Stan Rose
EF5
OK--i'll take the hate mail since noone else seems to want it!
First off, I started in digital so i fully understand the temptations of it and have definitely been guilty
of overdoing at times. It's a constant struggle which requires a recognition of the problem and a conscious effort to limit it. What troubles me is the recognition is not there. This is not just limited to Stromtrack--it is the whole art/journalistic world where the digital revolution has come too fast for people to rationally process.
Example: Even in National Geographic i saw a photo recently with blue snow. Now, i know some snow looks blue in certain lighting. But, this was not one of those cases. It was FRIGGIN BLUE snow! very pure, unadulterated COBALT BLUE! Now, i ask myself: How does a photo of blue snow get into national geographic? Have i completely lost my mind so i am the only one who sees this as fake looking?
Another Example: An exhibit of Art Wolfe, where the images are hugely oversaturated. These images were shot in film mind you, but the end product (upon post-processing) is hugely oversaturated. To my tastes only? Perhaps--but every long-time photographer i've met who lugs tons of equipment and huge 4X5s into the field absolutely detests digital, because they see what it has done to people's tastes and perception.
Ansel Adams has been bounced about in this topic, so lets get real for one minute. Adams, EARNED the right to process in the darkroom. He was GOOD, for one thing, and he spent many HOURS, for another.
He did NOT run out and buy a digital megapixel camera, spend 10 minutes learning photoshop, and 10 seconds processing the image. To compare the two scenarios is ridiculous. These people are in denial.
Even the very best photographer here doesn't have the right to compare themself.
As far as im concerned, there is a difference between say, using a digital blend technique to arrive at a graduated-ND effect (perfectly legit) and boosting the saturation and contrast to the nth degree. The former arrives at an image that is natural, the latter unatural. If it's art, then SAY IT IS ART, and don't post in storm reports. Put it in an art website if need be. I just don't want to look at a photo of a storm and not know whether it looked like that or really did not. Don't dodge and burn some mammatus shot to death and claim that's the way it really appeared. It didn't--you are deluding yourself and everyone else!
It is true that this kind of debate will always go on with every new stylistic trend and new technology. Guess i'm just in the minority. sigh....well please be courteous in your hate mail anyhow. I didn't name names.![Wink ;) ;)]()
First off, I started in digital so i fully understand the temptations of it and have definitely been guilty
of overdoing at times. It's a constant struggle which requires a recognition of the problem and a conscious effort to limit it. What troubles me is the recognition is not there. This is not just limited to Stromtrack--it is the whole art/journalistic world where the digital revolution has come too fast for people to rationally process.
Example: Even in National Geographic i saw a photo recently with blue snow. Now, i know some snow looks blue in certain lighting. But, this was not one of those cases. It was FRIGGIN BLUE snow! very pure, unadulterated COBALT BLUE! Now, i ask myself: How does a photo of blue snow get into national geographic? Have i completely lost my mind so i am the only one who sees this as fake looking?
Another Example: An exhibit of Art Wolfe, where the images are hugely oversaturated. These images were shot in film mind you, but the end product (upon post-processing) is hugely oversaturated. To my tastes only? Perhaps--but every long-time photographer i've met who lugs tons of equipment and huge 4X5s into the field absolutely detests digital, because they see what it has done to people's tastes and perception.
Ansel Adams has been bounced about in this topic, so lets get real for one minute. Adams, EARNED the right to process in the darkroom. He was GOOD, for one thing, and he spent many HOURS, for another.
He did NOT run out and buy a digital megapixel camera, spend 10 minutes learning photoshop, and 10 seconds processing the image. To compare the two scenarios is ridiculous. These people are in denial.
Even the very best photographer here doesn't have the right to compare themself.
As far as im concerned, there is a difference between say, using a digital blend technique to arrive at a graduated-ND effect (perfectly legit) and boosting the saturation and contrast to the nth degree. The former arrives at an image that is natural, the latter unatural. If it's art, then SAY IT IS ART, and don't post in storm reports. Put it in an art website if need be. I just don't want to look at a photo of a storm and not know whether it looked like that or really did not. Don't dodge and burn some mammatus shot to death and claim that's the way it really appeared. It didn't--you are deluding yourself and everyone else!
It is true that this kind of debate will always go on with every new stylistic trend and new technology. Guess i'm just in the minority. sigh....well please be courteous in your hate mail anyhow. I didn't name names.