'photoshop art'.
Most photographers on the websites I frequent don't take HDR very seriously. In fact, once the shooter reports that it's an HDR image, the posts
almost disappear as people stop commenting on it. Those are my observations.
The argument goes like this. If more information is good then why would you want to eliminate most of it in the processing. Say you image has 15
shades of yellow, why would you want to posterize it my reducing it to 3 shades. Wouldn't that reduction impoverish the work? In most cases that's
true. The more pixels the camera captures, the richer the images is potentially.
But photoshop gives you the opportunity to turn your back on photograpy and just start with a photograph and use it to whatever you find attractive.
Personally I'm still old school, mostly. I believe that photoshop should be used to correct the camera's limitation in capturing reality. For example,
in most light situations you can't get a good sky and a good landscape with one exposure. So you meter for the sky with one exposure and meter the
mountains with another exposure. Then you combine the 2 exposures into a single image with photoshop. Actually, that's what photoshop was initially
designed to do.
Let's face it good taste is good taste no matter where it is. If you use photoshop to add 'punch' to an image so that it will knock you down. Well,
many buyers like that. It sells. Six stories below my office are street vendors who sell that sort of thing every day here. And photoshop lets you
make those sort of modifications fairly easily.
Looks like DavidK took his marbles and went home.
|
A very well explained position, and I respect and agree in many ways. I love pure photography---tomorrow we may once again stop at the Mountain
Light Gallery in Bishop where so many pure beautiful photographs live, even though some of those others have crept in. And in the area of photo
journalism probably my favorite was the work of Dorthea Lange----such stories told with pure photography. I can spend hours with her work.
So, I guess I really separate the two----and on some forums where I have seen the HDR used just a little, no, I do not like those and prefer the more
natural look. It is the really far over the top ones that facsinate me. Did you look at the photo that I linked above? It is so over the top that
it no longer looks like a photograph---but something real different that just grabs me.
Maybe I can adopt the name photoshop art, because I still see some of it as art, but not as pure photography as you so well describe.
And as far as the street sales---well, some of that might be like the old pallete knife paintings or velvet matadors---hate to admit it, but when I
was VERY young, I bought a pallet knife painting of an ever so cute lion---wish I still had him for laughs.
Thanks for the conversation---a lot to learn and a lot to think about. Another thought about photoshop. What do you think about using it to convert
to B & W or one of pix with the subject in color and the background in B & W. I have used that some and liked it, and have seen some work on
this forum that I thought was outstanding----
BTW---DK just switched to http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=42343 to try and direct traffic.
Diane
And, in the dog thread, did you read Lencho's description of threads, conversations, and natural progression? Well written
[Edited on 11-10-2009 by DianaT]
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
Hell, a polarizer filter on a fim camera will produce very similar results to the photo you're discussing in the calendar.
|
Beg to differ with you on this point, Ken. A polarizer would have cut out a lot of reflection in the water but, it wouldn't render the water as a
pool of opalescent acrylic as the overdone P-Shop application has done.
My point was, beautification techniques took the scene out of the realm of reality. It wasn't presented as an abstract. It was presented as,
"Beautiful Baja."
It certainly is beautiful but, it ain't Baja.
It was a poor job of enhancement that turned into unbelievable manipulation. "Poor job" is the operative phrase here and none of this conversation
would be taking place if the "artist" would have been forthcoming about his techniques. It's just way more than a photograph.
Remember the compressed Pyramids of Giza on the cover of Nat Geo? They were drawn together to fit the cover foremat of the magazine and the stuff
around the world hit the fan. It had altered reality without a word. This case is the same. The effort was no less a statement that Baja on her own
isn't beautiful enough and Adobe is going to school us on the real meaning of beauty.
I really don't think that was ever their intention but, they can't be responsibile for those who misuse their product.
And just one more thing for those here who think this picture is above criticism....it isn't. The picture is a Gawddam lie. |
Dennis,
Polarizing filters do increase the intensity of color as well as cut reflection. With the sandy bottom in the lagoon it would be just the situation
to use one. I understand you don't like the shot, but I'm talking technique. Cut the guy some slack, you're turning this into a rant.
Ken
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
you're turning this into a rant.
|
A point half made is pointless.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here's the photo in question. Are the colors too saturated or has the green been enhanced? It sure doesn't appear to be the real thing. I have to say
that when I first saw it I thought of pictures I've seen in sci-fi comics.
Just what was done with a photo editor?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
