Introducing myself.

[Tim]

Just to introduce myself.

My PixelPost (great s/w!) site with the clever title: The Subjective Lens (http://subjectivelens.com)

Photos from El Chico Norte, Chile

[Joe[y]]

it would help if you chose 1 or 2 photos in particular you want a critique on.

[Tim]

OK, how about this one (http://www.subjectivelens.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=16) (be gentle, it's one of my favorites). Also, I added a few more from my back catalog.

[jkn]

This is such a neat photograph - I love the feel of it. Has this been processed in some way? Or is it just in how you took the shot? The color is so golden in the water and the grasses near the bank - and the reds, and then those great muted grainy greens in the background trees. The color and grainy feel alone make this a very cool shot to me.

The heron is nice - but it's probably in the one spot in the photo that my eye isn't drawn to naturally - which is kind of odd since it's the only object and being fairly white among all the muted colors... my eye is either drawn up to the golden then red grasses - or down to the brighter gold at the bottom.

I really like this shot.

[jkn]

...wow. Some really great shots in your photoblog. Love the cormarant diving and several others.

[lopp]

i like it. the colours are so rich.

has it been manipulated in any way? i see some of your other images have been tweaked a bit so i thought.....

[Tim]

Yes, the colors have been manipulated. Levels, color temperature and saturation have been tweaked to bring out the color which I find to be pretty much uniformly necessary for pictures at this location. My mind's eye remembers the scenes as much more colorful than do my cameras. Finally, using The GIMP, I editted out the rock in the water and a couple of other details that I didn't like.

The original looks like this:
http://subjectivelens.com/Images/Heron-raw.jpg

Thanks for the positive feedback,

Tim

[Joe[y]]

i think it's a beautiful image - i just think the noise in the background (clear around the trees) is a shame and not helped by the changes you made to the image - ie, the higher saturation/contrast

[lopp]

wow. it makes a huge difference. obviously some skillful tweaking has been going on.

i'm ambivalent on where i stand with image manipulation like this. it seems quite heavy. i do only work with film though, and have never been in a darkroom, so know little about this, hence will not comment further, yet.

[Tim]

Well, I love to play with my "digital darkroom", and sometimes get quite carried away (http://www.subjectivelens.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=8). I don't see much reason why there shouldn't be an artform between a blank artist's canvas and the unretouched print. The former comes entirely from you, the latter entirely from what you see.

Now, if one were photographing a work of art...

As for the noise in the trees, yes, I know, but in the end I decided that (a) there was nothing I could do about it and (b) I felt that it somewhat contributed to the ethereal quality of the image.

T

[Joe[y]]

Well, I love to play with my "digital darkroom", and sometimes get quite carried away (http://www.subjectivelens.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=8). I don't see much reason why there shouldn't be an artform between a blank artist's canvas and the unretouched print. The former comes entirely from you, the latter entirely from what you see.
T

absolutely - but i think one must be drawing the line between photography and art - i think what you just linked to is art. excess manipulation when it distorts the natural image can be nothing else... well, other than rubbish - but for the sake of argument let's call photo manipulation 'art'.

[Tim]

On the other hand, it is a rare and wonderful static photograph that can hope to give the impression of the swoops, dives and hairpin turns that the swallow makes. Perhaps it would be impossible without manipulation to try to show how the swallow might see the air currents and fields through which it flies in the pursuit of lunch (which is what I was trying to do with the linked image of my previous post).

With regard to the comment about art vs rubbish, these days I'd agree with you quite vehemently. But when it comes down to distortion of reality, it is that very distortion that can bring out a very real detail that the artist tries to represent. Consider van Gogh's skies. Clearly they are a distortion of reality, but in an instant the viewer knows what kind of real skies he was painting.

I guess the issue here is where does photography cross into art and should a manipulated photograph be posted in a photography forum? I would argue that if I start with a photograph, then that is a legitimate thing to do. I might point out that in any given publication these days, the vast majority of the photographs you'll find are in some sense manipulated.

[lopp]

On the other hand, it is a rare and wonderful static photograph that can hope to give the impression of the swoops, dives and hairpin turns that the swallow makes.

not that i would expect to emphasize with a bird in flight, but unfortunately i don't get a sense of "swoops, dives and hairpin turns" from this image. my immediate reaction is "photoshop" (or GIMP in this case).

Consider van Gogh's skies. Clearly they are a distortion of reality, but in an instant the viewer knows what kind of real skies he was painting.

there is a world of difference between van gogh's brush strokes and image manipulation tools, the concept may be similar, but...

I would argue that if I start with a photograph, then that is a legitimate thing to do.

of course it is. when you manipulate images in the way you have for the first image you posted, that enhances the image no end, and looks very pleasant. but, in the other example you posted, it doesn't look so good; in an "artistic" sense, or any other. there's a high street photo lab near me called "snappy snaps", they offer a variety of image manipulation services, it reminds me of this.

[Joe[y]]

the vast majority of the photographs you'll find are in some sense manipulated.

absolutely - there is no such thing as a camera that can represent an exact truth in an image - but i think it should be a photographers motive to achieve an image as close to truth as possible - if digital manipulation detracts from this and imposes a personal 'truth' then i think the image becomes art. if digital manipulation is simply used to make an image 'pretty' then i'd personally call it a pile of crap.

[lopp]

']if digital manipulation is simply used to make an image 'pretty' then i'd personally call it a pile of crap.

hahaha. excellent.

[Tim]

Joe[y], you have not said that photography is art, but I hope that I can take it as read, in which case I also take your position to be "photography is art but art may not be photography", which I can agree with.

Nevertheless, I would like to know what you believe the world of difference to be between van Gogh's brushstrokes and digital manipulation tools? Van Gogh lived in a time when paint was the medium of choice, might he not be interested in digital art were he born today? I do not pretend to be any van Gogh, digitally or otherwise, but I can see the possibility that someone might. If you believe art to be defined by a particular medium, then I suggest that your are skirting perilously close to technological snobbery than actual criticism.

Certainly, by the way, I was not intending to make the swallow image "pretty", nor was I attempting to show swoops and dives but that it occured to me that the swallow might not see the world as we do but perhaps in terms of where or how it can fly. If I have failed, for you, then I have failed, for you, and I can accept that you don't like the picture. If you have some ideas on how such a message could be better acheived, then I am interested to hear.

Tim

[jkn]

Interesting tangent this thread has taken. I don't mind photos being manipulated - either through computer apps or chemicals in the darkroom. If that is what the photographer was going for - great. I may or may not like it - but we're back into subjective territory.

I love the manipulation of the heron photo - if you read my comments - I think everything I pointed out at being great about it were things that Tim enhanced with gimp. Comparing it to the original - the manipulated one is clearly 'better' in my opinion.

I don't edit my photos much - there's no big philisophical reason for it - I just haven't much. I like trying to get interesting shots just from my camera. Then again - I do manipulate within the camera by the normal things like catching the sun just right, playing with aperture, etc... The image does not look exactly as my eye sees it... it's different now... maybe I've cast a bit of a golden hue over the entire image that isn't there in 'real' life. On the other hand - I have edited a bit here and there - cranking up the saturation, removing color, etc...

Here's an example of a photo I really liked (taken by my wife) - that once I messed with it - I loved:

http://www.johei.com/albums/interstitial/grasshopper_main_page.thumb.jpg

Full size: http://www.johei.com/gallery/interstitial/grasshopper_main_page?full=1

I think with my macro photographs - it's a lot like when I take a minidisc and a pair of binaural microphones and walk around the yard. It's amazing the sounds that you can pick up on when listening through headphones that you can't if you were just standing there normally. The microphones are amplifying sounds that would normally be lost in the day to day drone of traffic, trains, birds, neighbors talking, etc... interesting little sounds of insects hidden in bushes, creaking wood from a tree, water running under the road... I like macro photography because it isolates otherwise lost items amidst the normal things the eye is drawn to.

Anyway - back to manipulation - yes - some of it is utterly bad and pointless to me (we're back to opinions again though...) - but then some raw photography is utterly bad and pointless. They both can clearly be art forms - I think they're very closely related.

Oh - left one minor point out... I really do like to know about how a photo was taken, whether it was edited or enhanced, what type of equipment was used... An image is an image regardless of how it was created - I welcome that, but I love it when an artist reveals how they created something. It always drives me nuts when someone hides how something was created - whether they don't like to say what equipment they used to write a song or what they used to take a photo. Just because someone has the same equipment doesn't mean they can recreate the shot or song.

[Tim]

Yes, excellent picture of the grasshopper jkn, please congratulate your wife. Is the "messing with it" limited to the color manipulation or is there more?

Here is another insect (http://www.subjectivelens.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=26), the only manipulations are level adjustments.

By the way, the single most useful "manipulation" I have ever found is the "I'm feeling lucky" in Google's Picasa2. I wish I could find out what exactly it does - I think it is a combination level and color balance adjust, but I'm not sure.

[davenewt]

Just to bring things back to where they started here - I don't mean to interrupt the lively debate! - but I just wanted to say that I've had a quick look at your blog, Tim, and was initially disappointed there were very few words with each of the pics... so I kept clicking "previous" until I found some. I was quite moved by the words I eventually came across: http://subjectivelens.com/photoblog/index.php?showimage=21

I also love the diving cormorant pic. You have a good mix of styles and subjects on your site... some of which I like, some I don't... but it's a good thing that you have them - it makes you question what you like, and gives rise to healthy debate, like the one I just interrupted :)

So with that, I'll let you continue! :)

Cheers,
Dave.

[jkn]

...grasshopper - saturation is cranked, color adjusted to pull it down to that almost sepia feel. That's about it - but it was a color photograph to start with. Saturation removed a lot of the grasshopper detail (I don't think I have the original posted).

Love the dragonfly shot.

I've never learned how to adjust levels and color balance, etc... I really should one of these days.