Jim, I typically shoot RAW so there is always some degree of post processing (PP) involved, even if it's just my basic preset that is tailored for each camera body.
My adjustments are typically white balance, tone (exposure/shadows/highlights/black level/white level), sharpening, vignetting. I'll apply local tone adjustments with masks. I tend to set the camera to the flattest contrast curve, default sharpening, and many times auto white balance, and chimp the color histogram to see if I clipped any channels. I view the in camera file as simply a container for capturing as much data about the scene in front of me that I can.
In LR I'll use the HDR and photo merge, though I already have this in mind when I take the shot. I'll use the color mixer and color grading tools in LR to make the image more pleasing to me, predominantly to warm up shadow areas that are too "cool" based on the white balance used for the majority of the scene, and sometimes to draw more out of certain colors with certain cameras. For example, all of the standard LR profiles will oversaturate and lose detail in the bright yellows and reds when I shoot with my micro four thirds setup.
I'll clone out items like "garbage" that's temporary and not part of the scene (especially landscapes) like pop cans, cigarette butts, bottles, wrappers etc that would be gone with the next windstorm or usual maintenance activities. If it's an errant branch that is isolated at the edges of a frame I may clone that out as well, though usually I try to fix that by changing my shooting position.
Beyond that I've always disclosed other manipulations when posting a picture. I've used tools for:
1. powerline removal
2. experimented with sky replacement (and pretty much don't like it and will not use it again, it may be my skill set but the results has never looked right to me)
3. generative replace or remove if simple cloning won't fix the "garbage" issue described above (though I'm on the fence about the need needing to disclose this)
Up to this point I've been firm about not adding things that were not there, or removing things other that as stated above. I don't see that changing, but I've settled for disclosure if I ever do that. (Now that I think about it, I've done exactly one shot where I used generated sunstar spikes with disclosure).
The thorium renders a distinct color.. no one is ever going to make more thorium lenses, so we have to enjoy the vintage lenses and they still make wonderful images. In the right light, like above, the subject pops, and with only a 0.3 M MFD it opens up many subjects to imaging.
rafaelcasd wrote:
Pretty Poignant memorial Matt, I do not understand how people can feel so much hatred, be they healthy or ill.
Beautiful bubble pond and sweetie James.
Serge, you are the wanderer of interesting places.
Colin, that sunken boat, the orange cone, the colors of the graffiti reflected in water, truy truly artful, so are the IR waterfront buildings
Jesper, that 13.5cm in your hands is an excellent image maker
Good that you are feeling better Ken, keep posting
Did someone say Thorium, I have a couple of 35mm 1.4 Throium Ns, long a favorite. I do not clear the brownish tint with ?UV, but rather enjoy using it.
Three of the five versions of this lens, the bad one is the 6XX serial number ais, it is not optically as good as the rest and its iris keeps getting oiled, the sharpest is one of the Ns.
jimmuller wrote:
I have to ask, ...Where is the philosophical divide between image capture and image creation/modification?
Jim,
I use to argue this with editorial photogs all the time. In their mind they were "light scribes", or "purist". Nonsense! The modifications begin at the very first moment while composing the shot, and at every subsequent stage. I was a marketing photog, and wanted to capture idealized snippets of reality. (Think beads condensation on an iced tea glass.) Before AF, auto exposure, and all the digital stuff, there was a whole world of analog technology to learn - plus we used our brains. Photography was more a minds eye view of the world, because we took longer, and gave it thought. As a mkt photog I would setup shots. Now, with little thought, I could just point my D850 or 7DmkII at something and spray 10 fps knowing that one frame would be what I was looking to capture. I realize editorial needs to honestly record events accurately, but they do crop, adjust the images for color, contrast, highlight to shadow detail (no camera has the dynamic range of the human eye), and other technical reasons. The rest of us are free to engage our brains and use photography to convey a thought, idea, message, feeling, or simply be artistic. Therefore, the closest thing to "image capture" is a trail or surveillance cam (no human except for camera placement) - everything else is "image creation" - IMO.
Jim
pbraymond wrote:
Jim, I typically shoot RAW so there is always some degree of post processing (PP) involved, ...
---------------------------------------------
James Markus wrote:
Jim,
I use to argue this with editorial photogs all the time. In their mind they were "light scribes", or "purist". Nonsense!...
Thank you both for the thoughtful and informative replies. I have learned much over the last two weeks! (I need to research the RAW format further.)
FWIW, I didn't ask because I'm a purist. I just want to understand the community's perspective. I'll continue to shoot interesting things I see and post what I'd like everyone else to see too. It a pic takes fixin' then so be it, I'll fixit. If it has tool marks (like high-budget movie scenes with solar blobs that are obviously intentional), then so be that too!
I love images that tell a multitude of stories and that one certainly does!
