Is technology ruining landscape photography? - FM Forums

Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 end

Archive 2013 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

juicer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Everyone post-processes pics from their iPhone with crazy looking filter. Processing images is not a foreign concept to non-photographers, so, few people are naive enough to think an over-processed landscape image is representative of true reality. It's just that they may prefer it.

I am always surprised by what images of mine people choose as their favorite. It's shown me how tastes are all over the board. I'm sure I couldn't convince a person to hang on their wall an image with perfect light and lines instead of that kitschy beach image I almost deleted.

Jul 07, 2013 at 07:12 PM

John S. Hudson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Here's a legitimate question that people ask me from time to time. Regarding "reality" of what we see, how would you categorize things like long exposure, say of star trails, or of water for example? If you take a 30 sec exposure, on film, digital, whatever, it is going to have some nice smooth flowing water. We all know what that will look like. However, there is no way your eyes will ever see the scene that way. Is taking a photo like this somehow not being true to the scene? Does that kind of philosophy mean you can only shoot the scene in the way that your eyes see it? So, how about telephoto lenses or super wide-angle shots? What about extreme low-light or super fast shutter speeds? There are tons of scenarios that we can capture with cameras that our eyes won't ever let us really appreciate.

Jul 07, 2013 at 09:04 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

panamapreacher wrote:
Ansel Adams once said "if you have to bracket...you don't know what you're doing". Isn't shooting and looking at the LCD to shoot again in different exposures bracketing?

Ahem. Ansel bracketed. He also did a ton of work in post. (Some folks are probably getting tired of the following by now, but quite a few others need to hear it: look up the contact print of the "Moonrise, Hernandez" image and get back to me about getting it "right" in camera versus work in post. It is easy to google it.)

I know and occasionally shoot with some of Adams' proteges and they bracket, too, when it makes sense. Most, but not quite all, of them also shoot digitally today - and some who shoot film scan it and/or use digital means to reproduce it.

What Adams did, on many occasions, was expose negatives in ways that anticipated extensive work in post. He pre-exposed negatives in order to deal with shadow detail issues. He developed film in varied ways to deal with different dynamic ranges. He dodged and burned with the best of them. (He even burned out the letters "LP" on the famous photo of a horse and Mt. Whitney shot from Lone Pine.)

Keep in mind that all photographs are lies. And I mean that in the nicest and most complimentary way! Seriously. ;-)

Dan

(Jim, I'm sorry but I'm not in a situation where posting a lot of my photographs here is possible at this moment.)

Jul 08, 2013 at 02:39 AM

JustinSmith
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

new here, just registered to give my 2 cents in this discussion...

One of the things that often comes up around this subject is the issue over how much the image looks like nature. Some argue that post-processing the image is necessary to bring the image into looking like how the eye really sees it. Others argue that post-processing, or at least too much of it, makes the image look unnatural.

My question... why is this even something to be concerned about? When I produce a finished image, my aim is not to create something that looks exactly like nature (although that may happen), but to create something that is beautiful. Is a landscape photographer merely someone who documents the scene, like the way a stenographer in a court room records words said, or an artist? Would Picasso or Van Gogh be considered "poor painters" simply because their work doesn't accurately reflect reality as the eyes see it?

Jul 08, 2013 at 09:56 AM

Phrasikleia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

JustinSmith wrote:
new here, just registered to give my 2 cents in this discussion...

One of the things that often comes up around this subject is the issue over how much the image looks like nature. Some argue that post-processing the image is necessary to bring the image into looking like how the eye really sees it. Others argue that post-processing, or at least too much of it, makes the image look unnatural.

My question... why is this even something to be concerned about? When I produce a finished image, my aim is not to create something that looks exactly like nature (although that...Show more →

The standard reply runs along the lines of "truth to materials" in other art forms. It goes something like this: what makes photography unique is its direct connection with actual surfaces that reflect or absorb light. We should therefore emphasize this directness, just like painters should emphasize impasto, sculptors should emphasize dimensionality, and mosaicists should emphasize fragmentation. Of course, when these qualities are pursued too narrowly, the results can be unimaginative and repetitive. Without cross-pollination we would not have the lively surfaces of Rodin or the fragmentation of Braque and Picasso. Indeed, sometimes an artwork can best express its own medium by referencing other ones, so it shouldn't bother us if some photographs owe more than a minor debt to painting.

Jul 08, 2013 at 11:02 AM

JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

gdanmitchell wrote:
Ahem. Ansel bracketed. He also did a ton of work in post. (Some folks are probably getting tired of the following by now, but quite a few others need to hear it: look up the contact print of the "Moonrise, Hernandez" image and get back to me about getting it "right" in camera versus work in post. It is easy to google it.)

I know and occasionally shoot with some of Adams' proteges and they bracket, too, when it makes sense. Most, but not quite all, of them also shoot digitally today - and some who shoot film scan it and/or...Show more →

Ha ha.... Dan, I figured you were out somewhere shooting.

As for your points about AA, that is very true. Photography from the beginning of when it was first invented has always had a very heavy technical aspect to it. One did not build his/her own camera or mix the chemicals, etc without aspects of what was definitely technical for that period of time.

Photography has always been the marriage of technology and art...

Jim

Jim

Jul 08, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Kell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

I'm likely the exception rather than the rule here as I have never even shot a RAW pic, don't do ANY PP. I spend too much time as it is doing everything I have to do, like to do + work so have no desire to sit in front of a pc any more than I have to. I like trying to learn to get the best photos possible with the camera tools I have. I mean, if not doing this for money, why spend thousands of $$'s on bodies and lenses only to spend time trying to improve them after the fact? Hell, I'd have just bought a cheapo camera if I wanted to do that.

Jul 08, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

JustinSmith wrote:
new here, just registered to give my 2 cents in this discussion...

One of the things that often comes up around this subject is the issue over how much the image looks like nature. Some argue that post-processing the image is necessary to bring the image into looking like how the eye really sees it. Others argue that post-processing, or at least too much of it, makes the image look unnatural.

My question... why is this even something to be concerned about? When I produce a finished image, my aim is not to create something that looks exactly like nature (although that...Show more →

For me at least, the problem is when people heavily manipulate a photo because they didn't wait for the ideal moment to capture the image. For example, you'll see a lot of people shoot HDR photos at mid-day and try to make them look dramatic in post processing. It would be far better to wait for the nice calm light after sunset or before sunrise, and take a photo that has a much better feel to it. This isn't to say that it's *wrong* --- more so that heavy processing in post seldom makes up for the fact that it just wasn't shot in good light to begin with. They might end up with a photo with a bell shaped histogram, but it lacks soul.

Good post processing will enhance an already good photo. But heavy post processing on sub-par photo reminds me of the saying about putting lipstick on a pig.

There are many great methods out there when working in less than ideal conditions, but sometimes they take a bit of creativity. When people put forth the effort to create a stunning image, it shows in the final product. This is something that I greatly appreciate. When people put in a so-so effort by try to fix things in post processing, that also shows in their work.

Jul 08, 2013 at 01:55 PM

JustinSmith
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

That's a very good point, Ben. Whatever process you use, it should be for the purpose of reaching the vision you have of the image before you click the shutter, rather than to fix mistakes you made. I do think, and some may disagree, that one's vision in art transcends the medium used, and there is nothing inherently wrong with being drawn to creating the types of landscape images others may find gaudy. But it should be that you're doing that because it's your preference to create specifically that type of art, and not because its easier than creating the images you would prefer to actually make. I think that as long as you are putting in your best effort to create exactly the image you want to make, you're not doing anything wrong.

Jul 08, 2013 at 02:09 PM

fcarucci
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

JustinSmith wrote:
That's a very good point, Ben. Whatever process you use, it should be for the purpose of reaching the vision you have of the image before you click the shutter, rather than to fix mistakes you made. I do think, and some may disagree, that one's vision in art transcends the medium used, and there is nothing inherently wrong with being drawn to creating the types of landscape images others may find gaudy. But it should be that you're doing that because it's your preference to create specifically that type of art, and not because its easier than creating the...Show more →

This is such a great and agreeable argument. Well put, Sir.

Jul 08, 2013 at 02:53 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Phrasikleia wrote:
The standard reply runs along the lines of "truth to materials" in other art forms. It goes something like this: what makes photography unique is its direct connection with actual surfaces that reflect or absorb light.

OK.

We should therefore emphasize this directness, just like painters should emphasize impasto, sculptors should emphasize dimensionality, and mosaicists should emphasize fragmentation.

Not OK. (Pictorialism and its descendants, anyone?)

Lurking in the background of (almost) any work created using photographic technologies is the knowledge that it (probably) began as a capture of light in some form, and possibly as a record of light reflected from a subject. This influences the way we respond to images that we think are photographic, but it most certainly does not demand that we must emphasize this directness. (You should also consider that painters and sculptors are quite interested in breaking boundaries between 2-and 3-dimensional work.)

Of course, when these qualities are pursued too narrowly, the results can be unimaginative and repetitive. Without cross-pollination we would not have the lively surfaces of Rodin or the fragmentation of Braque and Picasso. Indeed, sometimes an artwork can best express its own medium by referencing other ones, so it shouldn't bother us if some photographs owe more than a minor debt to painting.

Today I was looking at paintings by Impressionists, among them at least a couple that were influence by the way the camera sees - perhaps even created from photographs.

Photographic techniques and media are simply one category of visual media that can be used as the artist wants to use them.

That does not mean that we have to like all examples of work created with photographic techniques, just that arguing against techniques is almost always an artistic dead end.

Jul 08, 2013 at 03:59 PM

GoranPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

It depends if you are looking to document a place or create art. The #1 thing I try to do with my images is covey or inspire a mood of some kind. This is often achieved through a mix of composition and processing. I do it to my taste and no one else's though, which is what personal expression is all about.

Jul 08, 2013 at 04:17 PM

ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Don't know if I should post a link to a magazine article but here's a relevant writing that showed up in Outdoor Photographer today. If not, the mod can feel free to delete. http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/fleeting-vistas/but-is-it-real.html

Just more fodder...

Jul 08, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Phrasikleia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Dan, I'm going to try to unravel this one. I'm not sure how our wires got crossed.

I said…

Phrasikleia wrote:
The standard reply runs…[bunch of paraphrasing/summarizing the position that I do not hold]
[…]
Without cross-pollination we would not have the lively surfaces of Rodin or the fragmentation of Braque and Picasso. [<----My personal take on the matter, which is in complete agreement with the views you just expressed.]

And then you said…

gdanmitchell wrote:
Not OK. […] You should also consider that painters and sculptors are quite interested in breaking boundaries between 2-and 3-dimensional work.

I not only "considered" painters and sculptors, I named one of each to make that very point! My point was that Rodin's sculptures have a surface treatment that recalls painting, and Braque and Picasso borrowed the multiple viewpoints of sculpture in creating their Cubist paintings. Maybe I was too subtle, or maybe you really did realize that we're on the same side and now I'm the one who is confused!

As for your mention of Pictorialism, I've had a lot to say about that subject on other forums. I'll just include a link to one succinct instance instead of repeating my thoughts in this thread: LINK.

ckcarr wrote:
Don't know if I should post a link to a magazine article but here's a relevant writing that showed up in Outdoor Photographer today. If not, the mod can feel free to delete. http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/fleeting-vistas/but-is-it-real.html

Just more fodder...

Short, sweet, and very pertinent.

Jul 09, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

juicer wrote:
Everyone post-processes pics from their iPhone with crazy looking filter. Processing images is not a foreign concept to non-photographers, so, few people are naive enough to think an over-processed landscape image is representative of true reality. It's just that they may prefer it.

I am always surprised by what images of mine people choose as their favorite. It's shown me how tastes are all over the board. I'm sure I couldn't convince a person to hang on their wall an image with perfect light and lines instead of that kitschy beach image I almost deleted.

I often exhibit my work in various shows, and what becomes disappointing is the inherent distrust in photography. Some people have made comments that I must be good at photoshop for making the images look the way they do. They ask "It didn't really look that way did it? You just photoshopped it, right?" The public is so use to heavy handed editing that they attribute final result to post processing rather than the beauty of nature. That's one of the reasons why I began filming my video journals -- to tell the honest story behind each photo, and show people the many wonderful places I enjoy visiting.

Jul 09, 2013 at 01:19 AM

JustinSmith
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

ckcarr wrote:
Don't know if I should post a link to a magazine article but here's a relevant writing that showed up in Outdoor Photographer today. If not, the mod can feel free to delete. http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/fleeting-vistas/but-is-it-real.html

Just more fodder...

It's funny because Outdoor Photographer has been guilty the past few years of putting on their covers exactly the type of short-cut, quick-and-easy HDR that most of us find unpleasant, and Elizabeth Carmel herself is a big part of that.

Jul 09, 2013 at 08:18 AM

ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

I'm starting to wonder if processing is still somewhat regional. It seems that photographs I see of east coast scenes by easterners are more traditional than those out west. It would not surprise me if that were so. Perhaps due to a more conservative eastern outlook. We here in Utah of course are ground zero for perceived over processing, although I think it's normal... Of course one man's trash is another man's treasure.

The point of the Elizabeth Carmel article was not what she does, or what OP does, but the truth that most people are not out there during the golden hour, or even get outdoors. There are fleeting amazing scenes that come and go. Like her double rainbow. Once I was driving home from work and the sky was getting very stormy, it had been severe monsoon season thunderstorms all day. Suddenly there was an amazing shaft of light the was coming straight down from the clouds and hitting the ground. It was so amazing everyone on the road was stopping and jumping out to try and photograph it. It was fleeting, and I have never seen anything like it since. Could have been a UFO sucking up cows for all I'll ever know.

So far we have only been speaking of color. What of somewhat over processed black & white images? I met a large format photographer once several years ago at Moon House Ruin who had made a name for himself. His images do not necessarily reflect reality. He seems to make a lot of money though. I know several of the locations he prints, but I've never been able to re-create what he has arrived at. Here's his link: http://benhamimages.com/

Jul 09, 2013 at 08:49 AM

Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

It is interesting that Elizabeth Carmel seems very defensive and wants us to know for sure that what she saw was breathtaking. Does it matter? Clearly the rainbows have been enhanced. They could have just as easily been totally created. The idea somehow offends a lot of viewers.

I am not sure if there is an East coast versus West coast difference. I suspect some differences would show a correlation between technology trained versus artistically trained photographers. The title of this thread might lead you to believe that technologists are the individuals who want to use technology to enhance images. Actually I believe artists are more likely to be creative and those of us who are technologists use the technology but want our images to be faithful and realistic with just a touch of enhancement. Certainly I have no data to support my hypothesis and there is likely to be high variation and only a tenuous correlation at best.

Jul 09, 2013 at 09:07 AM

andyjaggy82
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

I agree with Ben, it is VERY annoying when you have spent the hours and the work necessary to be at a location at the right time, only to have people later ask is that just photoshop. How did you make that look so good?

Jul 09, 2013 at 10:39 AM

andyjaggy82
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · Is technology ruining landscape photography?

Maybe we just have more dramatic light here in the West...? High mountains, desserts, etc... I think we just have more opportunities for those types of dramatic scenes that people tend to think are over Photoshopped. Just a thought, no idea if that is true or not.

Jul 09, 2013 at 10:43 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Landscape Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.