Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?

[Brad_]

<I>You just stick to safe stuff so people will say "AWESOME".</I><P>

 

Can you share some examples to back up your claim?

[Brad_]

Dennis, most (90%+) of the photos I take are of people, usually pretty close range (within a

few feet), with a 10-22mm lens.<P>

 

Here's one that a few people said was pretty nice - I don't think the word AWESOME has

ever been used, but I know you like to exaggerate. Please explain to me how it is "safe,"

and how bad it sucks<BR><P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images11/SFWeb%203-20-05/image/

lawrence.jpg">

</center>

[dennis_couvillion]

"I don't understand the "fluff" comment; what's the difference between enhancing an interesting image using PS and doing the same thing in the darkroom? Taking "9.40" as an example, do you not think it is a genuinely nice image? I don't understand.

 

Isn't style the thing that makes one photographer differ from another, or is it somehow nobler to do a basic scan, no sharpening, and no contrast/brightness work? What about dodging and burning? I suspect that even HCB's printer did this to his images."

 

Andy:

 

Thanks.

 

The 9:40 image demonstrates nothing but a cool style... that's it.

 

Yes, style indeed separates photographers, but what I'm talking about are photos that are just about the style, which is technically very easy to do, rather than photos with some intersting statement or point of view. A photograph with intersting content can be enhanced by style... but these photos I posted are just examples of the style I was talking about, nothing else. The photos are basically my rejects that I Photoshopped.

 

I may have posted some of these same photos before without manipulation... and they weren't good. If it takes a lot of manipulation to make it work then IMO it's not a good shot.

 

As for manipulation, yes you can do some of the same manipulation in the darkroom... and I don't like darkroom manipulation either if it is just to impose a style rather than enhance an otherwise good shot. But this thread was about the whole digital process, specifically including Photoshop... and IMO Photoshop makes the manipulation process easier. And IMO it is merely an extension of a digital mentality that I outlined above... of taking the easy way.

 

Some people, in my observation, just want to be internet photographers... internet legends. They post easy stuff, full of STYLE and other people just eat it up. I could easily pull out hundreds of slides and negatives and Photoshop them in this style if all I wanted were "AWESOME" comments.

 

I just don't like the pretense that the style is really something more than what it actually is... a cover-up for weak photography. Believe it or not, my point is not to be gratuitously critical. But if people are going to represent themselves as being serious about photography then let's elevate the level of discussion here and get past the pretense.

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

Dennis, is it safe to say you don't like Richard Avedon's work, as he's a manipulator? After

all, in a typical print (from the darkroom), he might have dozens of manipulations in order

to achieve the result he's looking for.

[michael s.]

I went out of town briefly and have returned to this thread in time to make a startling discovery: good photographers on this Forum disagree sharply on what constitutes a good photograph.

 

Such is the gulf between opinions that even "controlling" for bias and self-interest, they don't agree on the quality or the impact of photos they themselves or their sometime "rivals" have taken.

 

That's not a bad thing.

 

Is it?

[Brad_]

Dennis, about those risks you've taken - I'd really like to know what they are - honest.

[Brad_]

<I> That's not a bad thing.

 

Is it?</I><P>

 

Absolutely not. It's when someone imposes a dictatorial view and hurls personal insults

when things get bad.

[Brad_]

<I> You may be so closed-minded that you block out anything that is not in accordance

with your superior knowledge...</I><P>

 

Please show me where I've demonstrated being close-minded on this thread.<P>

Can you honestly say you've approached this thread with an open mind?

[dennis_couvillion]

"What risks have you taken?"

 

For example, see the "rangefinder style" shot you referred to. It's a questionable shot compostionally and the meaning is vague. It's just a simple shot that attempted to capture a common, but intersting, peculiarity of people... sneaking a peak at strangers. Call it human curiosity. That's it... no big deal.

 

But I'm not afraid to risk scorn or criticism by posting something like this... particularly knowing that I could easily get favorable commnets just by posting a high contrast "style" shot instead. That's what I meant by taking risks.

 

I don't shoot and post here just so I can read "AWESOME" comments... I want to know whether the meaning of the photo is getting through. And usually it doesn't... but sometimes it does. Travis said my photos usually tell stories... greatest compliment I've gotten in a long, long time... so maybe SOMETIMES people GET my stuff.

 

I think you have a good eye... but I think you're selling yourself short because it seems to me you are taking an easy route that GREATLY emphasizes style. And, honestly, I think it's pretentious for you talk about how serious you take your photography (and criticize others) if you don't extend yourself. You bring a lot of this on yourself...

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

<I>You bring a lot of this on yourself...</I><P>

 

What exactly am I bringing on myself - other than your personal insults?

[Brad_]

Posting that rangefinder style shot wasn't taking a risk - it's just bad editing - it was a bad

photo. Leaving aesthetic considerations aside, the harsh light killed it.

[Brad_]

<I> But I'm not afraid to risk scorn or criticism by posting something like this... </I><P>

 

But you are. After a half-dozen people weighed in on that photo (wanting to know how it

was a range-finder style pic) , you went on a search and destroy mission to get even - and

it's still going on today.

[squareframe]

<img src="http://www.mizzensail.com/kitchen duotone.jpg" />

<br><br>

Dennis, don't be so harsh here. the photos you submitted did not seem to gain anything by adjusting the tonal range to highlight detail in the shadows. clearly, this is subjective, and I have been overly sensitive to this to always include the glaring fact that it is my own personal and subjective assessment.<br><br>

 

I looked through my portfolio for an image that I thought clearly gains something by subtracting elements that detract from the overall theme I wanted to express. I captured this kitchen scene with my Canon G2 after I noticed the threatening aspect of the light reflecting off the knife blades. the movie 'Psycho' came to mind, so I underexposed and in Photoshop scaled the image to juxtapose light against darkness. I like the image, my wife does not. my own sense is that I had no desire to capture the image as I saw it with my eyes, a literal representation. photography allows you to transcend the literal and allow the photographer to express something deeper, perhaps, than what we see.<br><br>

 

I suspect you will not agree, and hope you will at least see what I was after. a tension, a threatening mood, a feeling of unease from something common in our lives. I like it, I had fun printing it, and I learned something from the process that will surely help me evolve into a better photographer. I wish others the same.

[dennis_couvillion]

Brad:

 

Apparently I'm not making myself clear. The problem I have with you and some other people is how dismissive and disrespectful of what other photographer's post. I don't think you've reached a level that entitles you to do that. As offensive as my posts are, that's what I am trying to point out.

 

It is a fact, or at least my opinion, that the photos you and your friens post on the S&D Forum are technically superior to what's posted here... although a lot of it is pretty "safe" stuff. But for you to say that the stuff here is so "dreadful" that you don't want to post your photos here is wrong. I respect photographers who post photos that ALMOST make it if I can see what the photographer was trying to do or what he was trying to convey. I like looking at people's snapshots.

 

To make these remarks topical to this thread, IMO your selection of a dslr as your weapon and your expansive use of Photoshop makes you a better photographer... but only in the sense that it enables you to post what I consider to be "safe" shots, heavy on style and Photoshop.

If you are really serious about photography as you've sometimes said, IMO your selection of equipment is holding you back. In that respect, I think that choice of equipment plays a much greater part in one's approach to photography than some people say.

 

Yes, it's the photographer and not the camera that matters most... but the equipment still matters greatly.

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

<I> Apparently I'm not making myself clear. The problem I have with you and some other

people is how dismissive and disrespectful of what other photographer's post.</I><P>

 

And these feelings you have entitle you to slam down Ray's thread? I don't understand

that.

[squareframe]

the image I posted was taken with my Hasselblad, not my Canon G2 as I thought.

[Brad_]

Dennis, for example, daniel and I have gotten into in the past here. Should I keep that

going, many threads later and say bad stuff about him? By the way, that's a fine

photograph, daniel - well executed.

[dennis_couvillion]

"you went on a search and destroy mission to get even - and it's still going on today."

 

Brad, that is absolute BS... Unless it's some mean, gratuitous remark (a la Grant) I don't worry about what people say. I may want to know if people are looking at the things I thought was important in a photograph. But, as I've said before, I don't come to the internet for affirmation. (I believe to an extent that maybe you do.) But if someone's mindset is so focused only on making cool "style" shots I doubt seriously if they are going to spot the little things that I may think are important in my photos. Why? Because they're hung up on their cool style instead... That's why I've learned not to put too much weight on what some people say.

 

Dennis

[michael s.]

Dennis - I think the semi-bronzed, high contrast, low (or no) shadow detail image is actually just *one* processed look, by no means the only look.

 

At this moment, that look has become more popular on the Street/Doc Forum here on photo.net, but even there, where it's prevalent, it's by no means uniform. I believe it enhances some of the pictures posted, particularly some of the dark impressionistic ones, where the struggle is to make something meaningful and human out of thin slice of light (or in some cases, virtual darkness). I also believe that it doesn't enhance every photo to which it's applied (and probably has diminished a few), and if overused, that look risks becoming a cliche -- employed to make a not-so-strong photo serviceable (or post-able). Time ... and more pics will tell the story for me.

 

I think that Ed, Steve West, Tom Sullivan, Kent, Eric, Jeff, Balaji, Takaaki, Tom Santosusso, Kipling Phillips, Pete, and Brad ... and Grant (!) (to name just a few -- there are more) have all posted many strong photos that exhibit the potential strength of the approach. I have left out Jung Yang and Beau on purpose, because their pictures, nearly always among my favorites, typically appear differently to me in style.

 

So -- to get back to the questions Ray, and later you, raised in this thread -- I think it would be risky to assume that such images (let's call them "mo/mo" -- more darkness/more contrast) inescapably result from a photographer's experimentation with digital capture and photoshop post-processing.

 

Jazz enthusiasts remember those who listened only to, or listened first to, Miles Davis album "Bitches Brew" and said in effect: "Why all the excitement about this guy? He can't seem to get a clear tone out of his horn and he has no real sense of what the 'song' is all about." Little did they know ...

 

I'm meandering, I know, but I guess it takes me back to Allen's comment above about the journey. Mo/mo might be just one stop along the way, and perhaps not a stop at which some of us will choose to hop off the train and explore.

[Brad_]

Michael, it's refreshing to hear someone speak with an open mind. It is about

experimentation and exploration. Just a small detail, maybe a third to a half of those you

mentioned shoot film.

[dennis_couvillion]

Bottom line... and then I've gotta run.

 

Brad, do you want me to not comment on your photographs anymore? I'll try very hard not to if you back off of your dismissive comments about the "dreadful" photography here? Then you go do your thing and take whatever photographic journey you want.

 

But if in a calmer moment you come back to this thread and re-read my observations and suggestions about your photography you may find I am not as off-base as you think now. Sometimes the best advice is the most brutal...

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

<I> Brad, do you want me to not comment on your photographs anymore?</I><P>

 

No, I want you to be civil.<P><P>

 

 

<I> But if in a calmer moment you come back to this thread and re-read my

observations</I><P>

 

Please point out the specific instances on this thread (Ray's) where I have not been calm.

Thank you.

[dennis_couvillion]

"And these feelings you have entitle you to slam down Ray's thread?"

 

One last thing, Brad... Considering the number of times you and your buddies, including Grant, engaged in your tag-team attacks on people ruined threads and created dissension with your mischief, you've got a lot of nerve accusing me of slamming Ray's thread.

 

Bye...

[EricM]

Dennis, i must ask you to post some of your favorites now, the ones you're pleased with. they need to be here compared against your so called crappy cranked out photoshop images. lets see them.

[Brad_]

Dennis, you're not going to address my 11:05 AM question?