More than one to one

This is supposed to be a board where we share our images not fight about them, if you don't like them say nothing, it you have to say something then say it in the forum that asks for critical comments, also keepitdry take it easy no need to be so "loud" this is supposed to be fun.

I think all of the images are beautiful on this forum. I am an old timer by most standards and I will admit that I am still finding it hard to go from film to digi when I view MY OWN images. Crap, I can make them look any way I want. I am the first one to admit that I correct my images and two years ago when I switched to digi, I'da said no way am I going to manipulate anything. Guess what? I was wrong and not truthful with myself. I do manipulate somewhat (I am no PS pro for certain) but I have been diving so long that I know better when I correct my images. Kasey brings a very valid point...what is real? I have my opinion, he his, you yours etc. But when you start selling and entering competitions, you need to enter what is, as Kasey states, believable. Prior to digital, I have NEVER seen as many clean, colorful, sharp, black background photos in my life, well 30 years of diving life anyhow. That's not a bad thing because it steps up the competition or talent base for which more and more excellent images come from. You still have to shoot the image and that remains where one's real talent lies.

There are other dynamics as well. Camera capture method (film vs. digi), RAW, PS, sharpness of lenses, etc. All of this is different when compared to a film system. So I am coming from old schoiol to new school. Those of us who are all new school simply have not lived what used to be, and only know what is. I can say that my comments are not meant to suggest in any way that people are intentionally oversaturating their images and actually believe they look realistic, but that if a camera delivers out of the chip saturation like the D2X, it may need a flick of the right nut to get it believable.

What is real? I haven't a flippin clue

Joe

I am sorry your thread has been hijacked, Patrick. That said I do think that this is a very important discussion, particularly so when people have strong opinions.

I certainly think that these few years of digital transition will be very important in determining the rules of engagement for digital images for many years to come. So it is a debate well worth having.

But please keep arguments objective, and not personal.

Alex

Hey folks,

I apologize if I hijacked this thread. I will wait for another more appropriate one before posting more opinions. As Alex said, it is a debate that can go on for some time and there is a more appropriate venue. Sorry, Patrick.

Joe

Pretty ballsy to pull images and post them from my site. Yes - these are out of camera images, but I'd be the 1st to state that they are oversaturated by my in camera curve and they were desaturated before submitted for publication. Keepitdry - you might want to hit 5 posts before you stir things up here. This is a very harmonious site of individuals looking to learn/teach/share.

Point one, when we shoot macro, underwater even with lcd you don't get a real feel or appreciation for the colors until looking at a computer screen. This is even more true with film shooters, I would look at my slides back in the day and go wow there are not colors like this on land. Do your land pics look oversaturated with a D2x? probably not. Our strobes tend to pop out the color U.W I think it is what it is. It is another world down there why fight it with land bias thinking.

Point 2 just as the photographer can compose he can edit, if he likes it oversaturated then that's what it is... natural or not. I like a wow factor or impact, making a picture pop without blantant digital noise is the look I prefer.I like these pics. I also liked Kasey's pics oversaturated or not.

In addtion to color, contrast and that stuff, it is one part of a pic,it is still all about the compostion If you have that you have a lot.

-Steve

Hi Gang,

I agree that this is a very harmonious site with a great friendly exchange of information - and we'd like to try to keep it that way? When you post it's always a good idea to read what you just wrote before hitting "Add Reply" and see if it "reads" how you mean it to read. Sometimes the tone just doesn't come out right, and an informative post sounds confrontational instead.

Don't get me wrong, we want people to express their opinions here too, and differing opinions are how we all learn. On the other hand, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to share your viewpoint. Taking photos off of someone elses's website and posting them without permission is frowned upon. An acceptable alternative would be to post a link to the photos instead. Also, personal attacks are frowned upon - it's OK to disagree with someone's VIEWPOINT, but that doesn't make them a "wrong" person or a bad person.

Like Alex, I like the premise of this thread too and I'd like to keep it open. If it continues in it's current tone, it will be closed.

Cheers

James

Here ya loud and clear, James. No worries.

Joe B

Kasey's point is interesting.

To say a photo is right out of the camera really means nothing in my view. You can push the contrast and saturation etc in the camera. So, whether you shoot a flat image in camera and then PS it after, the end result of PSing may equal the out of camera shot of someone else.

As for the posted photos. I have found that this form of macro can produce the look of over saturated. But, I also feel that the lighting and magnification may also play into this look. So for it to be deemed unnatural, not sure if that is fair. It just may be the magnification is something new and we are seeing things we did not see before.

IMHO

In reference to my own images - I shoot with in-camera curve, and I like nice punchy images. Now and then, though, the camera meets a situation that yields unbelievable images. These dwarf hawfish are a great example, and out of camera I felt that my camera settings blew it. Raw saved the day on these! Other subjects with the same settings might be fine.

It is important to me that images are believable - not just pretty. Like a prior poster said - what is on my wall (or website) or in a fine art gallery doesn't matter, but when I present my work for artistic critique or publication, I like it to look "real."

I think photography is art and therefore is not always a portrayal of what is real. Saturation, sharpness, hue etc can be manipulated and I leave that as part of the artist's interpretation. Some will like it and some won't.

There may be a standardization of what is acceptable for competition but if we all adhere to exactly the same standard then photography will get rather dull quickly.

For me, what is real underwater is so hard to define. What I see underwater is so muted. When that brief flash lit up the scene, the effect can be so startling. When I show a picture of a bright red soft coral reef to amy non photographer friends, they all say that they never seen color like that underwater. Am I showing a real picture or should I be showing the available light picture only? Sure I do manipulate pretty much all of my pictures in PS but since I can't see what the actual scene supposed to look like as the strobe fire, I can only manipulate it to the way I like it. Fish scale, sponge, coral can reflect light in a very interesting and sometimes unexpected way and I believe that my feeling for what is real is just as subjective as anybody else and is probably as accurate as trying to throw dart in a darkroom after 10 pints of beer!

I always shoot macro with a warm focus light so I have a pretty good idea what the scene should look like. I allow the camera to deviate from that a bit, but not too much.

Clearly this is a matter of taste and philosophy. Personally, I accepted oversaturated Velvia images for lots of my shooting, but for subjects with lots of natural reds at very close distances Provia or Velvia 100F were more flattering due to their lower saturation. Nothing "real" about B+W photos either, but I love them. The digital craze has pushed me towards purity (whatever that means) in my work becauseI encounter so many people using PS as a crutch. I can't tell you how many times I've been coached by novice photographers instructing me not to worry about suboptimal shooting conditions because you can always fix it in photoshop. Similarly I've had wonderful captures questioned for their content - not for any technical reason but for the surreal nature of the image.

I think that the only way to be sure that our shots are never questioned is to take the high road and manipulate nothing. Much like in the film days there were photographers that proudly never used filters. I always found that approach refreshing although I never developed the discipline to use it myself.

I'm not judging anyone here. Everyone draws the line at a different threshold.

I think that the only way to be sure that our shots are never questioned is to take the high road and manipulate nothing. 

I don't understand. Could you clarify?

Do you mean use the linear curve (gamma=1) that the sensor does, even though that's not considered appropriate for human vision? Use no sharpening? You have to make *some* assumption about contrast, WB, and saturation, don't you? What does "manipulate nothing" mean for these parameters? Accept camera defaults / PS autolevels, which are manipulations also?

All the best,

Chris