GRD II, f3.5, 1/200, ISO 100, RAW 1:1Took only one picture today on my way to the bus this morning and this is it. I've walked past this a few times but never saw it the way I saw the scene this morning so I never thought of taking a picture. Somehow this looked different this morning and I thought that the 1:1 mode will work best for it. I slightly cropped it and boosted the contrast a bit to get the picture like this.
Since I started the blog I became more aware of these opportunities to take pictures and started to see things that I ignored before. Maybe not all pictures are very interesting but the only way to improve is to keep on shooting and trying different things.
One thing that got my attention while post processing this picture is that I believe a picture should capture a moment the way it was. On the other hand I have to say that I am guilty of processing my images a bit (or more that just a bit in certain cases) to get the desired effect. So I started to wonder how much processing and what kind of processing is considered to be ok? How far can someone go in post processing until the image is not anymore a representation of the moment captured? Cropping is generally accepted and ok but how about changes to contrast, colors, noise removal/adding of noise, dodging/burning, selective coloring or use of cloning to remove unwanted objects?
What is representation of the moment captured? What I see, will certainly not be what you will see. What I have captured is something I have felt in my head, and heart. The reality is something I observed, therefore it is my reality.
ReplyDeleteIf you can obtain your photographs in camera, then that is fantastic. The processing, aka "darkroom" is part for me part of moment capturing.
Thanks Wouter, I agree fully with you.
ReplyDeleteI think I should post this in the GetDPI forum since it would be interesting to have a discussion on this and hear waht other people say.
Right now there is a topic about "The morals/ephics of photoshop etc, and how can we all be saved from damnation".
ReplyDeleteCris,
ReplyDeleteas I supose you have allready noticed, I allow myself quite a bit of postprocessing if necesary...
If photography is about capturing what "I" see, as Wouter put it, what about capturing what I see in my minds eye..?
I have never been much into painting, but curiously, the painters that seem to get my interest are far away from realism: Dalí, Klimt, Van Gogh and the likes.
My forty second lonely rock shot would have been impossible without a generous dose of post. It is quite close ,though, to the image I had in my mind.
I supose, anyway, there are as many approaches to photography as there are photographers.
Cheers, Erik.
Thanks Wouter for the link, a very interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteErik, thanks for your post and for your opinion on this. I agree with you and Wouter but though it an interesting question and wanted to hear other people's opinion on this.
While I try not to overdo it with post processing my images it is sometimes necessary to get my vision across. At the same time I find sometimes during postprocessing that one image works much better if I process it different to my original vision.
Having said that, I find myself processing my images more now since I can't just get my vision across using jpgs with the GRD II as I could with the GRD I. Most of the time with the GRD I, the jpgs were exactly what I wanted and I never had to process the RAW or jpg further.