Taking this back to my original point. People were criticizing HDR vs non HDR my point was that most HDR pictures people are seeing are not representative of the source. They are stylized images.
I think were we are having a disconnect. Is that you feel photography is a free for all. For some people it probably is. But for the professionally skilled photographer they have a mastery of the technique. It all starts with the basic fundamentals. The basic fundamentals of photography is being able to take a properly exposed properly focused picture that accurately represents the original material.
That is a very important distinction to be made.
My point would be that all photographs are stylized, in one way or another. In many ways, in fact. They don't duplicate what the eye sees. They are not reality -- they are representational of reality as it is viewed by the taker of the photograph. I'm not sure what you mean by free-for-all, but if what you mean is that the photographer has complete latitude to express their ideas using whatever techniques they chose, then I guess free-for-all is a good term to describe that freedom.
This debate has been going on in the art world for centuries, so I suppose we're not going to solve it here. But I believe in the modern world, we've come to recognize (if perhaps not fully accept) that images of things are not the things themselves, that whenever you interject a medium between the thing and the viewer, the creator of that image is making decisions about how to report that reality in order to represent their feelings about the subject. They do this whether they are conscious of the process, or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
From what I'm reading it sounds as if you think we are saying that simply because an image is not accurate to the original source then its a "lie". Which is not my point, I doubt its Mel's point either.
Of course photography is an art and there is interpretation in the message that the photographer is conveying. There still has to be a basis for what is reality. What is a properly exposed and focused picture before it becomes stylized and interpreted.
There have to be clear designations for where things are. There has to be a clear designation of what is RED, what is BLUE, and what is GREEN. From that point you can go crazy. But there has to be a starting point.
This becomes critically important once you start moving the picture to different mediums. Because the color space is totally different and the values change. When you print a picture or post a picture on the web, the color values totally change. So it becomes even more important that you know where you started.
Okay, so now you are talking about technique, which is obviously important. What I would say here is that the photographer has the choice to make red into green, or make the image blurry or sharp, if that's what they believe causes their image have the desired impact. Obviously most choices made by photographers are more subtle, but are they no less manipulations of reality for that. A famous example of this is process at work is Ansel Adams. He used filters to take his photographs and darkroom techniques to enhance the effects he wanted to produce. So what was his basis for reality? He freely manipulated reality in every way he knew how, to produce the image he saw in his mind's eye, one that the camera unaided could not.
Well, I'll just say that I disagree with you from my over 40 years of experience in the business, and let it go at that.
I've been in your position in these debates, but in those cases I felt like I needed to explain how my experience informed my opinions. I didn't brush anyone off unless or until it was clear that they weren't interested in learning more about the subject. Not sure why you think you need to play the experience trump card instead of responding substantially.
I've been in your position in these debates, but in those cases I felt like I needed to explain how my experience informed my opinions. I didn't brush anyone off unless or until it was clear that they weren't interested in learning more about the subject. Not sure why you think you need to play the experience trump card instead of responding substantially.
I have responded substantially. I just feel you don't understand what I'm saying. That's not an insult, but without knowing what we do, and why, you can't make statements about it.
My point would be that all photographs are stylized, in one way or another. In many ways, in fact. They don't duplicate what the eye sees. They are not reality -- they are representational of reality as it is viewed by the taker of the photograph.
In some cases but not entirely. I would wager the far majority of photos taken are by every day people who just wanted to capture a moment not create an art project. In that case they want to picture to look like the reality of the moment. They don't want crushed contrast and saturated colors. They want natural skin tones and natural colors. That is essentially what consumer point and shoot cameras strive to accomplish.
Quote:
A famous example of this is process at work is Ansel Adams. He used filters to take his photographs and darkroom techniques to enhance the effects he wanted to produce. So what was his basis for reality? He freely manipulated reality in every way he knew how, to produce the image he saw in his mind's eye, one that the camera unaided could not.
Interesting you bring up Ansel Adams. He was perhaps the first HDR artist. What he observed is that the film negative captures much higher dynamic range than film paper is capable of displaying. His technique did not add anything to the picture that was not already there. His technique was to display the fuller dynamic range of the film negative onto the print.
In some cases but not entirely. I would wager the far majority of photos taken are by every day people who just wanted to capture a moment not create an art project. In that case they want to picture to look like the reality of the moment. They don't want crushed contrast and saturated colors. They want natural skin tones and natural colors. That is essentially what consumer point and shoot cameras strive to accomplish.
Interesting you bring up Ansel Adams. He was perhaps the first HDR artist. What he observed is that the film negative captures much higher dynamic range than film paper is capable of displaying. His technique did not add anything to the picture that was not already there. His technique was to display the fuller dynamic range of the film negative onto the print.
It's going to become very difficult to find a camera that doesn't do internal HDR before too long. I see that a number of new compacts do them. Over time, the algorithms will get better, as things always do.
I have responded substantially. I just feel you don't understand what I'm saying. That's not an insult, but without knowing what we do, and why, you can't make statements about it.
I do understand what you are saying. You baffled me by responding with a blanket but otherwise unexplained disagreement with everything I said, including the part where I said I agreed with you. I'd like to believe otherwise, but this seems like it might have been a deliberate tactic to avoid responding to the points I raised. So far, you are just refusing to discuss them.
I do understand what you are saying. You baffled me by responding with a blanket but otherwise unexplained disagreement with everything I said, including the part where I said I agreed with you. I'd like to believe otherwise, but this seems like it might have been a deliberate tactic to avoid responding to the points I raised. So far, you are just refusing to discuss them.
I never refuse to respond to anything, as you know, unless it's a troll, and even then, sometimes I try.
The best way to respond was to attempt to tell what we do, and why. Your whole point, as I gathered, was to say that despite the technology, all photos are just an interpretation, and therefor don't reflect reality, but our view of it, and therefor, can't be "accurate".
In some cases but not entirely. I would wager the far majority of photos taken are by every day people who just wanted to capture a moment not create an art project. In that case they want to picture to look like the reality of the moment. They don't want crushed contrast and saturated colors. They want natural skin tones and natural colors. That is essentially what consumer point and shoot cameras strive to accomplish.
Ah, but there you have it. The causal or amateur photographer is making many of the same choices as the professional, but they may be consciously unaware that those choices are editorial in nature. The professional knows that the image is not reality, it is representational, and makes choices about how to represent the subject on a more conscious level. The point is, whether the choices are made with deliberate forethought or not, they are still choices. A lot of these choices are already pre-made for the consumer. The average point-and-shoot digital camera tends towards over-saturation of color, not because it is more accurate to reality, but because it is more appealing. I believe HDR has a similar appeal at the consumer level.
Quote:
Interesting you bring up Ansel Adams. He was perhaps the first HDR artist. What he observed is that the film negative captures much higher dynamic range than film paper is capable of displaying. His technique did not add anything to the picture that was not already there. His technique was to display the fuller dynamic range of the film negative onto the print.
Exactly. I used that example for the very reason that he used techniques to enhance images that are no less "untrue" than HDR. Whether he "added" anything to the photograph is debatable. Had he simply pointed his camera at the subject, without the use of filters, had he not dodged and burned artfully in the darkroom, the Adams compositions would remain, but many of the details which made his style so recognizable and so admired would have been missing.
I never refuse to respond to anything, as you know, unless it's a troll, and even then, sometimes I try.
The best way to respond was to attempt to tell what we do, and why. Your whole point, as I gathered, was to say that despite the technology, all photos are just an interpretation, and therefor don't reflect reality, but our view of it, and therefor, can't be "accurate".
Do I have that right? Close?
Close, partially. I've been making a philosophical point, to which you've been offering mainly a technical response. I understand and accept your technical points. I'm not saying that photographs are mere interpretations, and certainly not that they don't reflect reality. What I am saying is that they are representational (an image of the thing, not the thing itself), and reflect choices made by the photographer to represent how they see the thing. I'm saying you can't yank those layers of choice and interpretation out of the equation by arguing that the technical aspects of reproduction (image to printing or other method) are made as accurate as possible to the photographer's original purpose. Technically, that's correct, but it reduces the other factors that go into the creation process to virtually incidental, which I think is hardly true (and doesn't give the photographer much credit!). Maybe I missed something, but that's how I read your argument.
Close, partially. I've been making a philosophical point, to which you've been offering mainly a technical response. I understand and accept your technical points. I'm not saying that photographs are mere interpretations, and certainly not that they don't reflect reality. What I am saying is that they are representational (an image of the thing, not the thing itself), and reflect choices made by the photographer to represent how they see the thing. I'm saying you can't yank those layers of choice and interpretation out of the equation by arguing that the technical aspects of reproduction (image to printing or other method) are made as accurate as possible to the photographer's original purpose. Technically, that's correct, but it reduces the other factors that go into the creation process to virtually incidental, which I think is hardly true (and doesn't give the photographer much credit!). Maybe I missed something, but that's how I read your argument.
As having been that photographer before I had my lab, I can state something about what we tried to do, and I never said that it was perfect.
First of all, photos, including those for commercial (and even scientific) purposes are not always attempting to represent the subject as "accurately" in the objective sense. They are sometimes attempting to bring out some portion of the reality, while pushing other aspects into the background, so to speak.
But the ones I'm referring to ARE trying to make the image as closely as possible match the original.
So, we take an object, and lay it down on a light table, and set up our lighting so as to show the object as carefully as possible, constantly referring through the camera glass to the actual object, and take test shots. When the tests show us that the object in the photo matches the one on the table, we finalize it.
When that pick goes to the lab, they match the color, brightness and contrast to what the set-up was. Sometimes, if it's REALLY important, a comparison is made to the actual object under the proper lighting.
Obviously, since a photograph is a two dimensional object, and MOST objects photographed are three dimensional, we can't show those dimensions in the way they are in "real" life, but one view of it. Someday that may change with better 3D photography.
But I did, and had clients who photographed paintings, lithographs, posters, etc. All two dimensional objects, so that there the third dimension wasn't really a problem.
I get the feeling that your philosophy won't allow you to agree with what I'm trying to show, which is why I was about to drop it. I know what you're saying, I don't agree.
Actually, it doesn't matter whether we agree on this or not. Most philosophy is irrelevant in daily life I've found., except for morals, and that's where the biggest disagreements come into place amongst people. Not between us, I don't think.
As having been that photographer before I had my lab, I can state something about what we tried to do, and I never said that it was perfect.
First of all, photos, including those for commercial (and even scientific) purposes are not always attempting to represent the subject as "accurately" in the objective sense. They are sometimes attempting to bring out some portion of the reality, while pushing other aspects into the background, so to speak.
But the ones I'm referring to ARE trying to make the image as closely as possible match the original.
So, we take an object, and lay it down on a light table, and set up our lighting so as to show the object as carefully as possible, constantly referring through the camera glass to the actual object, and take test shots. When the tests show us that the object in the photo matches the one on the table, we finalize it.
When that pick goes to the lab, they match the color, brightness and contrast to what the set-up was. Sometimes, if it's REALLY important, a comparison is made to the actual object under the proper lighting.
Obviously, since a photograph is a two dimensional object, and MOST objects photographed are three dimensional, we can't show those dimensions in the way they are in "real" life, but one view of it. Someday that may change with better 3D photography.
But I did, and had clients who photographed paintings, lithographs, posters, etc. All two dimensional objects, so that there the third dimension wasn't really a problem.
I get the feeling that your philosophy won't allow you to agree with what I'm trying to show, which is why I was about to drop it. I know what you're saying, I don't agree.
Actually, it doesn't matter whether we agree on this or not. Most philosophy is irrelevant in daily life I've found., except for morals, and that's where the biggest disagreements come into place amongst people. Not between us, I don't think.
If you think that, then you aren't understanding my point, and/or you are hoping to dismiss it as irrelevant. I would not have used this word had you not chosen it yourself. It's not "my philosophy." I wish I could have invented it. I am only relating one of the central issues of art since the modern era at least. So you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a widely known and deeply discussed idea.
The kind of photography you have described above sounds pretty specialized. For the third time at least, I see your point and agree with it as far as that goes. But I hope you would agree that most commercial photography has the objective of showing off a product to its best affect, not trying to represent it in the most accurate way possible. Then you have everything else which is not commercial photography, to which your rules of fidelity to the original object hardly apply at all. Beyond this narrow category of photography, I don't see how you can take the photographer out of the frame, so to speak. Which is why you think the issues I've described are irrelevant, I guess. I have to guess, since you haven't said otherwise.
If you think that, then you aren't understanding my point, and/or you are hoping to dismiss it as irrelevant. I would not have used this word had you not chosen it yourself. It's not "my philosophy." I wish I could have invented it. I am only relating one of the central issues of art since the modern era at least. So you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a widely known and deeply discussed idea.
The kind of photography you have described above sounds pretty specialized. For the third time at least, I see your point and agree with it as far as that goes. But I hope you would agree that most commercial photography has the objective of showing off a product to its best affect, not trying to represent it in the most accurate way possible. Then you have everything else which is not commercial photography, to which your rules of fidelity to the original object hardly apply at all. Beyond this narrow category of photography, I don't see how you can take the photographer out of the frame, so to speak. Which is why you think the issues I've described are irrelevant, I guess. I have to guess, since you haven't said otherwise.
I understand your point, and I'm not dismissing it at all. It's a perfectly valid point, but not for everything, and that's all I'm trying to say.
We can't speak of percentages here. Some part of the use of photography is intended to show an object, or person, or scene, or whatever, as we would see the actual subject, without interpretation, as much as is technically possible.
So if I'm photographing a coin, I want people to see the coin in that image as it would look under the "lights". Except for magnification, we can do that very well. You might say that putting it under the lights already distorts the way we'd see the coin in more "normal" situations. So what? The image of that coin is still going to be very close to the actual coin, and that's what I'm talking about. After all, if we see the coin in a museum, the lighting should be very much the same, if it's set up correctly.
The rest of photography, not so much. Most of the photographs I take for myself are interpreting in the way you say. But that's my own work, not intended to convey accuracy, but my own viewpoint.
I understand your point, and I'm not dismissing it at all. It's a perfectly valid point, but not for everything, and that's all I'm trying to say.
We can't speak of percentages here. Some part of the use of photography is intended to show an object, or person, or scene, or whatever, as we would see the actual subject, without interpretation, as much as is technically possible.
So if I'm photographing a coin, I want people to see the coin in that image as it would look under the "lights". Except for magnification, we can do that very well. You might say that putting it under the lights already distorts the way we'd see the coin in more "normal" situations. So what? The image of that coin is still going to be very close to the actual coin, and that's what I'm talking about. After all, if we see the coin in a museum, the lighting should be very much the same, if it's set up correctly.
The rest of photography, not so much. Most of the photographs I take for myself are interpreting in the way you say. But that's my own work, not intended to convey accuracy, but my own viewpoint.
Fair enough. It seems, especially looking back at the thread, that you and I agree more nearly in general principle than either of us does with TenoBell.
Ah, but there you have it. The causal or amateur photographer is making many of the same choices as the professional, but they may be consciously unaware that those choices are editorial in nature.
The casual amateur has the camera on manual the majority of the time. They are making virtually no conscious choices about the picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Close, partially. I've been making a philosophical point, to which you've been offering mainly a technical response. I understand and accept your technical points. I'm not saying that photographs are mere interpretations, and certainly not that they don't reflect reality. What I am saying is that they are representational (an image of the thing, not the thing itself), and reflect choices made by the photographer to represent how they see the thing. I'm saying you can't yank those layers of choice and interpretation out of the equation by arguing that the technical aspects of reproduction (image to printing or other method) are made as accurate as possible to the photographer's original purpose. Technically, that's correct, but it reduces the other factors that go into the creation process to virtually incidental, which I think is hardly true (and doesn't give the photographer much credit!). Maybe I missed something, but that's how I read your argument.
It feels that you want to divorce the technical aspects of photography from the philosophical aspects of what creates a picture. When the very act of taking a picture is a mechanical process.
In nothing I've said did I dispute that images are representations of real life. My whole point is that there is an establish benchmark for a normal picture. Normal skin tones, normal color balance, normal contrast. From that point the photographer can do whatever they desire.
It feels that you want to argue that simply because a picture is a representation that there can be no normal - but there is - and for the whole system to work there has to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Fair enough. It seems, especially looking back at the thread, that you and I agree more nearly in general principle than either of us does with TenoBell.
It makes me no difference whether you agree with me or not. I deal with this stuff every day. It all goes a lot deeper than what is being described here.
Volumes of books are written about color theory and 3D Look Up Tables.
I just realize that perhaps you guys think I am against HDR. I'm not at all, its just a tool like any tool.
Yes absolutely HDR will become common in all cameras. I believe the majority of the time its use will be to fix pictures with extremely over exposed areas and severely underexposed areas.
More than it will be used to turn New York cityscapes into Blade Runner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's going to become very difficult to find a camera that doesn't do internal HDR before too long. I see that a number of new compacts do them. Over time, the algorithms will get better, as things always do.
I just realize that perhaps you guys think I am against HDR. I'm not at all, its just a tool like any tool.
Yes absolutely HDR will become common in all cameras. I believe the majority of the time its use will be to fix pictures with extremely over exposed areas and severely underexposed areas.
More than it will be used to turn New York cityscapes into Blade Runner.
I don't think you're against HDR. I think that you think that much of it is crap, and I agree. But when it's done properly, it's great. My daughter is getting ready to go back to school in the UK, and just finished an extra credit project she took on for the summer break. It combines a self portrait and HDR. She shot the last of it today in the studio I built for her here at home. I'm curious as to how it will come out over the next few days as she works on it in the computer.
What I do believe is that in the future, when computers in cameras are powerful enough, is that they will be able to determine, pixel by pixel, which areas will get more exposure, and which will get less, by changing the amount of voltage from each pixel as it saves to memory. Same thing with color rendition in differing light. One exposure will be all we need, not three or more.
Ours eyes and brain are seeing reality while the picture is just an interpretation of reality.
This statement clearly shows that you don't understand human perception. Everything we experience is an interpretation of reality. The actual scene and the photograph are both completely interpreted. There are complex physical processes at play in both cases, outside our bodies, inside our eyes, and in the signals that reach our brains. The physical processes of viewing a scene are necessarily different than the processes involved at looking at a printed photograph and different again from looking at a photograph on a display. There is science and complex math involved in mapping between the physical realities of these mediums, but in the end the mediums are different and fundamentally cannot output the same stream of photons to our eyes. Furthermore the different physical nature of the mediums means that the physical mechanics of our eyes must be different in how they react to what is viewed. All of that gets filtered through our eyes and optical centres of our brains, and then processed by the higher level functioning and filtering in the brain. How much of a scene do we really perceive? There are all sorts of experiments that show "not much". That means that even the process of how we examine a photo is different than how we experienced the original scene, and thus even the photons that travel from image to brain are not the end of the story. There is tremendous science in how images are processed, but in the end it must be art because there is the interpretation of the photographer/processor included in the attempt to present that which can be interpreted in a pleasing way. Since that interpretation is in large part a function of our higher brain, how pleasing it is is highly subjective. How "correct" a photographic process is can only be defined subjectively, or in a very narrow (and thereby of questionable value) scientific definition.
In the end what matters is how pleasing the resulting photos are. The iPhone4's HDR output, from what I've seen and in my opinion, is very very impressive for a cell phone camera.
Something else just occurred to me. The two great revolutions in photography over the last twenty years are (1) digital cameras and (2) digital manipulation of images. The second is arguably even more significant, since it can also be applied to photographs taken by traditional methods (and scanned) and has even more possibilities. How many of the photographs we now encounter daily are not Photoshopped or otherwise manipulated outside of the camera? Aside from the most casual photography, probably not many. Discounting for changes in composition (a professional photojournalist was caught doing that a few years ago, much to his embarrassment), do we object to after-the-fact enhancement of color, contrast or exposure, or cropping? Do we call that trickery or suggest that it creates a photographic abnormality, an unreality, or violates some rule of color theory? Not that I've ever heard.
What I am hearing is that photography, like writing, should adhere to some kind of grammar. In principle, I can agree, up to a point. However the purpose of grammar in writing is to make the writing comprehensible, to promote the goal of communications, the exchange of information and ideas, not to make all writing the same or even similar. If the purpose of photographic grammar is similar to writing (and it seems it is), then it should have the same goal.
This statement clearly shows that you don't understand human perception. Everything we experience is an interpretation of reality.
Hmmm...I find it interesting that you feel so comfortable in defining what I know and what I don't know. I've been to Kodak in Rochester New York. Spoken with Kodak chemists that hold PhD's in their respective fields. I've been to seminars with German engineers from Zeiss Optics. I've learned a lot about what I'm talking about.
I see what you are saying to some degree, but you are making it way more complicated than it really is. Human vision is subjective to a degree but its not that subjective. A group of people looking at a purple flower all agree that its a purple flower. There isn't much discrepancy on what we are looking at. Whether its pleasing or not can be subjective but in many cases we mostly are in agreement on what we find visual pleasing.
Why would they pay Adrianna Lima millions of dollars to appear in Victoria's Secret, or Halle Berry millions for a movie, why would they spend millions to shoot "The Dark Knight" in downtown Hong Kong in IMAX if human vision and perception were so widely subjective. The answer is because its not that widely subjective. The majority of people find these efforts visually appealing.
Quote:
How "correct" a photographic process is can only be defined subjectively, or in a very narrow (and thereby of questionable value) scientific definition.
I'm not sure what you mean by "correct", I did not criticize HDR as being an "incorrect" photographic process. I agree there is no such thing as correct or incorrect process.
There is such a thing as natural skin tones, normal colors, normal contrast.
No its not a grammar that restricts the end product, its a grammar that ensures the end product will be what was originally intended. That image has to go through processes that require translation from one process to the next. On a professional level there are different people and different equipment being used at each stage of the process. The grammar ensures that the image will maintain its intended "look" at the end of the process.
My professional is motion picture media. The reason there has to be a "normal" is because there is a long chain of events before a movie/video ends up at the theater/television/web.
Film/Digital is shot somewhere in the world. It has to go through post production processing, editing, color correction, formatting for distribution. There are many people and many facilities either in different parts of a country or different parts of the world that will facilitate the process.
To ensure that what comes out at the end is what is intended, tests have to be done. So the production will shoot some tests. They will send those tests through the whole processing chain. The standard benchmark is the ability to come out of the end with natural skin tones, natural colors, natural contrast. With that we know that the processing chain can accurately and predictably reproduce skin tones, the color red, green, and blue. And trust me you don't always get the correct results at the end, you can get people with purple faces.
When the production is secure that in that system then we know we can use whatever process we choose to create whatever crazy look we desire, and that look is going to come out at the end. This is critically important to know, because there is a lot of money depending on all of this working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
What I am hearing is that photography, like writing, should adhere to some kind of grammar. In principle, I can agree, up to a point. However the purpose of grammar in writing is to make the writing comprehensible, to promote the goal of communications, the exchange of information and ideas, not to make all writing the same or even similar. If the purpose of photographic grammar is similar to writing (and it seems it is), then it should have the same goal.
Comments
Taking this back to my original point. People were criticizing HDR vs non HDR my point was that most HDR pictures people are seeing are not representative of the source. They are stylized images.
I think were we are having a disconnect. Is that you feel photography is a free for all. For some people it probably is. But for the professionally skilled photographer they have a mastery of the technique. It all starts with the basic fundamentals. The basic fundamentals of photography is being able to take a properly exposed properly focused picture that accurately represents the original material.
That is a very important distinction to be made.
My point would be that all photographs are stylized, in one way or another. In many ways, in fact. They don't duplicate what the eye sees. They are not reality -- they are representational of reality as it is viewed by the taker of the photograph. I'm not sure what you mean by free-for-all, but if what you mean is that the photographer has complete latitude to express their ideas using whatever techniques they chose, then I guess free-for-all is a good term to describe that freedom.
This debate has been going on in the art world for centuries, so I suppose we're not going to solve it here. But I believe in the modern world, we've come to recognize (if perhaps not fully accept) that images of things are not the things themselves, that whenever you interject a medium between the thing and the viewer, the creator of that image is making decisions about how to report that reality in order to represent their feelings about the subject. They do this whether they are conscious of the process, or not.
From what I'm reading it sounds as if you think we are saying that simply because an image is not accurate to the original source then its a "lie". Which is not my point, I doubt its Mel's point either.
Of course photography is an art and there is interpretation in the message that the photographer is conveying. There still has to be a basis for what is reality. What is a properly exposed and focused picture before it becomes stylized and interpreted.
There have to be clear designations for where things are. There has to be a clear designation of what is RED, what is BLUE, and what is GREEN. From that point you can go crazy. But there has to be a starting point.
This becomes critically important once you start moving the picture to different mediums. Because the color space is totally different and the values change. When you print a picture or post a picture on the web, the color values totally change. So it becomes even more important that you know where you started.
Okay, so now you are talking about technique, which is obviously important. What I would say here is that the photographer has the choice to make red into green, or make the image blurry or sharp, if that's what they believe causes their image have the desired impact. Obviously most choices made by photographers are more subtle, but are they no less manipulations of reality for that. A famous example of this is process at work is Ansel Adams. He used filters to take his photographs and darkroom techniques to enhance the effects he wanted to produce. So what was his basis for reality? He freely manipulated reality in every way he knew how, to produce the image he saw in his mind's eye, one that the camera unaided could not.
Well, I'll just say that I disagree with you from my over 40 years of experience in the business, and let it go at that.
I've been in your position in these debates, but in those cases I felt like I needed to explain how my experience informed my opinions. I didn't brush anyone off unless or until it was clear that they weren't interested in learning more about the subject. Not sure why you think you need to play the experience trump card instead of responding substantially.
I've been in your position in these debates, but in those cases I felt like I needed to explain how my experience informed my opinions. I didn't brush anyone off unless or until it was clear that they weren't interested in learning more about the subject. Not sure why you think you need to play the experience trump card instead of responding substantially.
I have responded substantially. I just feel you don't understand what I'm saying. That's not an insult, but without knowing what we do, and why, you can't make statements about it.
My point would be that all photographs are stylized, in one way or another. In many ways, in fact. They don't duplicate what the eye sees. They are not reality -- they are representational of reality as it is viewed by the taker of the photograph.
In some cases but not entirely. I would wager the far majority of photos taken are by every day people who just wanted to capture a moment not create an art project. In that case they want to picture to look like the reality of the moment. They don't want crushed contrast and saturated colors. They want natural skin tones and natural colors. That is essentially what consumer point and shoot cameras strive to accomplish.
A famous example of this is process at work is Ansel Adams. He used filters to take his photographs and darkroom techniques to enhance the effects he wanted to produce. So what was his basis for reality? He freely manipulated reality in every way he knew how, to produce the image he saw in his mind's eye, one that the camera unaided could not.
Interesting you bring up Ansel Adams. He was perhaps the first HDR artist. What he observed is that the film negative captures much higher dynamic range than film paper is capable of displaying. His technique did not add anything to the picture that was not already there. His technique was to display the fuller dynamic range of the film negative onto the print.
In some cases but not entirely. I would wager the far majority of photos taken are by every day people who just wanted to capture a moment not create an art project. In that case they want to picture to look like the reality of the moment. They don't want crushed contrast and saturated colors. They want natural skin tones and natural colors. That is essentially what consumer point and shoot cameras strive to accomplish.
Interesting you bring up Ansel Adams. He was perhaps the first HDR artist. What he observed is that the film negative captures much higher dynamic range than film paper is capable of displaying. His technique did not add anything to the picture that was not already there. His technique was to display the fuller dynamic range of the film negative onto the print.
It's going to become very difficult to find a camera that doesn't do internal HDR before too long. I see that a number of new compacts do them. Over time, the algorithms will get better, as things always do.
I have responded substantially. I just feel you don't understand what I'm saying. That's not an insult, but without knowing what we do, and why, you can't make statements about it.
I do understand what you are saying. You baffled me by responding with a blanket but otherwise unexplained disagreement with everything I said, including the part where I said I agreed with you. I'd like to believe otherwise, but this seems like it might have been a deliberate tactic to avoid responding to the points I raised. So far, you are just refusing to discuss them.
I do understand what you are saying. You baffled me by responding with a blanket but otherwise unexplained disagreement with everything I said, including the part where I said I agreed with you. I'd like to believe otherwise, but this seems like it might have been a deliberate tactic to avoid responding to the points I raised. So far, you are just refusing to discuss them.
I never refuse to respond to anything, as you know, unless it's a troll, and even then, sometimes I try.
The best way to respond was to attempt to tell what we do, and why. Your whole point, as I gathered, was to say that despite the technology, all photos are just an interpretation, and therefor don't reflect reality, but our view of it, and therefor, can't be "accurate".
Do I have that right? Close?
In some cases but not entirely. I would wager the far majority of photos taken are by every day people who just wanted to capture a moment not create an art project. In that case they want to picture to look like the reality of the moment. They don't want crushed contrast and saturated colors. They want natural skin tones and natural colors. That is essentially what consumer point and shoot cameras strive to accomplish.
Ah, but there you have it. The causal or amateur photographer is making many of the same choices as the professional, but they may be consciously unaware that those choices are editorial in nature. The professional knows that the image is not reality, it is representational, and makes choices about how to represent the subject on a more conscious level. The point is, whether the choices are made with deliberate forethought or not, they are still choices. A lot of these choices are already pre-made for the consumer. The average point-and-shoot digital camera tends towards over-saturation of color, not because it is more accurate to reality, but because it is more appealing. I believe HDR has a similar appeal at the consumer level.
Interesting you bring up Ansel Adams. He was perhaps the first HDR artist. What he observed is that the film negative captures much higher dynamic range than film paper is capable of displaying. His technique did not add anything to the picture that was not already there. His technique was to display the fuller dynamic range of the film negative onto the print.
Exactly. I used that example for the very reason that he used techniques to enhance images that are no less "untrue" than HDR. Whether he "added" anything to the photograph is debatable. Had he simply pointed his camera at the subject, without the use of filters, had he not dodged and burned artfully in the darkroom, the Adams compositions would remain, but many of the details which made his style so recognizable and so admired would have been missing.
I never refuse to respond to anything, as you know, unless it's a troll, and even then, sometimes I try.
The best way to respond was to attempt to tell what we do, and why. Your whole point, as I gathered, was to say that despite the technology, all photos are just an interpretation, and therefor don't reflect reality, but our view of it, and therefor, can't be "accurate".
Do I have that right? Close?
Close, partially. I've been making a philosophical point, to which you've been offering mainly a technical response. I understand and accept your technical points. I'm not saying that photographs are mere interpretations, and certainly not that they don't reflect reality. What I am saying is that they are representational (an image of the thing, not the thing itself), and reflect choices made by the photographer to represent how they see the thing. I'm saying you can't yank those layers of choice and interpretation out of the equation by arguing that the technical aspects of reproduction (image to printing or other method) are made as accurate as possible to the photographer's original purpose. Technically, that's correct, but it reduces the other factors that go into the creation process to virtually incidental, which I think is hardly true (and doesn't give the photographer much credit!). Maybe I missed something, but that's how I read your argument.
Close, partially. I've been making a philosophical point, to which you've been offering mainly a technical response. I understand and accept your technical points. I'm not saying that photographs are mere interpretations, and certainly not that they don't reflect reality. What I am saying is that they are representational (an image of the thing, not the thing itself), and reflect choices made by the photographer to represent how they see the thing. I'm saying you can't yank those layers of choice and interpretation out of the equation by arguing that the technical aspects of reproduction (image to printing or other method) are made as accurate as possible to the photographer's original purpose. Technically, that's correct, but it reduces the other factors that go into the creation process to virtually incidental, which I think is hardly true (and doesn't give the photographer much credit!). Maybe I missed something, but that's how I read your argument.
As having been that photographer before I had my lab, I can state something about what we tried to do, and I never said that it was perfect.
First of all, photos, including those for commercial (and even scientific) purposes are not always attempting to represent the subject as "accurately" in the objective sense. They are sometimes attempting to bring out some portion of the reality, while pushing other aspects into the background, so to speak.
But the ones I'm referring to ARE trying to make the image as closely as possible match the original.
So, we take an object, and lay it down on a light table, and set up our lighting so as to show the object as carefully as possible, constantly referring through the camera glass to the actual object, and take test shots. When the tests show us that the object in the photo matches the one on the table, we finalize it.
When that pick goes to the lab, they match the color, brightness and contrast to what the set-up was. Sometimes, if it's REALLY important, a comparison is made to the actual object under the proper lighting.
Obviously, since a photograph is a two dimensional object, and MOST objects photographed are three dimensional, we can't show those dimensions in the way they are in "real" life, but one view of it. Someday that may change with better 3D photography.
But I did, and had clients who photographed paintings, lithographs, posters, etc. All two dimensional objects, so that there the third dimension wasn't really a problem.
I get the feeling that your philosophy won't allow you to agree with what I'm trying to show, which is why I was about to drop it. I know what you're saying, I don't agree.
Actually, it doesn't matter whether we agree on this or not. Most philosophy is irrelevant in daily life I've found., except for morals, and that's where the biggest disagreements come into place amongst people. Not between us, I don't think.
As having been that photographer before I had my lab, I can state something about what we tried to do, and I never said that it was perfect.
First of all, photos, including those for commercial (and even scientific) purposes are not always attempting to represent the subject as "accurately" in the objective sense. They are sometimes attempting to bring out some portion of the reality, while pushing other aspects into the background, so to speak.
But the ones I'm referring to ARE trying to make the image as closely as possible match the original.
So, we take an object, and lay it down on a light table, and set up our lighting so as to show the object as carefully as possible, constantly referring through the camera glass to the actual object, and take test shots. When the tests show us that the object in the photo matches the one on the table, we finalize it.
When that pick goes to the lab, they match the color, brightness and contrast to what the set-up was. Sometimes, if it's REALLY important, a comparison is made to the actual object under the proper lighting.
Obviously, since a photograph is a two dimensional object, and MOST objects photographed are three dimensional, we can't show those dimensions in the way they are in "real" life, but one view of it. Someday that may change with better 3D photography.
But I did, and had clients who photographed paintings, lithographs, posters, etc. All two dimensional objects, so that there the third dimension wasn't really a problem.
I get the feeling that your philosophy won't allow you to agree with what I'm trying to show, which is why I was about to drop it. I know what you're saying, I don't agree.
Actually, it doesn't matter whether we agree on this or not. Most philosophy is irrelevant in daily life I've found., except for morals, and that's where the biggest disagreements come into place amongst people. Not between us, I don't think.
If you think that, then you aren't understanding my point, and/or you are hoping to dismiss it as irrelevant. I would not have used this word had you not chosen it yourself. It's not "my philosophy." I wish I could have invented it. I am only relating one of the central issues of art since the modern era at least. So you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a widely known and deeply discussed idea.
The kind of photography you have described above sounds pretty specialized. For the third time at least, I see your point and agree with it as far as that goes. But I hope you would agree that most commercial photography has the objective of showing off a product to its best affect, not trying to represent it in the most accurate way possible. Then you have everything else which is not commercial photography, to which your rules of fidelity to the original object hardly apply at all. Beyond this narrow category of photography, I don't see how you can take the photographer out of the frame, so to speak. Which is why you think the issues I've described are irrelevant, I guess. I have to guess, since you haven't said otherwise.
If you think that, then you aren't understanding my point, and/or you are hoping to dismiss it as irrelevant. I would not have used this word had you not chosen it yourself. It's not "my philosophy." I wish I could have invented it. I am only relating one of the central issues of art since the modern era at least. So you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a widely known and deeply discussed idea.
The kind of photography you have described above sounds pretty specialized. For the third time at least, I see your point and agree with it as far as that goes. But I hope you would agree that most commercial photography has the objective of showing off a product to its best affect, not trying to represent it in the most accurate way possible. Then you have everything else which is not commercial photography, to which your rules of fidelity to the original object hardly apply at all. Beyond this narrow category of photography, I don't see how you can take the photographer out of the frame, so to speak. Which is why you think the issues I've described are irrelevant, I guess. I have to guess, since you haven't said otherwise.
I understand your point, and I'm not dismissing it at all. It's a perfectly valid point, but not for everything, and that's all I'm trying to say.
We can't speak of percentages here. Some part of the use of photography is intended to show an object, or person, or scene, or whatever, as we would see the actual subject, without interpretation, as much as is technically possible.
So if I'm photographing a coin, I want people to see the coin in that image as it would look under the "lights". Except for magnification, we can do that very well. You might say that putting it under the lights already distorts the way we'd see the coin in more "normal" situations. So what? The image of that coin is still going to be very close to the actual coin, and that's what I'm talking about. After all, if we see the coin in a museum, the lighting should be very much the same, if it's set up correctly.
The rest of photography, not so much. Most of the photographs I take for myself are interpreting in the way you say. But that's my own work, not intended to convey accuracy, but my own viewpoint.
I understand your point, and I'm not dismissing it at all. It's a perfectly valid point, but not for everything, and that's all I'm trying to say.
We can't speak of percentages here. Some part of the use of photography is intended to show an object, or person, or scene, or whatever, as we would see the actual subject, without interpretation, as much as is technically possible.
So if I'm photographing a coin, I want people to see the coin in that image as it would look under the "lights". Except for magnification, we can do that very well. You might say that putting it under the lights already distorts the way we'd see the coin in more "normal" situations. So what? The image of that coin is still going to be very close to the actual coin, and that's what I'm talking about. After all, if we see the coin in a museum, the lighting should be very much the same, if it's set up correctly.
The rest of photography, not so much. Most of the photographs I take for myself are interpreting in the way you say. But that's my own work, not intended to convey accuracy, but my own viewpoint.
Fair enough. It seems, especially looking back at the thread, that you and I agree more nearly in general principle than either of us does with TenoBell.
Ah, but there you have it. The causal or amateur photographer is making many of the same choices as the professional, but they may be consciously unaware that those choices are editorial in nature.
The casual amateur has the camera on manual the majority of the time. They are making virtually no conscious choices about the picture.
Close, partially. I've been making a philosophical point, to which you've been offering mainly a technical response. I understand and accept your technical points. I'm not saying that photographs are mere interpretations, and certainly not that they don't reflect reality. What I am saying is that they are representational (an image of the thing, not the thing itself), and reflect choices made by the photographer to represent how they see the thing. I'm saying you can't yank those layers of choice and interpretation out of the equation by arguing that the technical aspects of reproduction (image to printing or other method) are made as accurate as possible to the photographer's original purpose. Technically, that's correct, but it reduces the other factors that go into the creation process to virtually incidental, which I think is hardly true (and doesn't give the photographer much credit!). Maybe I missed something, but that's how I read your argument.
It feels that you want to divorce the technical aspects of photography from the philosophical aspects of what creates a picture. When the very act of taking a picture is a mechanical process.
In nothing I've said did I dispute that images are representations of real life. My whole point is that there is an establish benchmark for a normal picture. Normal skin tones, normal color balance, normal contrast. From that point the photographer can do whatever they desire.
It feels that you want to argue that simply because a picture is a representation that there can be no normal - but there is - and for the whole system to work there has to be.
Fair enough. It seems, especially looking back at the thread, that you and I agree more nearly in general principle than either of us does with TenoBell.
It makes me no difference whether you agree with me or not. I deal with this stuff every day. It all goes a lot deeper than what is being described here.
Volumes of books are written about color theory and 3D Look Up Tables.
Yes absolutely HDR will become common in all cameras. I believe the majority of the time its use will be to fix pictures with extremely over exposed areas and severely underexposed areas.
More than it will be used to turn New York cityscapes into Blade Runner.
It's going to become very difficult to find a camera that doesn't do internal HDR before too long. I see that a number of new compacts do them. Over time, the algorithms will get better, as things always do.
I just realize that perhaps you guys think I am against HDR. I'm not at all, its just a tool like any tool.
Yes absolutely HDR will become common in all cameras. I believe the majority of the time its use will be to fix pictures with extremely over exposed areas and severely underexposed areas.
More than it will be used to turn New York cityscapes into Blade Runner.
I don't think you're against HDR. I think that you think that much of it is crap, and I agree. But when it's done properly, it's great. My daughter is getting ready to go back to school in the UK, and just finished an extra credit project she took on for the summer break. It combines a self portrait and HDR. She shot the last of it today in the studio I built for her here at home. I'm curious as to how it will come out over the next few days as she works on it in the computer.
What I do believe is that in the future, when computers in cameras are powerful enough, is that they will be able to determine, pixel by pixel, which areas will get more exposure, and which will get less, by changing the amount of voltage from each pixel as it saves to memory. Same thing with color rendition in differing light. One exposure will be all we need, not three or more.
Ours eyes and brain are seeing reality while the picture is just an interpretation of reality.
This statement clearly shows that you don't understand human perception. Everything we experience is an interpretation of reality. The actual scene and the photograph are both completely interpreted. There are complex physical processes at play in both cases, outside our bodies, inside our eyes, and in the signals that reach our brains. The physical processes of viewing a scene are necessarily different than the processes involved at looking at a printed photograph and different again from looking at a photograph on a display. There is science and complex math involved in mapping between the physical realities of these mediums, but in the end the mediums are different and fundamentally cannot output the same stream of photons to our eyes. Furthermore the different physical nature of the mediums means that the physical mechanics of our eyes must be different in how they react to what is viewed. All of that gets filtered through our eyes and optical centres of our brains, and then processed by the higher level functioning and filtering in the brain. How much of a scene do we really perceive? There are all sorts of experiments that show "not much". That means that even the process of how we examine a photo is different than how we experienced the original scene, and thus even the photons that travel from image to brain are not the end of the story. There is tremendous science in how images are processed, but in the end it must be art because there is the interpretation of the photographer/processor included in the attempt to present that which can be interpreted in a pleasing way. Since that interpretation is in large part a function of our higher brain, how pleasing it is is highly subjective. How "correct" a photographic process is can only be defined subjectively, or in a very narrow (and thereby of questionable value) scientific definition.
In the end what matters is how pleasing the resulting photos are. The iPhone4's HDR output, from what I've seen and in my opinion, is very very impressive for a cell phone camera.
What I am hearing is that photography, like writing, should adhere to some kind of grammar. In principle, I can agree, up to a point. However the purpose of grammar in writing is to make the writing comprehensible, to promote the goal of communications, the exchange of information and ideas, not to make all writing the same or even similar. If the purpose of photographic grammar is similar to writing (and it seems it is), then it should have the same goal.
This statement clearly shows that you don't understand human perception. Everything we experience is an interpretation of reality.
Hmmm...I find it interesting that you feel so comfortable in defining what I know and what I don't know. I've been to Kodak in Rochester New York. Spoken with Kodak chemists that hold PhD's in their respective fields. I've been to seminars with German engineers from Zeiss Optics. I've learned a lot about what I'm talking about.
I see what you are saying to some degree, but you are making it way more complicated than it really is. Human vision is subjective to a degree but its not that subjective. A group of people looking at a purple flower all agree that its a purple flower. There isn't much discrepancy on what we are looking at. Whether its pleasing or not can be subjective but in many cases we mostly are in agreement on what we find visual pleasing.
Why would they pay Adrianna Lima millions of dollars to appear in Victoria's Secret, or Halle Berry millions for a movie, why would they spend millions to shoot "The Dark Knight" in downtown Hong Kong in IMAX if human vision and perception were so widely subjective. The answer is because its not that widely subjective. The majority of people find these efforts visually appealing.
How "correct" a photographic process is can only be defined subjectively, or in a very narrow (and thereby of questionable value) scientific definition.
I'm not sure what you mean by "correct", I did not criticize HDR as being an "incorrect" photographic process. I agree there is no such thing as correct or incorrect process.
There is such a thing as natural skin tones, normal colors, normal contrast.
My professional is motion picture media. The reason there has to be a "normal" is because there is a long chain of events before a movie/video ends up at the theater/television/web.
Film/Digital is shot somewhere in the world. It has to go through post production processing, editing, color correction, formatting for distribution. There are many people and many facilities either in different parts of a country or different parts of the world that will facilitate the process.
To ensure that what comes out at the end is what is intended, tests have to be done. So the production will shoot some tests. They will send those tests through the whole processing chain. The standard benchmark is the ability to come out of the end with natural skin tones, natural colors, natural contrast. With that we know that the processing chain can accurately and predictably reproduce skin tones, the color red, green, and blue. And trust me you don't always get the correct results at the end, you can get people with purple faces.
When the production is secure that in that system then we know we can use whatever process we choose to create whatever crazy look we desire, and that look is going to come out at the end. This is critically important to know, because there is a lot of money depending on all of this working.
What I am hearing is that photography, like writing, should adhere to some kind of grammar. In principle, I can agree, up to a point. However the purpose of grammar in writing is to make the writing comprehensible, to promote the goal of communications, the exchange of information and ideas, not to make all writing the same or even similar. If the purpose of photographic grammar is similar to writing (and it seems it is), then it should have the same goal.