Processing?

[Lost Canadian]

Can you imagine taking a kid out today with the mode dial gaffer taped in the "M" position and asking them to shoot?

It is my guess most young people who grew up with fully automatic point-n-shoot cameras consider the M mode to stand for Misery.

I hear what you are saying but I have to disagree, in principal anyway with this point. I say this is because I can go to Flickr or any photo sharing site, on any given day, type in a search for Yashica, toy camera, or or or, and I'll get thousands upon thousands of hits, and most of those hits will come from posts made by "younger people." There are a ton of young people using manual cameras right now. I would go as far as to say that the majority of people still using manual cameras are of a younger age. Heck if a young person buys a lensbaby they'll be shooting manually. Slap one of those on a new age camera and the camera won't even meter. Now you're talking old school shooting. I think making assumptions because of someones age is a little OTT.

 

[Michael Slade]

Thanks for all the accolades about my teaching and philosophy and such. Some lessons my students learned that they kept repeating over and over during their final critiques were...

1. Pay attention and find the good light. It is a make or break deal. If you have good light, anything can look good. If not, good luck.

2. Focus. Know where you want it and know how to achieve it.

3. Tripod. It should become your best friend.

One of the lessons that they learned the most on was where I had them photograph white objects on a white background, and black objects on a black background. I had them bracket from completely under-exposed to completely over-exposed and then we would go through the entire series and find the perfect exposure.

They were AMAZED at the lack of post work they had to do when they chose the correct exposure. This was their 2nd or 3rd assignment, and it is usually the hardest. I give this assignment to my 9th graders and my seniors in college. It is a good lesson to learn, and learn repeatedly. Over time the extent of the bracket lessens to the point where they might be only making two or three bracket shots each direction. I have been shooting digital since 1999 and I bracket all the time...even when shooting RAW.

Bracketing and learning what your histogram means are key to getting that right exposure.

Here's a link to the high-key/low-key assignment.

Here's a link to the bracketing assignment.

I show these to you not to brag or show off, but rather to perhaps help those who are struggling with some of the basics. I find that until you master the basics you can't really progress.

I like to use this video as an example of learning the basics to perfection.

 

[dhackney]

I here what you are saying but I have to disagree, in principal anyway with this point. I say this is because I can go to Flickr or any photo sharing site, on any given day, type in a search for Yashica, toy camera, or or or, and I'll get thousands upon thousands of hits, and most of those hits will come from posts made by "younger people." There are a ton of young people using manual cameras right now. I would go as far as to say that the majority of people still using manual cameras are of a younger age. Heck if a young person buys a lensbaby they'll be shooting manually. Slap one of those on a new age camera and the camera won't even meter. Now you're talking old school shooting. I think making assumptions because of someones age is a little OTT.

But isn't this an example of the exception proving the rule? The reality is that even though there may be thousands of young people shooting manual (and good on them for doing so), there are uncountable millions of young people who take photos that have no idea manual photography even exists.

I'm not talking about true enthusiasts who are on the path of excellence the blog post you added to the thread (excellent content) described. I'm talking about young people who take digital photos, and may even have some interest in photography.

Step back a few layers of abstraction and look at the broad landscape. This is not about age cohort wars. This is about a fundamental way that a medium is accomplished/realized.

Were you alive before there were fax machines? How about cell phones? How about email? How about the iPhone? The technologies utilized to accomplish aspects of life fundamentally alter the way those goals/tasks are perceived.

Photography is no different. People who grew up in a digital age have a different photography reality than those who didn't. And no number of thousands of kids with lens babies (more power to them) who have some inkling of that distant past will ever offset the masses who don't.

And to tie this back into the OP's questions, the people who grew up in a digital age have a different conception and perception of what constitutes image creation versus processing/alteration than those who grew up in a time when those two things were distinctly separated. That fact doesn't make either conception/perception right or wrong or sideways. It just makes it different.

 

[dhackney]

Here's a link to the bracketing assignment.

Michael,

I love the shot of the shooter at the golf event.

And to think the last time I shot golf I used a single body and one lens almost the entire day!

Great stuff and a perfect image to reinforce your point to the students: keep it simple.

As it relates to this thread and my contention/assertion/theory that people who have only known digital are more likely to perceive a seamless continuum from pushing the shutter to posting/etc., do you think your method of teaching establishes any kind of boundary or dividing line for your students between image creation and processing/alteration?

Doug

 

[Lost Canadian]

That fact doesn't make either conception/perception right or wrong or sideways. It just makes it different.

We can agree there. :elkgrin:

Perhaps I am of that younger generation, because I just don't see the difference between some old school shooter who chooses a certain film to achieve a "look," and a person choosing to use Photoshop to do the same thing. Both choices are part of the process we refer to as image creation. Sure one is done prior and one post, but both are essentially the same in their desired outcome?

How would we compare the differences in process between Galen Rowell and the Marc Adamus? Galen's photos have tons of “pop,” as do Marc's. Two different roads to achieve the same thing.

Matt's questions “what defines a processed image? Can it be defined?” are difficult questions to answer. If I bump the saturation or touch the contrast in LR, how is that different from choosing Velvia film? Again, both are choices which we must make as part of a creative process. If I'm shooting film and move the lens to create motion blur, I am purposefully abstracting the image. Do we consider that image creation or image alteration? Should we consider it to be an authentic representation of a scene simply because it was done using film? How do we even judge the authenticity of a scene? All these questions begin to pop up when we start to critique the way one achieves his or her final vision.

Fundamentals are fundamentals. No amount of image alteration can make a bad photo good, and debating the merits of shooting film over digital and how it relates to image creation is really irrelevant, in my mind anyway. Has digital made it easier to make an image, certainly! Has it made it any easier to make a good image? Certainly not! Those who have only ever used digital and who are passionate about photography will learn just as those who started on film learned. Perhaps the road to making good images is quicker because digital makes it easier/faster for us to learn due to the shear volume of shots we can take, but that's a different argument altogether.

Good talk. Much better than talking about gear.

 

[Michael Slade]

Good talk. Much better than talking about gear.

I am really tired of talking about gear. When pro shooters get together we usually don't talk about gear, we usually talk about our kids.

I'm formulating a looooong post about photographic education...it might be a rough draft for a paper I am planning on submitting to a published journal...lemme work on it and I'll post it here.

 

[sinuhexavier]

I am really tired of talking about gear. When pro shooters get together we usually don't talk about gear, we usually talk about our kids.

Maybe in SLC, but here we talk about whoever isn't around...

I'm actually fortunate to be involved with a great group that actually talks about what is going on out there business wise and helps each other out getting work.

 

[paulj]

In high school I participated in the photograph club, shooting B&W with the club/s twine lens reflex cameras, doing to the darkroom thing, even mounting the prints. Often we had specific assignments, such as 'faces', or 'water'. In the 'water' case I shot water droplets on blades of grass on the rim of golf coarse pond. I made the prints in a way that highlighted the sparkle of sunlight in those drops.

When started to shoot digital, after years of color slides and prints, it felt like going back to those high school days. I've dabbled in post processing, but haven't used much beyond the free programs that came with the cameras. The digital camera gives the kind of feedback that we could only hope for with film. Rather than shoot 'blind', hoping that you can get something useful to work with in the darkroom, you can see what you shot right away, trying a new composition, or new color balance etc.

That b&w work helped me develop an eye for interesting shots, and the digital camera has encouraged me to practice that more.

 

[dhackney]

If I bump the saturation or touch the contrast in LR, how is that different from choosing Velvia film? Again, both are choices which we must make as part of a creative process.

I think this is the essence of the OP's question. And I don't have an answer to that. I don't know if anyone has the authority, moral standing or sheer personality cult mass within modern photography to proclaim where one stops (image creation) and another begins (processing/alteration).

If I'm shooting film and move the lens to create motion blur, I am purposefully abstracting the image. Do we consider that image creation or image alteration?

Again, you have struck to the core of the question. Is it image creation because it was created as an inherent part of the way the image was formed? Does it become processing/alteration if you augment the blur in Photoshop to accentuate the subject? These are nuances that did exist in the analog world if you sought them out, but are part-and-parcel of the digital realm.

Should we consider it to be an authentic representation of a scene simply because it was done using film?

It has been so long since I've used film, I can barely remember what it was like. I started with digital processing in the mid-80s, and I can barely remember last week.

But seriously, I don't subscribe to any of the tribal stuff between film vs. digital. I don't see any inherent superiority or inferiority in any method to creating the image.

Yes, I understand the romantic nature of film and the tactile feel of the paper, the smell of the chemicals, yada, yada, yada. Believe me, every time I smell certain things I am transported back, but mostly to memories of breathing waaaay too much Cibachrome bleach.

But, in my experience, the client really doesn't care how you created the image, only that you created an image that met their needs. In that regard, none of our esoteric conversation of creation vs. processing/alteration matters, but to those of us involved in the process I think the OPs questions strike to the heart of understanding how we personally achieve the goal of the creation, and where various parts of that creative process reside.

Good talk. Much better than talking about gear.

Hear, hear.

 

[Michael Slade]

Those of you on iTunes, this podcast will be of interest. In fact, the entire series is really good. Curto knows his stuff.

Go to:

podcasts - visual arts - History of Photography Podcasts - Photo History - Class 13 Fall 08 - Szarkowski: How To See

Have fun there!