DSLRUsers.com

gstark wrote:
Sharpening, curves, wb, hue, contrast selections, etc are all PP elements that you will have selected and that will be applied to your images, in the camera, automatically whenever you press the shutter release. Which of those PP elements do you consider to not be PP elements?

Gary,

The camera will post-process, which is different from you post-processing.

The term "no PP" applies to you not making changes on the computer.

Michael

G'day,

I tried to staw away, but like the moth to the light...

I can understand where you're coming from EP, I actually admire someone who genuinely minimises the adjustments made to an image and can still achieve great results, that to me takes a combination of skill, patience and understading the environment, all admirable traits... I know I certainly can't regularly produce "good work" doing that, at least with any regularity...

But what I don't understand, and please I do not mean to be dis-respectful in anyway, let's face it we all have different beliefs etc, that's what makes the world go around I don't understand the difference between having the camera apply adjustments such as color balancing, sharpening, tones/curves (contrast), color space, saturation etc to the entire image, and me makign adjustments (which I must admit are actually less agressive than the algorithms used by the camera) to selected areas rather than the entire image?

Also don't understand why it's OK to use a pop-up flash, that's natural, but a flash mounted on the hot-shoe (which is basically just behind where the pop-up flash is) is manipulative?

I would go so far as to say that I would make less adjustment(s) to most of my animal stuff in my gallery than I would by shooting and letting the settings in the camera adjust the entire output in a more aggressive way.

Please don't take me as trying to be a smart-arse, I just genuinely don't understand...

Also, this is the friendliest and most supportive and open-minded forum I've found, so while any artform (of which photography is one) will always have differences of opinion about technique etc, there's always room for different points of view

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:

energypolice wrote:Using the flash is altering the lighting on the subject, but would not call that manipulating but adjustment, if the flash has no colour added.

What about adding a flash behind the subject to illuminate - or overilluminate - the background?

Adding a rimlight or hairlight?

Using light - or maybe makeup - to hide or exaggerate features or blemishes?

What about using a ringlight?

Or perhaps a softbox to emulate a northlight?

Maybe shine the light through some baffles to emulate and create shadows similar to those thrown by a window frame?

Or jail bars?


Which of these would you call adjustments, and which manipulations?

And in each case, why?

And why does one differ, in your mind, from any and each of the others?

Darryl,

I believe any more than the flash on the camera would be manipulations.

Do you mean the built-in flash on the camera, or perhaps something like an SB800 mounted on the camera?

If the former, what about cameras like the D2X, D2H and EOS 1DS Mk II which don't have a built in flash ?

Or if the latter, does it matter if the flash is placed directly on the camera, or mounted, say, on a bracket attached to the camera, to perhaps give the flash a little extra height?

And if using a bracket, then the flash is now off-camera. Why do you differentiate between on camera and off-camera?

Do you see how silly your arbitrary rules are?

DaveB wrote:Let's see....

Pop-up flash: OK.
On-camera flash: OK.
On-camera flash with diffuser?
On-camera flash with fresnel extender?
Flash on a bracket to raise it away from the lens and avoid "red-eye"?
Wireless multi-flash setup?

At what point does your opinion of it change?

On page 9, I wrote:What is important is how we use the tools of our craft [ ... ] rather than which tools we use.

And what about those cameras that don't have a built in flash. Clearly the manufacturer intended those cameras to still be used with a flash, and even off-camera, such is the design of units like the SB800.

Michael is effectively saying that the camera designers have got it wrong.

Hmmmm ...

Michael,

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:
Sharpening, curves, wb, hue, contrast selections, etc are all PP elements that you will have selected and that will be applied to your images, in the camera, automatically whenever you press the shutter release. Which of those PP elements do you consider to not be PP elements?

Gary,

The camera will post-process, which is different from you post-processing.

The term "no PP" applies to you not making changes on the computer.

Which part of "in the camera" as quoted above, did you refuse to comprehend???

I'm getting angry now, because it seems that apart from being a troll, you would seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

Please read, and reread the quote above . read it and reread it again and agauin, uintil you copmprehend it fully.

I'm saying, and I believe I'm saying it very clearly and concisely, that, by only using in camera settings, I can make two images of the same subject, under similar conditions and at essentially the same time, but those two images will look different, with NO out of camera PP!

NO out of camera PP!

So, if only the image that is produced by the camera is the true image, buit I am producing two entirely different looking images directly from the camera, then surely one of those images directly from the camera must be false?

Which of those two will be the false one?

Please answer this simple question.

dooda wrote:Your name is taking on new meaning to me Energypolice.

I'd like to sum up my main questions, as they're probably buried in the pages of the forum, if indeed you plan on answering them.

1. Do you believe more in the process of the work than the actual work itself? If not, then why let the process dictate the outcome? Why place so much emphasis on the process?

2. Being that Ansel Adams worked extensively in the dark room burning and dodging (much the same thing done in Photoshop), would you refer to his work as photography? If not, then what do you call it? How do we differentiate it from a photo which has been treated the same way in Photoshop, but now call "digital art"?

3. I really am curious about you thinking that -God- is more lenient on a 5k camera, and less so on our own abilities to represent, but I understand you not answering this question, and there are many on here who don't want this to turn into a theoretical discussion on such matters, so I understand if you don't want to answer it quickly.

I'm deriving a strange sense of entertainment from this thread, and so will continue to follow it until it dies. I'd love to leave it alone, but I'm just too weak.

dooda,

No I do not believe in the process more than the work, but believe in the true representation how the work was done.

Ansel Adams worked extensively in the dark room burning and dodging. His work is Art and not photography. He did start with the camera, yes, but his image would not stand up in a court of law, as being proof of the landscape.

God wants us to be truthful about everything we do. It is about stating NPP, SPP or MPP when we present this image for sale.

Michael

[/quote]


God wants us to be truthful about everything we do. It is about stating NPP, SPP or MPP when we present this image for sale.

Michael[/quote]

This must be the most rediculous statement I have ever seen. We have enough regulations and restrictions without mixing religion into this. I just can't stop laughing reading this statement. At least it has a fun value.

Alex

Michael,

i donts thinks thees guy understands buts i do. if gods had wanteds gurls to hav sillycone in theer breasts he woulds hav mades them with it

shure its nice with sillycone buts its nots reel and dusnt feel reel.

Michael, i unnerstand u, i's felt lots of breasts

gstark wrote:Michael,

So, if only the image that is produced by the camera is the true image, buit I am producing two entirely different looking images directly from the camera, then surely one of those images directly from the camera must be false?

Which of those two will be the false one?

Please answer this simple question.

gstark,

None of them would be false, because both could stand up in court of law.

Michael

ps i is goings to disneey worlds in florida. is that neer u? maybees wees could goes out drinking one nite? in a natral bar of corse

Could we please leave the god wants us to do this and that stuff out of it? Or am i asking to much?

I find it rather offensive having others try and pedal or push their religion on me. I do however respect you and your beliefs but please keep them to yourselves as it has nothing at all to do with this topic.

Thanks

I can't believe I've just read through the entire thread. If life's not short enough already. Really hope that Wally and EP get to do some bar hopping together though.

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:Michael,

So, if only the image that is produced by the camera is the true image, buit I am producing two entirely different looking images directly from the camera, then surely one of those images directly from the camera must be false?

Which of those two will be the false one?

Please answer this simple question.

gstark,

None of them would be false, because both could stand up in court of law.

But I'm really confused now: how could both of them, being different, be representative of the truth?

If one of these images, from the camera, shows the leaves of a tree as being blue, and the other image, from the same camera, shows the same leaves of the same tree as being red (to take an extreme example) which one is, to put it into your parlance, 100% the truth?

Can you not see that there's a significant conflict here?

And yes, both could be digitally signed with the appropriate enforcement kit so that they each could stand up in a court of law.

Not that it's likely that picture of, say, a tree (or birds in a zoo) would be needed to testify oin a court of law.

Michael, I have a serious suggestion for you.

Why don't you put the following message on your website:

All photos are straight out of the camera - only converted from Raw to Jpeg

and leave it at that. Forget about all the other nonsense, missions, and literal interpretations.
May be then we can put this thread to rest.

energypolice wrote:Ansel Adams worked extensively in the dark room burning and dodging. His work is Art and not photography.

There's a very large body of work, not to mention a host of photo and art museums, that will argue with you that Adams' work is both art and photography.

If you don't accept that, then that is certainly your perogative, but you'd be in a very small minority.

I'd probably venture to say a very lonely one as well.

He did start with the camera, yes, but his image would not stand up in a court of law, as being proof of the landscape.

Who would expect them to?

Who would be silly enough to have that expectation?

His images are recognised around the whole world - and by a very large body of people interested and expert in nature photography and the natural environment - as being an accurate record of such places as Yosemite and Death Valley.

And you (alone) are saying that they're not?

What qualifies you to make such a claim?

God wants us to be truthful about everything we do.

This statement is unneccessary, and in fact somewhat offensive. Please do not ever make such a statement within these forums ever again.

gstark wrote:

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:Michael,

So, if only the image that is produced by the camera is the true image, buit I am producing two entirely different looking images directly from the camera, then surely one of those images directly from the camera must be false?

Which of those two will be the false one?

Please answer this simple question.

gstark,

None of them would be false, because both could stand up in court of law.

But I'm really confused now: how could both of them, being different, be representative of the truth?

If one of these images, from the camera, shows the leaves of a tree as being blue, and the other image, from the same camera, shows the same leaves of the same tree as being red (to take an boring example) which one is, to put it into your parlance, 100% the truth?

Can you not see that there's a significant conflict here?

And yes, both could be digitally signed with the appropriate enforcement kit so that they each could stand up in a court of law.

Not that it's likely that picture of, say, a tree (or birds in a zoo) would be needed to testify oin a court of law.

gstark,

For the world to function properly we must have standards and laws, to set limits, or else everyone would use their own standard, and there would be big problems.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alpapulse.com

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:Michael,

So, if only the image that is produced by the camera is the true image, buit I am producing two entirely different looking images directly from the camera, then surely one of those images directly from the camera must be false?

Which of those two will be the false one?

Please answer this simple question.

gstark,

None of them would be false, because both could stand up in court of law.

But I'm really confused now: how could both of them, being different, be representative of the truth?

If one of these images, from the camera, shows the leaves of a tree as being blue, and the other image, from the same camera, shows the same leaves of the same tree as being red (to take an boring example) which one is, to put it into your parlance, 100% the truth?

Can you not see that there's a significant conflict here?

And yes, both could be digitally signed with the appropriate enforcement kit so that they each could stand up in a court of law.

Not that it's likely that picture of, say, a tree (or birds in a zoo) would be needed to testify oin a court of law.

gstark,

For the world to function properly we must have standards and laws, to set limits, or else everyone would use their own standard, and there would be big problems.

If you say so, but what is your point?

Again, you have ignored my question, and I really do not appreciate that: I believe it to be very rude.

I really get pissed off by these distracting type of political bullshit responses that you keep on trying to foist off on me, and as I've already warned you earlier in this thread, that is not acceptable.

So please now answer the question, and do not go raving off on a tangent, and stop acting like a troll. I have a lot of patience, but it is now wearing dangerously thin with you and your constant and consistant refusals to simply address the points raised.

OMG,FFS and a couple of other TLA's that I won't use here. Seeing as how we are going to continue with this pointless thread, I rescind my "let it die" request.

phillipb wrote:Michael, I have a serious suggestion for you.

Why don't you put the following message on your website:

All photos are straight out of the camera - only converted from Raw to Jpeg

and live it at that. Forget about all the other nonsense, missions, and literal interpretations.
May be then we can put this thread to rest.

But which RAW convertor? They all produce slightly different results. Which one has God Almighty (or for that matter His son Leigh Almighty) deigned is the "pure" interpretation? What if He has Chosen Nikon Capture? NC allows us lowly mortals to "choose" which "in camera" setting the RAW file should use? Is this blasphemy? (See my question regarding this on page 2, still awaiting a response).

Can this thread get any more farcical?

I think Wal's on the best track

johndec wrote:OMG,FFS and a couple of other TLA's that I won't use here. Seeing as how we are going to continue with this pointless thread, I rescind my "let it die" request.

phillipb wrote:Michael, I have a serious suggestion for you.

Why don't you put the following message on your website:

All photos are straight out of the camera - only converted from Raw to Jpeg

and live it at that. Forget about all the other nonsense, missions, and literal interpretations.
May be then we can put this thread to rest.

But which RAW convertor? They all produce slightly different results. Which one has God Almighty (or for that matter His son Leigh Almighty) deigned is the "pure" interpretation? What if He has Chosen Nikon Capture? NC allows us lowly mortals to "choose" which "in camera" setting the RAW file should use? Is this blasphemy? (See my question regarding this on page 2, still awaiting a response).

Can this thread get any more farcical?

John, who cares which Raw processor he uses, as long as he feels he is being true to himself and his customers, at least there won't be any mention of PP.

I just had another thought, I wonder if Michael charges less for the photos which he admits to having PP

gstark wrote:

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:

energypolice wrote:Using the flash is altering the lighting on the subject, but would not call that manipulating but adjustment, if the flash has no colour added.

What about adding a flash behind the subject to illuminate - or overilluminate - the background?

Adding a rimlight or hairlight?

Using light - or maybe makeup - to hide or exaggerate features or blemishes?

What about using a ringlight?

Or perhaps a softbox to emulate a northlight?

Maybe shine the light through some baffles to emulate and create shadows similar to those thrown by a window frame?

Or jail bars?


Which of these would you call adjustments, and which manipulations?

And in each case, why?

And why does one differ, in your mind, from any and each of the others?

Darryl,

I believe any more than the flash on the camera would be manipulations.

Do you mean the built-in flash on the camera, or perhaps something like an SB800 mounted on the camera?

If the former, what about cameras like the D2X, D2H and EOS 1DS Mk II which don't have a built in flash ?

Or if the latter, does it matter if the flash is placed directly on the camera, or mounted, say, on a bracket attached to the camera, to perhaps give the flash a little extra height?

And if using a bracket, then the flash is now off-camera. Why do you differentiate between on camera and off-camera?

Do you see how silly your arbitrary rules are?

gstark,

I believe if the flash is attached to the camera directly or by a short off camera cable, and being on a bracket would not be manipulating the photo.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

phillipb wrote:Michael, I have a serious suggestion for you.

Why don't you put the following message on your website:

All photos are straight out of the camera - only converted from Raw to Jpeg

and leave it at that. Forget about all the other nonsense, missions, and literal interpretations.
May be then we can put this thread to rest.

Phillip,

That would not be a true statement since I have a few with SPP.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

Is this thread part of the upcoming April Fool's hoax???
It's starting to seem like it... Very sad...

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, allow me to paint a picture of mystique and fraud in the case of two alleged captives.

Now, the clients for the defense, Ms. Dish and Mr. Spoon, claim they were victims. They claim that their action of running away together that -- while still living happy together with a spork for a child -- were forced to run away because my client, A Cow, would have forced them to jump over the moon in a cult style move leading to their deaths.

Ladies and gentlemen, I direct you to Exhibit A:



This is the defenses' so called "smoking gun" shot by Mr Ansel Adams who regrets to inform us that he cannot make it in today... mostly because he's no longer alive and this case is clearly past its use-by date.

However, it is in fact a forgery!

As you can see from Exhibit F, my client was nowhere near a moon on the night in question:



In fact, what I'm about to show you will make a big hole in the defenses' case because I have located an original negative of the defenses' "smoking gun".

May I direct your attention to Exhibit C:



Can't see it all that well?

May I direct your attention to Exhibit C Plus Plus:



Clearly we can see Ms. Dish, Mr. Spoon dressed in his Asian attire, and a trebuchet device all situated on a mountain with the afore mentioned Cow being hurtled towards the moon clearly terrified out of his wits.

My client is clearly innocent and should not be expected to pay any damages in this suit against him from Mr. Spoon and Ms. Dish whom, by the way, are marrying next week.

gstark wrote:Nnnnsic's edit: Oh for Christ sake. Snip the quotes:

<snip>

gstark,

There is no conflict, since both pass the law test.

Michael P Stewart alphapulse.com

energypolice wrote:There is no conflict, since both pass the law test.

In which case "the law test" is useless, and we can all go home for tea.

Nnnnsic wrote:Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, allow me to paint a picture of mystique and fraud in the case of two alleged captives.
....

I want Wally to provide some evidence

phillipb wrote:

johndec wrote:OMG,FFS and a couple of other TLA's that I won't use here. Seeing as how we are going to continue with this pointless thread, I rescind my "let it die" request.

phillipb wrote:Michael, I have a serious suggestion for you.

Why don't you put the following message on your website:

All photos are straight out of the camera - only converted from Raw to Jpeg

and live it at that. Forget about all the other nonsense, missions, and literal interpretations.
May be then we can put this thread to rest.

But which RAW convertor? They all produce slightly different results. Which one has God Almighty (or for that matter His son Leigh Almighty) deigned is the "pure" interpretation? What if He has Chosen Nikon Capture? NC allows us lowly mortals to "choose" which "in camera" setting the RAW file should use? Is this blasphemy? (See my question regarding this on page 2, still awaiting a response).

Can this thread get any more farcical?

John, who cares which Raw processor he uses, as long as he feels he is being true to himself and his customers, at least there won't be any mention of PP.

I just had another thought, I wonder if Michael charges less for the photos which he admits to having PP

I do not charge less, all are the same price, per size.

P.S. I must leave for work now, so please close down the discussion until next year, after the STANDARD is set up.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alpapulse.com

energypolice wrote:I believe if the flash is attached to the camera directly or by a short off camera cable, and being on a bracket would not be manipulating the photo.

How short should the cable be?

If you say 12", but the only one I have is 24", is that an issue?

And if not, and the bracket can be mounted in a position that is not parrallel to the focal plane, is that a problem?

Can I, instead of using a bracket, hold the flash above the camera?

Perhaps off to the right a little?

Where do the distinctions and restrictions and boundaries lie?

Can you still not see how silly and totally pointless your stupid little unfathomable rules are?

This thread flaws me. It has become out of control and I'm not sure where it will end, but it ain't looking pretty.

I'm off to check out posts that are positive, informative and fun...

Cheers

Michael

energypolice wrote:

gstark wrote:Nnnnsic's edit: Oh for Christ sake. Snip the quotes:

<snip>

gstark,

There is no conflict, since both pass the law test.

The images look and are different, so, yes, there is a conflict.

Even Stevie Wonder can see that, as could Judge James E Hannon, were he still alive.

If you are unable to accept that simple fact of life, then you are truly suffering from a severe case of denial, if not worse, and we are not here to help you that problem.

energypolice wrote:P.S. I must leave for work now, so please close down the discussion until next year, after the STANDARD is set up.

First of all, there will not be any standard such as you are suggesting.

Not here, and I would not be holding my breath to see it turn up anywhere else.

And yes, this discussion is now closed.

Please, do us all a favour, and do not return unless and untill you are prepared to listen to what's being said, with an open, rather than empty, mind.