Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Grade two would be a standard print. Grade zero would be very low contrast. I don't quite see how that relates to a RAW file.
Steve.
Steve.
Grade two would be a standard print. Grade zero would be very low contrast. I don't quite see how that relates to a RAW file.
Steve.
My point is, by posting teh raw, we can see exactly how much of a great shot can be attributed to phtography, and how much can be attributed to processing. As you've demonstrated, more often than not these days, it's processing, and not the actual photgraphy.
As you said, if that was E6 you'd use a ND grad, and still exposed for the foreground.
I disagree that shooting on film reulst in dissapointing results. What you are suggesting is that landscape phtography has improved since digital. Patently, that's not true
©Joel Meyerowitz, Deardorff 8x10 on transparency - all in a pre-photoshop era.
So, sorry.. I'm not buying that argument
I don't agree that the raw is like printing at grade 0 either. Correctly exposed, great shots can be had straight from the camera... just as Mr Meyrowitz has done here. Film or digital... makes no difference.
I think you misunderstand me, I am just saying that shooting digital raw is a different process to shooting E6 or are you saying I should have exposed for the foreground and lost detail in the sky or perhaps used a ND grad on a digital camera when you can expose to get both in the digital file and process it accordingly,and perhaps I should even have used a colour balance filter, rather than setting it post processing.
As to Mr Meyerowitz I know a 10x8 exposed correctly can see into the shadows more than 35mm but I am dubious about the road dinner and not knowing what the colour balance of his film was, and even with a colour temp filter for fluorescent and those signs look fluorescent but also lit with halogen/tungtan spotlight, looks awfully like he white balanced on the white sign in Photoshop and let the diner fluorescent lights go where they may.
I could be wrong
but it also brings me back to your original argument to get to the internet it has been though photoshop and unless you or I are actually holding the original slide in our hand how do we know how much has been altered from the original slide.
i usually view your comments with much agreement but
And there we have it, it took a while but eventually we got there. Rather than debate and discuss like an intelligent adult we insult and throw the toys out....well done for lasting so long. Your conclusions, sad to say, are as incorrect as your attitude.
Oh, and just in case you do return, here are some words written by "one of the most lauded landscape specialists in the UK" (I think I quoted you right on that one) Mr Cornish himself in a similar debate ON his Landscape website (and it is a direct quote) that kinda gives your 'truck' a bit of a flat tyre -
"And thinking of students, perhaps what is needed is more universal teaching of photography within all curriculums (although, dream on!); that way modern humans might then be able to fully exploit photography's strengths and understand its weaknesses and limitations without having unrealistic expectations of its veracity. We might then realise that it is, for the majority, an artistic medium, with all the potential for interpretation and creativity that implies."
For those interested and who may have read that debate started by Mr C himself about post processing, he talks of an evening spent in Worcs presenting and then chatting into the early hours with a guy called Ian Thompson (my friend and with whom he was staying), I was also there with two other people at Ian's house and Joe's attitude and thoughts on processing were pleasing and eminently well thought through and balanced (as you would expect). IIRC his views were that he doesn't like to add or take away too much from his images as it isn't his style but he has absolutely no problem or negative attitudes towards those that do.
Yes, I remember Ian Thompson's composite image when it was published in OnLandscape. It created quite a bit of controversy, if I remember correctly. The problem with the quote from Joe Cornish is that he doesn't define any of those terms. it could well be that what he meant by "creativity" or "veracity" might be different from how you or I would understand it.
Perhaps a more concrete example to use would be Charlie Waite. You probably remember the controversy two (or was it three) years ago when several category winners in Landscape Photographer of the Year - including the overall winner - were exposed as being composites. All by the same photographer and they were all disqualified. I cannot believe Mr Waite did not have the final decision on this.
It is also worth noting that the guy who finally exposed them , Tim Parkin, is a big buddy of J.C. and editor of OnLandscape. He is (or has been) one of the judges on LPOTY AND Wildlife Photographer of the Year since then as a result, I suspect, of his forensic ability to detect malpractice!
it is always interesting to hear opinions different to one's own even if some of them are written in such a way as to make them difficult to accept. It helps to crystallise one's own opinions. As a result of this thread I have written a new blog post. Anyone please feel free to read through it and I would welcome comments.
http://wp.me/p2BFlt-ni
I know how difficult it is to get to a great location under a great sky in good light. It is one of the skills of the landscape photographer to do this. Those are the skills I'm talking about.
You're right it is getting silly. Why you feel the need to keep saying that and then continue to defend the indefensible is silly. You state something and then it gets questioned and you say it's getting silly! Simple. Stop saying silly things.It takes a certain amount of knowledge, built up over the years, to get to that location on that day at that time. Like how to read maps in detail, tide tables and interpret weather forecasts. Then you start to apply your actual photographic knowledge.
But honestly, this is getting beyond silly. I'm not denying other people don't have other skills. It would be nice is that was reciprocated.