Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary, History, Ideas

No Post Processing? Really?

22 Comments

As I do from time to time, I’m reposting a response I shared in an online discussion somewhere else on the web. In that discussion, a proposal was made to come up with some sort of enforceable standard regarding what post-processing could be allowed in photographs. (In the context of the original discussion – wildlife photography – the idea wasn’t quite as crazy as it sounds here, but still…) It seems to me that there are always a few notions underlying these ongoing discussions: that the issue is one that comes up with “digital photography,” that there is some ideal photography that is purely and objectively “accurate,” and that we would actually want to do such a thing.

Here is what I wrote:

It seems so obvious that I’m almost embarrassed to point it out, but does anyone actually believe that there is such a thing as an objectively accurate photographic image, free of interpretation? Which acknowledged “great” photographers can you point to whose photographs are purely and objectively accurate? If digital post is a problem, what about camera movements, contraction/expansion of space via focal length, use of artificial light and reflectors, polarizing filters, graduated neutral density filters, choice of film/paper/chemicals based on color or contrast preferences, selective focus via DOF control, allowing motion blur with long shutter speeds, any night photography, and on and on…?

As I wrote somewhere else earlier this week:

If the goal of photography was to make objectively accurate reproductions of real things… I wouldn’t bother.

Have an opinion on this? Feel free to leave a comment…

 

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

 

Commentary, Community, Photographers, Site News

New Additions to My Sidebar ‘Photographers’ List

3 Comments

In the sidebar of this web site I have a list of some of interesting photographers who catch my attention for various reasons. I added a couple new photographers to the list today… but I’m not going to say which ones are new. This is my devious way of encouraging you to explore some of those links and the wonderful photography you will find if you visit them.

You can find the links on any page at this site – just scroll down to find them in the sidebar along the left side of the page. The links take you away from this site and to the web sites of the respective photographers. Enjoy!

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other post content are © copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Ideas

What is ‘Real?’

9 Comments

This is another one of those posts “borrowed” from something I wrote in a discussion somewhere else on the web, in which some folks were debating the relative value of two versions of a photograph, one of which was more or less “straight from the camera,” and the other had been modified in post in a number of the usual ways. Here, with a bit of editing, is my stream of consciousness reply to that thread:

The boundaries are difficult and subjective. The “no alterations” people are denying how photography actually works with the possible (and arguable) exception of certain types of documentary and journalism photography. I know it isn’t news to most reading this, but photography is not an objectively truthful medium. In the end, I’m less interested in some hopeless attempt to literally recreate the subject than I am in what the photograph tells me about the artist behind the camera.

Specifically in landscape photography, an attempt to “reproduce” the objective reality of the original scene by eschewing “manipulation” is going to produce something in almost all cases that is not an honest or accurate recreation of the subject we saw as we made the photograph – even if that is what we were interested in. The nature of the subject and our perception of it is never wholly visual – it is bound up in a web of senses evoked by sound, the movement of air, warmth or cold, and much more. In order to somehow evoke something closer to what we felt when we saw the original subject – and that is what we are interested in, right? – we must strive for something other than a limited pseudo-true visual reproduction.

There are boundaries, but even they are not absolute. For example, many would call the classic landscape photographs more “truthful” than some of today’s color-manipulated images. But what could be less realistic than a black and white photograph? I’ve never been out on a day when it was black and white outside! On the other hand, a photographer who makes a claim to believable portrayal of the subject and then pumps up the contrast and saturates the color into Thomas Kincaid territory is going to encounter some issues about the honesty of his/her work.

G Dan Mitchell Photography
Flickr | Twitter (follow me) | Facebook (“Like” my page) | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission fromG Dan Mitchell.


Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

Gear Lust and Shopping

7 Comments

I saw a post in a forum thread recently that summed up a situation that seems like it should be a red flag to those suffering from Gear Lust*. Here is the exchange, somewhat edited, beginning with the original post and followed by my reply:

OP: I know you are familiar with the situation. Your lens is in the shopping basket on Amazon, all but the last one checkout step is completed and you hover the mouse over “Order” button. And you go again and again pixel peeping, comparing MTF charts. etc etc.

ME: If you find yourself second-guessing to this extent while you are ordering, with all due respect, it is not time to be ordering a new lens.

You should be certain (or as certain as one can be) that you are ordering the right thing before you order it. By ordering while you are in that anxious and ambivalent state you are making it much more likely that your decision will not be an intelligent one, but rather one driven by irrational forces.

I urge you to make a solid and final decision about what lens you want – a decision you can make without then feeling compelled to go back and look obsessively at MTF charts and 20 reviews again – in other words, a final decision based on everything you know about the gear and your needs.

Once you think you have decided, wait. Wait about a month. One of two things will likely happen:

– If your decision does not change and you don’t find yourself second-guessing the choice, you probably made a very good choice and at the end of the waiting period you should buy the lens.

– If you find yourself worrying about the choice or second-guessing the choice or going back and poring over the test charts and reports once more, reset the one-month timer when you have really made a decision.

It is easy to become way too passionate and emotionally involved in gear purchases. Equipment is just equipment. It may (or may not) help you make better photographs, but it is not going to change your life.

* I’m not suggesting the equipment is unimportant, nor that getting good and appropriate equipment isn’t something to strive for. To the contrary, I think that making smart and appropriate decisions about equipment is very important. Gear Lust, however, is a general condition in which the search for and purchase of photography equipment becomes an obsession and ends up being more important than actually making photographs with said equipment. It is unfortunately an all-too-common malady.

G Dan Mitchell Photography
Flickr | Twitter (follow me) | Facebook (“Like” my page) | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.