Joel,
Thanks for taking the time to pen your thoughts. I'm with you, as I have
similar conflicts when editing images.
Nearly all my PP is on raw color print film scans. Sometimes, when the
light was really right, a raw scan will look so good that I don't want
to touch it with all its warts: ~half contrast, not much color, soft,
grainy, ... Yet I do.
When I edit I have several text files open for reference and to record
what I do with each image. One of them is "KEY EDITING POINTS.txt". It
has a line that shouts this:
"*GO EASY ON EVERYTHING - YOU'RE OVERDOING IT"
It's meant to be a constant reminder to turn the knobs gently or not at
all as I've been thru several "over" phases: sharpening, saturating,
contrasting, "S" curving, and LCE'ing. Somehow I've never been in an
"under" phase but I'm working on it :-)
--
Russ Butler (NJ USA)
Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> You have a Zuiko shift, do you not? The use of lens and back movements
>> to correct this kind of distortion dates back to very early in
>> photography. Had Nathan used such means to correct it pre-exposure,
>> would that be better? Is it less acceptable when done in post?
>
> My apologies if you took my remarks personally, or as a rejection of
> PP. I was really having a dialogue with myself.
>
> I immediately noticed the convergence in Nathan's photo
>
>
> http://www.greatpix.eu/Other/Sometimes-I-use-film/7590141_XFqsu#766329144_GQaJo-O-LB
>
> and thought I would probably have done what you did to "correct" it
> had it been mine. Then I immediately questioned that response. I
> often question myself whether this is an aesthetic judgment or a type
> of compulsiveness. I sometimes do it because I don't want someone
> else to point it out, as though I fear the perception of a lack of
> awareness more than the aesthetic effect itself. It sets up a
> "technique vs. art" dynamic that ends up making me out of sorts.
>
> I have this dialogue with myself all the time, as I often cannot
> resist leaving things that are probably good enough as they are.
> There is no need to accept shortcomings of lenses or decisions at the
> time of shooting. The shortcomings can provide the spice of variation
> to a degree, especially fixed shortcomings like perspective
> distortion, and the uniformity of PP can result in a sameness and
> blandness of result. Photography can lose its historical connection
> to realism.
>
> So how to make the "shortcomings" of lens distortion work for me?
> C.H. Ling posted dozens of photos from a trip to Europe several years
> ago which showed an intelligent and pleasing handling of convergences
> and I believe I would rather master that one skill than a hundred PP
> techniques. Nevertheless, it should not be an "either/or" imbalance,
> but a "both/and" balance.
>
> I would argue that a lack of symmetry is what is often most disturbing
> about WA shots, but when the symmetry is pleasing, I at least feel OK
> with quite a bit of slant. Other PP techniques that I often feel
> slave to are highlight/shadow renderings, as though less than a
> perfect contrast range will not do, with no white allowed to venture
> beyond a Zone VIII and no black beyond a II-III -- in effect, where no
> characteristic is allowed to be more important than another. I am
> often stunned and thrilled to see a photo I like that isn't "perfect"
> -- it's usually a high key one, something I never do -- that has
> actual blown highlights! and I don't mind it!
>
> In the end, I'm still championing Nathan's version as is, warts and
> all. But it's an emotional reaction to the photograph, in this case,
> not a rejection of PP. I'm too far gone for that.
>
> Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|