To be pedantic, I assume you mean that, once the camera has done its thing by creating the jpeg according to any picture controls, settings, etc, it hasn’t been touched by external software?
I mean that we should use our tools to make our own ideas come true instead of following guides of people who do not put butter on our breads.
We’re either artists or employees!
1 Like
That misses the point - as a photojournalist, the job is only to report what happened, not to change things to make a “better picture”. (…but if I got there before the group was gathering, I’m pretty sure I would have removed the waste basket anyway.) Problem solved. Just like setting up lights ahead of time, BEFORE the group gathered.
That is what I would be expected to do. It’s probably why most photojournalists seem to prefer taking the photo with them very close to what’s happening. The photo is mostly about the people. …but to give you an honest answer, what I often did in that case, was to move further away and include the photographers in my photo, taking their photos of the group. I preferred to do that, when possible, as it added some more “life” into the photo.
As a photojournalist, you are specifically taught NOT to do that. You’re supposed to be a “fly on the wall” capturing a photo of what the people are doing. If you miss the shot, too bad. You’re never allowed to ask people to repeat something “for the camera”. It ought to be obvious why - in one case, the photo is “real”, and in the other it is “posing”. This may not make sense to you, but it is one of the rules most strongly taught to photojournalists of what they can NOT do. It might sound silly to you - but you can read up on this in any number of places.
I’m not aware of any rules as to what kind of camera gear can be used. Film, digital, large format, 35mm, or a Minox - makes no difference. As for me, I didn’t change from film to digital for any reasons relating to the captured images - I’ve never thought it made much difference, so I use what’s easiest and perhaps least expensive, and very importantly, to save time.
Nope, I’m just explaining, not justifying. You are spot-on about posting images to learn how to better use PhotoLab. A huge amount of that learning comes from you, in fact. You are a very good, and very effective teacher.
Probably because I don’t now, and never will, have your ability to create a beautiful photography. Regardless, there is no “justification” involved. I try to upload photos that I like, but people here always find “flaws”, which I think is due more to my ignorance, than to doing something incorrectly. People here point out things I didn’t “see” or “notice”, which is very helpful.
By the way, most of the magazines I supplied photos to wanted the image SOOC, straight out of camera, NO editing. I took the photos, and they did any editing. I’m probably a “grade-C” student at editing, and maybe at all aspects of photography. I do it because I enjoy doing it, did long ago, and still do now. If I stopped enjoying photography, I’d probably stop taking pictures. When I did it for money, I knew what they wanted, and that’s what I gave them, along with the five “W’s” for every image (who, what, when, where, and why).
You have succeeded. I do want to start doing this. To be honest, I’m not sure how to begin. I’m always “looking” but not “seeing”. I guess I have to work harder at it. Most of what I “see” is to boring for me to want to take a photo of, but I think I’m just missing things that I’ve walked by, without noticing. Maybe I’ll be able to do so eventually.
I’m also looking at my photos taken in Kathmandu, and other places, that probably no longer exist. When I got tired of “documenting” I tried to capture some pretty images, with whatever camera gear I had at the time. I think I might have “seen” things back then in a way that I’ve apparently lost, or misplaced. Maybe I’ll be able to recover what’s left of that ability.
Beautiful! Of all the photos you’ve posted, this one image seems to be exactly what you’re talking about, in so many ways. I wonder if I had been there, would I even have noticed it? Lovely!
I’ll try… harder…
My name for what you describe is “Photo Illustrations”, and I completely agree with you. Nothing wrong with that, and it takes great skill to do it well.
Even “Luminar 4” has a purpose, although after I tried it, I got bored with it. If I don’t like the sky in my photo, Luminar will easily replace the sky. …but every time I did that, I posted it as a photo illustration, so viewers would know it was highly manipulated.
Personally, I prefer PhotoLab, as it brings out information and detail that was included when I took the original image.
I also used to really enjoy Photomatix, for HDR images. The newest Leica M11 even takes “one click HDR images”, not that I’m likely to ever buy it.
My favorite, by far, is PhotoLab, for many reasons.
Nothing wrong with Photo Illustrations, and there is no limitations as to what can be done to/with them.
To create a photo “like a master” you need a camera, a good eye and a good subject. Photolab can’t do that for you.
5 Likes
So you would not have been reporting what happened because, what happened ahead of the concert was, a certain Mike Myers would have changed the future 
But the whole exercise of politicians holding press calls is to pose, in order to lie to the people about their true thoughts and intent, to the public, in pictures that they know picture editors will want to put in their publications.
But those rules do not apply when you are taking pictures for your own enjoyment and for showing to friends.
My point was that the “rules” were more than likely drawn up before it was possible to set the picture controls on a digital camera in order to change the look and feel of images taken, without any post processing.
So, you might not have changed reality but the publication reserved the right to publish an image that they edited to suit the particular bias of a picture editor, but still put your name to it. Hmmm. So much for journalistic integrity 
You started this thread to discuss how to use PL to help produce photos like “the masters”. We"ll, here’s an article on one of the greatest Focus on Photography: Ansel Adams and the Lone Pine Photograph and how he felt it necessary to remove temporary environmental vandalism from an image that would continue to be revered long after the eyesore was cleaned up.
The trick not just to create a beautiful image, but to see it before you press the shutter and then follow through with the technical stuff that turns that vision into a print.
Like I said, I only just started taking portraits and, it turned out, they’re not too shabby according to others. But, until you try something different, you will never know what you are good at. Stop doing yourself down!
BTW, here’s the original full image of the anchor before cropping…
The important thing to realise is that I saw the crop before I took the shot, placing the bowsprit in the top left corner and then preparing to place the lower ropes to lead in from near the bottom corners.
And here’s the original of the coloured tyres…
Getting rid of distraction is so important, which is where a viewing frame can come in useful Photography - How to make a viewing frame — Steemit
It’s just a simple piece of card (preferably dark) with a hole cut in it that matches the shape of picture you are likely to take. I have a few - 1x1, 3x2, 5x4 and, for panoramic, 6x13.5.
Just put them in your pocket when you go walkabout and start looking through them as if you are taking a picture. It’s amazing how being able to “zoom” in and out just by extending or retracting your arm can soon give you an idea of what makes a good composition.
My LF 5x4 card is measured to be 2½" x 2" and I have a piece of stick with notches on it at half the focal lengths of my lenses, which means I can decide where to setup the tripod before having to unpack the camera, just to find it wasn’t worth taking.
Look for things like leading lines from corners, leaving enough space around things, placing subjects on thirds, etc.
Seeing is possibly the most misunderstood part of photography. Lots of people (me included) do an awful lot of looking but only rarely do we really see something worthwhile. One of my failings is not seeing in B&W, but Helen does it without thinking about it, being able to decide what colour filter is going to bring out the right tones of grey from the different colours in the frame.
But a lot of what you dismiss in that manner has much more to do with taking what is there but leading the viewer into and around the image, placing more importance on the principal subject(s) and making the rest recede. Some of this can be done in camera but, sometimes, it is necessary to make minor adjustments to tonality and coloration to avoid a mixed up muddle.
As I’ve mentioned before, B&W is not reality. In order to make a great image, you need to know how the film is going to react to the different colours in the frame. Get it wrong and two distinctly different colours will yield exactly the same tone of grey and will become indistinguishable from each other.
Yet another technique that the “masters” know only too well and that us mere mortals have to get to grips with.
1 Like
I’ve seen the Ansel Adams video before, but I found the images on James Nachtwey’s site very emotional and yet beautifully photographed and composed. Hard to say whether some of James’s photos were posed or not - I suspect so but it doesn’t detract from what he set out to portray. A bit like Frank Hurley, who used all sorts of “tricks” to convey the shear horror of the war he was sent to cover link
Frank’s image is a prime example of an image that had to be “made” because, although everything might not have happened at one precise moment in time, I doubt if the soldiers who were there would have said it misrepresented a day in their lives.
I agree with Joanna (and thanks, I’m glad you liked the image–I’ve been experimenting with different papers and will order more samples including one from Canson that includes three different barytas).
We’re all on a journey here to become better photographers (and that goes for anyone, no matter how experienced or well established) and you don’t know what you may achieve artistically, so forge ahead, knowing that most experiments don’t succeed. One of Ansel’s many aphorisms is “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop”–and he shot a lot more than that. The most important factor in any human endeavor is passion, and people like you who bother participate in forums like this are obviously passionate.
It also takes a lot of work, and that includes not only logging time in the field and processing (darkroom or digitally), but reading books like Ansel’s “Camera/Negative/Print trilogy” and Bruce Barnbaum’s (The Art of Photography and The Essence of Photography) and even YouTubing. Check out channels like The Art of Photography (Ted Forbes–no relation to the Barnbaum book) and The Photographic Eye. These can help you improve your photography by helping you to achieve the right mindset during each sage of the process and are well worth reading/viewing (and digesting). The most important thing is to have some fun–don’t force the process or focus on technical (or philosophical) details, just enjoy the ride and if you get some great images out of it, so much the better.
Also, Rule #1: there are no rules; Rule #2: There are no exceptions to Rule #1 (or something like that). If you like the images you’re producing, that’s all that really matters. There’s no need to try replicating exactly what you see (as stated previously, the camera always “lies” as it’s not capable of faithfully reproducing what you see anyway). I try to produce images that convey the essence of what I see–what inspired me to launch that sometimes lengthy process. I tend toward subtlety. Where there are clear subjects, I generally try to make my images look “believable” (not “over-processed”), but my main area of interest in what’s normally referred to as “abstract” photography (what Ansel called “extract”). That results in a lot of images where there’s no clear subject and it’s not always obvious what the photograph is (or even if it is a photograph). I often draw from nature, but I’d rather be inspired by it than attempt to document it. There’s a place for that, but that’s not art.
1 Like
Every year I visit the World Press Photo exhibition. I was looking for a specific image but I found this one and its story.
George
So, processing a colour image to give it a gritty, vignetted, B&W, heavily cropped appearance is not counted as manipulation but removing such a tiny, virtually imperceptible, detail in the background means the firing squad for you m’lad 
Can you see the missing bit?
Well, of course you can’t, because the removal is outside of the cropped area - but “rules are rules”
Between his thumb and finger. A small point of his foot.
You can do a search on ’ “world press photo” withdrawn pictures’. The "-sign means to see what’s between to be considered as one, on windows/google.
George
Have you seen this site?
It´s a heavily curated swedish site called 1X.COM where even a lot of international photographers publish their images
It seems like either people love it or close to hate it, because they feel it´s just too posh and polished or simply too much.
Some years ago they published three or four books in a series called (freely translated):
The photographers best images … and how they were created
I liked the books more because in the books an image and it´s photographer used to get it´s own spred with both the image, a presentation of the photographer, actual camera settings (EXIF) and a background around how the photographer thought around the creative process before the image was taken. I think I learned a few thing through these books
Just an example of how a galleri might look
1x Best of Abstract Wall Art (1xondemand.com)
Many of the images at 1X.COM are heavily manipulated pieces of art work
and some more puristically biased photographers seem to have really hard to accept that
Very interesting. I have a friend who takes/makes all sorts of lovely images that inspire me. I’ve passed on the link to her.
Here’s her Flickr page
I certainly understand the concern among photo journalists and news sources that altered photographs may not be representative of the actual events that occurred.
To ensure fidelity the rules in place are so restrictive that there is not much wiggle room for any manipulation, even manipulation that in no way alters the meaning of the events that were photographed .
If some manipulation was allowed, once that door is open, photographers will continually push the boundaries of acceptable manipulation which may alter in some material way the actual events that were captured. To maintain honest reportage I support the current restrictive standards.
However I find the term photo illustration which is often used to define images that may have been manipulated to the point that they are not acceptable as reportage, an insulting term. It suggests that a photograph is no longer a valid representation of an event even if it is not being used for reportage purposes, and only feeds the negative impression towards post-processing as illegitimate by the straight out of camera crowd. I do not recall historically the work of Ansel Adams and others being referred to as photo illustration because of any significant manipulation done in the dark room.
Mark
1 Like
At the biggest photo site Fotosidan in Sweden I saw these paragraphs
- Att kolorera ett svartvitt foto är manipulering.
- Att göra om en färgbild till svart-vitt är Ok, förutsatt att hela bilden är komplett justerad och inte bara delvis."
They mean
- To colorate a B/W image is manipulation
- To convert a color image to B/W is OK, provided the whole image is converted and not just part of it
You can Google translate the whole definition if you like.
Definitionen av manipulerad - Fotosidan
According to Fotosidan the ideal stans around this problem is to look up on it as the image was an image taken with an analog positive color film. As you know it wasn´t all that easy to manipulate these images by yourself, so in these days this definition was not just a philisophical one because there was really a physical definition in place. Transcribed to the digital world this could be interpreted as a strive NOT do do any changes in Photolab that leads away from what the camera saw but as you see that stance is not compatible with B/W converted images in Photolab at all unless your camera is a monochrome digital Leica.
Since I even have added a brownish tint to my historical images I just have to state that all those images are manipulated and since even my color images not at all always looks like the camera saw the motif (because they might be copped) I consider all my images manipulated - despite that happen to be allowed at that site.
- Perspektivjusteringar är inte tillåtet. Allt sådant måste göras innan exponering mha hjälp av PC objektiv eller justeringar av kamerapositionen.
That means its not allowed to correct and adjust the perspective (like leaning walls) with DXO ViewPoint for example. That should be done with a tilt/shift lens och by adjusting the camera. Maybe that is to comply with the idea that it´s not allowed to add, take away or convert any number pixels as I have heard people say several times.
It´s OK to crop the whole image which in practice is to delete a lot of pixels but you are not allowed to clone or heal part of the image because that is manipulation.
But cropping an image is to commit violence on what the camera saw because that will result in a partly completely different motif in my eyes.
Photolab Crop
Resulting image
In the last say five years we have had a couple very important cases where high profile photographers has got busted manipulating images of animals. The most prominent case was a photographer called Terje and to stress the magnitude of this I can say we got a new verb in our language (since then it´s called “terjad” when you add elements with cut and paste into an image). To add very rarely seen Lyx Cats and Raccoon Dogs in pleasing swedish environments first gave him great recognition and a certain fame - until people really started to pixel peep the images. Today he claims he is just taking images in JPEG, which comes in handy because if there isn´t a RAW to verify with it´s hard to tell if someone is cheating.
Another swede won a contest in South Africa with an image of an elephant - but he had replaced the sky, and even at least on of the eras!! on the elephant and since the elephant was a very well known individual, people got suspicious and someone saw that even this image was a “collage” built by “cut and paste”.
Cases like these can easily be handled using DNG-files instead of JPEG. Then you can put both the JPEG and the RAW it was made from into the same DNG-file. Muck harder to cheat then.
My job would be to report on what happened. If a politician was serious or acting, is irrelevant, but I would try to select a moment when people were “real” and not “acting” if possible. I especially should never allow MY thoughts about the person to influence the photo I take. Anybody being watched is almost always “acting”, and wanting to put on a good impression. More experienced photojournalists are almost certainly FAR BETTER at this than I am. If they are gesturing, or somehow looking more involved or interested in things, that is when I would be clicking my shutter. I used to watch the person(s) for a long time, and if at some point they raised their hand to make a point, THAT is the moment I wanted to capture.
Technically, you are right, but they are ingrained into my brain, and always present. If I’m taking a photo for my own enjoyment, or to show friends, I naturally want to do things like you do, capturing a beautiful and hopefully self-explanatory photo. Most photos I take nowadays are for this purpose, enjoyment while taking them, and when viewing them, and editing them, and sharing them.
You’re right - I am free to follow rules, or not. It’s my choice. It’s also my preference, as I can do what I want to do.
You and I aren’t that far apart. If you had a job working for a newspaper or a magazine, you would need to create an image that the EDITOR likes, which MAY be very different from what you want. On the other hand, the photos of musicians that you’ve already posted here appear perfect for me, but what do I know. The editor is the boss, and it’s best to please the editor if one wants future work. 
That’s life. If complaining doesn’t work, my best option would be to quit working for them. That never happened though - I took the photos, and I wrote the story, and the Editor had to fit it all into the magazine. They almost always loved me, as I gave them exactly what they wanted, and if I had any bias (which I usually did), I tried to not let it influence what I wrote or captured.
Fascinating - I will read this after I make my breakfast/lunch. Time to stop here.
It took me forever to find what was removed, but yes, that kind of manipulation is not allowed. It’s like me moving a trash can out of the way, in an earlier discussion. I’m surprised the photographer didn’t know better. I feel sorry for him, but that’s the kind of thing that is not allowed, for reasons I think are obvious.
“The photograph I submitted is a crop and the retouched detail is the foot of a man which appears in the original photograph but who is not a subject of the image submitted to the contest.”
@Joanna - in “our” world, that is an insignificant detail, and removing it is no big deal, but this is a “World Press Photo” contest, and the rule he broke is very basic - retouching like that will get the photo disqualified.
National Geographic Magazine got into lots of hot water because of this minor change:
http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic
Joanna, look more carefully - it took me a long time to find it, but it is very much inside of the cropped area. Look at the images in a larger size, and you’ll fine it faster.
Well…all the circus for a removed tip of a shoe. I’d prefer other things to be removed from other countries, alas.
2 Likes