little lighthouse

This is straight from the camera, only resize editing done. I am trying to

control my camera not a program. Your thoughts are very much

appreciated.

I can appreciate your sentiments, as I share them to a great extent. However, I would offer two counter-arguments. First, most digital cameras require some kind of post-processing, even if it's just sharpening; it's just inherent in the design of the digital system. Second, take a look at this photo of another PN member: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10768036. This photo would be impossible to achieve in a single shot from any camera (film or digital), and it required some significant post-processing. The beauty of the post-processing in this image is that it's difficult to tell that any was applied; it looks just like the human eye would see the scene. If you have that as your goal in post-processing, then you're using digital/computer tools to achieve natural-looking images that would have been impossible or extremely difficult in the past.

 

Your posted photo may be a good example. The human eye would see this scene differently in a couple of ways. First, a person would see more detail and brightness in the lighthouse. Even though the sun is behind the lighthouse, our eyes can accommodate a great range of light, far greater than that "seen" by a film or digital camera. To compensate, some photographers might add a small amount of flash to help overcome the limitations of a camera and make it appear more like it is seen by the human eye. Other photographers might use software to achieve the same effect. A second example is the slight sloping of the sides of the lighthouse, as if it is being "pinched" slightly at the roofline. This is a natural distortion caused by pointing the lens slightly upward to achieve your desired composition. Your eyes would perceive the sides as straight. Some photographers would overcome this limitation by using lenses that have the ability to be shifted upward. This would achieve the same composition you have, but the sides would appear straight and not distorted. Other photographers might use software to "stretch" the upper part of the lighthouse so that it appears just like the human eye sees it. All of these mechanical or digital "alterations" are done solely for the purpose of overcoming limitations of cameras and to achieve an image that looks more natural -- more like the human eye would see the scene. Post-processing isn't necessarily "bad" or "artificial," and I don't think anyone is a more "pure" photographer by avoiding such techniques. While these tools have the ability to greatly distort reality (and some folks, including me and I suspect including you, object to that), these tools also have the ability to overcome inherent deficiencies in film or digital cameras and produce a more natural reality. It's all up to the person applying the tool.

I appreciate your words and value your opinion greatly. I sorta figured this would be the critique I would get. I did some processing on this very same image and have come up with a couple of versions that are pretty amazing. I will post later; this is more of a learning experience for me and about personal growth as a photographer.

 

The fact that I was using a 17-40 lens and knowing that there would be some distortion was the key to try and control as much as I could out of the camera. I am mainly trying to grow my skill in the field, no filters and setting up my shot correctly. I am always amazed by some of the images I see and know that most cannot be straight from the camera. While I am not against the pp work and use the tools available myself all the time; it seems that we get a little lazy because we know we can correct it post process.

 

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and knowledge with me, I really do appreciate it!

 

All the best, Pamela

 

Whilst I cannot disagree with Stephens concise comments and explanation as to the necessary PP work when using digital cameras, I do know where you are coming from too. I have got into the habit of bracketing nearly all of my shots, and although I know I can usually get a well exposed image from a combined image or a HDR, it doesn't begin to stretch my ability or build on my skills to use the camera to it's fullest extent, and I wish I was brave enough to abandon these habits as you are.

I am far from a purist when it comes to Post Processing work, in fact I am great admirer of digital creation, to me that is an art form in itself. and I would go as far to say that the end justifies the means, and if as a photographer a person is pleased with a digitally altered image, then that in itself is justification enough. It is a personal value, and as long as it is accompanied by honesty then I see no harm and a great deal of visual delight in it's use.

However I fully admire and appreciate your desire to go back to basics and refine your skills using your mind and the camera to thier greatest possible extent to produce aesthetically pleasing images like the one above. I like the sky, the colours are just beautiful and I just love lighthouses, the image appears sharp and although I can see the slight distortion caused by the camera angle, it isn't enough to detract from the image for me, and to be honest sometimes I'd rather see that bit of distortion and the scene as the camera has painted it, rather than some of the clumsy attempts at rectification that I have witnessed. Blimey! I can't half witter on once I've started.........ok I'll shut up now and go change my socks, the left one in place of the right one and vice versa.....I'l get another week out of them and then I guess it's time to turn them inside out!....after all you can't place hygiene too high up the list as a priority! : - )

 

Take Care Pamela

 

Warm Regards

 

Alf

 

 

Pamela and Alf, these are good comments, and I can't disagree with anything that has been said. I'm also trying to rely on my camera and photography skills to get a good image, rather than using post-processing as a crutch to make up for a lack of skills or lack of attention. I think this is what you are meaning to do as well, Pamela. I agree with Alf that honesty in the process is important. Unfortunately, what I see too often is post-processing being used to produce exaggerated colors that are presented as being real. That, to me, is one of the worst abuses of post-processing. I still use my digital camera in much the same way as I used my film camera, except now I get immediate feedback in tricky lighting situations, and I also have digital ways to get a natural-looking image that would be impossible to achieve with a single click of the shutter (whether film or digital). In my mind, the best post-processing is that which can't be seen (or seen only with great difficulty) by the viewer.

This is a beautiful photograph with very nice color tonality and a fabulous sky in the background.

 

Digital photo-processing is definitely an advancement in the science of photography. This is an undeniable fact that the most beautiful creations are the combinations of natural beauty and human imagination. Digital photo-processing is a tool, which provides us the opportunities to blend our imaginations with the beauties of this beautiful world. There may be some in-camera-manipulations and some others are beyond camera. IMHO, an excellent photograph is the product of the photographer’s creativity and her/his skills in both in-camera and beyond-camera manipulations. All of us are learners in some ways or others. Pamela, with all her amazing creativity, is trying to enhance her skills in in-camera manipulations. Stephen, with all his experiences and achievements in creative photography, is advocating for beyond-camera manipulations. I sincerely hope that this combination will provide us some true visual pleasures in near future. Best regards to both of you….

 

Hi Pamela,

 

It's an interesting conversation. My spin on this is that regardless of the degree the photographer processes an image, or images, in the case of HDR or blended images, the best results always occur if you start with a good image(s) out of the camera. Yeah, you can do some things to doctor or cook a mediocre shot, but the real show stoppers probably started out as a really good raw file or files. To me this is a good shot from a compositional perspective, but it really lacks any punch. I can't wait to see the edited versions your posting later. A large part of the enjoyment I derive from photography is the post processing. I think you can only take a digital picture so far in the camera, the post processing is just another part to the finished product. Hope your well, take care-Jim

Alf, Stephen, Sumon and Jim,

 

Interesting conversation and good feedback from each of you. I hope it is realized that I know we need to do some work in post to achieve those “quality” and creative images. I am not against any of the tools used to achieve that in photography. I use them and know that it is an art form in its own category that is a learning curve and valuable tool for many of us.

 

I am mainly trying to perfect (if that is possible) my skills in the field and control my camera and lenses with my own skills. It is important to me to take the best image possible and use the camera as my tool. I have gotten very intimate with my lenses and know exactly where to set them when shooting. I have one lens that I have pushed beyond what most folks would believe possible for the lens and what most use it for. This cannot be achieved in any post program; it is the skill of the person behind the lens that makes that happen and this is my goal.

 

I look at some images that are a complete hack job while others are breathtakingly beautiful and I know the second result can only be achieved with those post skills and a good processing program. As Stephen has pointed out, I am not willing to use the programs as a crutch. Like Alf I also like some of the distortion caused by a lens if it is approximated correctly when shooting.

 

I guess I was just looking for some healthy feedback and this has been good conversation from each of you. I didn’t realize that I forgot to check the critique only box so I am getting ratings and even those (some generous) aren’t as bad as they could be! I appreciate all the feedback and thank each of you for your thoughts.

 

Take care, Pamela

 

I like it at the first, second and third sight the way it is..

That's a marvelous sky Pamela - but I agree that so much more could be done to make the lighthouse just as fine, and yet look natural. The blocked shadows at bottom also disconcert a bit - just a little detail here might be nice.

Lots of potential here!

 

Best, David

A very interesting discussion due to your fine image. First of all I like it a lot and the way you have composed it is just spledid in my opinion. But....There are a big misunderstanding among amatuer photographers that the most genuine shot shold be taken straight out from the memory card and it is here that things goes very wrong. Every image that has been shot by a digital camera must undergo some post processing steps. That is just the physics of the digital technique and now I m not talking about manipulation or colorboosting and so on. Every image must be colorbalanced to find the right greypoint so that the whitebalance will be correct. Also the image must be sharpened due to the terms of the digital technique. In the old filmdays the labs did a lot with our 36 rolls before we could come back and get our papercopies. That´s about what you have to do to be able to present a digital photo. Then on the other hand there are more advanced techniques that some photographers use in there creative and artistic way of doing a photograph but that is another story.

 

I find this very interesting and in Sweden we have the same sort of discussions between the purist and the photographers who has learned the hard way what you have to do before you print or post a image. For your knowledge we have some photographers who are in a technique that they call dogma. This mean that you don`t use any technical things when you shot. You don`t take a exposure value, you guess your focus point and so on. The results are awful but the dogma people are very happy with what they do and call themself the only real photographers. I think there always be different ways and standpoints about all this. As long as we are happy with what we do there are no problems, it is just photography and not a war.

 

Take good care Pamela and all the best from Jannica

Great discussion. Love the image as is. Composition excellent. Tonality and subdued hues speak to me. Good work, Pamela.

Ciao Pamela!....really a nice work, compliments!...Ciaomau!

Beautiful scenery and you done it excellent...Very well done.

 

Regards(Bobby).