General Photography Chat

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by SomeFormOFhuman

I am a lightroom user. But I don't overuse that tool. Are you referring to me? Do my photos apparently have that "lightroom" look on them? And no, I didn't spend a single cent on software too.

Nah, I had no idea you used it. Maybe that disproves my thesis then

I'm going to have to get scientific with this to see if I'm on to something or just crazy!

[Doady]

Originally Posted by LSyd

amen. if you want vignetting, get a hood for your lens or shoot with a holga.

speaking of, i'm also tired of overdone "fake holga look" done digitally, using super-nice cameras, lenses and software.

-

Who the frig cares how an effect is achieved? All that matters is the result.

Whether achieved in-camera or in post-processing, an effect like vignetting can be either good or bad. All that matter is how you use it, not how you produce it. And its not even like vignetting is even rare nowadays. Almost every lens will have vignetting or corner softness wide open, especially when mounted on a camera with a full frame sensor.

Saying that people should never add vignetting in post-processing is like saying that all black-and-white photographs should come from black-and-white film only. Give us a break.

[ue]

^good post .

[SomeFormOFhuman]

It's no issue, Bulliver.

Anyway I just enjoy photography the way it is. I worry for my pictures of how the total composition and lighting turns out on field more than the editing itself. You know, as long as we enjoy shooting and editing to our heart's content, I don't see why not. Afterall, it's art. No one controls art, it has no boundaries and its possibilities, limitless.

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by Doady

Who the frig cares how an effect is achieved? All that matters is the result.

Whether achieved in-camera or in post-processing, an effect like vignetting can be either good or bad. All that matter is how you use it, not how you produce it. And its not even like vignetting is even rare nowadays. Almost every lens will have vignetting or corner softness wide open, especially when mounted on a camera with a full frame sensor.

Saying that people should never add vignetting in post-processing is like saying that all black-and-white photographs should come from black-and-white film only. Give us a break.

because at its heart it's photography, not digital wankery.

-

[Ayreonaut]

I guess I should let you know, EE, that since I'm back at work I'm not sure how much time I'll have to contribute to the COMP group. I'm having trouble finding time to edit anything right now as well, so I won't be uploading much either.

I'm also in the midst of applying to over a dozen universities and colleges (my high school marks weren't great, so I'm going for the sawed-off shotgun approach and seeing where I can get in), so yeah, I'll be a little preoccupied for at least a week. Then things might settle down and I can get back to editing/uploading/posting.

Though FWIW, it seems like there's only 5 or so people who are actually do anything in that group, and I'm not sure how successful it will be in the long run.
It would be decent with at least 20 regulars, so if someone goes away for a few days it wouldn't matter as much.

[flar]

Anyone is free to do what they like artistically, of course, but some photos and artistic styles are better than others. Despite the attempts of some to argue that taste is completely relative, it simply isn't true. Most of the garish HDR and overprocessed junk that has flooded the internet will stand the test of time just about as well as that horrible gated reverb drum sound from the 1980s. Some of those songs were good, but sound dated and are banished to obscurity because technology got in the way of fundamentals. Same thing applies to photography.

I also like the fact that there are different philosophies with respect to technology and its application to photography, but again, in the end technology is no substitute for talent.

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by LSyd

because at its heart it's photography, not digital wankery.

-

Or, as SFOH said, it's art, and people can do whatever the hell they feel like. Some may not like it, but others will.

[toyota74]

Sounds like everyone has been boozing

[Ayreonaut]

Well, it is Hockey Day in Canada.

[toyota74]

Happy Hockey Day Canadians !!! have a few
pints for me

[Aleks]

shees, all this negativity!

and whats up with the hatin' on hdr's? no one here used over processed hdr's so why bring it up? the only people i know that use hdr are SFOH, iamhydrogen, Lsyd (?) and I.

Oh and LSyd, I think I'll get the wide angle after I get these first few things. Thanks, I can't believe i forgot about my tokina!

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by flar

Anyone is free to do what they like artistically, of course, but some photos and artistic styles are better than others. Despite the attempts of some to argue that taste is completely relative, it simply isn't true. Most of the garish HDR and overprocessed junk that has flooded the internet will stand the test of time just about as well as that horrible gated reverb drum sound from the 1980s. Some of those songs were good, but sound dated and are banished to obscurity because technology got in the way of fundamentals. Same thing applies to photography.

I also like the fact that there are different philosophies with respect to technology and its application to photography, but again, in the end technology is no substitute for talent.

agreed...at some point it crosses the line between photography and graphic "art."

Originally Posted by Aleks

shees, all this negativity!

and whats up with the hatin' on hdr's? no one here used over processed hdr's so why bring it up? the only people i know that use hdr are SFOH, iamhydrogen, Lsyd (?) and I.

Oh and LSyd, I think I'll get the wide angle after I get these first few things. Thanks, I can't believe i forgot about my tokina!

i love HDR...as long as it's not overdone all the time.

-

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by LSyd

because at its heart it's photography, not digital wankery.

At it's heart, not in its entirety. I can tell you this much, I've not uploaded a digital photo without at least some digital wankery. IMO demanding all shots be sooc is being a luddite...

@Aleks...I think the hatin' on HDR is because so many people (not on SSP that I've seen, but certainly on flickr) overuse it so ridiculously that their shots look like sandpaper. Can these folks not tell that that looks like shite?

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by bulliver

At it's heart, not in its entirety. I can tell you this much, I've not uploaded a digital photo without at least some digital wankery. IMO demanding all shots be sooc is being a luddite...

@Aleks...I think the hatin' on HDR is because so many people (not on SSP that I've seen, but certainly on flickr) overuse it so ridiculously that their shots look like sandpaper. Can these folks not tell that that looks like shite?

there's a huge difference between digital editing and digital wankery, as you just noted...it's the ridiculous overuse.

-

[Doady]

Originally Posted by LSyd

because at its heart it's photography, not digital wankery.

-

Adding vignetting in post-processing did not come from the digital era. Edge burning techniques used to add vignetting to photos originated in the darkroom, well before there was digital photography. In fact, almost all of the thing one can do in Photoshop can be done in the darkroom as well.

[Ayreonaut]

So...um, grouphug? No? Maybe?

[flar]

Originally Posted by Doady

Adding vignetting in post-processing did not come from the digital era. Edge burning techniques used to add vignetting to photos originated in the darkroom, well before there was digital photography. In fact, almost all of the thing one can do in Photoshop can be done in the darkroom as well.

Yes, many techniques were possible in the film era, but not nearly all. Even if techniques like "burn" and "dodge" and "unsharp mask" have their origins in the darkroom, there is a huge qualitative difference between digital and film processing. Anyone can start digital editing if they have a computer. Doing the equivalent with film takes a huge amount of skill and practice, and if you screw up, the negative is ruined.

BTW, I'm not against using the technology that's available, it can be used to do great things. These techniques are a means to an end, but I'm afraid there are many photographers out there for whom techniques are the end. That is the very definition of wanking (for another music analogy, refer to 80s guitar wankers).

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

So...um, grouphug? No? Maybe?

i love you guys. wow, we really do sound like we've all been drinking.

-

[Ayreonaut]

I'm about to, actually, but just a couple.