# Dynamic Range vs the truth



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 15, 2017)

Hello Everyone,

I've just came across another internet test/comparison of new DSLRs where a camera was rated higher than the other one only because of the ability to boost shadows and highlights later in post processing.

I'm getting the feeling that most people spend thousands of $,€... regularly to get the "best" gear just because they see great looking pictures all over the internet and they want to compete with that.

Sure, with a camera for example like a D850 etc. you could take a picture at a rainy day without any contrast and boost it up to a great looking picture which produce as many likes as possible.

And learning how to do massive post processing is not difficult at all. Tons of tutorials are available online.

In my opinion, the real skills behind photography, patience, searching and exploring for the best composition in any condition with capturing a stunning scene just like it is, with any kind of gear (e.g. EOS 1300 with a 18-55mm STM) are key to a really good picture.


Cheers Stefan


P.S. Is there anybody else who is also annoyed be the HDR hype going on momentarily?
Pl. Give me your throughts.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 15, 2017)

The camera sensor is a counter of photons, not an interpreter of photons. 

When we use our eyes to look at a high contrast (high dynamic range) scene, we look at the various components of the scene and assemble a mental composite that has greater dynamic range than the range that can be captured with a single exposure of any camera sensor. 

All combining of multiple captures with different exposures (HDR, manual blending via Photoshop, etc) should involve the same interpretation process that our brain uses in dealing with a high DR scene perceived directly with our eyes. Does that shadow contain important information? Does that highlight contain important information? 

Agreed, the most crucial piece of the photographer's kit is a judicious eye. Add graduated neutral density filters or post-processing as desired, and keep using the judicious eye during the post-processing. Remember "dodging", "burning", multicontrast paper, choice of surface texture of paper, etc - all the choices in darkroom printing?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 15, 2017)

This is a debate as old as photography. 

In the 19th and early 20th century, photographers tried to lay claim to photography as a art by imitating paintings -- the pictorialists. Then Paul Strand came on the scene and "straight" photography was finally accepted as art -- culminating in the f64 school, which came to dominate the view of what art photography should like like.

For many years the f64 school, especially Ansel Adams, dominated and pretty much drove out all other viewpoints in the United States. (In Europe it was never that clear cut with people like Man Ray pushing the boundaries). 

It really wasn't until the 60s and 70s when Jerry Uelsmann came on the scene and proved beyond any doubt that manipulated photographs were as legitimately art as any "straight" photos, that American photography began to accept a broader definition of photography as art.

(Apologies for the gross oversimplification of the history of photography, but I'm trying to keep the post reasonably short)

It seems like today we have a fascination with HDR kitsch among pseudo-artists. I think most serious photographers have rejected the overdone HDR look, but it still has a lot of popular appeal. Of course, what's popular is not necessarily what is good. I look at the overdone HDR as being in the same vein as Thomas Kinkade paintings – popular with the masses but not taken seriously by anyone. 

Of course, there are a lot of photographers who have become incredibly successful commercially using HDR. But, I don't know of any who are considered serious artists.

Ultimately, I think you have to follow your own vision. Few of us are likely to be making great, timeless art, so we might as well focus on what we enjoy, try to push ourselves to do the best we can and be satisfied with that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2017)

This tends to be a hardware forum where photographers who love fine tools like to discuss capabilities and to understand them and what they mean. We are also blessed with those who upload and share their fine photographs with us.

DR is basically another way to measure sensor noise. Less noise is a good thing, but not the only thing. And, of course, having good hardware is unrelated to the art of capturing good photographs, except that a good photograph taken with good hardware may have better sharpness and contrast. However, its also true that a photographer who knows his hardware capabilities may get better results with a inexpensive camera than another with top of the line equipment.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 15, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> I'm getting the feeling that most people spend thousands of $,€... regularly to get the "best" gear just because they see great looking pictures all over the internet and they want to compete with that.



I don't think it is a case of 'competing', more that people think the camera is limiting their ability and they want to take the same sort of photographs and imagine the camera is the key. It isn't - it is about understanding your gear, working within its limits and, most importantly, having vision. 

Magnum photographer who uses Olympus point and shoots
http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844

Photographing the London Olympics with an iphone
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/27/london-olympics-2012-smartphone


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting the feeling that most people spend thousands of $,€... regularly to get the "best" gear just because they see great looking pictures all over the internet and they want to compete with that.
> ...



Not a single bird photograph in those links. When I first started bird photography I was ill-equipped with a crappy Canon 100-400mm and 7D and never got sharp shots. Now I have decent gear, I am indeed limited by my skills and not my gear. Your gear does have to be good enough and then it is up to you. But, some gear is inadequate.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 16, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I've just came across another internet test/comparison of new DSLRs where a camera was rated higher than the other one only because of the ability to boost shadows and highlights later in post processing.
> 
> ...


What's it to you?

Not hugely concerned about DR myself. I often press both the blacks and whites in my PP. However more DR is of course better - simple fact. And for some people the difference will be critical.

But why do you question or challenge people's photographic ambitions and motives? 

I cringe every time people say x MPIX is "enough" or even "too much". I want as many as possible. More is just better for me. It makes my processing easier. It makes my final results better. 120 MPIX? - I cannot wait... The arrival of the 5DS/R is the best thing that ever happened to my photography on the camera body side.

If people are happy having the newest, meanest, highest speced most expensive gear possible and they take totally crappy cat pic's that I truly hate - so what? As long as its their money and they are happy shooters - all the better for them.

We all have different priorities.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 16, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Everyone,
> ...



I agree with your final statement.

The DR debate has raged on this and many other sites. Personally, I am not so sure that DR is really among the top 3 most important things in MODERN digital photography and post.

My guess is that a few will find it essential, but for most, DR won't be critical. I think that for most, a bit more or less DR won't make a difference while for a few like yourself, DR, Max MPX will be beneficial. IMHO, I think that although there is a difference in sensors, for the most part, DR specs are used to market and motivate people to upgrade.

As has been argued successfully previously, DR is but one part of an entire system. It would be foolish to consider only one spec of a system when making a choice. If you are happy with your kit, great. If you are not happy with your gear, get something that will make you happy creating images, but you would be well advised to consider all aspect of the camera, the lenses, the support, the menues, the ergonomics, and so many other things.

Scott


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 16, 2017)

Can't wait to try the soon-to-be-released Kodak Ektachrome. 7 stops of DR - Yummy


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 16, 2017)

AlanF said:


> When I first started bird photography I was ill-equipped with a crappy Canon 100-400mm and 7D and never got sharp shots.



Alan, I currently use a 100-400 and 70D for birds. In good light I can get results that I'm quite happy with. It's true that focus continues to be a bit of a challenge with this kit, especially for BIF and little passerines in the brush. Before the 70D I had a 60D, and simply could not get consistent results. I've built my skill with these tools, and now have a good sense of what I can do to improve my keeper rate. Of course I hope to have better gear some day, but for the foreseeable future that's likely to be no more than upgrading my 70D to a 7D3 (when/if it arrives) and my 100-400 to a MkII. I am currently limited partly by my skill and partly by my kit, but I'm happy with what I have. 

That said, my major complaint in using my 70D for birds is, in fact, DR. Two examples: a male wood duck in anything close to full light will either blow out the highlights, or leave the shows indistinct, sometimes both. White herons and egrets can cause similar problems if there's any non-uniform light. Looking at my photos in post, I can see that they're generally exposed properly, so this really is a limitation of the sensor. Will more DR solve the problem? I don't know, but it would help. So I just go on enjoying my older, imperfect gear for what it can do, rather than berating it for what it can't.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > When I first started bird photography I was ill-equipped with a crappy Canon 100-400mm and 7D and never got sharp shots.
> ...



My copy of the 100-400 Mk1 was crappy. Many were, unfortunately, and I was unlucky but some were good. and if you have a good one it will serve you well. Getting a good lens transformed what I could do. Egrets do reflect light too well and the details are often blown.


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> This tends to be a hardware forum where photographers who love fine tools like to discuss capabilities and to understand them and what they mean. We are also blessed with those who upload and share their fine photographs with us.
> 
> DR is basically another way to measure sensor noise. Less noise is a good thing, but not the only thing. And, of course, having good hardware is unrelated to the art of capturing good photographs, except that a good photograph taken with good hardware may have better sharpness and contrast. However, its also true that a photographer who knows his hardware capabilities may get better results with a inexpensive camera than another with top of the line equipment.



#truth


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Ultimately, I think you have to follow your own vision. Few of us are likely to be making great, timeless art, so we might as well focus on what we enjoy, try to push ourselves to do the best we can and be satisfied with that.



Amen.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 17, 2017)

Hey Guys,

there some great comments in here, which make me realize once more that other people have other goals and priorities 

I guess what I wanted to say is:

Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.

Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.

Cheers,

Stefan

P.S.
End of story: Get some kind of gear, learn it, enjoy using it and be satisfied with the results you get.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.


I sincerely hope we have no photograpers in CR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 17, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> Personally, I am not so sure that DR is really among the top 3 most important things in MODERN digital photography and post.



Phrased a little differently many, including myself, would agree:

The differences in recorded DR between most modern cameras isn’t significant enough to stand as a reasonable product differentiator.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.
> ...



I took some very nice, some would say artistic, photos back when I was shooting color slide film.


----------



## bwud (Dec 18, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.




This is a preposterous statement, IMO.

A photographer is one who creates photographs. Whether extensive post processing (like color alterations, localized edits) or preprocessing (most notably lighting, or makeup) is used, it’s still photography, and its creator a photographer.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.
> 
> Artists: People which delevop a taken picture in post processing, so it does not reflect the captures scene/object but which reflects the creativity of the artist and his picture imagined.



Why can't it be both


----------



## bwud (Dec 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.
> ...



The former sounds like an even more restrictive version of “record the scene as it really looked” mantra (which due to how the medium works often requires alterations after the fact).


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2017)

bwud said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Dmark2 said:
> ...



You need technical ability.... selection and operation of the equipment.... but you also need an artistic vision. Just the simple process of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter is artistic vision.... you have selected a particular view at a particular time to capture and that is editing reality. How far you go in post processing is immaterial, you are already far down the path....

For example, the cat slept on my lap for two hours while I worked on the computer. I chose the time she yawned to take the picture, so that is the segment of reality presented. It was not typical of the vast bulk of the time. I have edited reality to present an exception as the norm....


----------



## dak723 (Dec 18, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> I guess what I wanted to say is:
> 
> Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.
> 
> ...



Not sure if you are being funny or sarcastic here - but if not...

As someone who IS an artist - and then got into photography, doing little or no post processing is not the defining factor with whether the resulting photo is considered art or artistic. If you have to post process to make a photo artistic, then - quite frankly - you have no idea what photography is all about. I would strongly suggest some classes in composition among other things.

As for DR - the idea that more DR is always better makes me laugh. Yes, it is better that cameras have that capability, but as DR continues to improve, photos have less contrast -and thus look flatter. In many (if not most) cases, this means more post processing to bring contrast levels back to a point where the photo is acceptable as art! 

Just my opinion, of course. I realize that most here will not agree.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


I agree.



> How far you go in post processing is immaterial, you are already far down the path....



I disagree. You can expose and edit a night scene to make it appear to be daylight (except for the lack of shadows), and you can expose/edit to make day look like night. Cropping, contrast, minor exposure adjustments, sharpening...all of these are edits that would not surprise a viewer of the image, and would not be interpreted as distortion. For me, the test is subjective but also fairly clear: imagine the viewer had an opportunity to compare the image to the live scene; if he/she would be surprised by the difference then you have distorted. Distortion is not inherently unacceptable but, IMHO, should be disclosed with the image.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



Yes, but I can play with depth of field to make the background disappear, or I can move in real close for a distorted perspective, or telephoto compression to make the moon look absurdly large, or time exposures to make the Milky Way pop out, or slow shutter speeds to get a silky flow on a waterfall..... you can greatly distort the scene before you ever get to post processing......

The following picture was taken today in downtown Ottawa today. The background is the parliament buildings. By shooting with minimum depth of field, One makes them vanish.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Yes, but I can play with depth of field to make the background disappear, or I can move in real close for a distorted perspective, or telephoto compression to make the moon look absurdly large, or time exposures to make the Milky Way pop out, or slow shutter speeds to get a silky flow on a waterfall..... you can greatly distort the scene before you ever get to post processing......
> 
> The following picture was taken today in downtown Ottawa today. The background is the parliament buildings. By shooting with minimum depth of field, One makes them vanish.



The question is simple: would someone who looks both at your photo and at the scene believe that your photo was distorted, or that it misrepresented what was actually there? I think the answer is clearly no. Humans are remarkably good at selective attention (inattentional blindness), and the blurred background does not change the "truth" of the photo.

But I think we're derailing the thread...


----------



## bwud (Dec 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



+1, a thousand times.
Most good photos don’t look the way a similar instant looked to a human, whether the scene be black and white, or express a tiny depth of focus, or have milky smooth water, etc.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 18, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> I guess what I wanted to say is:
> 
> Photographers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.


 Perhaps by "Photographer" you mean "Photo Journalist" who may have certain restrictions as you mentioned by their hiring agency. Everyone else is a photographer.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > Photograpers: People that take pictures or a certain scene or object like it is with minor to no postprocessing.
> ...



Most of the time I hate anything people call “art”.

Cameras are recording devices no different than a microphone or a pen.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 18, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> there some great comments in here, which make me realize once more that other people have other goals and priorities
> 
> ...



So is Ansel Adams a photographer or an artist. The amount of post processing he did is legendary - and yet many would say his images are realistic. Post-processing and 'realism' are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 18, 2017)

In the world of macro photography we use stacking to generate images to show an image with an unrealistic large depth of field of an object (something you cannot see with the naked eye or with any magnifying device). 

Is this image more "real" than an image showing the limitations that the laws of optics force on us. I say yes.

Post-processing doesn't always make something less 'real'.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2017)

9VIII said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Dmark2 said:
> ...



My reply was meant as a joke because of the typo photog_rapers_ without the h.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> My reply was meant as a joke because of the typo photog_rapers_ without the h.



How weinsteinian


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 18, 2017)

I read it as 'grapers'. Just made me think of someone documenting their wine-making.

Then I remembered the old WKUK sketch and we're back to violent assault again.

Cheery stuff.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Dyslexia gets the best of me again.

Nonetheless I get irritated every time people talk about photography being all about "story" or "emotion".
Not that those things are bad, but the majority of photographs taken are very practical, even wedding photography is mostly a matter of record keeping, as it was in the early days when people didn't even smile for a picture (or maybe everyone back then really was just that upset all the time), today they're just really fancy records.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 18, 2017)

9VIII said:


> ...as it was in the early days when people didn't even smile for a picture (or maybe everyone back then really was just that upset all the time),



I don't think you's smile very much if you had a rod stuck your jacksie to keep you still while the photographer took a 2-minute exposure!


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 19, 2017)

Hi Mike. 
Very eloquently put, I was thinking you might not smile with a mouth full of rotten teeth. ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ...as it was in the early days when people didn't even smile for a picture (or maybe everyone back then really was just that upset all the time),
> ...


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Mike.
> Very eloquently put, I was thinking you might not smile with a mouth full of rotten teeth. ;D
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



Oh, did I walk right into the middle of an 'English teeth' thing?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 19, 2017)

9VIII said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Dmark2 said:
> ...



Art has no tangible function other than narrative...therefore a photograph can very easily be classified as art.
Where as an amazingly snazzy object like a really posh watch has a function so that has to be classified as "Craft". 

If a camera is just a recording device...what is your view of a pain brush? Both serve the same function in giving a visual recording of light, contrast and dark. Photographic...."Photo" and "Graphia"...literally painting with light. 

In my opinion, if you degrade your photographs to just a recording then you are under appreciating the object or moment that you are recording. If you photos have no aspiration or emotional content then maybe your camera is just a recording device.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 19, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I’m pretty sure that’s a Klingon invention.

This thread just keeps on giving.

Any image created from the Paintbrush is wholly a product of human imagination. Fundamentally everything we see is a mental construct, it could be argued that it’s impossible for a human being to accurately record an image by hand. Theoretically you’d be just as well off writing poetry.
In practice I’m sure people can do very well, but it’s an inescapable fact that everything we see is heavily filtered through the imagination.
“Painting” is inherently an act of human imagination.

Half the problem is the common conflation of an act of human imagination with works that copy information.
Photography is productive, but not an act of human imagination.

To be true to the original Latin, “photo-graphy” would be translated as _writing_ with light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-graphy
Like a pen writing words, the shapes and sequence of characters making up the words have no artistry, they are the function of communication.
At its most basic level your photograph is a string of characters written by a computer. It is a written record of values of light, the camera is simply a mechanical scribe of incredible speed.
As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera, you can manipulate what sits in the optical path, but your manipulation doesn’t change what the photograph fundamentally is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2017)

9VIII said:


> As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
> It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera, you can manipulate what sits in the optical path, but your manipulation doesn’t change what the photograph fundamentally is.



No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
> ...



Is it a contest? What's the prize?  

Here's my guess: a 15-second exposure of an outdoor (building with flags) night scene across a frozen body of water, probably a river (buoy lower-right? Charles?). At the right of the frame, you can just barely see Cthulhu rising from the depths.


----------



## blobmonster (Dec 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
> ...


----------



## blobmonster (Dec 19, 2017)

Regarding the nonsense talk about art and photography being different...

Photojournalism does not equal photography; it is just one element or concept. It is generally done in a rush and with artisitic limitations e.g. an event is happening right now or you're about to get blown up or run over or something.

As with most things in life, the more time and effort you put in the better results you get out, imo. Regarding the concept of recording something how it is, the reality is nonsense. You can't see the atoms, the parasites the radio waves etc. Our view of reality is entirely subjective and narrowed. There is no lens in existence or theory that can show you everything, and just by being there, you are changing reality anyway.......

Production is a communist concept. Creation on the other hand is one of the fundamental aspects of humanity. Art is not a relevant word except to indicate creation that is beautiful or meaningful to the viewer / creator. The reality is possibly that most or all photography is shared creation, because so much of the process is thanks to the amazing technology used by camera manufacturers and processing software etc.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
> ...



I’m going with “accidentally depressed the shutter release while framing for a long exposure of the beach adjacent a pier.”


----------



## justawriter (Dec 19, 2017)

I have used this analogy before, so here it is again. DR is the gas mileage of photography. Everybody says it is important and everyone wants it to be better and we put big stickers up in the windows of new vehicles to make sure everyone can compare it to competing models. But when you actually question buyers about what went into their buying decision, gas mileage usually is mentioned about 17th, right below cup holders. (I was reminded of this because Subaru just came out with a vehicle with 19 cup holders.)

A minority of photographers will base their camera purchases primarily on DR even though everyone would prefer more DR. Most of us, like car buyers who value the number of seats, safety, or sexiness, will decide on cameras because of resolution, color reproduction, compatibility with our existing kit, high ISO noise, weight, or cup holders.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> Regarding the nonsense talk about art and photography being different...
> 
> Photojournalism does not equal photography; it is just one element or concept. It is generally done in a rush and with artisitic limitations e.g. an event is happening right now or you're about to get blown up or run over or something.
> 
> ...



I am a blob of bonded atoms. I see atoms bound together all around me. I don't change reality, I am reality. Stay philosophical, my friends.

Whether or not photojournalism is art or not depends on what the viewer thinks. Many of the Nat Geo photojournalists shoot art to me.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 19, 2017)

I doubt the vast majority of photographers care whether its "craft", "art", "journalism" or any other monika you care to give it. 

I take photographs for the pleasure of doing so whether they are landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc. In portraits in particular I'm using both lightroom and photoshop to enhance the shots much the same as I did years ago in my home lab with processing & enlarger. In landscape I'm using grads and polarisers and in wildlife long lens to pull the subject to me none of these are "normal" as the eye sees them. 

In the 1920s Albert Cheney Johnston would paint onto his negatives backgrounds etc. the only tools he had that photoshop can do today. 
A long conversation with the renown landscape photographer Joe Cornish he said a good photographer plans for his shots and first & foremost thinks about composition. He will go back to the same location over & over again to get the lighting he is looking for and often shoot nothing until he gets what he thinks is the near perfect shot. He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot. 

Photography is not DR, MPs or frames per second, its so much more than that.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I doubt the vast majority of photographers care whether its "craft", "art", "journalism" or any other monika you care to give it.
> 
> I take photographs for the pleasure of doing so whether they are landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc. In portraits in particular I'm using both lightroom and photoshop to enhance the shots much the same as I did years ago in my home lab with processing & enlarger. In landscape I'm using grads and polarisers and in wildlife long lens to pull the subject to me none of these are "normal" as the eye sees them.
> 
> ...



Good post Jeff!


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt the vast majority of photographers care whether its "craft", "art", "journalism" or any other monika you care to give it.
> ...



But her MTF charts!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 19, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.



As Ansel Adams said 
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
And man screws it up even more....


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > He is however not afraid to take that near perfect shot and manipulate it in photoshop to get to his perfect shot such as removing an unavoidable power line or object that spoils the shot.
> ...



Best response in the thread !


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2017)

If the in camera adjustments available today in digital were in film bodies then I would accept D&B to be compared to PP but sorry, no deal. They are similar but you have go to be kidding if you think getting it right in camera with film is as easy as with your DSLR. The darkroom is an equal partner with film, the computer well... that's up to you and how well you capture.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 19, 2017)

As an amateur, I just use my camera to freeze time. For instance, a moccasin flower with sunlight at just the right time/temperature and angle, with a nicely contrasting color boulder just behind it.

This thread took a deep turn, which I quite enjoy. You pro's are a passionate group!



GMCPhotographics said:


> In my opinion, if you degrade your photographs to just a recording then you are under appreciating the object or moment that you are recording. If you photos have no aspiration or emotional content then maybe your camera is just a recording device.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 19, 2017)

Hey Guys,

As the Post starter I want to point out that I do not want to degrade anything or ínsult anybody.
With the aggressive titel you may have noticed that I wanted to pinch some nervs.
I just wanted to see how the comunity is like 
As my predecessor, I also ejoy the dynamic of this topic.

Cheers,

Stefan


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 20, 2017)

Hi Neuro. 
My guess is the capture of the reaction of a camera to a sneeze! 

Cheers, Graham. 
Ps you will tell us at some point, won’t you? 



neuroanatomist said:


> No post-processing other than standard conversion from RAW. What is this?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 20, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Neuro.
> My guess is the capture of the reaction of a camera to a sneeze!
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



Jefferson Memorial from across the Potomac?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.
> ...



A really blurry image.
You've manipulated the environment (the direction of the camera in this case) to create a given look, but the camera was still just capturing the image with total impartiality like it would with any other content.
There is still no imagination in that photo, only photons captured by a machine, exactly as it was designed to do. It worked no differently for you in that moment than it would have in any commercial or statistical application.

The photograph is not art, you (may or may not have) made art out of a photograph.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Ps you will tell us at some point, won’t you?



Orangutan was pretty darn close... 



Orangutan said:


> Here's my guess: a 15-second exposure of an outdoor (building with flags) night scene across a frozen body of water, probably a river (buoy lower-right? Charles?). At the right of the frame, you can just barely see Cthulhu rising from the depths.



It was a 13 s exposure with intentional camera movement, of a bridge (Mittlere Brücke over the Rhine in Basel, Switzerland). The 'buoy' is actually a river traffic signal on the bridge. Below is a still image of the aproximate scene (cropped from a wide view of the whole bridge, that and another shot are in the ICM thread).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2017)

9VIII said:


> A really blurry image.
> You've manipulated the environment (the direction of the camera in this case) to create a given look, but the camera was still just capturing the image with total impartiality like it would with any other content.
> There is still no imagination in that photo, only photons captured by a machine, exactly as it was designed to do. It worked no differently for you in that moment than it would have in any commercial or statistical application.
> 
> The photograph is not art, you (may or may not have) made art out of a photograph.



Earlier, you stated about a photograph, "It’s a strict recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera." The two images above are both 'recording of what is occupying the space in front of the camera' but they are not the same. Which is 'real'? Which is true? Which is better? Those are questions with intentionally subjective answers, particularly the last one. In any case, it's an illustration that by selecting exposure parameters, the photographer is making subjective choices about how to represent the scene, in ways that go beyond 'strict recording'.




9VIII said:


> As soon as you edit your photo, you’ve become a painter, but your photograph is a written record.



You are drawing a false distinction, namely that the photo is a strict record and editing turns it into a form of artistic expression. The above comparison clearly demonstrates that the 'artistic' interpretation can occur not only via editing (modifying the image after capture), but also prior to the capture itself. Multiple exposures in the same frame, stroboscopic lighting, intentional camera movement, selection of shutter speed to freeze vs. capture motion, exposure brightness for high or low key images, wide aperture for selective focus, are just some examples of applying the creative interpretation prior to the image being recorded. 

The idea that all a camera does is strictly record reality is rather sad. If you'd like to jot down some ideas about that, I can send you a scratchpad.


----------



## KirkD (Dec 20, 2017)

I would like to respond to the OP's "In my opinion, the real skills behind photography, patience, searching and exploring for the best composition in any condition with capturing a stunning scene just like it is, with any kind of gear...", with a special focus on "just like it is". The human eye has a higher DR than any 35mm sensor we've been yet able to design. So to me, "just like it is" means "the way it actually looks", not what the sensor is able to produce. My favourite shooting is in low light, especially dusk or dawn when the sun is still below the horizon. Higher DR means lower sensor noise in post. Yes, I can reduce the graininess in post but I also hate to lose resolution. I will take all the DR I can get in a full frame or crop frame camera. We still have a ways to go before it equals the DR of the human eye.


----------

