# Frustrations with post and in general



## weepete (Oct 25, 2019)

So I'm feeling a bit scunnered lately. Looking back tonight over the photographs I took just a few months ago and I'm just not getting the motivation to process the backlog. 

Even ones I shot and was resonably happy with at the time are now looking like cutting room floor material. I'm looking at shots I took only a couple of months ago and they look to me like the difference betwwen shots I took years ago in auto mode and when I started using the creative modes and getting decent pictures. I feel just so far away from where I want to be right now.

A big part of that seems to be frustration with my post processing skills. The ones I do want to edit I just can't seem to get quite right in post. I feel like I'm starting to get a bit more comfortable in photoshop, but that smooth professional of photo editing that looks so easy in the tutorials just doesn't seem to work right now in my own shots and while I can get half way there, the finised product is a long way off. 

Maybe that means that my photography standards have taken a bit of a leap, maybe my expectations are just too high and I've hit a skill ceiling that will take time to break through or maybe I'm just clutching at straws. Either way, it's a bit frustrating right now.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 25, 2019)

Hope your break thro comes soon. It’s maddening when one hits a block be it skill or kit.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 25, 2019)

A friend of mine has a favorite saying "How do you eat an elephant?.................One bite at a time". Photography is a great big world, from lighting, to camera, to processing, and it's easy to get overwhelmed trying to do it all at the same time. I've felt the same way as you at times, but when I do I find it helps to back up, break it down as to my frustrations, then work on an individual aspect. One thing I have found is that editing is like computers (garbage in, garbage out), the better your shot in camera the better your image post editing - and the less editing.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 25, 2019)

I've always thought your pictures were good... I'd stop looking at whatever smooth professional pictures you're seeing (whatever those may be, I'm not sure) and ignore them and use your eyes and brain.


----------



## GimmeAnother1 (Oct 25, 2019)

Personally I feel like Lr is for edits and Ps is for manipulation. 2 very different uses. Maybe try Lr for a bit instead of Ps.  

For instance if I want to change HSL I would do it in Lr. If I wanted to say add birds to a pic I would use Ps. Not that you can’t figure out a way to do either in both but they r purpose built imo.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2019)

Around 2012 I switched from Photoshop and Adobe Camera  Raw to Lightroom 3.6, and that was a huge turning point for me. Although I had about one year in which it was difficult, I soon realized that Lightroom was what I had been searching for for over a decade. We used to have a member here who constantly repeated that Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom used the same developing engine, but it's much more than just the engine ... Lightroom has a simple interface and the rapidly adjustable adjustment brush system makes it super easy to quickly edit hundreds of photos in a day. I think the Lightroom preset idea is really good too.

Perhaps you need to change things up a bit. What that means to you is really up to you. On this forum there are quite a number of people who still edit the vast majority of their photos in Photoshop,but there are others who have taken the time to learn and explore different tool sets, which is what Lightroom really is- a different set of tools than is found in Photoshop. For those who are accomplished at Photoshop, there is no need to learn a new way to do basic things and many relatively complex operations in Lightroom are easy in Photoshop, but the reverse is also true.

I think the degree and complexity of adjusting and editing that one thinks each photo deserves is typically different, with people who edit in Photoshop often doing extremely complicated pixel level editing, while those who edit in Lightroom are more typically less focused on making minor adjustments. There is a difference between photography and digital imaging, and if you like "straight photography" done with a digital sensor instead of film, then you are often less concerned with making complicated pixel level Improvements. I can almost anticipate the posts in reply to this post that I am making ...

I think with some reflection you can come to a realization about what it is that you wish to accomplish, and how best to arrive at that. There is no one single path.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 25, 2019)

weepete said:


> So I'm feeling a bit scunnered lately. Looking back tonight over the photographs I took just a few months ago and I'm just not getting the motivation to process the backlog.
> 
> Even ones I shot and was resonably happy with at the time are now looking like cutting room floor material. I'm looking at shots I took only a couple of months ago and they look to me like the difference betwwen shots I took years ago in auto mode and when I started using the creative modes and getting decent pictures. I feel just so far away from where I want to be right now.
> 
> ...



they do make it look so easy in those tutorials don’t they?  I think it’s likely a combination of your eye becoming more trained and thus more critical and you’re probably looking at more pro level photos from others so you have expanded your expectations as well.  There’s nothing wrong with a little discontent if it fuels you to improve.  But don’t let it paralyze you.  

maybe set a goal to take each of those backlog photos as far as you can as a way of honing your post processes skills?


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 26, 2019)

Derrel said:


> . I can almost anticipate the posts in reply to this post that I am making ...



Nope, IMO your comments/concerns are valid. A good image SOOC doesn't generally require all the tweaking at pixel level in Ps. Despite the simplicity of that statement, it took awhile for me to actually understand it, because initially there was this tendency to think I could improve something that didn't need improvement. Couple that with the speed of Lr when processing a large number of files by using the "Sync" button to apply settings across the board on all, and you realize how powerful it is. The recent addition of "Profiles" in Lr is major. Using a profile has no affect on the sliders and adds the ability of adjusting the opacity, to tone an image in one click. Stacking presets, adjusting sliders, and using adjustment brushes lets you quickly finish an image.

Not mentioned is the fact that there's a difference between an image processed in Lr, and one facing the 16 bit limitation of Ps, especially on skin tones.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 26, 2019)

Weepete  maybe you are discovering that your true passion lies in " as shot", rather in post processing.

More the once I have enhanced a good photo, only to come back in a few days, to discover I had simply wasted my time. I was trying to create what was not, rather than display what was.

More the once, someone has sent me "The 20 greatest pictures ever", yet my experience was shown me that icebergs really are not that pristine and so uniformly bluish white. Eagle's nest are not devoid of interfering limbs or branches and landscapes are generally not so deep and rich in color. These are great photos no doubt but to my eye the look too perfect.

Over time I have settled for cropping, exposure and simple color saturation or black and white contrast adjustments and let the subject do the talking.

There are very talented post possessing individuals, that is for certain but it is just not my thing.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 27, 2019)

Have to agree with post 9. Here photography went through the HDR fad. Just about every image seemed to have had the hdr treatment some were really overlooked others were ok but had that unreal look to them. Just like the fad for milky waterfalls it has at last started to fade as peeps start to realise that you can go too far with it
As Smoke was saying. SOOC image often does not need tweeting.  If I am having a planned photo session I try and  plan my images in camera depending what the finished image is for.


----------



## weepete (Oct 28, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Hope your break thro comes soon. It’s maddening when one hits a block be it skill or kit.



Thanks mate, hopefully I'll be able to work through it. I suppose it's kinda inevetable unless you stay well inside your comfort zone!


----------



## weepete (Oct 28, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> A friend of mine has a favorite saying "How do you eat an elephant?.................One bite at a time". Photography is a great big world, from lighting, to camera, to processing, and it's easy to get overwhelmed trying to do it all at the same time. I've felt the same way as you at times, but when I do I find it helps to back up, break it down as to my frustrations, then work on an individual aspect. One thing I have found is that editing is like computers (garbage in, garbage out), the better your shot in camera the better your image post editing - and the less editing.



Thanks mate, that does make sense so I'll try a more logical approach and see what works. It's true that you can only polish so much, but in my case I feel like I've got all the elements, it's the putting together bit that's frustrating!


----------



## weepete (Oct 28, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> I've always thought your pictures were good... I'd stop looking at whatever smooth professional pictures you're seeing (whatever those may be, I'm not sure) and ignore them and use your eyes and brain.



Thanks vintagesnaps, very kind of you to say! It could well be that I've just got that facebook phenomenon (where because you just see other's really good posts you get a false impression). It's also fair to say that I'm looking at some very accomplished photographers so maybe I'm being too hard on myself, but it's the kind of standard I want to be at.


----------



## weepete (Oct 28, 2019)

GimmeAnother1 said:


> Personally I feel like Lr is for edits and Ps is for manipulation. 2 very different uses. Maybe try Lr for a bit instead of Ps.
> 
> For instance if I want to change HSL I would do it in Lr. If I wanted to say add birds to a pic I would use Ps. Not that you can’t figure out a way to do either in both but they r purpose built imo.



I understand why you'd think that, but it's a bit of an oversimplification. I still use lightroom a lot and I'm very comfortable there but there's some complex masking tools in photoshop that offer an opportunity, particularly with exposure blending and making selective adjustments, that I think can be used very well to overcome some camera limitations.


----------



## weepete (Oct 28, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Around 2012 I switched from Photoshop and Adobe Camera  Raw to Lightroom 3.6, and that was a huge turning point for me. Although I had about one year in which it was difficult, I soon realized that Lightroom was what I had been searching for for over a decade. We used to have a member here who constantly repeated that Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom used the same developing engine, but it's much more than just the engine ... Lightroom has a simple interface and the rapidly adjustable adjustment brush system makes it super easy to quickly edit hundreds of photos in a day. I think the Lightroom preset idea is really good too.
> 
> Perhaps you need to change things up a bit. What that means to you is really up to you. On this forum there are quite a number of people who still edit the vast majority of their photos in Photoshop,but there are others who have taken the time to learn and explore different tool sets, which is what Lightroom really is- a different set of tools than is found in Photoshop. For those who are accomplished at Photoshop, there is no need to learn a new way to do basic things and many relatively complex operations in Lightroom are easy in Photoshop, but the reverse is also true.
> 
> ...



Thanks mate, I agree with you on lightroom, I do find it intuative and easy to use, much more than ACR. I think you might be right in terms of spending a bit of time thinking about how I get to the final image, though at the moment there's a lot of grey.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 28, 2019)

@weepete It's true there are some things better accomplished in Ps, but the more you can do in Lr, the faster your editing process, especially on batch processing. This might be interesting for you. ON1 was offering a plugin that brings some of the layer functionality to Lr. ON1 Effects 2019 – ON1 it was free, but even the purchase price isn't bad.

It was a difficult lesson for me to remember, but editing actually starts "before" you snap the shutter. There was a time when I had to make notes to remind me, of steps along the way, but after awhile it started becoming more instinctive. The most important point to remember is there is a difference between editing to "correct" a problem image and "creative" editing....ones a PITA and the other's fun.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Oct 28, 2019)

weepete said:


> A big part of that seems to be frustration with my post processing skills. The ones I do want to edit I just can't seem to get quite right in post. I feel like I'm starting to get a bit more comfortable in photoshop, but that smooth professional of photo editing that looks so easy in the tutorials just doesn't seem to work right now in my own shots and while I can get half way there, the finished product is a long way off.



A couple of points that helped me...

We get so invested in the "how?" that we seem to miss the more important question of "why?". Tutorials will only teach you how somebody else applied *digital effect 'X'* to their digital photo. The tutorials themselves, (_to pull viewers in and gain traffic_), have to be generic and have to *sell* a look or effect, or how to make your digital photos look like this digital photo. There can be little empathy on the part of the tutorial as to your understanding of the subject, there can only be an understanding of the digital look or effect. It is key and the point of the process.

This is quite an important shift in thinking and one I don't think many realise that they are doing, that when you edit you now see only in terms of a digital photo and view it with the understanding of digital process, not your own human response to the original and real landscape/subject.

So why are you adding the process? Is it because you understand the subject and are trying to mould the process into that human understanding or do you understand the process and are trying to mould the subject into a generic digital *wow*?

What we also seem to do without question is keep following this path of *digital precision* as though it alone answers the question of how to achieve what we require. So ingrained is the maxim that technology provides the solution. But this is not true, technology provides only the mechanical/machine understanding. It does not capture the emotions you associate by memory and experience when you view a subject, and we always view with bias. We never see things correctly, we never see then as absolute reality. View an image of a tropical beach and feel the warm sunshine, hear the gently lapping waves. They are you memories becuse there is no temperature in the image, it was not captured. Take an image of a Scottish beach and many will still feel the warmth of the sunshine even though the actual temperature may be near freezing. What you see and feel is an association with your memory and not always absolute in the image.

When we chase this *absolute reality* that we think exists entirely within what we point the camera at and how we capture it a curious thing happens. When we follow this route of precision, follow the logic of how the camera works and how to optimise what it captures, the human understanding disappears and is replaced with a clinical recording. It's as if by rendering every detail in absolute clarity we remove our human bias and the room for our imagination. Although I use PS exclusively @Derrel is right, you will start by trying to understand PS and the processes but soon will realise that you stop understanding the subject, it becomes subservient to the process. When you start to understand the subject and try to make the process subservient to that visual understanding you will find that a lot of those processes get lobbed out the window. A lot of the stuff I do now is via adding or altering with a feathered brush, it is the movement of my hand (with a graphics tab) and not the selection of logic or algorithms. YOu will find it actually makes a big difference, especially when you let go of the idea that understanding how to use PS will help, because then you seek to understand PS rather than seeking to understand the image...

Bit of an essay...  Again...  

Some books that are well worth reading and continue to help me:

Robert Adams essays "Beauty in Photography".

"Photography, A concise History" Ian Jeffery. A guide to style that avoids the history of the camera, an interesting and essential viewpoint.

"The Gist of Art" John Sloan. Will shift your thinking from *the unobtainable absolute* to a representational form.

BTW, I've always thought of Lightroom as a batch editor and PS as a pixel level editor, but again the way the programs work shouldn't define how you use them, it's the way the image works.


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 28, 2019)

I think you do a great job with the images that I've seen.

When I run into an image that just doesn't quite feel right in the edit (I mostly edit in LR unless there is something specific only PS can do) I always take a few minutes to try and figure out what isn't quite right. I break down the basics. Lighting, colour, separation of subject, composition, etc. If I just can't seem to figure out what the "IT" is that's missing I'll continue to edit the rest and come back to the image a day or two later. Sometimes just a look with a new mind set can find the answer.
Usually for me it falls into the 'It was my best shot of "X" that day." and I really wanted it to be good enough, however that day it wasn't and just needed to be put into the learning basket as to what was missing or just not quite up to par.


----------



## weepete (Oct 29, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> they do make it look so easy in those tutorials don’t they?  I think it’s likely a combination of your eye becoming more trained and thus more critical and you’re probably looking at more pro level photos from others so you have expanded your expectations as well.  There’s nothing wrong with a little discontent if it fuels you to improve.  But don’t let it paralyze you.
> 
> maybe set a goal to take each of those backlog photos as far as you can as a way of honing your post processes skills?



Thanks Squarepeg, I think you may well be right. I certainly have found it easier in the past if I work through my shots one by one, I seem to get more done that way. Maybe I'll feel better about them in a few months, I tend to be happier with shots I've taken after a good amount of time has past.


----------



## weepete (Oct 29, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Weepete  maybe you are discovering that your true passion lies in " as shot", rather in post processing.
> 
> More the once I have enhanced a good photo, only to come back in a few days, to discover I had simply wasted my time. I was trying to create what was not, rather than display what was.
> 
> ...



Thanks Grandpa Ron, perhaps that is the case. I am struggling to form coherant thoughts on what I think about post, how much is too far and where I think the line is between photography and manipulation. I thunk that it's important to me that there is some level of honesty in my shots and what you see in them is not too far off what you could see if you were in the same place.


----------



## weepete (Oct 29, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Have to agree with post 9. Here photography went through the HDR fad. Just about every image seemed to have had the hdr treatment some were really overlooked others were ok but had that unreal look to them. Just like the fad for milky waterfalls it has at last started to fade as peeps start to realise that you can go too far with it
> As Smoke was saying. SOOC image often does not need tweeting.  If I am having a planned photo session I try and  plan my images in camera depending what the finished image is for.



Hahaha, I still like a bit of smoothness in water shots. HDR can be useful too, though I don't mean crushing the blacks and nuking the colours


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 29, 2019)

Weepete, hi some HDR has brill effect but here there was a fad for over cooking the HDR, the pics took on the unreal disconnected from reality feel photographing a cave from the outside the entrance is meant to get darker until it’s black, as humans and how our sight works we don’t expect to see right to the back of the cave from outside.
Lr,PSE are all tools, as is the camera like a screw driver people use them in different ways alas I am just as bad, there are things that I know I can do in one program and not another. 
I have heard too many debates on pro, cons even one speaker took over a club evening on his thought on the evil of PS like I will sometimes use a screwdriver to open a tin I sometimes use the camera with macro lens to capture a detail that is to small to read and the expand the image on the I pad. Eg silver hall mark
As for water, I cheat, I take multiple shots at different shutter speeds from frozen moment to milky and pick the one that suits me the best, normally some movement enough to show the flow.
I suppose that I am a fossil and that I am outspoken but I look at all the peeps following the latest fad and think why don’t you do your own thing.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 29, 2019)

I strive to get it the image I want in the camera. I use gimp to resize images for social media. Recently I have finally purchased a license for Exposure X5 after months of trial. It is very simple and easy to understand, it doesn't get in the way of me making an image. In other words, I can do simple edits that work for me. About the only thing I edit are portraits because the GFX50R shows every skin flaw. I recently did a portrait session with my XT2 and it was way easier, didn't hardly touch it in exposure x other than a little cloning and an iris enhance.

So, I think what I'm trying to say wepete is it is important for me that the software is so simple it doesn't get in the way of me making my image. My late mentor always harped on this, he was adamant about getting it right in camera and software should be used to touch it up. A lot of people disagree with this but at this point, it works for me.

Maybe you have strayed away from your camera process and it is not matching your improved vision?


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 29, 2019)

jcdeboever said:


> A lot of people disagree with this but at this point, it works for me.



Judging by the responses I think there's probably way more that agree then disagree. Digital has a tendency to make people lazy.....I'll just get close and correct it in post. Eventually they come to the realization that all that "correction editing" isn't much fun. I see digital editing on two different fronts, first the editing we do to enhance an image to better match a vision, and the editing we do to create an image (as a graphic artist) from something that wasn't there. Regardless of the direction you are taking having a good data file on your image is paramount to the success of the final image.

One of the resources I've found helpful is https://www.amazon.com/Studio-Anywhere-Photographers-Unconventional-Locations/dp/0134084179 have both of his books. What's helpful on his books, are the fact that he walks you through the complete process of how he takes the shot, how he exposes, and finally how he processes in Lr (complete with the settings).


----------



## weepete (Oct 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @weepete It's true there are some things better accomplished in Ps, but the more you can do in Lr, the faster your editing process, especially on batch processing. This might be interesting for you. ON1 was offering a plugin that brings some of the layer functionality to Lr. ON1 Effects 2019 – ON1 it was free, but even the purchase price isn't bad.
> 
> It was a difficult lesson for me to remember, but editing actually starts "before" you snap the shutter. There was a time when I had to make notes to remind me, of steps along the way, but after awhile it started becoming more instinctive. The most important point to remember is there is a difference between editing to "correct" a problem image and "creative" editing....ones a PITA and the other's fun.



Thanks mate, I'll check them out. I must admit I don't use presets but I'll have a look into it. One of the frustrating things is I know what I want to do in my head, but don't have the skills in PS to get there.


----------



## weepete (Oct 29, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> A couple of points that helped me...
> 
> We get so invested in the "how?" that we seem to miss the more important question of "why?". Tutorials will only teach you how somebody else applied *digital effect 'X'* to their digital photo. The tutorials themselves, (_to pull viewers in and gain traffic_), have to be generic and have to *sell* a look or effect, or how to make your digital photos look like this digital photo. There can be little empathy on the part of the tutorial as to your understanding of the subject, there can only be an understanding of the digital look or effect. It is key and the point of the process.
> 
> ...



Thanks Tim, there's a  lot of info in there! 

It's fair to say that  when I'm talking about this I'm spesifically refering to my landscape shots and in them there is a why that is not lost, at least to me. I can't verbalise it as it's a wee bit esoteric and intangeble.

It fair to say that while I realise photography isn't an absolute truth (what is, eh?) that what I do is try and give some insight in to what I see. So it's as close as I can get to a little slice of my vision. To an extent  it was easier when I had the time to draw and paint, though that's another story.

What I get frustrated about is when I have a vision in my head, but don't have the skill to get where I want it to be.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 29, 2019)

weepete said:


> I know what I want to do in my head, but don't have the skills in PS to get there.



One thing really confusing for many is there are "multiple ways" to accomplish the same task. Some might work better one time and others might work better on the next image. The easiest way I think short of taking a class on Ps, is to pick an operation, be it layers, blending, Luts......and watch every video you can find on it. Then run a video while following along doing the same thing. Eventually it will start to click as you expand your skills.


----------



## weepete (Oct 30, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Weepete, hi some HDR has brill effect but here there was a fad for over cooking the HDR, the pics took on the unreal disconnected from reality feel photographing a cave from the outside the entrance is meant to get darker until it’s black, as humans and how our sight works we don’t expect to see right to the back of the cave from outside.
> Lr,PSE are all tools, as is the camera like a screw driver people use them in different ways alas I am just as bad, there are things that I know I can do in one program and not another.
> I have heard too many debates on pro, cons even one speaker took over a club evening on his thought on the evil of PS like I will sometimes use a screwdriver to open a tin I sometimes use the camera with macro lens to capture a detail that is to small to read and the expand the image on the I pad. Eg silver hall mark
> As for water, I cheat, I take multiple shots at different shutter speeds from frozen moment to milky and pick the one that suits me the best, normally some movement enough to show the flow.
> I suppose that I am a fossil and that I am outspoken but I look at all the peeps following the latest fad and think why don’t you do your own thing.



I do know what you mean mate, I don't follow trends so I'm ok from that perspective, though I'm not a ground breaking artist by any manner of means!


----------



## weepete (Oct 30, 2019)

jcdeboever said:


> I strive to get it the image I want in the camera. I use gimp to resize images for social media. Recently I have finally purchased a license for Exposure X5 after months of trial. It is very simple and easy to understand, it doesn't get in the way of me making an image. In other words, I can do simple edits that work for me. About the only thing I edit are portraits because the GFX50R shows every skin flaw. I recently did a portrait session with my XT2 and it was way easier, didn't hardly touch it in exposure x other than a little cloning and an iris enhance.
> 
> So, I think what I'm trying to say wepete is it is important for me that the software is so simple it doesn't get in the way of me making my image. My late mentor always harped on this, he was adamant about getting it right in camera and software should be used to touch it up. A lot of people disagree with this but at this point, it works for me.
> 
> Maybe you have strayed away from your camera process and it is not matching your improved vision?



Possibly right JC, I may have been concentrating on getting the entire range in that I'm loosing a bit of precision. I'll have a wee think about my shooting technique and see if there's a way I can shoot some "anchor" shots. A lot of the time when I do landscapes I spot meter and am deliberately placing tonal values in places along the histogram. I do try and shoot one "safe" shot so I'll have a single image that I can edit if the combining doesn't work. I've got a rating button on my new camera, so I cold potentially use that to indicate what my anchor shots are then shoot through the exposure range to keep best quality detail. That should give me some defined points to hit in post. Interesting....thanks!


----------



## weepete (Oct 30, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> I think you do a great job with the images that I've seen.
> 
> When I run into an image that just doesn't quite feel right in the edit (I mostly edit in LR unless there is something specific only PS can do) I always take a few minutes to try and figure out what isn't quite right. I break down the basics. Lighting, colour, separation of subject, composition, etc. If I just can't seem to figure out what the "IT" is that's missing I'll continue to edit the rest and come back to the image a day or two later. Sometimes just a look with a new mind set can find the answer.
> Usually for me it falls into the 'It was my best shot of "X" that day." and I really wanted it to be good enough, however that day it wasn't and just needed to be put into the learning basket as to what was missing or just not quite up to par.



Thanks Zombiesniper, maybe it is the case that I'm trying to do too much with these images, but I'm pretty sure that there are decent shots in there if only I could get them to where I want them to be!Currently it just seems like I pull in one direction and another point breaks!


----------



## weepete (Oct 30, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > I know what I want to do in my head, but don't have the skills in PS to get there.
> ...



That's the plan currently mate, bullishly plow on regardless  

I'm pretty sure there are ways to do what I'm trying, I think I may need to break it down and define a workflow.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Oct 31, 2019)

I've thought a bit before posting this, but then thought, "what the heck." I'm not trying to tell you how to do anything, but I think my point of view may help you. But it is a different point of view and a different mindset, and I often find that many are not receptive to this. I'm not saying that a technical understanding is bad, or won't help. What I'm saying is that to understand how a camera works you must see as the camera sees, but to understand why we respond to images then you must understand that you need to look through human eyes.

Two images of baked bean tins in a cupboard. In one they are all stacked precisely so all the labels are showing correctly and they all conform to a proper and logical grid arrangement. The other they are literally just thrown in the cupboard and left where they landed.

I bet you’re looking at the images as though they’re the objects to be analyzed, looking at them to see how the effect is created. What processing, how the camera was used, what composition, what properties in the image create the effect.

You’re still looking at as though how you process the image dictates the mood, you do something to the image and it creates an effect that you see. So you learn how to create effects and control the values in the image.

But what if it’s the other way around and it’s your mood that dictates the image rather than the image that dictates your mood?

Now you ask how you can control it, where is the anchor that allows me to rationalise and see how it relates to actual and real image values? What if there isn’t one, and it doesn’t. Now you’re wondering how on earth you can control the mood of the image if there’s no logical progression between the values in the image and the mood you feel.

Eureka! An image doesn’t possess an absolute quality or absolute meaning. It isn’t an absolute entity controlled by the values it possesses. Which image creates the most tension in the OCD sufferer, the neat one or the random? What really drives the tin can images, what we do with the camera and software or an understanding of the human mind, (_do they reveal an understanding of composition, or do they show how we felt when we came back with the messages…_) ?


Here’s what I see when I look at your third castle image. I see a view which you’ve captured as a technical exercise, exposure is set so all the tones are within the range that a camera can capture with some detail, focus is set so everything looks sharp. I see this continued through the process so no detail is lost, no property that you deem important in the camera is lost or degraded in the image. The logic of the camera has dictated the image.

It’s well done and controlled but ultimately it looks fake and machine controlled. I don’t see light that matches my memory of how I expect it to look, I don’t see how you feel about it, I don’t see how I should feel about it. All I see are the qualities of your camera and lens.

In terms of tin cans they are all perfectly arranged and presented, they are stacked in the most logical sequence. But why not just pick them all up, throw them back in the cupboard then stand back and see how you feel about it? Instead of trying to fit the image into a sequence that makes logical sense why not examine only how you feel when you see illogical patterns? It is the cans thrown in the cupboard that remind us of human emotions, not the neatly stacked ones…


Here is one of mine to try and illustrate. I have not thrown all caution to the wind when I took the image but exercised control and judgement with focus and exposure. The difference, and why the image fails to fully convey the difference is that I *got it right in the camera* and *decided how I would process before I pressed the shutter* and I did this with an understanding of how I wanted the finished image to look and not how the camera captures the highest IQ. There are flaws in the original negative they are deliberate, they are the cans thrown in the cupboard rather than stacked correctly, the ones that convey irrationality rather than logic.

The first is processed to preserve the detail and IQ, the *visual reality* of the scene. The second is processed to reflect how I felt when I stood there, I just played with things until they looked right, until the image evoked some of the same memories as standing in the actual room. Many will see something different, a lot of forum photographers will prefer the first because it fits better within their logic and understanding of the camera, lends validity to their photography. They won’t even see the way the image is abstracted from reality, the way it look false. In a way if you view images with an understanding of how the camera sees then reality becomes transparent. But what I aim for is for the camera to be transparent.

See what you think, which is more abstracted, which more real? Which is more clinical, which more atmospheric? What is the difference, technique or a fundamental shift in emphasis from understanding what the image is to understanding what the viewer sees?


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 31, 2019)

weepete said:


> I've just got that facebook phenomenon (where because you just see other's really good posts you get a false impression). I



I have come to believe there is no rhyme or reason to why some photos get so many likes on FB, Instagram or other social media type sites. Ive seen people ooh and aah over some crappy shots and barely notice a really good one. Frankly it's gotten to the point, I'm thinking seriously about taking a hiatus from everything online, to give my mind time to clear and concentrate on the direction I want to go, without out all the mindless background  chatter.


----------



## weepete (Nov 2, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> I've thought a bit before posting this, but then thought, "what the heck." I'm not trying to tell you how to do anything, but I think my point of view may help you. But it is a different point of view and a different mindset, and I often find that many are not receptive to this. I'm not saying that a technical understanding is bad, or won't help. What I'm saying is that to understand how a camera works you must see as the camera sees, but to understand why we respond to images then you must understand that you need to look through human eyes.
> 
> Two images of baked bean tins in a cupboard. In one they are all stacked precisely so all the labels are showing correctly and they all conform to a proper and logical grid arrangement. The other they are literally just thrown in the cupboard and left where they landed.
> 
> ...



Thanks Tim, that's some really good feedback and I appreciate it. 

I think you are right that I've been neglecting to use the visual language to give a viewer clues to mood and feel in my shots and that's probably something I should consciously think about.

I'm afraid you'd loose that bet, though I can understand why you'd think that. Most of the time when I shoot I have a final image in my head and give little to no consideration of effects at all. 

2 is more abstract, reality is subjective so they both have an equal weight in those stakes, 1 is more clinical, 2 is more atmospheric. You've given us good visual cues here so the slight warm tint implies nostalga, even with some affection but the darkness gives undertones of unease and combined with the flaws provides a sense of unease. What I find really interesting is that the focus is shifted between the two images, the first is weighted towards the door and the back  of the room but the 2nd has a centrality in the pews.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Nov 2, 2019)

I don't mind losing the bet.  

What I'm trying to say is try *not* to think and just see how it turns out. It is the problem with a logical approach is that it always comes from what you already understand. Often to get some stimulus you need to break out of the same logical process and patterns to see something new, break out of the old habits rather than remain within them.


----------



## weepete (Nov 3, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> I don't mind losing the bet.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is try *not* to think and just see how it turns out. It is the problem with a logical approach is that it always comes from what you already understand. Often to get some stimulus you need to break out of the same logical process and patterns to see something new, break out of the old habits rather than remain within them.



I'll give it a go mate! It's already given me another idea for editing the castle shot, I might well try it tonight if I can get some time.


----------



## weepete (Nov 3, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > I've just got that facebook phenomenon (where because you just see other's really good posts you get a false impression). I
> ...



Yeah, I wasn't talking about images I had posted up on facebook, I severely limit what I have on that platform as the tendency toward groupthink and mundane nonsense is more than I can tolerate. Not to mention when they started arresting people for what they said on that platform I just bugged out.

I was more on about the phenomenon which was first identified in facebook, that because you only see peoples highlight reel you get a false impression of how good their lives are and that can make you feel worse about yours. 

I suppose the difficulty with online art is that it can lack context and many people need that context to identify. For example if an artwork is featured in a gallery people are more likley to assign it significance, because of the assumption that if it's in a gallery there must be reason for it to be there. Same with music, there was a famous violinist who played a concert piece on the underground as a busker, very few people recognised that it was a world class musician playing an accomplised piece


----------

