I wanted to point out that there ARE some great photographers who do work that feels unretouched.....
Ryan McGinley
Nan Goldin
Dash Snow
Cass Bird
Bruce Davidson
Pari Dukovic
But it should be noted that these photographers are shooting interesting content. It may not be technically perfect, but at least people feel something when they see the images.
I encourage people to post more great photographers that are doing almost all natural-light work with minimal post. Don't post yourself because, if you were great, someone would have posted your work for you...
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Mi Do wrote: But it should be noted that these photographers are shooting interesting content.
And shooting on film, by the looks of things.
With film, you get control every step of the way, from your choice of film, to how it's developed, to how it's printed.
"Getting it right in camera" could look a thousand different ways depending on what film you used, which lab processed it (or whether you did it yourself), whether you pushed the film or not, the material upon which it was printed, etc.
The only difference now is that those choices are made at a desk.
With film, you get control every step of the way, from your choice of film, to how it's developed, to how it's printed.
"Getting it right in camera" could look a thousand different ways depending on what film you used, which lab processed it (or whether you did it yourself), whether you pushed the film or not, the material upon which it was printed, etc.
The only difference now is that those choices are made at a desk.
sounds like a kid watching lots of porn on their computer versus going out and having the real thing.
I'm assuming that this one will get locked too, for having M images in the OP.
For me, all I care about is whether or not I get the desired result. No post other than cropping is preferred, but tools are available to me if I wish to use them.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: sounds like a kid watching lots of porn on their computer versus going out and having the real thing.
But, in a digital world, that's the way it is. Or, go find me a velvia/provia/ektar/fp4+/Tri-X/etc sensor I can put in my DSLR so I can just shoot JPG and don't have to use LR/Bridge/Photoshop.
I still shoot film too. I usually have three 35mm bodies with me when I'm shooting film, (Nikon N90s, FT3 and FTn) each loaded with a different type of film, and I'll already know in advance how I'm going to develop each roll of film. Which camera I'll use for a given shot depends on what I'm shooting and how I want the final image to look.
A M Johnson wrote: I'm assuming that this one will get locked too, for having M images in the OP.
For me, all I care about is whether or not I get the desired result. No post other than cropping is preferred, but tools are available to me if I wish to use them.
There's no nudity in these photos. A side-butt is showing. That can be removed if the mods request... but it's not nude or mature.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
MC OConnor wrote: Why would anyone care so much what I have to say.
But if my work were crap... nobody would've given that thread the time of day.
People love drama and controversy. Personally, I couldn't give a crap how you want to work or the quality of your results (I haven't looked at your port). It doesn't affect how I work or what I produce.
To each their own. Whatever works for them, great.
But if my work were crap... nobody would've given that thread the time of day.
So, therefore... I'm honored.
Try not to flatter yourself so much. It's misguided.
If your work were amazing, people would generally not challenge your statement outside of the argument that no digital (or film) image is "straight out of the camera". EVERY image is affected by the mere production of it.
Mi Do wrote: Just a reminder - this thread is NOT to say "one way is better than another." It's saying great content in natural photos are great.
Post some.
I absolutely agree.
Some images are amazing without any extra manipulation.
Many images are crap without any extra manipulation.
Some images are amazing after extensive manipulation.
Many images are crap after extensive manipulation.
Which version will satisfy the purists? Oops sorry, the white balance in the right image is not Auto
which image has a better emotional impact?
is a movie with great special effects and no story a great movie? i say no. same goes for photographs. there needs to be a good story, a good emotional element. without that the photograph is often nothing.
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: which image has a better emotional impact?
is a movie with great special effects and no story a great movie? i say no. same goes for photographs. there needs to be a good story, a good emotional element. without that the photograph is often nothing.
You tell me....
and
Why does there need to be a good story, a good emotional element?
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: which image has a better emotional impact?
is a movie with great special effects and no story a great movie? i say no. same goes for photographs. there needs to be a good story, a good emotional element. without that the photograph is often nothing.
MKPhoto wrote: You tell me....
and
Why?
That could be a critique and this is not the critique forum
is a movie with great special effects and no story a great movie? i say no. same goes for photographs. there needs to be a good story, a good emotional element. without that the photograph is often nothing.
I think it has everything to do with the subject matter of the movie.
Is it Glengarry Glen Ross?
Is it The Abyss?
Is it Shawshank Redemption?
Is it The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?
Is it Lord of the Rings?
Is it The Queen?
Seriously. Great special effects and great story are elements of a visual, be it a still image or a moving picture. One does not require the other, but both can exist in harmony to create a whole that is greater than the parts.
Oops sorry, the white balance in the right image is not Auto but otherwise straight from camera.
...just quoting my OP
"I encourage people to post more great photographers that are doing almost all natural-light work with minimal post. Don't post yourself because, if you were great, someone would have posted your work for you..."
I still want people to post new photos! I love seeing what people do without getting heavy in to post!!!
Why does there need to be a good story, a good emotional element?
at the very least there needs to be something that makes the viewer feel something. even an abstract painting can make someone feel something. it doesn't always have to be a facial expression.
Mi Do wrote: ...just quoting my OP
"I encourage people to post more great photographers that are doing almost all natural-light work with minimal post. Don't post yourself because, if you were great, someone would have posted your work for you..."
I still want people to post new photos! I love seeing what people do without getting heavy in to post!!!
But if my work were crap... nobody would've given that thread the time of day.
So, therefore... I'm honored.
the reason you struck a nerve is because you are an inexperienced photographer who took an extreme position and dug in your heels.
you can, of course, shoot any way you want. no one here thinks otherwise. whether that's a wise choice is another matter, and whether you will actually stick to your pledge in the years to come is yet another matter.
and yes there are a probably a few fine art photographers who never ever alter an image, but shooting a personal series for an art gallery is very very different than shooting for a client (or for a portfolio that you intend to show to a prospective client).
and lastly, there is a world of difference between saying "i will never retouch an image" and "i can't stand the look of overly manipulated "perfect" images so i try to keep my retouching to an absolute minimum. but yes, if i can improve an image without leaving any hint of manipulation, then i'm open to it."
if you took the latter position, this would have been a non-issue.
One of the greatest movies with special effects is not remembered as such. Forrest Gump had introduced new special effects to movies but was largely unnoticed because it was very realistic. Never Mind that Tom Hanks was playing Ping Pong with out a ball and a ball was added later. The legs of Lt. Dan were removed with CG. The end result was a post process shot that did what it was intended to accomplish.
So Many images have horrible post processing done that it turns images to crap. So I think there is a consensus in some people that natural is better than artificial. But there is so much awesome post processed images out there that you cannot tell, at least immediately that most would assume there is no post processing or very little done to really great works. But the best stuff out there is post processed.
It does sound bad every time someone posts "I only shoot natural light" or "I don't photoshop my photos, they are natural!" Thats fine, that's their style. Its the arrogance that is assumed and actually present in some of these statements that implies "their way is the best way". That is what the whole argument was about in the previous thread. But Everyone has different tastes and styles.
PS I don't like any of the images posted by the OP. And I don't think post processing the hell out of them would make me like them any more. But thats just me.
and to repeat my challenge from the previous thread:
you have 60 seconds before your model has to walk out the door.
everything looks absolutely incredible except there is a very distracting light stand showing in the background.
it will take 5 minutes to move the light to a boom arm and sandbag it.
do you stand on principle and refuse to take the shot, or do you take the shot and thank your lucky stars that it will only take two minutes to remove the stand in photoshop?
Fotographahaulic wrote: The only thing not retouched here is . . . the controversy
Personally I'm not a huge fan of images or ports displaying:
lack of focusing ability
lack of proper fill light
uneven forehead hot spots
lack of white balance
mottled skin tones
. . . anyone ignoring the advent of retouching any image are doomed to the standards of mediocrity . . .
ILM didn't just stop at Star Wars . . . they pursued the empire of digital enhancements . . .
I will have to agree. I am not critiquing each one but they are not special. Lack of composition, clarity and look point and shoot style with a disposable film camera. I am sure each of these Photographers have made exceptional works over their careers but not these ones.
All Your Love Photo wrote: One of the greatest movies with special effects is not remembered as such. Forrest Gump had introduced new special effects to movies but was largely unnoticed because it was very realistic. Never Mind that Tom Hanks was playing Ping Pong with out a ball and a ball was added later. The legs of Lt. Dan were removed with CG. The end result was a post process shot that did what it was intended to accomplish.
So Many images have horrible post processing done that it turns images to crap. So I think there is a consensus in some people that natural is better than artificial. But there is so much awesome post processed images out there that you cannot tell, at least immediately that most would assume there is no post processing or very little done to really great works. But the best stuff out there is post processed.
It does sound bad every time someone posts "I only shoot natural light" or "I don't photoshop my photos, they are natural!" Thats fine, that's their style. Its the arrogance that is assumed and actually present in some of these statements that implies "their way is the best way". That is what the whole argument was about in the previous thread. But Everyone has different tastes and styles.
PS I don't like any of the images posted by the OP. And I don't think post processing the hell out of them would make me like them any more. But thats just me.
I agree with everything you said in italics. For the bolded stuff:
I think most people may look away from these photos without feeling they are exceptional. The difference between these photos and images that are more processed has less to do with the processing techniques, and more about the lives of the people behind the camera.
- Ryan McGinley does work where he travels to great locations and encourages his subjects to let go and live free
- Nan Goldin documented the ugliest part of humanity.
- Dash Snow was a young photographer who documented this strange LES art culture before he died at 27 in 2009
- Cass Bird has connected with so many amazing models and brought a sense of femininity in the grime scene
- Bruce Davidson chronicled the life of NY in the dirty 80's when everyone else was trying to avoid it.
- Pari is documenting the life of the rich and famous, but he's not trying to make everyone perfect (look at the shot of Anna Wintour... you can't even see her but you KNOW it's her)
- David Hamilton proudly showcased his interest in young girls for the world to see
- Bill Cunningham hits the streets of NY every day to document women and fashion
- Roger Deckker is a guy who is shooting raw and experimenting with light at every possible turn
Many (not all) photographers sort of do what everyone else is doing. They follow the herd. A new color technique comes along and they jump on board. They see a popular fashion pose and they copy it. They see a popular style of lighting and they copy it. They chase after "agency standard" models or only want to work with top models for top magazines. They see, they copy. But what are they TRULY interested in?
These natural light shooters are people documenting their lives and playing with rules, culture, society and their friends. They're not pulling models from the internet to make precise copies of images they saw somewhere else. They're not following trends, they're just independent artists that spend less time focused on making an image "proper" or "perfect." Their friends aren't the prettiest, but they're the prettiest to them. Their camera may be out of focus, but they framed the subject and caught them in new way. Their photos don't have precise retouching where everything is spelled out, but the viewer understands what's happening.
Love it or hate it, it's a special life. And the more people look PAST their work, and look at the worlds of these (and other) special photographers, the more people will see the beauty in each image.
howard r wrote: and to repeat my challenge from the previous thread:
you have 60 seconds before your model has to walk out the door.
everything looks absolutely incredible except there is a very distracting light stand showing in the background.
it will take 5 minutes to move the light to a boom arm and sandbag it.
do you stand on principle and refuse to take the shot, or do you take the shot and thank your lucky stars that it will only take two minutes to remove the stand in photoshop?
...under those circumstances, I'd find a way to shoot with the light stand in the shot and keep it.
But if my work were crap... nobody would've given that thread the time of day.
So, therefore... I'm honored.
You seem to hear what you want to hear and are continuing to have a particular conversation that I'm convinced nobody has joined you in.
Your previous thread got going because of the topic you brought up and how you presented it. Your work had absolutely nothing to do with it. If you want feedback on your work post in the critique section.
but otherwise straight from camera.
| 
| 
| edu