Artsy Fartsy Time

[the shark hunter]

... SOC?  scene of the crime?

[Anonymous]

... SOC?  scene of the crime?

straight out of camera.

[the shark hunter]

... SOC?  scene of the crime?

straight out of camera.

... oh!  thanks!  ac_smile

[Bricktop]

I like enhancements and edits that don't look unnatural like a purple sky. I think edits should look like they weren't touched by a human hand after the fact.

That assumes that cameras see what the human eye sees.



They dont.

[RW]

I like enhancements and edits that don't look unnatural like a purple sky. I think edits should look like they weren't touched by a human hand after the fact.

That assumes that cameras see what the human eye sees.



They dont.

I have this argument with my husband all the time.  The idea of altering photos IMHO should be to get things to match what the eye sees as closely as possible.  I don't believe for one second the sky was a pale violet the day you took that picture.



I don't like it when things are altered to be unrealistic when they should be altered to be more realistic.

[Bricktop]

Have you been to Australia?



Have you been to the southern hemisphere?



Have you seen a southern sky at dawn, or dusk?



Don't be literal...colour is just part of the art.

[RW]

And I think there should be something very literal about photography, don't you agree?



At least now I know what colour the sky in your world is...

[Bricktop]

No. Photography does not have to be literal, any more than art has to be literal.

[RW]

So you aren't capturing something in its actual form?

[Bricktop]

Not always....everything has different forms if you bother to look.

[Renee]

So you aren't capturing something in its actual form?

You are capturing a true form but color can vary slightly. Just using a different camera can change an image's color. For example Canon digital cameras have a tendency of giving a warmer image while Nikon cameras a cooler image. The same goes for different manufacturers of 35mm film. The color can and does vary somewhat even if it is unintended.

[RW]

Not always....everything has different forms if you bother to look.

Let's have you make a concerted effort to not talk down to me, mmmkay.



Different forms or not, photography is generally designed to capture something tangible.  It's not like a painting or drawing where you can invent a subject.  In that, the subject will have an actual colour that will be captured by the camera.  Due to colour limitations of cameras, sometimes images have to be adjusted to display what was actually seen by the photographer and that would reflect some form of reality like the sky was a much more vibrant blue than what was shown in the image.  In my personal opinion, the best way to ruin a photo is to play with light and colour adjustments until the image looks unrealistic - like the sky is a lilac purple colour.



The exception to this would be if you are intentionally trying to art it up and aren't going for realism.  At that point, go to town on the image. Let the viewer see your mad photoshop or lightbox skills.  Commit to your artistic vision and go to town!

[Renee]

Photography like any art form should evoke an emotion regardless of how you convey the image. This is most often done with light, color, focus and angle.



Photography is not always just about capturing realism. By playing with or by experimenting with a subject from lens to final image, an ordinarily subject can be transformed into something extraordinary. If we just took pictures simply to convey stark reality, photography would be a very boring medium.



Almost all of the the most famous photographs ever taken have been augmented in some way, wether it be cropping, color enhancements or color removal, focal point and angle.

[RW]

Photography like any art form should evoke an emotion regardless of how you convey the image. This is most often done with light, color, focus and angle.



Photography is not always just about capturing realism. By playing with or by experimenting with a subject from lens to final image, an ordinarily subject can be transformed into something extraordinary. If we just took pictures simply to convey stark reality, photography would be a very boring medium.



Most the the most famous photographs ever taken have been augmented in some way, wether it be cropping, color enhancements or color removal, focal point and angle.

I understand all of the above.  What I'm suggesting is sometimes after effects detract from the image when they are done improperly.  In the case of Spec's example, all I think is "some noob photoshopped the sky light purple".  Is that the intended emotion?  I doubt it.



I have seen so many photos ruined at the hands of Photoshop due to over the top edits.  I think one should be careful when correcting images that are intended to convey a level of realism.

[RW]

I felt we needed an art sub back.