I know I am probably opening a can of worms here but I cannot be alone. Whats the point in the 'no re-touch' statements? This is an awesome set and a beautiful subject. Its great that the exposure was nailed and no retouching, even sharpening, was necessary; I know the purist will always talk about the demise of photography with the introduction of digital and PS, but isn't it just another tool for the trade? With someone who knows what they are doing behind the screen and on the tablet I have seen NUMEROUS examples of 'perfect' photos that were only made 'more-perfect' from various adjustments in PS.
Just a question, not really trying to stir the pot. I did however enjoy this set and her personality really shines through in these images.
I have made statements on here before about hack photographers who are better at photoshop because they don't know how to use a camera. It is nice to see a set that is right out the camera rather than taken with the wrong settings because someone can fix them in another program.
Yes, some shots, no matter what, are going to require some form of photoshopping to achieve the disired end result, but too many so called photographers rely on computer manipulation due to lack of interest or knowledge to get the shot right the first time.............
I agree with both. I have nothing against photoshop, it helps me a lot. The Phtoshop is indispensable for advertising and editorial work for magazines. But I like to show the photos as they are too.
but wait... if they arent retouched, then how are they black and white? did you shoot black and white jpegs? black and white film? if its film then they had to be scanned at some point and it would behoove you to touch em some how.
this idea of "photos as they are" is a complete fallacy. every step we take as a photographer moves us from the reality of the world we are capturing. be it the lens, the camera, the RAW converter (or even the jpeg engine in the camera), they all impart a "touch" on the image. lets not try to hide from the touch, but embrace it, because it is OUR touch that we are imparting. yes it can be overdone but when it is done right no one will no the better.
killersnowman wrote:
this idea of "photos as they are" is a complete fallacy. every step we take as a photographer moves us from the reality of the world we are capturing. be it the lens, the camera, the RAW converter (or even the jpeg engine in the camera), they all impart a "touch" on the image. lets not try to hide from the touch, but embrace it, because it is OUR touch that we are imparting. yes it can be overdone but when it is done right no one will no the better.
+1 to this.
For the film analogy, even the choice of film has an effect. Velvia is not a true reflection of the world.
