Would you process a photograph to this degree?

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>If an image creator puts that much work into an image they better have something to say in proportion. There's nothing wrong with Eastway's methods and the extent of effort behind the manipulation.</p>

<p>It's the why I'm concerned about. It's a lot of work but I still don't get what he's saying with it as I do with others who manipulate photos to this extent.</p>

<p>If I'm too lazy to want to put that much work into my own images, is that the wrong reason? At least I'm honest with what I'm not seeing in an image to make me not want to put that much work into it. </p>

<p>You either got it or you don't. And if you don't, be honest with yourself and not try to make it into something it never was or can't be. Or just paint a picture.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, what is the point in arguing from a static viewpoint? You are making comments as if others views and opinions are irrelevant. You are asking why he does this. Does it matter. I also think some of your analogies show a stagnant non open point of view. To each his own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then don't read my viewpoints. Clearly you're not deriving any value from them, so why read them.</p>

 

 

 

[richard_john_edwards]

Tim, I am reading all the view points, and I am finding it very interesting, I understand what you are saying, but what I

am not understanding is that although you may not like what Eastway does, you seem to disregard his art form and

dismiss it as irrelevant. It is a wonderful thing that opinions can differ so much. But dismissing one persons technique

because you don't like it is fine, but to stamp your world view on it is somewhat narrow minded ( no disrespect or

malice intended ). I am just offering my viewpoint from a person who happens to like and respect what east way does,

I have followed his work for over 16 years. To that end I too am projecting a bias.

[AlanKlein]

<p>If you show your picture to someone, and he asks if it's real, what do you say?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>All of my photos are real, regardless of what processing they went through. A photo is a two dimensional object that is its own entity.</p>

[richardsperry]

Alan,

 

You have black and white photos in your portfolio. Do you ever have anyone ask you if you really are colorblind?

 

 

 

 

Of course my prints are real.

[richard_john_edwards]

I am sure that when Man Ray held exhibitions that the purists thought they were nonsense, irrelevant and tacky. It is

usually those who push out of the comfort zone of the masses that stamp their mark on the art world. They are leaders

in the field, not followers. They don't have a problem sticking their heads above others. I would put Eastway in this

category (although I don't particularly like the castle image) but over the years he has challenged the conventional, and

earned the right to the tittle of Master photographer.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I didn't say I didn't like Eastway's work. I applied no blanket statement to the rest of his work which I did take a look at.</p>

<p>I just didn't get why he needed to manipulate the castle image the way he did from the perspective of not knowing why he took the shot in the first place.</p>

<p>His lengthy method of manipulation offered very little if none in attempts at injecting subtlety in the final image. Subtlety is the brick and mortar/molecular DNA (for lack of a better description) in an image that tells the viewer the image is more than what it is by virtue of the creator's intent behind manipulating it to the lengths provided. There's no "I like this image, but I can't put my finger on it as to why" nuance provided by the manipulation.</p>

<p>With that particular image I'ld be more interested in why he needed to manipulate it over how.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_w_ry]

<p>The photograph as an artist... When you spend more time in front of your computer screen altering your shots than out on the field capturing them, I would consider you're more of a graphic artist than a photographer. Your photographs are your clay, but the result (outstanding by any length) has more to do with graphic creation than photographic enhancement. It is, of course, my personal opinion, and you're free to disagree. To answer the opening question of the thread, (and even though I would be able to do it), I would not process my pictures to that extent.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>When you spend more time in front of your computer screen altering your shots than out on the field capturing them</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This is one of those absurdist ideas that pops up from time to time. It completely ignores the past, when some people would spend a week in the darkroom on a shot that took them a few minutes to make. Nobody called these people "darkroom artists" or anything similar. A photographer could spend a year in the darkroom on a handful of shots, and nobody thought they weren't a photographer.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Tim, that is why I said I understand what you are saying.

Jeff, there are many great photographers who don't have the technical ability to process images, both in the dark room

and from a computer, I can agree that sometimes a lot of emphasis is placed on the finished image ie how it was

processed, that said, I think historically many famous photographers never printed an image ( especially those using

colour film) , although they may have directed the outcome. I would still say that the real art of photography lies in the

ability to capture an image of strength. Easy to teach process, not so easy to teach a talent in vision.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I would still say that the real art of photography lies in the ability to capture an image of strength.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe so, maybe not. But it's NOT what you said.</p>

<p>You said this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you spend more time in front of your computer screen altering your shots than out on the field capturing them . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're dead wrong. And it's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact that many great photographers/artists spent more time post processing the shot than they did shooting it.</p>

<p>ANSEL ADAMS, the master graphic designer. LOL.</p>

<p>You also show a fundamental misunderstanding of post processing when you say that post processing is a matter of altering what you've already shot. It's not. It's a matter of <em>realizing </em>what you want from what you shot. Adams knew that what he shot was only a score. To bring it to fruition, the score needs to be PERFORMED and the photo needs to be PROCESSED. The performer doesn't "alter" the score. That's simply the wrong vocabulary. He performs, he realizes, the score. That's what is done in darkrooms and sitting in front of the computer.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Um Fred I didn't say that, Eric did.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>a talent in vision.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has nothing to do with capture or post-processing. It is part of something much bigger, which makes it clear how absurd all the rabid frothing about post-processing is.</p>

[dan_south]

Mucho frotho. Hay caramba! :-)

 

> A photographer could spend a year in the darkroom on a handful of shots, and nobody thought they weren't a

photographer.

 

Dat's cuz da film RuLeZ! ;-)

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sorry, Richard. my bad. I'll end my participation by suggesting to you that processing with vision is not any easier to teach than is shooting with vision. A good photographer doesn't see them as two separate processes. He sees them as aspects of the process of creating a photo. A good photographer processes with the same strength of vision and creativity that he shoots with.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>When shooting Raw and noodling around during post processing reacting to your own sensitivities with each change, it's nearly impossible not to imbue some personal subtlety and nuance from one's own personality and vision into the final image. You can always tell when someone put some thought into a creation by noticing all the different nuances whether seen in wood carving, fine tapestry or a homemade fishing lure.</p>

<p>It's pounding the image into submission without taking the time to experiment and react to subtle nuances within the image is where mediocrity thrives. But the photographer has to have a sensitivity to this. Knowing when something looks interesting is a talent unto itself and usually requires just enough restraint to allow the photographer to see before something important is missed.</p>

<p>This is why I like shooting Raw.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Actually , I agree with you Fred they do both go hand in hand.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Tim - "</strong>What was Eastway sensitive to in taking the picture of the castle as it appears in the before image and making it look like it's glowing yellow with no obvious point source light?"<br>

I can't know with any certainty, but I imagine he was gathering elements for digital collaging.<br>

"What was it about the scene that made him trip the shutter and felt he needed to add trees that weren't initially there?"</p>

<p>His creativity.</p>

<p>"Was he being honest with himself? Genuine? in his reaction to what he saw?"</p>

<p>I imagine so. Why not? What he saw was potential for making something that wasn't there, and it's allowed.</p>

<p>On the one hand, Tim freely acknowledges that Eastman's composite reveals what it is. On the other hand, he thinks there should be a label accompanying the image telling others what it is. Seems redundant.</p>

<p>"It's about knowing why the creator made the picture in the first place."</p>

<p>How do you know what you imagine the why to be to be correct? You may think you know, but you could be wrong. Even if the artist tells you. Historically, artists are notorious for speaking in riddles and avoiding explanations like the Plague. I look at lots of other people's art and write about it. I may have my own ideas as to the why, but I never assume I've nailed anything. Sometimes the artist himself does not know the why.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

My vacation photos usually look like the top middle one of the six that Mr. Eastway took to stitch. People would look at mine, ask what castle it is and move to the next. If I had Mr. Eastway's finished photo of Belmonte castle in with my usual drek they would say, "Wow, what a great photo!" Shows how dumb they are.

[AlanKlein]

<p>Why would you want your vacation photos to look like something you didn't see?</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Alan: I think what you are referring to as vacation photos and more like snapshots you put into and album to show your sister.<br>

Whether I'm shooting around home or on vacation I have the same approach: I'm trying to use the camera to realize an image that I have conceived in my mind -- not to simply record that I was at some particular place. My vacation photos are not a crutch or supplement for my memory (though at times it could use it), but I hope a creative interpretation of the subject I shoot. More and more I view my camera as a digital sketchbook that I use to develop visual images. My goal is rarely (if ever) to simply produce a postcard picture of the place I'm visiting.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>Wish I had the time to read the entire post, but to reply in a way to the OP's original question I wish I had the ability to do such post processing. It is definitely a craft unto it's own. I do remove unwanted items when I can such as trash, a telephone line etc, but I'm not really proficient overall. In this case to take a picture and create a, what?, graphic?, is fine by me as the movies have been creating unreal scenes for ever and I still go see them. Reality never really looks perfect, so to say, and using tools to create something un-real is fine by me. I just can't do it or maybe I'd be a famous name and making big buck. Overall it's a graphic and not a real picture of something and neither was Star Trek or Star War's etc.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The technique and medium the artist uses is in itself important to understanding the work. Somewhere in the matrix of production the photo part can be lost. Photos sometimes are almost oblitered by another medium. The end product is NOT considered a photograph by any stretch. This kind of information may be expanded on in the label. It is evident that some here find important distinctions.<br>

Does anybody here read the labels at art museums - the part that describes <em>medium</em>? My experience, paying close attention to them, has kept me fairly current with curatorial practices. They seem fairly consistent but some of you may have seen variations or omissions. <br>

Describing the object and medium accurately is obviously important to scholars and archivists. Pictures that have some photographic material substance are clearly stated: "Mixed media with photograph on canvas. " Or, "Epson ink jet photograph with watercolor wash on rag paper." The dominant technique used such as collage (PS or glue-pot) or specific multi-exposure techniques is stated to record the extent that the object deviates from <em>basic </em>methods of photography. An object that is not a photograph output to chromagenic, inkjet, etc. is "Digital media... on whatever". Being "based on a photo" in digital media is not the same as an oil painting or drawing based on a photo.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>processing with vision is not any easier to teach than is shooting with vision.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The level of difficulty was never at issue. The final effect is the issue.</p>

<p>As I see it there are two approaches: seek out the light and compositions that you want and capture them in their natural form, or create them using any and all tools at your disposal. Which camp are you in and why? That was the intended goal of this discussion.</p>

<p>I'm surprised that we haven't had more images posted along the way, e.g. I removed a to give the composition a less cluttered look, or there was a tree on the left, so I revised the composition to eliminate it. No matter; the discussion itself has been quite entertaining. ;-) </p>

<p>Speaking only for myself, real light moves me emotionally. That's why I seek it out. That's why I'll come back another time if it's not happening today. Created works are inventive and require skill and effort, but they don't impact me in the same way. If that's your vision, more power to you.</p>

<p>I'll leave you with an example, one of the first shots I ever took on 4x5 film. There were only a few weeks in the year when this shot was possible. At all other times the boats fell into shadows from tall buildings as the sunset approached (and today a hideous new pier obscures them even further). During those weeks I visited the site numerous times looking for the combination of light and sky that I wanted. </p>

<p>Happy shooting!</p>

<div></div>