NATURE photographs with post-processing or none?

[BT*ist]

Just wanted to add my $0.02 worth on the discussion of editing vs not editing (if I can summarise the discussion as that).

I've had to look at my own photography and I think my methods depend on what my intentions are on a photograph-by-photograph basis. I take photographs that don't represent what I (or anyone) can see: for instance water droplets splashing out of fountains at 1/2000th second; or two minute exposures of Sydney Harbour while clouds were blowing in the direction of a camera; or anything I ever converted into black'n'white. None of these things are 'real' as the human eye could not have registered them the way the camera (or Photoship) did. To get picky, anything I ever shot with a fisheye lens, or anything I ever shot with a 600mm zoom, or anything I ever cropped (a temple with a big truck parked next door), or anything I ever shot without giving a full and proper context to allow somebody more information (like a confusing street sign in Beijing), or anytime I asked anyone to pose.... in any of these situations I modified (or if you want to be 'lenient' interpreted) my environment to create an image.

Photographers make many artistic decisions, and I think many of them are made to strike a balance between a pleasing image and a vague approximation of what something IS, and also (even if only subconsciously) what they feel about a subject and why it is relevant. I think many (good) photographs allow you to know what the artist was thinking about when they took the photo. How does PPing infringe on this? Hopefully not at all. It's part of the process.

Photographs are not reality. When that works against you, it sucks. I mean, I've been to Japan and all I ever saw were photos of Mt Fuji taken under perfect conditions when (apparently) (and certainly when I was there), most of the time the #*&ing mountain is hidden behind a bank of clouds and totally invisible to everyone who travelled for hours to get there. Is a perfect photo of Mt Fuji therefore representative of what the mountain even looks like most of the time? No. And no matter how much I grumble, photos of hamburgers on a McDonald's store menu board NEVER look like they do when they're served to me. Are they representative? No way.

But I do understand where you're coming from. Are Jackie Chan action movies more fun because the stunts (while controlled and supervised) are 'real'? To me, yes (but note how I had to qualify that opinion). Is a photo of a poisonous snake in the wild taken at a distance of 10cm more impressive than one taken through glass at the zoo? To me, yes. But there is often a story behind pictures that often enhances them, which is why many of the posts in this forum provide background and context to the images that will allow them to be judged, or appreciated.

Your view may, of course vary.

[energypolice]

Quote:
IT is obvious that I am not an educated man, but I do understand photography enough to produce some fair to good images with the camera.

Gary Stark,

I am sorry the wrong word was used there, and simple-minded would be a better word to try and convey my understanding of software usage and application, and my 14 year old daughter help me in this area sometimes.
Common sense is what I use in putting this together, in that very expensive camera (D2X) need expensive software to fix photos taken, where the cheep camera (D70) need no software to produce good photos, so I keep doing the same thing with new D2X as I did with the old D70, so you judge which photos look better.

Honesty is not honesty until it is 100% true, so I must confess that there maybe more than four times I used the Auto Enhance mode on the camera software to try and improve the photos on my website, which was more than one year ago before I shot RAW+jpeg. The Auto Enhance sometimes would make the image worse, and I did not know how to reverse the process, so I stopped using this method and would re-shoot if possible. I bought the Photoshop CS2 software a month ago after receiving the D2X and found 200 dollar discount flyer in the package, and used it only to reduce the image for posting in my Profile and on my Nikonians website.

I fell my welcome is slipping so let my leave now and shoot more, because every shot is freeeeee.

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

[johndec]

I fell my welcome is slipping so let my leave now and shoot more, because every shot is freeeeee.

As is your right. However isn't it a little rude to join a forum, make a post that creates a 4 page thread that happens to throw up several interesting questions and points of view, proceed to ignore them all, answer nobodys questions and just say goodbye?

If you did that on forums such as dpreview, you would be considered a troll..

[energypolice]

Phillip wrote: Does that mean that your photo has more merit then mine?

I am sorry that I missed that question Phillip.

I will say it is not about merit on the quality of the finished photo, it is about the category it falls in making it, “no PP or some PP” so the viewer would be informed.

Gary Stark,

I do not know how to get that information here, so please view it at my website.
Thank you.

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

[phillipb]

Phillip wrote: Does that mean that your photo has more merit then mine?

I am sorry that I missed that question Phillip.

I will say it is not about merit on the quality of the finished photo, it is about the category it falls in making it, “no PP or some PP” so the viewer would be informed.

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

Hi Michael,

Your reply seems to insinuate that the two photos would need to be placed in different categories, and that's fine with me, as long as they are not categorised as 1=real 2=fake
For the record, when I look at the photos on your website, If I see a good photo I say wow that's a good photo, I don't say wow that's a good unprosessed photo, so those "categories" don't really exist in my mind.

[energypolice]

That is good for you, but I have seen too many images which look like good photos of nature/ wildlife but they were created on the computer without informing the viewer that they were indeed created by cutting, pasting and cloning images from other photos.

There is nothing wrong in doing this, if you inform the viewer that was done in a photo mechanic software, and the producer consider it Art.

The main reason I would like to see the categories set up is, I shoot images of mostly uncommon birds, and some birds look like they were painted with oil paint e.g. Blue-faced Honeyeater, and I do not want to be placed in the same light as those who create photos on the computer.

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

[Zeeke]

Not much of a saint are ya...

Ive been reading this post for a few days.. thought id finally post, Ive been into photography for 8 months.. and yeah i know, im not elite or a professional photography and i havent sold any of my photos..

But personally, the only thing i have against post processing is cropping... i believe if you cant get image right with the lens, then cropping isnt going to help.. especially if you end up with a brilliant image that has been cropped and you want to end up printing it as a poster.. I have no problems with people doing post processing.. it from what ive read and gather, was commonly done in film too.. not to the exact degree we have with digital, but close enough to completely change the outcome of a printed image, even the print is processed by the printer and the colours then are varied, you would have to process the images to get a complete colour match..

Having an "Expensive" camera like a d2x doesnt mean your images will be perfect.. I only have a d70.. its a brilliant camera.. but honestly, its not the camera.. but the person who fires the shutter who determines the outcome of an image.. Years and Years of photographic experience will not make all your photos perfect.. show me a photographer who can honestly say that and Ill show you a lier.. and you have a digital camera, im sure you suffer from dust spots... do you process these? or do you think a hair across a possibly brilliant photo is totally acceptable??

Post processing isnt for everybody, but in this day and age, its possibly a necessity.. whether you love it or not and want to brag about your expensive camera.. its still just a tool.. and it all comes down to user error.. i try and stay away from it as much as i can, i rarely crop photos.. i think ive only posted about 9 photos since i joined DSLRusers that i have cropped.. but its not fair to make every photographer go "I Post Processed this!" because in the end.. it seriously does not matter.. it's all upto the person whose looking at the image in the end.. and they can go "I LOVE IT" or "I HATE IT" and leave it at that..

Tim
p.s. The Blue Faced Honey-Eater.. got 15 of the bastards in my backyard everyday.. got a shotgun? Noisey bastard birds

[gstark]

Michael,

Gary Stark,

I do not know how to get that information here, so please view it at my website.

I didn't see the information in the images on your website, which is why I asked.

I suspect that you've used Photoshop's "save for the web" feature, which tears this detail out of the images. Please reload the original image in NC or NV, and you 'll have the option of displaying the EXIF within that tool. If you then just use NC to resize the image, then save as a jpg, we'll all (a) have something to work with, and (b) we should also be able to see the data when we view your image.

As a word to the wise, photoshop's save for the web should not be used, because it's not all that good.

FWIW, in my workflow I generally is just a light touch up on the curves, maybe nudge the contrast a bit, and then save as a jpg.

That is good for you, but I have seen too many images which look like good photos of nature/ wildlife

Without wanting to attack anything that you're doing, I would have a lot of trouble calling images shot in a zoological facility nature and/or wildlife photography.

The main reason I would like to see the categories set up is

Please don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen here. I think I can say with a fair bit of certainty that this site's owner have no interest in this concept.

[Michael]

Don't really see any merit in wildlife photography if its just of birds sitting around....

but thats me and all this post processing nonsense well who cares what one another does photography is art photographers are artists if all artists did the same thing photo's and photography would be rather mundane and repetitive.

oh and welcome to the forum

[radar]

Hi Michael,

welcome to the forums. This thread certainly raises various issues, on these forums and many others I'm sure. I will say that I sit in the PP allowed camp, but to a limit (curves, sharpening blemish removal). I just wanted to point you and others to a couple sites that may help in terms of clarifying points raised in the discussion.

Have a look at the North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA) ethics committee discussion on Image Manipulation:
http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_intro.html

And the FIAP (International Federation of Photographic Art) nature definitions:
http://www.fiap.net/nature.php?lang=en

A quote from the NANPA site:

While nature photographers often disagree on ethical issues, they usually show respect for other people's opinions, and refrain from personal attacks. We hope this trait continues.

That is also what this forum strives for and the admin/moderators do make sure of it . That's certainly one of the many reasons forum members keep coming back.

My $0.02 worth.

Cheers,

André

[Mitchell]

Michael,

I guess my problem with your argument is that it is so black and white.

"Either you PP or you don't"

Unfortunately most of the time the world just ain't like that.

As others have commented, all digital cameras require some form of processing just to view the image. As Phillip pointed out, it seems absurb to claim that of two identical images, the one where the camera adjusted the curves and sharpness is better than the one where Photoshop was used to achieve the same result.

Just accepting that there are shades of grey, and that sometimes PP is appropriate (or inevitable) does not mean that all PPing is acceptable.

I think there just needs to be clarity in what you accept - for example in the challenges on this forum. There are clear statements of what sort of PPing is acceptable. This sort of transparency ensures that you know what adjustments have been made, and also allows for a far richer range of photography than would be possible if all PP was deemed unacceptable.

[stubbsy]

André

Thanks for the references. The first one made especially interesting reading. Thankfully I now know the much revered Ansell Adams was a fraudster who altered his images to make them look better rather than maintaining the veracity of the original

[energypolice]

Quote:
Hi Michael,

welcome to the forums. This thread certainly raises various issues, on these forums and many others I'm sure. I will say that I sit in the PP allowed camp, but to a limit (curves, sharpening blemish removal). I just wanted to point you and others to a couple sites that may help in terms of clarifying points raised in the discussion.

Have a look at the North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA) ethics committee discussion on Image Manipulation:
http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_intro.html

And the FIAP (International Federation of Photographic Art) nature definitions:
http://www.fiap.net/nature.php?lang=en

Hi Andre’,

Thank you for this information, it is enlighten about what is considered nature photography, and I have removed the word “nature” from my website.

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

[phillipb]

Hi Andre’,

Thank you for this information, it is enlighten about what is considered nature photography, and I have removed the word “nature” from my website.

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

Michael, That's very commendable.
Does that mean that you will also allow yourself the removal of blemishes as stated in the same article?

[radar]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for this information, it is enlighten about what is considered nature photography, and I have removed the word “nature” from my website.

Glad I could help, we are always learning as we go, that's what keeps it all so interesting in life Only started photography seriously almost 12 months ago, so lots for me to learn.

Cheers,

André

[kipper]

Why remove it, just because you PP things doesn't mean that the photo/image doesn't contain elements of nature in it.

[Zeeke]

No need to remove it, just admit that you post process

and Whether you like it or not.. from what i remember reading somewhere.. digital cameras are setup with colour tones for different regional areas... where some areas have more red in there images and others have cooler imaging..

Resistance is Futile, We are the Post Processors!

Tim

[kipper]

While I think it's very noble of you to not wanting to do any post processing on your images, I think there is times where it's a very important process of getting the most of your images. For instance it's a well known fact that the dynamic range of cameras is a lot smaller compared to that of the human eye. When you're out photographing birds in flight you will notice that your eye can visually see or the detail in the underside of a bird even when it's flying with the sun behind it. Yet when you photograph the bird will be correctly exposed and the background high key. Or for instance in perfect light you might be shooting a bird that has a combination of black feathers and white (eg. black winged stilts or other variety of stilts). These colors/tones are on either end of the spectrum and you might perfectly expose the whites but there seems to be no detail in the blacks. Using the shadow/highlight tool one can bring out the shadow detail and reproduce more accurately what the eye actually saw. It's the same with landscape photography. I know when shooting into the sun at sunset you'll have the sunset perfectly exposed and all these dark ground areas. However when I was there I could perfectly make out all the detail in the grass/dirt/water etc. So should we not post process multiple exposure images to get more dynamic range as to what the eye can see?

[energypolice]

Quote: Michael, That's very commendable.
Does that mean that you will also allow yourself the removal of blemishes as stated in the same article?
_________________
__________
Phillip

Yes I would, and state “some PP”, done on the photos, and have done to some photos by Auto Enhance in the past, but my focus now is getting many photos up to my website without PP, since the photos look good as is, and the selling point is no PP since most people believe photos without this claim are suspect to manipulation, which is not fair to those who don’t manipulate, but make small adjustments to their photos.

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

[energypolice]

Darryl,

This is what I do already with the flash, which most people accept as part of making the photo, because it is done before the processing. I do not use any filers, because we can get carried away with how much we should do, to improve the image.

I will quote world renown Stan Osolinski “I do not use filers because the atmosphere is the natural filter” and he has taught me a great deal about photography in a very short time since I met him, a year ago, and believe he is truly a great photographer.

I removed the word "nature" because it is not true nature, but true photographs.

Michae P Srewart http://www.alphapulse.com

[kipper]

While it's another argument in itself, flash is an artificial light so aren't you manipulating the scene by using lighting that isn't there naturally?

As for flash while it might provide foreground fill to improve dynamic range in a landscape photo there are still areas in the midground that the flash reach won't extend to that will be severely underexposed.

On the other example that I mentioned, flash won't help out shadow details in blacks when exposing for birds that have a mixture of white/black feathers. So shadow/highlight tool is your friend.

[gstark]

Tim,

and Whether you like it or not.. from what i remember reading somewhere.. digital cameras are setup with colour tones for different regional areas..

That's not quite what was said in the article - it was an interview with a senior Nikon exec - but your point is well made nonetheless.

IIRC, the article in question made the point that colours and scenes may be percieved differently in different regions of the world, and that this was taken into account in developing the various elements of the firmware that resided in the camera, such as the matix metering and wb algorithms in use.

This reinforces the point that there is no such thing as an image that has no PP applied, and it even goes as far as to reinforce that these elements apply to both film and digital imaging.

So Michael, whether you like it or not, and Michael, whether you approve of this or not, each and every image that you make will have many elements of PP applied applied to them, despite your desire to not have this done.

How do you wish to deal with this situation?

[energypolice]

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.

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

[Michael]

You should try portraiture, I think you'd excel in it.

[phillipb]

Sorry Michael, but it seems to me that you are using terms to suit yourself without being consistent.
You like to call your photos not post processed because it gives you what you percieve to be an edge in selling your photos but you don't mind manipulating in camera.
Using a flash is adjusting but adjusting curves is manipulating.
Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree.

[stubbsy]

Post moved from Image Reviews & Critiques to General Discussion. You know why

[kipper]

What I find funny is that it's ok to artificial light in a nature photo but it's not ok to capture the scene in natural light multiple times and merge it to increase the dynamic range to a similar range that the eye is capable of.

Out of interest where did you meet Stan?

[energypolice]

Gary,

It is not whether I approve or not, but whether is it true or not that I PP when I print the image from the camera, or download it to a computer and post it on the website, because I intend to be 100% true in every thing I say or do.

I did not say it is not ok, but it is not what I would do at this time.

I met Stan at Wings of Asia aviary Miami.

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

[Dargan]

I love a good rant and this is turning out to be a good read as well. Keep at it guys, we will define the answer yet. Welcome to the forum, Michael and thank you for your images.

[gstark]

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?

[kipper]

Anyway this is a fairly pointless argument, as I think there is many more noble arguments in regards to nature/wildlife that could be taken up up other than than image manipulation. Image manipulation is the least of my concerns, conservation of nature is what really gets up my goat. I see on a frequent basis, and that is usually once a week blatant disregard for signage and a lack of policing of our conservation areas. People with horses, dogs etc both on and off leads in areas clearly marked as being free zones, and areas very active to wildlife some of which are endangered. However that's another thread

[kipper]

Gary, my sentiments exactly I was going to dwell into the fact that some people probably cherish some photos of their loved ones thinking they're accurate portrails of them but they're most likely shot using a "soft lens" as some photographers to refer to them (out of interest what are they, never bothered to investigate )

[kipper]

Out of interest Michael I notice most of your shots tend to be of birds on perches? Taken any photos of birds in flight and if so can you post them?

[energypolice]

Gary,

I did not claim that I had no pre-processing.


Dargan,

Thank you for you fine complements.


Darryl,

I do have a few, but they would not sell, because I need a fast lens to make a good photo, and I do not have a fast long lens.

Michael

[gstark]

Gary,

It is not whether I approve or not, but whether is it true or not that I PP

But you seem now to be truly avoiding the point.

Again: it's a fact of life that, by pressing the shutter release on your modern camera, whether that camera is digital or film, that camera is applying a number of PP algorithms to your image.

You have stated that you don't want to apply PP to your images, but you seem to be in denial of the fact that every image that you shoot will have been PP'd.

That is a fact.

And it's a scenario that, unless you're shooting with a camera that's 20 or more years old, is absolutely beyond your control.

In other words, each and every image that you present has had postprocessing applied to it.

You'd better get used to that, and, I suspect, you'd probably best get over it.

when I print the image from the camera, or download it to a computer and post it on the website, because I intend to be 100% true in every thing I say or do.

So if the image comes directly from the camera, it's a truthful representation of what I've seen?

Oh boy, are you ever in for some surprises. Ever played with a matte box?

[gstark]

Darryl,

but they're most likely shot using a "soft lens" as some photographers to refer to them (out of interest what are they, never bothered to investigate )

Soft lenses?

Can you say "sigma" ?



Seriously, in many instances, you might not want to have a razor sharp 105mm showing all of your grandmother's wrinkles and nose hairs, not to mention that hairy wart on her chin, in their finest glory and full, brilliant detail.

When I shot weddings, I always carried an extra skylight filter in my kit. This one had vaseline smeared around its optical edges, leaving the center clear, and would render only the central portion of the image in sharp detail.

Another trick was to grab your some of your girlfriend's pantyhose (don't tell your wife though) and stretch a layer of it over the front element of your lens, and shoot through that. This would add an element of softening to your image.

And for my matte box I carried a clear perspex sheet, on which the outer edges had been sprayed with a clear lacquer. This gave me a similar effect to the vaseline smeared filter, but with more adjustment capabilities due to the matte box's construction, and it was far less messy than the vaseline.

[gstark]

Michael,

I did not claim that I had no pre-processing.

And at no point have I suggested that we're discussing pre-processing.

Again:every image that you shoot with a modern digital camera (and pretty well any modern camera) will have post processing applied.

Every image.

You cannot turn it off.

You cannot avoid it.

Is there some part of what I'm saying here that is unclear? If so, please let me know.

[Zeeke]

Gary,

Cheers for explaining it properly for me, i couldnt remember where i saw it.. but your right

Michael,

We are the processors.... Resistance is Futile

Tim

[johndec]

FFS people, let it go... Otherwise all we will get is another 6 pages of "non-answers".

[stubbsy]

Maybe I should lock the thread

[SteveGriffin]

Please Mr Stubbsy don't lock the thread it is just getting entertaining

Last year I entered an underwater digital photo comp which was held on a beautiful tropical island in the Pacific. The organisers of this comp made it a rule that NO processing of images was allowed. No cropping, no exposure, saturation, or contrast adjustment, no anything.

As a result the vast majority of the images produced were RS at best which led to many of the participants leaving the comp very dissappointed believing that their skills were poor and that they had wasted a lot of money on the trip and their camera gear.

I quizzed the head judge who still shoots film about his technique and he said that he almost always pushed the film during processing (Velvia co-incidently) and that he usually found it neccesary to crop for publication. He also esposed himself as king of the darkroom when it came to printing.

The same guy repeatedly said that it was totally unacceptable to manipulate images in photoshop.

Go figure

[kipper]

Sounds like a film lover who doesn't want to let go.

[dooda]

After thinking about this a little bit, I think I see a little bit of creedence to what Energypolice is trying to say.

If the idea of no post-production/manipulation in photoshop is truly a selling point, and it makes people feel good about owning a photo that hasn't been manipulated at all, then I suppose it's a business decision. It's very true that people, no matter what they buy, buy based on emotional reasons, and very rarely based on logic. That said I think that when you say "this image hasn't been manipulated" I think most people assume that you're talking about running it through photoshop.

These same people probably wouldn't give a rat's tushy about an Ansel Adams photo that had been worked over in the darkroom the same or worse than the typical photo get's processed in photoshop.

I personally think that this idea (of appreciating the lack of pp) is quite pedestrian, and disrespectful to your art and craft (on behalf of the purchaser and purchasee) but I respect your strategy as it applies to catering to the particular population who don't want images to touch photoshop. It's a slippery slope you tread though. Do you tell them that there is some "in-camera" processing? Do you tell them that it was taken at the zoo? I, for one wouldn't be nearly as excited about a photo from a zoo, because I would think that I could go to the same zoo and get the same picture, assuming that the animal hasn't died yet.

Sorry to drag this along fellas, but I felt like there's a new point to be made in terms of catering to specific clientele.

[dooda]

This may be a silly question Energy Police, but if you were to find out that no one cares about a little photo shop, from a very respected article that interviewed millions of potential photographers and photo connoseurs, and 100% said they're perfectly fine with a little PP, do you still think that your stance would be the same? What if 80% said they expected a little photoshop, because otherwise the pictures don't look optimum, and I want the optimum photo hanging on my wall?

Sort of tricky to answer that one, but I'm interested in hearing where your motivations lie for never using a little photoshop.

[gstark]

I personally think that this idea (of appreciating the lack of pp) is quite pedestrian, and disrespectful to your art and craft

When I lived in the US, one of the organisations I was employed by was a very large winemaker.

Very large.

One of the problems I had with that organisation was their commitment to mediocrity: rather than make the best wine possible given the year's grape crop, the target was a crappy tasting, mediocre style of wine that appealed to nobody who knew anything about wine.

As it happens, that was exactly their target market - the fat + low end of the bell curve, and they sold lots of crap product to people who didn't give a damn about what was, or wasn't, quality wine.

So, they were successful in the marketplace, but (appropriately) despised by the cognescenti.

Which is the correct approach: success in the marketplace through selling crap, or taking the higher ground, and looking for excellence in what you're doing?

I personally have a problem with setting my sights to mediocrity and believe that excellence is a good target to aim for.

[energypolice]

[quote="dooda"]After thinking about this a little bit, I think I see a little bit of creedence to what Energypolice is trying to say.

If the idea of no post-production/manipulation in photoshop is truly a selling point, and it makes people feel good about owning a photo that hasn't been manipulated at all, then I suppose it's a business decision. It's very true that people, no matter what they buy, buy based on emotional reasons, and very rarely based on logic. That said I think that when you say "this image hasn't been manipulated" I think most people assume that you're talking about running it through photoshop.

Dooda,

Some of what you are saying is true, however most people are skeptical of the origin of good photos of birds selling for 99 cents (4X6). because it is very difficult to shoot these photos in the wild or at zoos, but in photo mechanic software it is very easy to produce them. The main reason for not post-processing in addition to what the camera does, is to be able to prove that my photos were not produced in a PS by using the RAW file, or the slide as a reference.

All the photos that are for sale on my website states where they were taken, and if they had no post-processing done by me, then that is stated. There are a few digital photos taken last year with Auto Enhance applied to the photos by me, but I do not remember which ones, and were shot in Jpeg Fine. Therefore those photos without the “no PP” claim are considered “some PP”.

The notion that people knowing that the photos were shot at zoo or aviary, they would want to shoot their own, which is fine, and I have spoken to some who came because they saw my photos, and I have assisted them by pointing out the best places to get good shots. I still sell a lot, because it will cost anyone more than 99 cents in time and equipment to produce similar photos.


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

[energypolice]

Quote:

Which is the correct approach: success in the marketplace through selling crap, or taking the higher ground, and looking for excellence in what you're doing?


Selling photos taken in zoos and aviaries considered crap by you, but photos made in photos mechanic software, considered excellent work?

Let your eyes be the judge on the finished images, if you can tell the difference.

I will chose when to PP or not, and will always state what was done.

Are you willing to state how much PP was done on yours images?

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

[gstark]

Quote:

Which is the correct approach: success in the marketplace through selling crap, or taking the higher ground, and looking for excellence in what you're doing?


Selling photos taken in zoos and aviaries considered crap by you, but photos made in photos mechanic software, considered excellent work?

Please show me exactly where I said that? Or else please do not take me out of context or misquote me. I really don't appreciate when people try to do that to me; I find it to be offensive behaviour.


I have asked you a number of questions, and most of them you seem to be avoiding. For instance, where have you addressed this point:

Quote:
when I print the image from the camera, or download it to a computer and post it on the website, because I intend to be 100% true in every thing I say or do.


So if the image comes directly from the camera, it's a truthful representation of what I've seen?

And ... regarding the use of flash, I gave a number of different examples of particular ways that flash may be utilised and then asked you ...

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?

Is there a particular reason why you have avoided giving any sort of a response to those questions? Including, particularly, the points of those questions.

In all honesty, it appears to me as it you are starting to behave as though you're a troll, and so I will ask you now to direct your attention to those questions that remain unanswered.

And for the reccord, the point of my most recent question was whether or not you have any commitment to excellence. That is, to produce the best work yu are capable of producing?

With all due respect, some of the choices you seem to making appear at best to be somewhat hypocritical,, and as I asked in my earlier post, what, exactly, is your goal, and do you pay any regard to a commitment to produce excellent work?

And finally, you still appear to be avoiding the simple fact of life that every image that you will produce with a modern camera will be subject to post processing.

Why are you continuing to fail to acknowledge this fact?

And as a final point, if you truly want to avaoid any sort of PP, I'd strongly suggest that you consider shooting onto glass plates and make contact prints from them. That's about the only way you can achieve this outcome these days.

Are you willing to state how much PP was done on yours images?

Always, and for me it is never, ever an issue. In fact, I occassionally tutor people upon how to attain certain outcomes, both within, and outside the camera.

But that is a very odd question, because we're not talking about my images, but we are talking about your's. It really sounds to me like the question a politician would ask in order to try to deflect attention away from the point of the questions being asked. I'm sorry but those sort of tactics don't work.

[energypolice]

I am sorry I did not understand your statement, if you were not implying what I was doing is crap then forgive me.

I chose not to answer silly questions. I have stated clearly what I consider post-processing several times and do no wish to argue with you.

Have a good night,

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

[gstark]

I chose not to answer silly questions.

Which of my questions are you now decrying as "silly". Please let me know, and in so doing, please understand that I only have about 35 years' experience in photography, and have run businesses and earned a satisfying living from doing that, and that I consider such "silly" things as commitments to excellence, and the lighting under which images are made, to be vitally important throughout the whole process of moving from conceptualising an image to the point of delivering a finished print.

Please forgive me if, after such a long involvement in this field, I still don't seem to have it down pat. Maybe I'm a slow learner?

Please also bear in mind that my questions were only, in the main, asking you to clarify and expand upon statements that had already been made, such as my series of questions regarding the use of flash to add to or manipulate an image.

These are, with respect, not silly questions, and I am truly offended that you choose to characterise them in this manner.

Rather than being silly, while pointed, they are very serious, and I am interested to understand where you believe boundaries may lie.

I have stated clearly what I consider post-processing several times and do no wish to argue with you.

I do not consider that you are arguing with me. Rather, it seems to me that you are suffering a terminal case of denial in that you are refusing to accept that a modern camera will always perform some elements of post processing upon your images.

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?