Why do people post technically awful photos?

You've all seen them. Horrible color, over exposed, under exposed.

Contrast flat as pancake, miserable looking things you'd complain to

a cheap photofinisher about--but somehow feel perfectly free to post

in an international photography forum. Why? You have access to a

computer, obviously. Image editing software is freely available. Many

here are well heeled enough to buy a full-bore registered version of

Photoshop, yet this forum is regularly graced with some of the

technically worst looking images imaginable. What's it all about?

jamie, apparently most of the users of photo-net are amatuers and thats cool because they have the oppurtunity to be schooled in basic image making techniques and post photos because they can, most professionals dont post images on random photo sites.

many people unfortunately regard post-processing as either "unpure"(BS) or don't consider it at all..

Many of these same people will nitpick over the smallest differences in lens qualities, yet ignore the one of the most fundamental areas in creating an image, post-processing, which is 1000000X more important than whether you have a Summilux, Summicron, Nikkor, Canon etc..

 

Oh well, if they want to continue doing that, it's their choice...

...and Jamie, if you are pointing to my last posted pic, I had to do a lot of postprocessing to save this photo...to me its the composition/content that comes first than anything else.

It could be your monitor. Try turning it off.

Simple question: who says these pictures are over or under exposed or have horrible colour?

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder and it's entirely possible that others might feel the same way about your pictures.......

Don't forget to include the people who gaussian blurs or despeckle their image to death to make up for the lack of impact their image contains.

I think in many cases the person who captures the image wants to share the experience of

that moment. I know that there have been countless times in my life when I have been to

an amazing place or had an incredible experience that I wished I could capture (or capture

better), but couldn't. I guess I just look at it this way: even if you are not able to craft a

story like Nabokov or Salinger, that doesn't prevent you from telling stories does it? I think

a lot of people just want to share what they have seen -- something that has meaning to

them, but perhaps they have not the skill or good fortune to be able to reproduce it as

they saw it at the time. I know I am certainly guilty of this...<P>But at the same time, I do

find myself questioning why some photos appear here. I guess I don't really pay it too

much mind though. It's like skiiing -- on the same mountain, and at times even on the

same trail you will see people who are incredible and people who can barely stay up.

Usually after enough effort and practice the people who can't stand up learn to make their

way down the harder trails, even if not as prettily as people with natural ability.

In "Charotts of the Gods" the old coach tells the young runner, "I can't put in what God left out".

 

Photoshop is an incrediable tool and can do wonderful things but it can't put in what the photographer or the camera left behind.

 

If the information is there it can often bring it out. But blown highlights or blocked shadows where the information just isn't there Photoshop can't help.

 

That is why I still use film. It captures more information. Most of the time it captures more than is needed or even desireable for the artistic purpose but it is there.

 

If I want to do a drum scan or fiddle about in the darkroom to retreve it I can.

Jamie, good point, but as someone who posts mostly colour pics I have to assume your accusation includes me amongst 'people'.

 

I will not defend my attempts as I am not a pro like yourself. I have only recently started using PS 7 and I am still getting used to it and the learning curve is steep.

 

That is my problem.

 

Your problem now is that you have to post technically perfect photographs here, forever, as you have set yourself up as the arbiter of technical ability for all the rest of us.

 

Good luck.

Can I suggest Jamie J 'masterclasses' or tutorials for the rest of us poor benighted saps who just haven't got it yet?

<i>but it can't put in what the photographer or the camera left behind.</i><p>

 

That isn't the problem here. Some people post images from digital originals that have been properly processed. Some people post images from inexpensive scanners that have been properly processed.<p>

 

I think the problem is that there are quite a few people who, and some have said this, think that a drugstore print or a quickie scan is all you need to do if you have good equipment. There aren't that many people here who have learned to print in the darkroom or taken a good course in Photoshop because if you can afford the camera gear, why would you bother with that? It's a lack of interest in craft, and a corresponding attitude about it. I've seen scans of prints that make it obvious that it's not about what's been "left behind." It's a lack of concern about the craft that goes into making a great photograph, regardless of the original source material.<p>

 

Making remarks about someone giving a "masterclass" only reinforce this attitude. It's not that hard in most parts of the world to take a basic photography class and learn how to properly print, in the darkroom or the digital world, something that takes advantage of what is in the raw image. There are online resources also, although nothing beats a good, real education.

The basics of color balance density/contrast control and are pretty simple, there's no need for master classes. The information is freely available online. In many cases just Image> Adjustments> Auto color would at least bring some of these images within reason. Often times the Auto levels/contrast/color adjustments are a better jumping off for further adjustment than the original file, sometimes not though. Luminous Landscape has a tutorial section; one is called "Instant Photoshop". That, and the tutorial on Curves, will pretty much sort out the majority of problems. I'm not trying to insult people here, although in the tradition of the Leica Forum--if you are that's ok too. ;-)

I agree with Jeff. If one doesn't take the time to learn their craft how can they be sure of what they capture in their cameras? Is it a haphazard combination of variables that finally come together to make a good image? Or is a fine carftsman that puts the variables in his own order to create a fine image?

 

Anyone who has seen my work knows that my style is not the "Leica Style" since my photos almost never include people, with the exception of portraits, however I can appreciate a top quality street photo or documentary photo. I also disagree with the content first arguement. Content and craft together make a good photograph, neither can stand alone. HCB said that content counted first but then again he was already quite proficient in craft, it came to him with out much thought.

I would rather say that HCB had master printers at his disposal.

hcb is just one of many....there are many photographers who print their own work...

I spent 40 + years in a darkroom and know when an image is right. Many new people do not. I have a new monitor and the printed pics match exactly. I send them to my computer at work and they look like Holga pics.

 

The instructions that came with my Minolta 5400 are marginal. I have finally managed to get a pretty good scan that prints correctly with little or no manipulation. Without darkroom experience, it would be difficult to learn photshop on your own.

 

I personally do not think color management is the answer. One of the main reasons I purchased an Epson printer was the black ink only setting and the ability to manually put color, density, and contrast correstion between the monitor and printer. So far I found it unnecessary, but what if. I refuse to start fancy profiles etc.

 

So there is a whole list of reason why you screen image may look bad.

BTW, I do not find so many bad pictures posted.

Some people use digital as their main medium, others use it incidentally to post pictures. They may have perfect pictures on paper, be very talented that way, and have a hard time getting them scanned and posted right.

 

In my case, I have a monitor that is half whacked, and makes things look too dark (and can't be adjusted any farther)- so I can tweak pictures to look great here at my house, and see them on my work computer, and they're all washed out.

I don't know Jamie, why do you post technically bad photos? You could at least increase the contrast on your black and white work. They are flat.

 

What is the saying about casting the first stone. I would be very careful to be above reproach before looking down on others or their work. This forum is a place to share work and ideas. You should be more tolerant of different levels of skill and experience especially since this is an amateur site.

I am not a very good photographer. Bad eye for composition, marginal darkroom skills, no knowledge of digital manipulation (yet).

 

I have a Leica because I am going to own some kind of camera, and I like the build and optical quality. Sometimes my snaps might be a little better because of it, but probably not too often. I know that my stuff would never measure up to 95% of what gets posted here, and it doesn't bother me at all. I do find many of the posts here informative and useful and it helps me improve in this as a hobby. If I post a "technically awful" photo and someone calls it that, no problem. I'll keep trying and maybe I'll get better at it.

The issue here is not the skill or experience of the photographer, but the fact that many of them believe because they shoot (for example) Kodachrome with an M6 with a 'Cron, that the printing or digital process is irrelevant compared to what they used as equipment.

 

Contrary to what Ronald said, learning Photoshop is not as difficult as many say. Sure there is a somewhat steep learning curve at the beginning, but once you get over the initial hump, there's a amazing variety of features available at your disposal. All it takes is a small amount of effort to get started in post-processing, and you'll quickly find that your photographic world has greatly expanded. We are all in a constant process of learning, experiencing, re-learning when it comes to photography, choosing to ignore a very important aspect will only hinder one in expressing themselves through their photos.

"You've all seen them. Horrible color, over exposed, under exposed."

 

Jaimie, who do you think subsidises your film? The vast majority of digital film readers, cameras, film, accessories, paint, canvas, brushes, etc. are in the hands of rank amatures. They deserve to be patronised and encouraged to consume until they choke, if only out of self interest. Besides you have to produce crap before you learn anything and perhaps sharing is a small step down that road.

It depends on whether your hobby is photography or electronics.

<i>...who do you think subsidises your film?</i>

<p>

What does this have to do with anything? Some people give a sh*t while others don't.