[SI] Mandate question

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:43:11 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: I'm struggling with the next mandate. Old people, maritime, harvest,
: and others are all good, but all seem to exclude someone. How about an
: open mandate for this month? We haven't done one in a while, so maybe
: it's time to just go shoot stuff we like and post it? And, for Peter
: N, who is a fan of post processing, we can give him (and others) some
: freedom this month by accepting some Photoshop exercises?
:
: I'd like to encourage more participation...
:
: Thoughts?

Have we ever *not* accepted Photoshop exercises?

I'm not a fan of overPhotoshopped images. But modern photography is what it
is, and postprocessing is part of it. Note that Ansel Adams's finicky
intervention in the printing process was, for its time, exactly what using a
photo editor is for ours. (And many have plausibly claimed that Adams, were he
alive today, would have made himself a Photoshop expert, fot the obvious
reason that he loved to tinker with his pictures.) You do what you think is
appropriate, and you stand or fall by the result. All we (should) require is
that one admit to what (s)he has done when asked.

Bob

On 2013.09.04 20:46 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:43:11 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: I'm struggling with the next mandate. Old people, maritime, harvest,
: and others are all good, but all seem to exclude someone. How about an
: open mandate for this month? We haven't done one in a while, so maybe
: it's time to just go shoot stuff we like and post it? And, for Peter
: N, who is a fan of post processing, we can give him (and others) some
: freedom this month by accepting some Photoshop exercises?
:
: I'd like to encourage more participation...
:
: Thoughts?

Have we ever *not* accepted Photoshop exercises?

I'm not a fan of overPhotoshopped images. But modern photography is what it
is, and postprocessing is part of it. Note that Ansel Adams's finicky
intervention in the printing process was, for its time, exactly what using a
photo editor is for ours. (And many have plausibly claimed that Adams, were he
alive today, would have made himself a Photoshop expert, fot the obvious
reason that he loved to tinker with his pictures.) You do what you think is
appropriate, and you stand or fall by the result. All we (should) require is
that one admit to what (s)he has done when asked.

Going back 10 years before all you upstarts (eg: retirees or near so)
showed up, the shootin was about _shooting_. Capture. Not processing.
So while some processing is unavoidable (crop, adjust colour, tone,
contrast, sharpen, etc. (esp. in those days when most shootin photos
were scans), but the main thing was capturing the image per the mandate.
Yes we confessed our odd photoshop indulgences, but those weren't the
object of the exercise and they shouldn't be.

I don't give a rats ass for processing as a key factor, requirement or
mandate for the shootin.

--
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a piece of **** by the clean end."
-Unknown

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 00:38:56 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:03:01 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:


There's no reason that an HDR shot can't be done with a mandate that
is not HDR. The mandate could be "Windows" and an HDR shot of a door

Changed architectural features in midstream. Make 'em both the same
opening in the wall.

Apart from that small detail, I've already submitted an HDR shot in
SI. It looked so ordinary that some people cast doubt on whether or
not it really was HDR.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...vens_FGS_3.jpg
To the best of my knowledge there never has been anything preventing
the use of HDR in SI.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:46:53 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:43:11 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: I'm struggling with the next mandate. Old people, maritime, harvest,
: and others are all good, but all seem to exclude someone. How about an
: open mandate for this month? We haven't done one in a while, so maybe
: it's time to just go shoot stuff we like and post it? And, for Peter
: N, who is a fan of post processing, we can give him (and others) some
: freedom this month by accepting some Photoshop exercises?
:
: I'd like to encourage more participation...
:
: Thoughts?

Have we ever *not* accepted Photoshop exercises?

I'm not a fan of overPhotoshopped images. But modern photography is what it
is, and postprocessing is part of it. Note that Ansel Adams's finicky
intervention in the printing process was, for its time, exactly what using a
photo editor is for ours. (And many have plausibly claimed that Adams, were he
alive today, would have made himself a Photoshop expert, fot the obvious
reason that he loved to tinker with his pictures.) You do what you think is
appropriate, and you stand or fall by the result. All we (should) require is
that one admit to what (s)he has done when asked.

Bob

Never turned them down, but we have always preferred photos more or
less as they came from the camera.

However, this month's mandate has a "Peter principle" where you can
post process to your heart's content.

On 9/3/2013 8:27 PM, Annika1980 wrote:
Did someone say HDR?

http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Meet-...eypano2-XL.jpg


Good job Bret. Was that a multi-image HDR, or tone mapped from a single
image? Hard to do a good job of HDR on a subject that can move.

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:24:18 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:46:53 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:43:11 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: : I'm struggling with the next mandate. Old people, maritime, harvest,
: : and others are all good, but all seem to exclude someone. How about an
: : open mandate for this month? We haven't done one in a while, so maybe
: : it's time to just go shoot stuff we like and post it? And, for Peter
: : N, who is a fan of post processing, we can give him (and others) some
: : freedom this month by accepting some Photoshop exercises?
: :
: : I'd like to encourage more participation...
: :
: : Thoughts?
:
: Have we ever *not* accepted Photoshop exercises?
:
: I'm not a fan of overPhotoshopped images. But modern photography is what it
: is, and postprocessing is part of it. Note that Ansel Adams's finicky
: intervention in the printing process was, for its time, exactly what using a
: photo editor is for ours. (And many have plausibly claimed that Adams, were he
: alive today, would have made himself a Photoshop expert, fot the obvious
: reason that he loved to tinker with his pictures.) You do what you think is
: appropriate, and you stand or fall by the result. All we (should) require is
: that one admit to what (s)he has done when asked.
:
: Bob
:
: Never turned them down, but we have always preferred photos more or
: less as they came from the camera.
:
: However, this month's mandate has a "Peter principle" where you can
: post process to your heart's content.

Well, my heart is content with very little postprocessing, on the whole. What
I do is generally limited to brightness, color balance, rotation (if
necessary), and cropping. Occasionally I clone a mole or a mosquito bite off
of someone's face, but the cloning tool I use is rudimentary. The Photoshop
users in this group do vastly more postprocessing than I do, and most of it
comes out pretty well. I've just never had the time and interest to get deeply
into it, but I don't hold it against those who do.

Bob

On 9/7/2013 2:10 AM, Robert Coe wrote:

snip



Well, my heart is content with very little postprocessing, on the whole. What
I do is generally limited to brightness, color balance, rotation (if
necessary), and cropping. Occasionally I clone a mole or a mosquito bite off
of someone's face, but the cloning tool I use is rudimentary. The Photoshop
users in this group do vastly more postprocessing than I do, and most of it
comes out pretty well. I've just never had the time and interest to get deeply
into it, but I don't hold it against those who do.


If you had the interest you would have the time. ;-)
I remember when I thought it unethical to put a pin hole in a slide to
put a highlight in the eye of an animal.

One of great things about photography, is that there is room for all
approaches, including some that we may not be aware of.


--
PeterN

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:45:38 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: On 9/7/2013 2:10 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: snip
:
:
:
: Well, my heart is content with very little postprocessing, on the whole.
: What I do is generally limited to brightness, color balance, rotation (if
: necessary), and cropping. Occasionally I clone a mole or a mosquito bite
: off of someone's face, but the cloning tool I use is rudimentary. The
: Photoshop users in this group do vastly more postprocessing than I do,
: and most of it comes out pretty well. I've just never had the time and
: interest to get deeply into it, but I don't hold it against those who do.
:
:
: If you had the interest you would have the time. ;-)

I hope you're wrong. I'm stretched far too thin as it is. Remember, I'm as old
as you other guys, but I'm NOT retired.

: I remember when I thought it unethical to put a pin hole in a slide to
: put a highlight in the eye of an animal.

Ethics aside, if you have, or have ever had, the hand-to-eye coordination
necessary to do that accurately enough to be believable, you're a better man
than I am.

: One of great things about photography, is that there is room for all
: approaches, including some that we may not be aware of.

Pretty much what Ansel Adams said, I believe.

Bob

Le 04/09/13 05:33, Savageduck a écrit :

Then perhaps we should encourage inclusion of the exposure bracket set
to verify the veracity of the HDR claim.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_295.jpg

Hi, I am new there, want to play ! What about « kind of hdr » that is
not made out of several exposures, just of one raw but several devs of
it assembled ?
I dislike hdr effect as much as anyone but I sometimes use pseudo
hdr, because very low light and very high contrast (stage shots) force
me to do it. So there is no exposure bracket...

Noëlle Adam

On 2013-09-14 14:23:25 -0700, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle
said:

Le 04/09/13 05:33, Savageduck a écrit :

Then perhaps we should encourage inclusion of the exposure bracket set
to verify the veracity of the HDR claim.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_295.jpg

Hi, I am new there, want to play ! What about « kind of hdr » that is
not made out of several exposures, just of one raw but several devs of
it assembled ?
I dislike hdr effect as much as anyone but I sometimes use pseudo
hdr, because very low light and very high contrast (stage shots) force
me to do it. So there is no exposure bracket...

Noëlle Adam

Just do what you have to do to get the image you want to submit. We
were just discussing the level of post processing individuals should
tolerate for SI submissions, and HDR was brought up in the discussion.

As far as HDR goes, we have some folks who see its value, and we have
others who dislike it. The point is you are not going to find too many
folks here who like over-cooked HDR with the glowing "Kinkade" effect.
When it comes to pseudo-HDR you are usually better off doing single
image tone-mapping. RAW file exposure adjusting and and then HDR
processing is a form of exposure bracketing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck