|
Forums >
General Industry >
How far would YOU go...?
First, a question to the photographers, then one to the models... How far - if at all - would you go with digital manipulation? I mean do you simply touch up a shot here and there, or go the whole hog and produce something that can only be produced with digi-manip? Would you produce a shoot specifically for manipulation, or do you tend to get inspired after seeing certain shots? Also, I'd like to know people's opinions on manipulating images. I mean I know that there are purists out there who hate any kind of manipulation, and that's perfectly fine and up to them. I'm just curious on fellow photographers opinions on this. Now, for the models. How do you feel when a photographer manipulates an image of you in some way? Do you enjoy seeing the results, or on the other extreme, do you sometimes get offended at what has been done? Just me being nosey!!! SB Feb 20 06 04:02 pm Link Samurai B wrote: I think that if it's well done, it rocks. There are some photographers on here, like Jeffrey Scott, Ravens Laughter, Haleh, and Scott Duvall who use manipulation to create a final piece that is somewhere between a painting and a photograph. They're extremely well done, and art in their own right, whether or not they are done in traditional media. Feb 20 06 04:05 pm Link *goes to look at the list of photographers you have mentioned...* SB Feb 20 06 04:07 pm Link I've been known to go silly at times. I mostly do image manipulation for my own entertainment when I'm bored with nothing to do and can't sleep. Extreme photo manipulation gets me out of the rut of retouching wedding photos or restoring old photos of dead people. Usually I'm inspired by something simple I see in everyday life, thinking it might make a neat backdrop or idea. I then go through my old photos and if I have something in stock suitable to go with the theme I've decided. I then gather bits & pieces, shoot some additional elements for the image and assemble some silly little composite photo. My biggest problem is I enjoy playing in PS and I'm not always concerned what the final image is. Most of my stuff ends up looking like a dog's dinner but I have fun doing it. Feb 20 06 04:38 pm Link Depends on the photo. For candids, 90% of the time I don't. I feel it interfers with capturing the image. With portraits, I usually do. It's just part of the fun for me. When I do portraits, then it becomes about creating the image, as opposed to merely capturing it. To be honest, I even have a habit of going back to an image I already maniuplated in the past and changing it around, usually after I've aquired new filters or learned new tricks. This makes me somewhat of a hypocrite, because for all of my complaining about what Lucas does with the Star Wars films, I'm basically doing the same thing. Of course, once I've sold any prints, then the image is locked down and final, whether I like it or not. It's only fair to the buyer. Feb 21 06 02:01 am Link Iâve seen some excellent digital manipulation. Iâve also seen a lot of crap done by unimaginative people that like to play with their toys. But then, Iâve seen unimaginative crap produced in dark rooms, too. I switched to digital years ago but continue to work pretty much as before, using PS as would be done in the dark room. Many operations are far easier with PS. Some photographers chide me for using filters when similar effects can be made in PS or other programs. The operative word here (IMO) is âsimilarâ?. My lighting techniques are quite old fashioned and I tend to use fog and tinting lenses. That's my thingy! ....TB Feb 21 06 03:22 am Link Thom Bourgois wrote: I've "not seen" some excellent digital manipulation--that is, I've seen images that appear pristine yet have had either minor or major retouching and compositing done. Feb 21 06 06:14 am Link Shyly wrote: WOW . . . well said. I wish I could have been included in your list :-) Feb 21 06 06:21 am Link Just minor touchups here & there is about all I do.. If i feel like manipulation a photo if has an easily croppable background or something I'll toss in like flames for a background or something and just go hog wild and have fun. Feb 21 06 06:29 am Link Minor skin touch, Some soft filtering with layers, Sharpening when uploading... Color temp. Thats about it. Feb 21 06 06:35 am Link We used to do a certain amount of manipulation in the darkroom and retouching on prints and negs and it was a lot of work--now the digital darkroom makes it fun and easy. One can do a litle or a lot and have a variety of renditions of any one image. Feb 21 06 07:22 am Link i use photoshop to nail the color and contrast. maybe a fly-away hair or stain on the floor will get touched-up, but i am not, nor do i wish to be, a retoucher. it's a whole different field, and is separate from photography. i think that most people cannot be good at both. Feb 21 06 07:29 am Link Samurai B wrote: The vast majority of my work was done in a chemical darkroom. I used to enjoy working an image. I got drawn into multiple exposures in the enlarger after seeing a remarkable presentation of sandwiched slides. It took hours to work out the exposures for each negative seperately and then expose the paper in the proper order and with the correct color balance to produce the desired effect. Feb 21 06 09:49 am Link I shootspecifailly wht MAJOr manipulation in mind. I'm artist first, photographer second. *shrug* Feb 21 06 10:47 am Link |
