Am I really that bad of a photographer?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ralph, nice to hear!</p>

<p>Sometimes the conscious will to make art, and especially to make good art, gets in the way and, as you say, leads to self consciousness and some forced efforts. One approach is to absorb what you can from looking at art, particularly the <em>passion</em> with which most artists approach their subjects. Weston, for example, seems to have had a love of photography and photographs. But, of prime importance, he seems to have had a love and passion for the people and things he photographed.</p>

<p>I saw an exhibit of the work of Lewis Hine yesterday. Somehow, his documentary work transforms itself into an art form. One might or might not view it as art. Regardless, it is significant photography. No matter how it might be viewed today, I don't expect it survives because he tried to make art. It was because his empathy for immigrants and child laborers and his instincts toward social reform brought forth something in him that enabled him to use his camera as a tool of light, in both the physical and metaphorical senses of light.He left an important body of work behind because he expressed something through photography that was of great significance to him. He wanted to share these lives with the world.</p>

<p>One can learn the craft, of course. And then one figures out something meaningful to say and/or to show. To that end, one follows instinct and desire not just to make art but to express something one has a need to express and a passion for.</p>

<p>Hine died poor and mostly unappreciated, or at least under-appreciated. His . . . ahem . . . "ratings" were low later in his life. That may have affected his standing in the world, but it didn't affect what he saw, cared about, or showed us, not to mention his lasting effect on photographers who followed in his footsteps.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks for the encouraging words, Fred! Unfortunately, my passion is presently consumed with mimicry, and style-fetish (not that I've accomplished either, yet). For me, my most admired photographers, Helmut Newton, Ellen von Unwerth, et. al., "nailed it," whatever <em>it</em> is. Was it the photography? The ideas? The sets, styling, make-up, or wardrobe? Was it art? Or, was it just the competent compilation of all of those elements? (I think the ultra-pretty naked models had something to do with <em>it</em>.)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""I think the ultra-pretty naked models had something to do with <em>it</em>.""<br /> <br /> It reminds me of the long waiting lines in front of the Grand Palais in Paris getting access to the latest Helmut Newton exposition. How many stood there in order to have a chance to see the "ultra-pretty naked models" and how many to see the fine photography of Newton? A third category were surely made of those, who stood there for both. You could make the same reflection concerning shows of landscape paintings of the impressionists.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>I'd out out on option b, Anders but..</p>

[jenkins]

<p>No idea why I said <em>out</em> twice?</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Stephen, Okay I'm trying again to post the image. Please see my post above for explanations about what changes I made. You may want to ask other people for ideas about their editing programs, as I'm certainly not the most proficient at editing. :-)</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Christal, you blew out the clouds.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Christal, here is your edit. I resized to 600 pixels wide. See JC Unkz post above.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Editing a JPEG, even a high resolution JPEG, is often a fruitless effort. If it includes delicate highlights, such as clouds, there isn't enough data to work with. Blue skies and other large expanses of continuous tones or colors will become posterized with anything more than gentle nudges in contrast or saturation. Occasionally you can get good results by working in layers and selectively tweaking specific areas, but it's still a compromise compared with the raw file or TIFF.</p>

[LineMartel]

<p><strong>Wow!</strong> This was a long thread to read... So, I will just comment on the original post. We all know the rating system is flawed. You have to understand a few things. First of all it is pointless to discuss mate ratings and down ratings as you don't want to play with those people. The fact that a lot of people who rate images do not leave comments should not lead to judge them as useless. There is only a handful of people who use the rating system and for a majority of us English is not our mother tongue. Being that there is only a small percentage of members that use the rating system, do you want them to dictate what you should be producing? You mentioned that some of your images do not even get enough ratings to accumulate an average. As a user of the rating system, there are a few reasons why I do not rate an image; some images, I can't even understand why someone thought it was worth posting to start with. Some subjects I don't rate because I feel I cannot be objective: if I see another waterfall I feel I am going to puke, so I don't rate them because I am biased and feel I cannot rate them fairly. Then, the rating scale itself prevents me from rating some images as I am left thinking that a 5 would be too low and a 6 too high...<br>

Being that a large number of people who use the rating system are from a different cultural background than yours, their opinion will also be different. They will also see the image differently. Your brain is trained to look from left to right because you write that way. Someone who writes from right to left looks at an image the same way and from top to bottom.<br>

There is another flaw in the rating system that can be generating low ratings. Although you cannot see what the average rating is for your image before it reaches 5 ratings, people who use the "Rate Images" option can see the ratings on your image even if there is only one. This could definitely influence someone's rating. Let's say someone thinks that your image is worth a 5 and see that you have 3 ratings of 6, they may rate your image 4 instead of the 5 they think its worth in order to get your average to where they think it should be...<br>

I have used the rating system since day one I joined PN and it did help me with my progression, although you should consider it only one of many tools.<br>

Line</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Thanks for doing that Christal.<br>

I will just state again, for the record, that I am happy with my processing and do not intend to buy, install, learn or copy PS, LR or any program which I do not currently use.<br>

I cannot quite understand the need others have to convert me.<br>

Please stop advising me. </p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Fred, Yes, the clouds are blown out. When I was working on my small computer screen I didn't notice it frankly. But when it loaded here on PN, it screamed at me loud and clear. I do think I've brought out more detail in the bottom portion of the image though. I'm sure someone more accomplished than me could do a much better job. :-)</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Ray......thanks. In the your smaller version it's harder to tell the clouds are blown out, but now that I know they are, I can still tell.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Lex, of course you're correct. But to show you what a 'newbie' I am at editing, I don't even know how to use layers yet. I know it's a pretty basic editing technique, and I really need to get with the program. :-) Thanks!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>It's not editing folks, it is post processing. Editing is choosing, culling the photos. Kathy Ryan of the New York Times is the "Photo Editor" she does not change the content of the photos, just chooses them. Also, being good at photoshop is not being a good photographer, you are not getting any better at recognizing and utilizing light. This is the same as a person learning sheet music but having no musicality, they can hit the correct notes but it has no emotional flow. <br>

You want to be a better photographer? Learn how to recognize, identify and utilize light. Once you can use light effectively in 90% of your photographs, going beyond boring predictable compositions will become a lot easier as light often plays a big role in how you compose a photograph. </p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Line, Yes, this thread has become a monster! I had no idea it would generate so many responses when I posted it.</p>

<p>You've brought up some interesting and valid points. Is it true that only a 'handful of people use the rating system?' I myself don't usually rate an image unless I'm particularly moved in some way by the it. But I leave comments, which I find takes a little more care and time, and ultimately is more beneficial (at least I feel that way......I know not everyone does). </p>

<p>You bring up an interesting point about cultural differences. On some level I guess I was aware they existed, and I'm sure my biases have been reflected in my comments and ratings. But then that's also the very thing that makes PN so appealing to me......people from broad backgrounds and many different countries sharing together. </p>

<p>I still maintain (for me) that the ratings system in and of itself doesn't help me all that much. I find comments much more helpful. Glad to hear they have been helpful for you though......and thanks for your response.</p>

<p>As far as 'English not being your mother tongue'.......I am always amazed at you and others who write so well, though it isn't your native language. Even if everything is not 'spoken' perfectly, the meaning is quite clear, and that's the important thing. In my profession I work with many different nationalities. Music is their language......not English. Some can barely speak English, but we find ways of communicating despite the language barrier. </p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Stephen......sorry, no offense intended, and I'm certainly not trying to convert you. As I said above, I think your work is quite good. I only went to the time and trouble to try my hand at editing your image because you asked me to do so. (And I ended up blowing out the clouds, so I didn't do such a great job anyway).</p>

<p><em><br /></em>I'm just curious what you meant by the following:<br>

<br /> <em>so I could see any potential benefit from the program?</em></p>

<p>Why would you have said that and asked me to edit your image if you weren't interested in exploring other potential editing programs?</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Daniel, thanks for clarifying the distinction between editing and processing. </p>

[LineMartel]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=321228">Daniel Bayer</a></p>

<p >It's not editing folks, it is post processing. Editing is choosing, culling the photos. Kathy Ryan of the New York Times is the "Photo Editor" she does not change the content of the photos, just chooses them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Since when is the definition of editing tied to a job description at the New York Times? Content can definitely be edited (meaning: altered);</p>

<p >Merriam-Webster: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Please stop advising me."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then, Stephen, why are you here, and asking questions? Are you only seeking affirmation of what you already believe, know, or believe you know?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"It's not editing folks, it is post processing."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel, what do you call it when you do the same thing in the darkroom?</p>

<p>I hung around my stepdad while he directed industrial films and PSAs years ago. He didn't get involved in the film processing - a professional lab did that. But he was heavily involved in the editing, which was more than just culling photos/frames.</p>

<p>It's a little late now to split hairs over terminology and parse terms to suit ourselves. The designers and users of professional imaging software have already settled that debate.</p>

<p>Another fellow photo.netter insists Lightroom and Aperture aren't "photo editing" software, because they're primarily used for, as you described the task of editing, "choosing, culling the photos". Never mind that Adobe calls Lightroom an editing tool. By this fellow's definition, apparently parametric image editing isn't editing, only pixel level editing is editing.</p>

<p>Looks like another "versus" bone of contention has been dug up and ready for gnawing.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel, what do you call it when you do the same thing in the darkroom?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I call it what it is, printing.<br>

Ansel Adams was a great printer, not editor. <br /> With a pencil in hand, drawing, brush in hand, painting and guitar in hand, playing. <br /> It's kind of like "Great Capture!", just another BS term made popular by the internet, you know, like when people say "How is the ISO on the D800?" <br /> The ISO is GREAT! Which setting do you prefer love?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I call it what it is, printing."<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you do any dodging, burning, spotting, using any contrast filters, choose one paper or developer over another for its particular qualities, do any toning, intensification, bleaching?</p>

<p>Do you choose an exposure index for your film other than the box ISO? Tailor development times to suit the scene or subject contrast? Choose a film or developer for its unique characteristics?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Ansel Adams was a great printer, not editor."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wasn't he the fellow who wrote a couple of entire books on the above stuff I summarized?</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> It's kind of like "Great Capture!", just another BS term made popular by the internet, you know, like

when people say "How is the ISO on the D800?" The ISO is GREAT! Which setting do you prefer love?

 

It's kind of like "Film makes you slow down," just another BS phrase made popular by the internet, you

know, like when people say "Film provides a realism that digital can't match," as they drop off their rolls at

the local Walgreens for expert 1 hour processing. Or, " Because the inherent resolution of film is so

GREAT, which statue or boat marina should I photograph next, love?”

[jcuknz]

<p>Chrystal ... says he with a large grin ... if you use Lighhtroom you do not need to know layers, as it doesn't have them<br>

I would be lost without them and consider they are a basic requirement for a programme to be called an 'editor'. The 'adjustment layer' is what I use most becuase it permits one to make subtle adjustment and the toggle them on and off without 'touching' the original file. Basically the tool makes the same adjustment to the whole image but since an adjustment layer can be itself adjusted in different areas of the picture on the scale of 255>2 [ white being 256 and black is 0 ] you can use one layer to adjust different parts of an image to different strengths ... so if you were using an AL and washed out a sky with it you could paint over the area with a black or grey brush until it was raised to the required level.... further more if you have part of a picture selected what you do is only applied to that area and you can 'flood fill' with different strengths of grey until it comes right.<br>

It took me months until the basic pinciple sunk in as I read people going on about ALs but once I got the hang of it I moved forward several miles :-)</p>

<p>AA was a good editor except he had to wait for the devloper to do its work before he saw what he had done. I am sure he would have loved to be let loose on the editing tools we have today ... to do so much so much easier ... I know ... I used to have a fume room. To see the effect taking place as you move a slider rather than guessing and then have to wait several minutes for the print to be suitable for daylight viewing ... horendous if working with color.</p>