Interesting photographs.

regarding editing, a good comparison between analogue and digital is the digital RAW file is in effect the equivalent of the old analogue negative.

with film, you took the negative and developed it into a print. This could be a straight print, but even then you've made a decision on paper, exposure and chemicals, or it could include dodging and burning, cropping, toning (and that's just black and white)

with digital you have more options, and each is more accessible, but a straight development to adjust white balance, brightness/contrast etc is little different than printing a neg.

Once you go beyond that then I can understand some peoples view that it's no longer a photograph (a view I disagree with, I would agree however that it's no longer a documentary photograph)

I sometimes do more than basic adjustments, if it suits the image, but never go as far as sky replacement unless it's a wholly composited image (something I'm not very good at)

As an example, this is heavily edited to achieve a "feel" I wanted, which I thought suited the image

ACWS_0892 by Colin Ashworth, on Flickr

whereas this, whilst still fairly heavily edited, was restricted to basic functions of white balance, contrast, dodge and burn and cropping

John Rylands Library 001 by Colin Ashworth, on Flickr
 
flook said:
regarding editing, a good comparison between analogue and digital is the digital RAW file is in effect the equivalent of the old analogue negative.

with film, you took the negative and developed it into a print. This could be a straight print, but even then you've made a decision on paper, exposure and chemicals, or it could include dodging and burning, cropping, toning (and that's just black and white)

with digital you have more options, and each is more accessible, but a straight development to adjust white balance, brightness/contrast etc is little different than printing a neg.

Once you go beyond that then I can understand some peoples view that it's no longer a photograph (a view I disagree with, I would agree however that it's no longer a documentary photograph)

I sometimes do more than basic adjustments, if it suits the image, but never go as far as sky replacement unless it's a wholly composited image (something I'm not very good at)

As an example, this is heavily edited to achieve a "feel" I wanted, which I thought suited the image

ACWS_0892 by Colin Ashworth, on Flickr

whereas this, whilst still fairly heavily edited, was restricted to basic functions of white balance, contrast, dodge and burn and cropping

John Rylands Library 001 by Colin Ashworth, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Although edited to create a feel I wouldn't say that the first shot is not documentary. The human eye sees more than your camera sensor so it's not unnatural imo to play with the image to recreate what you saw originally. I think the shot illustrates my point due to what look like really difficult lighting conditions. Plus you don't have to stick one formula. Stripped back one day, heavily edited the next?
 
DrBlueBob said:
AS5jOLU.jpg
Click to expand...
Very nice.
 
I read somewhere that press photographers can take up to 30,000 pics per football match. No wonder they great shots.
 
Mozzer said:
I read somewhere that press photographers can take up to 30,000 pics per football match. No wonder they great shots.
Click to expand...
Pity the poor sod who has to go through that lot. That's approximately 3 to look at per second assuming around 2 hours if they want the pics at full time. Easy enough to shoot with the top range sports cameras shooting at 20 fps or so.
 
flook said:
regarding editing, a good comparison between analogue and digital is the digital RAW file is in effect the equivalent of the old analogue negative.

with film, you took the negative and developed it into a print. This could be a straight print, but even then you've made a decision on paper, exposure and chemicals, or it could include dodging and burning, cropping, toning (and that's just black and white)

with digital you have more options, and each is more accessible, but a straight development to adjust white balance, brightness/contrast etc is little different than printing a neg.

Once you go beyond that then I can understand some peoples view that it's no longer a photograph (a view I disagree with, I would agree however that it's no longer a documentary photograph)

I sometimes do more than basic adjustments, if it suits the image, but never go as far as sky replacement unless it's a wholly composited image (something I'm not very good at)

As an example, this is heavily edited to achieve a "feel" I wanted, which I thought suited the image

ACWS_0892 by Colin Ashworth, on Flickr

whereas this, whilst still fairly heavily edited, was restricted to basic functions of white balance, contrast, dodge and burn and cropping

John Rylands Library 001 by Colin Ashworth, on Flickr
Click to expand...
For those who bemoan the use of use of Photoshop and other digital image editing software there is a great picture that illustrates that post shot editing has been going on since the birth of photography. I can't post the image, but here is a link to the website.

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.co...-before-photoshop-ansel-adams-and-james-dean/
 
DrBlueBob said:
Pity the poor sod who has to go through that lot. That's approximately 3 to look at per second assuming around 2 hours if they want the pics at full time. Easy enough to shoot with the top range sports cameras shooting at 20 fps or so.
Click to expand...
Sony A7R IV will do @9fps for 14-bit uncompressed RAW files, and obviously faster with smaller JPEG files. I just can't comprehend having to sort through 30,000 images.

If I go out on a shoot, I generally come back with anywhere between 20 and 120 images. I use Lightroom to process them, and for 120 images it takes me around 10 minutes to go through them to work out which ones I'm going to work on. That consists of a first pass select and reject, then rating the images until I've got my images. I'll then label them for RAW processing or Photoshop processing before I start any actual editing.

It's not really that different than in my analogue days. It just took a whole lot longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top