post processing

On 2014-03-18 01:21:44 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 3/17/2014 7:43 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
My word 'Play" was used in the sense of being creative and the ability
to make major adjustments, far beyond that which can be achieved with a
JPEG file. . That is certainly not insignificant.
Very often I will take an image, and wuite often, usually after time has
elapsed, the image will tell me what to do. Quite often if owuld be
difficult to tell what the original image looked like. For my use this
is not insignificant.

To a degree that has truth. But "play" in your sense is not
what I was getting at for RAW processing.

I'm digging at the idea that JPEG by definition means "getting
it right in the camera" as opposed to RAW meaning you can play
an image to discover the correct creative adjustments that will
produce an image.

I want to see the resulting image first, *before* the shutter is
released, and have data recorded that allows me to then produce
the image that was already visualized. In camera processing
usually just can't get very close because the parameters are
estimated rather than set up inspection with full knowledge of
precisely the effect, and also just because the granularity of
the adjustment is large in the camera and much finer with post
processing software.


I make no claim that it's not best to get it as close to "right" in the
camera, as possible. But remember, I also like to make a lot of abstracts.

The question however is what is "right". I'm saying a final product is
not "right". The material to produce the best final product, even though
not finished at that moment, is the "right" thing to get directly from
the camera.

Your comments aren't about that, though they certainly do require the
use of that methodology as an inherent part of creating a final product.

Your "abstracts" aren't the product of previsualization. You
aren't first seeing the eventual abstraction and using technical
skills to produce an out of camera product that best suits a
specific abstraction. Instead shoot many images, with no real
idea of what any one of them might produce. On inspection you
try various parameters to see what produces an appealing result,
even though that result was not considered when the shutter was
tripped.

You're dealing a hand cards off the deck, and then drawing more
to see if a happy match occurs. Not that it doesn't
work... just that there are two distinctly different approaches
to the production of art. The method you use is a bit
haphazard?

What I'm describing fits very well with the methodology of Pablo
Picasso and Ansel Adams, as two examples of people with talent
and the ability to previsualize beyond the wildest imagination
for most of us. Of course I can't even begin to approach their
level of talent and skill, but that methodology is what I try to
work with and develop.

However, where our discussion has clearly lined up is that we
both believe that anyone who thinks "get it right in the camera"
means a straight out of the camera finished product is grossly
limited in artistic expression.

Agreed. While Adams took as much care as possible to capture a scene he
had pre-visualized, his real creative work was in post in the darkroom
and in the production of his prints.
The same was true of Ed Weston.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-03-18 01:21:44 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

PeterN wrote:
On 3/17/2014 7:43 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
My word 'Play" was used in the sense of being creative and the ability
to make major adjustments, far beyond that which can be achieved with a
JPEG file. . That is certainly not insignificant.
Very often I will take an image, and wuite often, usually after time has
elapsed, the image will tell me what to do. Quite often if owuld be
difficult to tell what the original image looked like. For my use this
is not insignificant.
To a degree that has truth. But "play" in your
sense is not
what I was getting at for RAW processing.
I'm digging at the idea that JPEG by definition
means "getting
it right in the camera" as opposed to RAW meaning you can play
an image to discover the correct creative adjustments that will
produce an image.
I want to see the resulting image first, *before*
the shutter is
released, and have data recorded that allows me to then produce
the image that was already visualized. In camera processing
usually just can't get very close because the parameters are
estimated rather than set up inspection with full knowledge of
precisely the effect, and also just because the granularity of
the adjustment is large in the camera and much finer with post
processing software.

I make no claim that it's not best to get it as close
to "right" in the
camera, as possible. But remember, I also like to make a lot of abstracts.
The question however is what is "right". I'm saying a
final product is
not "right". The material to produce the best final product, even though
not finished at that moment, is the "right" thing to get directly from
the camera.
Your comments aren't about that, though they certainly
do require the
use of that methodology as an inherent part of creating a final product.
Your "abstracts" aren't the product of
previsualization. You
aren't first seeing the eventual abstraction and using technical
skills to produce an out of camera product that best suits a
specific abstraction. Instead shoot many images, with no real
idea of what any one of them might produce. On inspection you
try various parameters to see what produces an appealing result,
even though that result was not considered when the shutter was
tripped.
You're dealing a hand cards off the deck, and then
drawing more
to see if a happy match occurs. Not that it doesn't
work... just that there are two distinctly different approaches
to the production of art. The method you use is a bit
haphazard?
What I'm describing fits very well with the
methodology of Pablo
Picasso and Ansel Adams, as two examples of people with talent
and the ability to previsualize beyond the wildest imagination
for most of us. Of course I can't even begin to approach their
level of talent and skill, but that methodology is what I try to
work with and develop.
However, where our discussion has clearly lined up is
that we
both believe that anyone who thinks "get it right in the camera"
means a straight out of the camera finished product is grossly
limited in artistic expression.

Agreed. While Adams took as much care as possible to capture a scene he
had pre-visualized, his real creative work was in post in the darkroom
and in the production of his prints.

I think it took at least as much creativity, if not more, to get
a negative he could use. I really don't see it as pre or post
being more or less creative. Maybe the real creativity is how
they connect, and all before and after is just skill at the
craft! :-)

The same was true of Ed Weston.

I think that is true of almost all really great artists, no
matter what the media. Look at how many composers have gone
deaf, and still continue to write music. For that matter, it
strikes me than an arranger necessarily has to work that way!
(I have no music talent and am in utter awe of such.)

Painting and photography do happen to be art forms where one
need not know what it is they are creating. It's often pointed
out that there are no "accidentally" great paintings, while
any dolt with a camera can produce a number of great photographs
if they push the shutter button often enough. But by the same
token many if not most of the world's really great paintings are
not one off works of art. Some take months, and multiple versions
on the same canvas, to find exactly the mix that the painter
wants. I suppose there are two kinds of versions too, one that
is "Well, that isn't what I was thinking of" and so it's time
to restart that part; or the "Heh, the paint looks nice, lets
put some over here too and see if it's okay".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

PeterN wrote:
Similarly, I have never seen a photo of the Baptistry doors, that even
comes close to evoking the emotion I feel when viewing the originals.
I just stood there, immobilized for some period of time.

There are several visual experiences that have smacked me up the
side of the head with, "Capture that and you've got a great
photograph!", except even after years of looking at it I just
can't figure out how to photograph it.

I had one that did fall into place last fall though. And old
wooden boat here in Barrow that I've been looking at for 15
years... from the wrong direction. I just happened to be
shooting something else and found myself in exactly the right
place to get the picture I've been imagining... from the back of
the boat which I normally only see from the front.

That's a nice experience.

But, as to my request, I well understand your answer. I have felt the
same way myself, with some of my images.

I rarely post images on the Internet, even to my webpage, that I
also print large. They're just two different things. Plus the
prints are what I actually consider my art, while most of what
goes on my webpage is more documentary than art.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Le 18/03/14 03:34, Floyd L. Davidson a écrit :

Painting and photography do happen to be art forms where one
need not know what it is they are creating.
The problem with photography is that it is art, but also many other
things. It is used as memory help, as documentary, as scientific
investigation mean...

In any form of art, it is not needed to know what you are creating : by
this, I want to say that the important part, the part that makes the
difference between art and skill in in that elusive, unknown digging.
Art and science are closely related, they are means to explore and find
and express truth : not same truth about the same things, may be.

It's often pointed
out that there are no "accidentally" great paintings, while
any dolt with a camera can produce a number of great photographs
if they push the shutter button often enough.
I dont support that either.
I co-admin a small group in dA, accepting or rejecting photos.
I have seen enough push-button productions to say that it (great
photographies by monkeys) never happens. Sadly. But on the same time,
some good artist relies on purpose on accidents ; still, they are able
to make the difference.
Luck is another thing than randomness ; to get luck, you should be at
the right place at the right moment with your eyes open and your gear
ready.
Some type of photographies relies heavily on multiple shoots : I am
thinking about sport photography but there are others. May be wildlife ?

But by the same
token many if not most of the world's really great paintings are
not one off works of art. Some take months, and multiple versions
on the same canvas, to find exactly the mix that the painter
wants. I suppose there are two kinds of versions too, one that
is "Well, that isn't what I was thinking of" and so it's time
to restart that part; or the "Heh, the paint looks nice, lets
put some over here too and see if it's okay".

I am not a painter, but I know many painters, good and bad and in
between. And I like art. The quality of the result is totally unrelated
to the time spend on it. Some people take time, some people are quick.
Some techniques requires their own time -oils must dry but allow for
more changes than acryls, aquarel does not allow any changes and you
must work fast. One of my friend paint "a fresco" the traditionnal way,
there is 6 to 8 hours "open time" to work. Of course you plan, draw,
etc...She also makes other kind of paintings, inks, etc...One of the
most frequent question (and one of the dullest, too) you can hear when
exhibiting is "how much time did you spend on that ?" (ie, sweat makes
value)
Since she is so nice and is embarrassed by the stupidity of the
question, I suggested her my answer : 50 years of life and some time.

Noëlle Adam

On 3/17/2014 9:21 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 3/17/2014 7:43 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
My word 'Play" was used in the sense of being creative and the ability
to make major adjustments, far beyond that which can be achieved with a
JPEG file. . That is certainly not insignificant.
Very often I will take an image, and wuite often, usually after time has
elapsed, the image will tell me what to do. Quite often if owuld be
difficult to tell what the original image looked like. For my use this
is not insignificant.

To a degree that has truth. But "play" in your sense is not
what I was getting at for RAW processing.

I'm digging at the idea that JPEG by definition means "getting
it right in the camera" as opposed to RAW meaning you can play
an image to discover the correct creative adjustments that will
produce an image.

I want to see the resulting image first, *before* the shutter is
released, and have data recorded that allows me to then produce
the image that was already visualized. In camera processing
usually just can't get very close because the parameters are
estimated rather than set up inspection with full knowledge of
precisely the effect, and also just because the granularity of
the adjustment is large in the camera and much finer with post
processing software.


I make no claim that it's not best to get it as close to "right" in the
camera, as possible. But remember, I also like to make a lot of abstracts.

The question however is what is "right". I'm saying a final product is
not "right". The material to produce the best final product, even though
not finished at that moment, is the "right" thing to get directly from
the camera.

Your comments aren't about that, though they certainly do require the
use of that methodology as an inherent part of creating a final product.

Your "abstracts" aren't the product of previsualization. You
aren't first seeing the eventual abstraction and using technical
skills to produce an out of camera product that best suits a
specific abstraction. Instead shoot many images, with no real
idea of what any one of them might produce. On inspection you
try various parameters to see what produces an appealing result,
even though that result was not considered when the shutter was
tripped.

You're dealing a hand cards off the deck, and then drawing more
to see if a happy match occurs. Not that it doesn't
work... just that there are two distinctly different approaches
to the production of art. The method you use is a bit
haphazard?

What I'm describing fits very well with the methodology of Pablo
Picasso and Ansel Adams, as two examples of people with talent
and the ability to previsualize beyond the wildest imagination
for most of us. Of course I can't even begin to approach their
level of talent and skill, but that methodology is what I try to
work with and develop.

However, where our discussion has clearly lined up is that we
both believe that anyone who thinks "get it right in the camera"
means a straight out of the camera finished product is grossly
limited in artistic expression.


Almost right.
Landscapes/ Whe I see something i like I shoot it. i often go to areas
at times I think I might get a decent shot.
Yet, I HAVE no qualms about making changes. The basic image I seek is there.

With birds or landscape, I attempt to shoot them dong something
interesting. After viewing, I look at the suggestion from the image.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Lift%20the%20Lid%20First.jpg

Or this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/6Nubble%20%20impression.jpg

--
PeterN

In article ,
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[ ... ]
I rarely post images on the Internet, even to my webpage, that I
also print large. They're just two different things. Plus the
prints are what I actually consider my art, while most of what
goes on my webpage is more documentary than art.

That's perfectly understandable, but I don't get
how you sell your art if your potential costumers
have nothing more for making a purchase decision
than the price and print size. I guess in this
case, you only had one real customer -- the neighbor
next door?

nab

On 3/17/2014 10:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snip


I rarely post images on the Internet, even to my webpage, that I
also print large. They're just two different things. Plus the
prints are what I actually consider my art, while most of what
goes on my webpage is more documentary than art.


Also, I print the images differently for competitions. In my camera club
the prints are viewed under a really bright white light. Prints look
much better when printed darker and on glpossy paper. If I wanted to
hang the same print on my wall, I would print it much lighter, how much
depends on the print, and on a matte or luster paper. For digital
competitions, I try to use the ICC profile of the projection unit.
to make thins even more complex, in some competitions, such as PSA, and
camera clubs, there is a preference for a slight vignette. I do not too
well in many competitions, because I adjust the image to please myself.
In a competition last year I was told my image sparked a lengthy debate.
It was an image of two apes looking down, studying an object. It didn't
win an award because the animals eyes were not visible. (The eyes were
not visible because they were both looking down. The important thing is
that I like the image.

--
PeterN

On 3/17/2014 10:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Similarly, I have never seen a photo of the Baptistry doors, that even
comes close to evoking the emotion I feel when viewing the originals.
I just stood there, immobilized for some period of time.

There are several visual experiences that have smacked me up the
side of the head with, "Capture that and you've got a great
photograph!", except even after years of looking at it I just
can't figure out how to photograph it.

I had one that did fall into place last fall though. And old
wooden boat here in Barrow that I've been looking at for 15
years... from the wrong direction. I just happened to be
shooting something else and found myself in exactly the right
place to get the picture I've been imagining... from the back of
the boat which I normally only see from the front.

That's a nice experience.


Indeed it is. i have a friend who will walk abound a subject for some
period of time before he even puts the camera up to his eye.
I am too much a type A to to that. He is alsoa much better photographer
than I will ever be.


But, as to my request, I well understand your answer. I have felt the
same way myself, with some of my images.

I rarely post images on the Internet, even to my webpage, that I
also print large. They're just two different things. Plus the
prints are what I actually consider my art, while most of what
goes on my webpage is more documentary than art.



--
PeterN

On 3/18/2014 5:05 AM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 18/03/14 03:34, Floyd L. Davidson a écrit :

Painting and photography do happen to be art forms where one
need not know what it is they are creating.
The problem with photography is that it is art, but also many other
things. It is used as memory help, as documentary, as scientific
investigation mean...

In any form of art, it is not needed to know what you are creating : by
this, I want to say that the important part, the part that makes the
difference between art and skill in in that elusive, unknown digging.
Art and science are closely related, they are means to explore and find
and express truth : not same truth about the same things, may be.

It's often pointed
out that there are no "accidentally" great paintings, while
any dolt with a camera can produce a number of great photographs
if they push the shutter button often enough.
I dont support that either.
I co-admin a small group in dA, accepting or rejecting photos.
I have seen enough push-button productions to say that it (great
photographies by monkeys) never happens. Sadly. But on the same time,
some good artist relies on purpose on accidents ; still, they are able
to make the difference.
Luck is another thing than randomness ; to get luck, you should be at
the right place at the right moment with your eyes open and your gear
ready.
Some type of photographies relies heavily on multiple shoots : I am
thinking about sport photography but there are others. May be wildlife ?

But by the same
token many if not most of the world's really great paintings are
not one off works of art. Some take months, and multiple versions
on the same canvas, to find exactly the mix that the painter
wants. I suppose there are two kinds of versions too, one that
is "Well, that isn't what I was thinking of" and so it's time
to restart that part; or the "Heh, the paint looks nice, lets
put some over here too and see if it's okay".

I am not a painter, but I know many painters, good and bad and in
between. And I like art. The quality of the result is totally unrelated
to the time spend on it. Some people take time, some people are quick.
Some techniques requires their own time -oils must dry but allow for
more changes than acryls, aquarel does not allow any changes and you
must work fast. One of my friend paint "a fresco" the traditionnal way,
there is 6 to 8 hours "open time" to work. Of course you plan, draw,
etc...She also makes other kind of paintings, inks, etc...One of the
most frequent question (and one of the dullest, too) you can hear when
exhibiting is "how much time did you spend on that ?" (ie, sweat makes
value)
Since she is so nice and is embarrassed by the stupidity of the
question, I suggested her my answer : 50 years of life and some time.

Noëlle Adam

If I see something interesting I may shoot it for future use as a
texture, or background.

--
PeterN

Nab wrote:
That's perfectly understandable, but I don't get
how you sell your art if your potential costumers
have nothing more for making a purchase decision
than the price and print size.

I don't sell blank sheets of framed paper!

Photography customers make purchasing decisions for many
reasons, and while size and price are factors I'm pretty sure
they are rarely of primary importance.

My original point was that computer viewed images, 8x10 prints,
and 24x36 prints are all very distinct objects. Many images
that are terrific as one size are mundane at a different size.
Average head shots generally make nice 8x10's, but only a really
good head shot is great at 24x36. I.e., a life size head is
fine, but a head 4 times normal size is too overwhelming unless
it is special.

I guess in this
case, you only had one real customer -- the neighbor
next door?

People rarely buy expensive portraits of non-family.

However, Street Photography is an example where a single person
may be central to the image, but the subject is not the person
and the photograph is not a portrait. It makes no difference
who the person in the picture is.

To be of more general interest a photograph usually has to
specifically be of something other than the *character* *of*
*the* *person* shown. Portraits of famous people have wide
appeal, but non-famous people do not attract attention.

This image was an unposed, non-studio, "head shot", and is not
Street. Hence it would necessarily be of general interest only
to the degree that the person depicted is of general interest.
It is an exceptionally nice image of a very pleasant looking
young girl (which is to say something that does generally draw
some attention, but perhaps not a great deal).

As mentioned before, this particular image was printed both in
color and black and white. The color print was requested by the
family (provided at no cost), and is in their home. The BW
print is commercial art used as wall decoration in a public
location. Probably more than half the local population will see
it over the next many months, most of them will recognize the
subject though even viewers who don't will find that particular
image a bit astounding because the girl is beautiful and the
image is intriguing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)