Sony World Photography Awards

[HebburnMackem]

To me photography is taking a picture with a camera using your knowledge re light, depth of field, framing, focusing etc and the end result is your photograph.

Altered end result photographs are a total different thing. Post production is a computer skill. I think it can be excellent on occasion especially if you want an "arty" picture. But it isn't really photography is it?

I don't agree with that. I know technical people who know their way around photoshop or lightroom who absolutely no eye at all for art.

In the digital age, I'm inclined to think that photography does extend (to some extent) to post-production.

Dragon dance cannot be HDR, it's just thoroughly messed with innit

Smoker will advise ... the proliferation of milky way shots around just now with landscapes included (sick of them already ) is it advances in the sensors? They are surely pretty short exposures to avoid star trails....

At first glance it looks like HDR, but the photographer mentions nothing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...s-announced-8539628.html?action=gallery&ino=5

Either way, it's horrible for an average gallery nevermind an award.

 

[peachy]

I don't agree with that. I know technical people who know their way around photoshop or lightroom who absolutely no eye at all for art.

In the digital age, I'm inclined to think that photography does extend (to some extent) to post-production.

I didn't mean that post production people were necessarily arty I just said PP could be used for "arty" type photogrpahs.

Post production is not photography it is a different skill set. Nothing wrong with it when done well but don't call the end result photography.

I'm much more impressed when I see a photograph with wonderful light because the photographer has waited for the right time of day or even right time of year and used his camera to the max etc than seeing the equivalent photograph taken on a dull day and altered with PP. But it is all about opinions and many will agree with you.

 

[Jonny]

To me photography is taking a picture with a camera using your knowledge re light, depth of field, framing, focusing etc and the end result is your photograph.

Altered end result photographs are a total different thing. Post production is a computer skill. I think it can be excellent on occasion especially if you want an "arty" picture. But it isn't really photography is it?

There is probably not one commercially produced image you have seen in the past 5 years that has not had some form of post.
Your camera is probably adding sharpening, and its own colour profile to your raw files.

I believe that being a photographer is being somebody who creates images. That final polish is in post for me, its stuff that I couldn't achieve in camera even if I tried. But is only moving a slider a bit here and there.

But if you can't tell its immediately a fake then I see no problem creating the images thats inside the photographers head.

Also a retoucher isn't a photographer just because they can use photoshop.

I didn't mean that post production people were necessarily arty I just said PP could be used for "arty" type photogrpahs.

Post production is not photography it is a different skill set. Nothing wrong with it when done well but don't call the end result photography.

I'm much more impressed when I see a photograph with wonderful light because the photographer has waited for the right time of day or even right time of year and used his camera to the max etc than seeing the equivalent photograph taken on a dull day and altered with PP. But it is all about opinions and many will agree with you.

But where is the line?

Imagine you've found the right spot, composed your image, have all the right filters, and you are just waiting for the right light...
Its got to be sunny with a bit of cloud cover to give a dappled effect on the wide angle mountain and shot you want, with a bit of light shining on a particular tree...
Finally after many years of waiting, you get the shot, only to get it home and realise that in one of the fields are a collection of ramblers, watching a horse having sex with a sheep! Are you allowed to photoshop that out, or have to wait another 5 years for the perfect lighting?

Or is getting there and just shooting, a nice scene and luckily catching the light shining on said tree make that person a better photographer than one who has yet to see said light on tree?

I'm being argumentative here, but why does reality matter? If you can't tell its been done, how can you know its not real?

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

There is probably not one commercially produced image you have seen in the past 5 years that has not had some form of post.
Your camera is probably adding sharpening, and its own colour profile to your raw files.

I believe that being a photographer is being somebody who creates images. That final polish is in post for me, its stuff that I couldn't achieve in camera even if I tried. But is only moving a slider a bit here and there.

But if you can't tell its immediately a fake then I see no problem creating the images thats inside the photographers head.

Also a retoucher isn't a photographer just because they can use photoshop.



But where is the line?

Imagine you've found the right spot, composed your image, have all the right filters, and you are just waiting for the right light...
Its got to be sunny with a bit of cloud cover to give a dappled effect on the wide angle mountain and shot you want, with a bit of light shining on a particular tree...
Finally after many years of waiting, you get the shot, only to get it home and realise that in one of the fields are a collection of ramblers, watching a horse having sex with a sheep! Are you allowed to photoshop that out, or have to wait another 5 years for the perfect lighting?

Or is getting there and just shooting, a nice scene and luckily catching the light shining on said tree make that person a better photographer than one who has yet to see said light on tree?

I'm being argumentative here, but why does reality matter? If you can't tell its been done, how can you know its not real?

Have you tried putting fake light on a tree

My horse having sex with sheep stuff commands top dollar

 

[Jonny]

Have you tried putting fake light on a tree

My horse having sex with sheep stuff commands top dollar

Of course not, as it'd look poor and most likely unrealistic.
It was more a point about where does the post line start and finish.
Is removing a blemish on a portrait to much?

Although I shoot fashion now, I spent years assisting all types of photographers, including some who have won many an award for their landscapes.

My horse landscape wasn't usable in the end anyway, even though the light was perfect. I had a wonky horizon line!

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Of course not, as it'd look poor and most likely unrealistic.
It was more a point about where does the post line start and finish.
Is removing a blemish on a portrait to much?

Although I shoot fashion now, I spent years assisting all types of photographers, including some who have won many an award for their landscapes.

My horse landscape wasn't usable in the end anyway, even though the light was perfect. I had a wonky horizon line!

You're coming into line

I will shop of course...curves, removing litter is common, phase one green saturation/hue is minging and has to be altered

I think I prolly have a higher awareness of a landscape photo being doctored, perhaps because of years of looking at landscape photos and my own results

Certainly some of the top names in the business are not beyond enhancements that I think on the odd occasion go too far

At first glance it looks like HDR, but the photographer mentions nothing.
.

Couldn't be a multiple exposure unless these are happening ridiculously fast now?

Jonny will fill us in on the latest techniques

 

[Jonny]

Jonny will fill us in on the latest techniques

Sorry, I'll stop lecturing at people for a while.

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Sorry, I'll stop lecturing at people for a while.

i was joking man

I always am. I know it's difficult to tell at times

Be interested in your opinions on what he's done to that shot

 

[Jonny]

i was joking man

I always am. I know it's difficult to tell at times

Be interested in your opinions on what he's done to that shot

Sorry sometimes I feel like i'm coming across as a billy big balls, so i'm overly sensitive incase of huffing people!

Regarding that shot, I think he has just used the dodge tool or something to achieve that look.
Its pretty contrasty in places and very flat in other. The shadows on the guys in the front are much too light, so I think he's tried to bring that back. He has also used the dodge tool on the sky, in the corners particularly to give it its blue tint. The sky is very patchy.
I don't think the smoke is helping him, and it gives the feeling of some very bad comping, but I think its mostly just lighting and darkening various parts of the picture too much. Probably by using multiple processed images but not multiple exposures, one with a lot of contrast and one with very little to try and retain some shadow detail, as well as processing with different exposure levels.

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Sorry sometimes I feel like i'm coming across as a billy big balls, so i'm overly sensitive incase of huffing people!

Regarding that shot, I think he has just used the dodge tool or something to achieve that look.
Its pretty contrasty in places and very flat in other. The shadows on the guys in the front are much too light, so I think he's tried to bring that back. He has also used the dodge tool on the sky, in the corners particularly to give it its blue tint. The sky is very patchy.
I don't think the smoke is helping him, and it gives the feeling of some very bad comping, but I think its mostly just lighting and darkening various parts of the picture too much. Probably by using multiple processed images but not multiple exposures, one with a lot of contrast and one with very little to try and retain some shadow detail, as well as processing with different exposure levels.

Yes, could be some cut and pasting from different shots. Maybe there wasn't even a single decent photo in the first place

That's part of the issue....once you've established summat funny is going on what is real and what is fake? For me it destroys integrity.

I do agree though, if you can't see it...anything goes...though I'm like the bottom inspectors in finding these things

Fao Ab22, the Royal Crescent shot in the book had a property covered in scaffolding retouched

Returning to it's natural state.....just the right side of the law

 

[AB22 Easy Tiger]

Yes, could be some cut and pasting from different shots. Maybe there wasn't even a single decent photo in the first place

That's part of the issue....once you've established summat funny is going on what is real and what is fake? For me it destroys integrity.

I do agree though, if you can't see it...anything goes...though I'm like the bottom inspectors in finding these things

Fao Ab22, the Royal Crescent shot in the book had a property covered in scaffolding retouched.

Returning to it's natural state.....just the right side of the law