`cweeks

wishes he had no symbol

Profile

Gallery

Prints

Faves

Journal

does manipulation give your work style?

Thu Apr 5, 2007, 9:55 AM

Eating: a smoked audi
Drinking: Espresso.

so many photographers -- including some of the most popular on dA -- appear to use photo manipulation of their in-camera RAW work ... to give themselves style. yet ... instead of putting their work in "photomanipulation" it goes in whatever photographic gallery they want. are they manipulating their work? what the viewer thinks is a photograph? or both?

it's one thing to make a photo.

it's another to have "style."

not stylized photos but photographic style.

i've seen landscapes that CANNOT be achieved any other way but by intense manipulation or "enhancement" as those who aren't in the "real world" call it.

i've seen skin tones and lighting ... which cannot be achieved any other way but by manipulation.

all of that said ... one of the best is this retoucher. look at the relevant section. do some mouse-over's on some of the examples.

so ... i ask ... if you make a mundane photo which almost anyone with any photographic knowledge can make ... and you give it to a retoucher ...

is it your style or is it the retoucher's style?

yeah, i know ... film people can do all sorts of things to their negs or chromes or whatever.

there are great examples of both digital and film shooters who deviate from what's was "actually recorded" to sensor or film.

i think it would be great when the day comes ...

when included in the exif information we see every single step, every single layer, every single everything ...

and i think that most will be surprised at how much "work" or "manipulation" is included in some of the most popular work in cough-cough ... the photography sections.

i think that if we looked at actual RAW files ... of some of the photographic gods (in both the real world and dA) ... we'd all be surprised as hell.

i know that editors have showed me the RAW files from some very well-known shooters here in LA ... and my respect for said photographers ... well ...

lets just say ... my respect level went down several notches.

happens in the real world.

happens at dA.

because ... dA is far from the real world ...

but ... that line between what is acceptable in the real world ... and dA ... is starting to blur.

a real blur.

not a fake one.

off to the city.

hope you're all well.

cheers from the overcast los angeles!

DD SUGGESTION REQUIREMENTS

1. DO NOT SUGGEST YOURSELF.
2. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL THUMB - :THUMBXXXXXXXX:
3. TELL ME WHY THIS SHOULD BE A DD.
4. SUBJECT LINE SHOULD BE: DD SUGGESTION
5. IF A THUMB REFERENCE IS NOT GRAPHICALLY INCLUDED, THE NOTE WILL BE DELETED.
6. SORRY, BUT 99% OF NOTES WILL NOT BE ANSWERED; I EITHER USE THE SUGGESTION OR I DON'T.

BLOG REGISTRATION HINT - when you register to make comments on my new blog ... use your dA username! That way I'll know who you guys are!!!!!

NEWS - LOVE this story.

VERY GOOD NEWS for photographers who make photographs of people in public places!

SOME OF THE BEST PLACES TO FIND BLOGS are CoolPhotoBlogs.org and PhotoBlogs.org. I visit them daily and they're on my NewsFire RSS Feed.

MY ARTICLES -

206 Comments

Devious Comments

~~love 0 0~~

~~mad 0 0~~

~~neutral 0 0~~

`Ghouldaddy Apr 5, 2007, 10:03:12 AM

I'm liking these last two rants, but I gotta ask, what brought them on?

~mnogueir Apr 5, 2007, 10:07:14 AM

Well, i've seen a documentary about Nachtwey ("war photographer"), and it shows the lab work needed for just one pic ("dodge here", "burn there", "mask here", etc, etc). A lot more than what i do with my RAW files...

--
my website: Mário Nogueira

~gladly Apr 5, 2007, 10:07:21 AM

thanks for the link - some of those are incredible!

--
_{I'm from out of town.}

`cweeks Apr 5, 2007, 10:08:36 AM

i'll never tell.

--
for updated journals please visit my blog.

~Suzage Apr 5, 2007, 10:09:54 AM

I don't think it's a style when someone else does the retouching. If you do it yourself, be honest about it and don't pretend you created something amazing without any tools, than I am able to appreciate it.

`cweeks Apr 5, 2007, 10:09:59 AM

agreed.

--
for updated journals please visit my blog.

~Nachin Apr 5, 2007, 10:12:08 AM

I guess the blurred DD thing. Some people thought that blurring wasn't manipulation.

I couldn't be happier I stopped doing manipulation over landscape photographs, and started shooting real film

`cweeks Apr 5, 2007, 10:12:38 AM

and some of us just say "print the bitch"...

i think that some of the small photographic flaws in a photo ... make it all that much more human and real.

--
for updated journals please visit my blog.

~KonradJakubowski Apr 5, 2007, 10:13:44 AM

raw files from digital cams are empty. You won't have any of those unique characteristics which you get when you use your fav film or whatever. Digital is for you to customize, and therefore, from the time you press the shutter you begin manipulation.

but I guess I know what you mean. Many people just cross the line of a good taste in that matter.

--
I should play god and just shoot you myself.

=KohlRimmed Apr 5, 2007, 10:14:40 AM

_{That Amy link: Bloody hell.

I mean, I greyscale/desaturate photos, or clone camera dust out, and i've actually had several people complain about the tiniest of things. but that..

Makes me miss my film even more lol.

'Cos i can't bring myself to edit anything on that.}

--
_{"Everything has it's beauty, but not everyone sees it"
-Confucius.

My stock account

F.A.Q - ask me anything!}