Nifty Fifty wrote:
You're welcome to do that with your pictures, but please not with mine. Thank you.
Without engaging the rest of the exchange, I want to chime in to say that I strongly agree with this.
It is very bad form to take someone else’s photo posted in a forum and, without asking them, post a revised rersion of it that you think is “better.”
I understand that sometimes this is done by a person who is genuinely hoping to be helpful, but can also be read as insulting.
Generally, when you see someone’s photo posted in a thread that isn’t specifically asking for critique, don’t offer it in the thread — at least not without asking the person first. (On the few occasions when I thought the poster might appreciate the feedback, I PM”ed them first.) In addition, when someone posts a photo as an illustration of something under discussion, discussing how it does or does not illustrate the topic is fair game, but insulting the photograph is not.
ruthenium wrote:
Tim, I actually like this picture of your son. When the attention is on the subject then everything else is in the peripheral vision and is out-of-focus. Technically speaking, the tree can be easyly and painlessly removed from the photo - if you don't like it - but I wouldn't worry about this if I were you.
Thanks. Honestly, it doesn't bother me much, but I know some people might be critical of it (especially in this thread), so it was more of preemptive comment.
'There are other genres where I honestly think: we are shooting people here. Why are we going for that ultra digital, super-sharp look on a face? No one wants that; people don’t want that. They don’t want to see themselves in that extreme cold, hard light of day. We might even take that thinking further; what if we consider that some lens designs may not actually align with our shooting goals.
Perhaps the lens designer has made a lens to be ultra sharp, with a really flat and even plane of focus, the ability to have a sharp drop off in the focal plane to bokeh, having low distortion and no chromatic aberrations, no coma, no field curvature or astigmatism, and displays that ultra sharp look from the widest aperture and all the other things that we now consider good in an optical design.
Essentially they might have taken out absolutely everything that when added up, we used to refer to as ‘character’ or ‘pleasing rendering’. Further to this, many of these things when present in an image with a myriad of other depth cues, can in my opinion aid a photograph appearing more three dimensional than perhaps a lens that was made to perform amazingly well in another area.'
One of the best articles on the subject, highly recommended for open-minded individuals:
philip_pj wrote:
'There are other genres where I honestly think: we are shooting people here. Why are we going for that ultra digital, super-sharp look on a face? No one wants that; people don’t want that. They don’t want to see themselves in that extreme cold, hard light of day. We might even take that thinking further; what if we consider that some lens designs may not actually align with our shooting goals.
Perhaps the lens designer has made a lens to be ultra sharp, with a really flat and even plane of focus, the ability to have a sharp drop off in the focal plane to bokeh, having low distortion and no chromatic aberrations, no coma, no field curvature or astigmatism, and displays that ultra sharp look from the widest aperture and all the other things that we now consider good in an optical design.
Essentially they might have taken out absolutely everything that when added up, we used to refer to as ‘character’ or ‘pleasing rendering’. Further to this, many of these things when present in an image with a myriad of other depth cues, can in my opinion aid a photograph appearing more three dimensional than perhaps a lens that was made to perform amazingly well in another area.'
One of the best articles on the subject, highly recommended for open-minded individuals:
tsdevine wrote:
Unfortunate framing on my part with the tree coming out of my son's head, but I do enjoy depth, dimensionality, etc. Even if it isn't outright pop.
philip_pj wrote:
Essentially they might have taken out absolutely everything that when added up, we used to refer to as ‘character’ or ‘pleasing rendering’.
Back in the day, when the lens essentially determined those things that count as “character” (edge roll-of/vignetting, corner softness, and all the rest), the performance of the lens was more critical to the result. If you liked those optical shortcomings of lenses back then, you accepted them as a positive rather than as a negative.
But today there is really no liability to shooting with your theoretical perfect lens. If you wish to see softness towards the corners, if you want to add some vignetting, if you want different contrast levels across the frame, you want more saturation in the center than at the edges, ora whole bunch of other similar things…
… you can add them using the tools of digital post, and you can do so with remarkable control and variability. This is the sort of thing that darkroom practitioners would have died for in the pre-digital past.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Back in the day, when the lens essentially determined those things that count as “character” (edge roll-of/vignetting, corner softness, and all the rest), the performance of the lens was more critical to the result. If you liked those optical shortcomings of lenses back then, you accepted them as a positive rather than as a negative.
But today there is really no liability to shooting with your theoretical perfect lens. If you wish to see softness towards the corners, if you want to add some vignetting, if you want different contrast levels across the frame, you want more saturation in the center than at the edges, ora whole bunch of other similar things…
… you can add them using the tools of digital post, and you can do so with remarkable control and variability. This is the sort of thing that darkroom practitioners would have died for in the pre-digital past....Show more →
While there is plenty of truism in that ... particularly of how much we "dreamed" of the future, back in the past (silly things like changing film mid roll, etc. to a different ASA (ISO today) or profile (film stock).
However, when it comes to focal plane roll off, I find it can be a bit tedious to emulate that in post in manner that A) truly emulates it, and B) is done well enough that a critical eye doesn't find the tell(s). Step-modulating the Z-axis both forward and backward (which are not equal rates of transition in real optics) of the focal plane and with a complex scene is a labor of love. It can be done, and I've done plenty of work with "flat" optics / lighting / etc. to try and generate those faster rates of falloff transition. It can be done, yes it can be done. But, as much as I have done so to an increasing level of workmanship over the years, I far prefer if the optic itself does this labor of love.
Perfection + personal preference modulated in post sounds great on paper ... and in some regard is pragmatic. But, (imo) it isn't a "perfect" replacement for the natural optic. It's kinda like adding salt after the meal is cooked, vs. cooking with the right amount of salt in it. The flavoring is homogenized / gradient vs. bolted on top. And, of course, like all other aspects of our beloved craft, there will be folks on both sides of the camp, some readily waiting to dismiss / marginalize the nuance of distinction in difference. Of course, if someone were to use that "perfect" optic on a film body as an adjunct to the digital work, the options for PP variation are greatly reduced.
Given the number of folks who own multiple lenses for different renderings, I'd say it is not a universally adopted practice for expecting PP to do all the rendering. Some folks will still prefer the natural aspect of the optic vs. pp.
RustyBug wrote:
I'd say it is not a universally adopted practice for expecting PP to do all the rendering. Some folks will still prefer the natural aspect of the optic vs. pp.
To start with the final point first, yes. My post is addressed to those who may not see that much of what they are looking for is available in ways that used to require specific lenses but no longer do.
Regarding: “ I'd say it is not a universally adopted practice for expecting PP to do all the rendering.” Hence threads like this one, right?
And no one suggests that “PP… do all the rendering.” Good lenses are still important, just not in the way and form that they were in the pre-digital past.
In fact, I’d hazard a guess that much of the effect of a photograph in this thread that has recently been under discussion is the result of vignetting that at least appears to have been added or amplified in post. For example, in the image the vignettingit is quite obvious all around the edges of the frame… except for at the lower center where for some reason it isn’t noticeable.
That’s not a complaint. It actually makes the photograph more interesting (among other things, contributing to a sense of depth) or at least different than it might look had the vignetting been uniform around the full frame.
gdanmitchell wrote:
In fact, I’d hazard a guess that much of the effect of a photograph in this thread that has recently been under discussion is the result of vignetting that at least appears to have been added or amplified in post. For example, in the image the vignettingit is quite obvious all around the edges of the frame… except for at the lower center where for some reason it isn’t noticeable.
That’s not a complaint. It actually makes the photograph more interesting (among other things, contributing to a sense of depth) or at least different than it might look had the vignetting been uniform around the full frame. ...Show more →
And that's precisely why we've been repeatedly informed by the China lens influencer that vignetting in Chinese lenses, unlike in all conventional lenses, is not a design-related limitation, but an important and integral part of the lens design!😅
gdanmitchell wrote:
To start with the final point first, yes. My post is addressed to those who may not see that much of what they are looking for is available in ways that used to require specific lenses but no longer do.
Regarding: “ I'd say it is not a universally adopted practice for expecting PP to do all the rendering.” Hence threads like this one, right?
And no one suggests that “PP… do all the rendering.” Good lenses are still important, just not in the way and form that they were in the pre-digital past.
In fact, I’d hazard a guess that much of the effect of a photograph in this thread that has recently been under discussion is the result of vignetting that at least appears to have been added or amplified in post. For example, in the image the vignettingit is quite obvious all around the edges of the frame… except for at the lower center where for some reason it isn’t noticeable.
That’s not a complaint. It actually makes the photograph more interesting (among other things, contributing to a sense of depth) or at least different than it might look had the vignetting been uniform around the full frame. ...Show more →
In the shot I posted, lens corrections were turned on in Lightroom, but I slide the vignetting correction all the way to the left. So in essence, this is the natural vignetting of the lens. It was corrected for distortion though.
I believe that area in the foreground is brighter, just for the simple reason that there was a super small clearing there where the bench was. So it was wooded all around, and most likely since it was a little open in that spot, the light wasn't as filtered by the canopy. No vignetting was added, nor did I do any dodging or burning.
And that was a choice I made, disabling vignetting correction. As for this type of shot, I think it improves the final result, as you say.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Regarding: “ I'd say it is not a universally adopted practice for expecting PP to do all the rendering.” Hence threads like this one, right?
And no one suggests that “PP… do all the rendering.” Good lenses are still important, just not in the way and form that they were in the pre-digital past.
Well, as someone who utilizes very little post processing in his work I'll say the performance of a variety of lenses is still very important to me. I guess I still have a lot of the old school mindset that photography is about painting with the light, not manipulating pixels in post processing.
Well, that and I'll readily admit that I hardly know how to do anything in photoshop even with decades of using it, ! I certainly can't believe I'm the only one that still works this way. It seems to me that being an expert in post processing would just make me a sloppy photographer...maybe I'm wrong....
Of course purpose may come into play with how folks view this also. If my living was made off of it, I guess it would be a lot more vital for me to be proficient at the post process side of things. But since my photography is for me and the sheer joy of just doing it I can continue to feel and work the way I do.
There are an infinite number of “versions” of a photograph. What the camera and image processor spit out as the “raw” image is simply one version of what that photograph can be. There’s no “real” version of an image, only what the photographer chooses out of infinite possibilities.
jamesdak wrote:
Well, as someone who utilizes very little post processing in his work I'll say the performance of a variety of lenses is still very important to me. I guess I still have a lot of the old school mindset that photography is about painting with the light, not manipulating pixels in post processing.
Well, that and I'll readily admit that I hardly now how to do anything in photoshop even with decades of using it, ! I certainly can't believe I'm the only one that still works this way. It seems to me that being an expert in post processing would just make me a sloppy photographer...maybe I'm wrong....
Of course purpose may come into play with how folks view this also. If my living was made off of it, I guess it would be a lot more vital for me to be proficient at the post process side of things. But since my photography is for me and the sheer joy of just doing it I can continue to feel and work the way I do. ...Show more →
Here is another view of how the editing process actually fits into photography these days. A
Every image you make is edited. Either by you or by someone else's algorythm. At least when you edit your own images they are closer to your own image edited to your own vision. This is true whether working analog and sending out for developing and printing, or digital and accepting someone else's algorithmic processing.
1bwana1 wrote:
Here is another view of how the editing process actually fits into photography these days. A
Every image you make is edited. Either by you or by someone else's algorythm. At least when you edit your own images they are closer to your own image edited to your own vision. This is true whether working analog and sending out for developing and printing, or digital and accepting someone else's algorithmic processing.
Agreed.
We either used "standard" processing (i.e. sent to the lab for consistent processing) or we turned on the red light and did our own thing ... or worked with the lab for customization.
Today, it's no different in that we can use someone else's (OEM profiles, Adobe profiles, etc.) ... or we can start with the "digital negative" and go our own way, to our hearts desire. The latter was "the dream" (a fantasy, not even expected to be realized for those old enough to recall), back in the day. And, now that we have that capacity ... we live and die by the same sword when we choose to be our own lab rat. Some things are well suited for PP, other things are well suited to the optic ... and of course, we all have the free will to decide how to implement and incorporate the balance of how those two interplay in the process of Light > Subject > Optic > Film Plane > PP ... as all pieces of the process are requisitely intertwined toward the final product.
Polaroids and forensic work ... play by a tighter rule set, but that's by design for consistency. The FBI's insights into forensic photography make for an interesting read / study. Surprisingly, one might think it to be very boring, but their discussion as it pertains to emulating / recreating human perception was rather fascinating ... I digress ... oh, wait ... ISN'T that the essence of what this thread was really, started about.
Finding a great lab to work with was key back in the day (Nelson's was my go to). That need to find a good lab (us vs. someone else) remains an integral part, today. We just call it PP, and it is ours to own or outsource to others.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Without engaging the rest of the exchange, I want to chime in to say that I strongly agree with this.
It is very bad form to take someone else’s photo posted in a forum and, without asking them, post a revised rersion of it that you think is “better.”
I understand that sometimes this is done by a person who is genuinely hoping to be helpful, but can also be read as insulting.
Generally, when you see someone’s photo posted in a thread that isn’t specifically asking for critique, don’t offer it in the thread — at least not without asking the person first. (On the few occasions when I thought the poster might appreciate the feedback, I PM”ed them first.) In addition, when someone posts a photo as an illustration of something under discussion, discussing how it does or does not illustrate the topic is fair game, but insulting the photograph is not.
Just imagine where this leads otherwise…...Show more →
Dan, that picture was posted as a dreadful picture, an example of what was meant to be accepted as awful, and I happened to think it wasn't genuinely and thoroughly bad. This is different from one's posting an image that is close and dear to that person's heart and others jumping on and jeering.
In general, there's a difference between the photos posted in a picture/image thread, as in a lens thread, that are useful regardless of whether we like them or not, and the work posted by the influencers. The latter is fair game.
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, that picture was posted as a dreadful picture, an example of what was meant to be accepted as awful, and I happened to think it wasn't genuinely and thoroughly bad.
Are you serious? Then you should really engage your brain in the future before replying to posts you haven't understood in the slightest. It's called reading comprehension. I literally wrote, "Abrupt drop in focus without any transition, and beyond the plane of focus, just a soft veil." Do you see anything like that in the picture? If so, I suggest you visit an optician. If not, then I'd suggest you consider what's going on. Have you ever heard of the word "irony"? If not, just Google it. Thanks.
ruthenium wrote:
This is different from one's posting an image that is close and dear to that person's heart and others jumping on and jeering.
No. There's no difference. If a photo isn't explicitly posted with a request for or permission to edit it, then you have no right to alter it and publish it. It's that simple. This has always been the case everywhere. Strictly speaking, it's copyright infringement and therefore punishable by law. So don't come at me with your made-up rules about when you can and can't do anything.
ruthenium wrote:
In general, there's a difference between the photos posted in a picture/image thread, as in a lens thread, that are useful regardless of whether we like them or not, and the work posted by the influencers. The latter is fair game.
And again. There is no difference. Either the copyright holder permits editing and publication by others, or they don't. End of story. And the fact that you're using the term "influencing" specifically in reference to me, who wrote these posts solely because I'm so annoyed by the whole Thypoch influencer thing, shows that you haven't understood the slightest thing about what's going on in this thread. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
And one more request. In the future, please use your editing skills to retouch away trees growing out of people's heads. That would be more useful. But please ask for permission first.
PS: Sorry for the harsh tone, but this nonsense is really getting on my nerves. A simple "Sorry, that was a misunderstanding. I wasn't aware that you can't edit and post photos without permission" would have been enough, and everything would have been fine. But no, they try to weasel their way out of it with some rubbish and then even have the nerve to call me "influencer." That's truly outrageous.
1bwana1 wrote:
Here is another view of how the editing process actually fits into photography these days. A
Every image you make is edited. Either by you or by someone else's algorythm. At least when you edit your own images they are closer to your own image edited to your own vision. This is true whether working analog and sending out for developing and printing, or digital and accepting someone else's algorithmic processing.
For sure, but just to an extent. When I see folks totally change the photograph via post process then it loses me. Like mentioned several post back about how easy it is to remove the tree "growing" out of the boys head. Seems doing stuff like that to me is just a lie. But to each their own. My photography is for me and I play by my own misguided set of rules. !
All the more embarrassing when we get it wrong, given there are an infinite number of ways to get it right
mudlake wrote:
There are an infinite number of “versions” of a photograph. What the camera and image processor spit out as the “raw” image is simply one version of what that photograph can be. There’s no “real” version of an image, only what the photographer chooses out of infinite possibilities.
ruthenium wrote:
In general, there's a difference between the photos posted in a picture/image thread, as in a lens thread, that are useful regardless of whether we like them or not, and the work posted by the influencers. The latter is fair game.
Of course we are free to comment on what we see in a photo in a thread like this, what properties it exhibits, what we like and don't like.
None of us are free to edit other people's photos without their consent in ANY thread and any future examples of this behavior will be reported. We as members of this forum should be above such behavior and as you can see, many members are willing to make an example out of you over it.
! I certainly can't believe I'm the only one that still works this way. It seems to me that being an expert in post processing would just make me a sloppy photographer...maybe I'm wrong....