fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3077 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3077 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Lackadaisy Cats]

__________________________________________________

03.

(Gorillaz)

__________________________________________________

04.

(Tripping over you)

__________________________________________________

05.

[Stitchers]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Dragon Age]

__________________________________________________

07.

[The Mighty Boosh]

__________________________________________________

08.

[LOVE LIVE!]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Brooklyn 99]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Mad Max Fury Road]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Maggie Stiefvater]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Emily Alice Ovenden]

__________________________________________________

13.

[When Marnie Was There/Omoide no Marnie]

__________________________________________________

14.

(Rick and Morty)

__________________________________________________

15.

[Suppression]

__________________________________________________

16.

[Wall-e]

__________________________________________________

17.

[Ancillary Justice & Ancillary Sword]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 086 secrets from Secret Submission Post #440.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I hate that so much (non-fashion) photography relies on Photoshop as much as it does. I think that if you have to edit the majority of your photos before sharing them publicly that you have no goddamn technical prowess. On a related note, if I do ever have to edit my photos (to address noise issues or chromatic abberation), I feel awful and regret taking the photo with (what I think is) substandard gear.

Or you have a pimple. Or you like high saturation/sepia/other style.
But I see your point.

OP

Most cameras have sepia (as well as black and white) programmed in, and it can be customized. Running that through Photoshop still strikes me as unnecessary (at best). Same goes for high saturation. Granted some of these features are only available on higher end point and shoots/DSLRs, but they're out there.

As for zits, I refuse to edit that shit out if I take pictures of myself. Photographing other people? Yeah, that's not something I enjoy doing.

"I refuse to edit that shit out if I take pictures of myself."
kudos!

I tweak photos in Photoshop for size or mistakes - underexposure, uneven horizon, etc. I have a pancake lens so I often crop too.

While I agree with your overall point, I think that certain filters and photoshop actions can be the same as traditional methods. For example I look at using the sepia filter in Photoshop as pretty much the same thing as using it in the traditional way. Which means you adjust the tone level for the image individually rather using a filter on the camera. When I
sepia tone that way I do it by looking at the image making a judgement call that "yep, I like how that looks" and pull it out of the chemicals. The same can be said for pretty much any sort of toning.

When I use Photoshop I pretty much just use filters I could/do use in the wet darkroom. Adding contrast, burning and dodging, over or under exposing, cropping, that sort of thing. In short there is nothing wrong with Photoshop (or any other imaging processing app) - it is how it used that is the key. Besides, a bad, uninteresting image is going to be a bad, uninteresting image no matter how many bells and whistles you use on it.

Um, ok, Ansel Adams, the champion of Group F/64 and straight photography who harassed pictorialists out of the market for doing studio work and photomontage?

He had an entire system for manipulating the exposure and development of his prints in the darkroom. There's no difference in a direct-to-digital workflow between controlling print exposure (and picking your print medium) in the darkroom and using photoshop to do it.

Not to mention that as much as we complain about the cost of photoshop, analog printmaking adds up pretty damn quick, and is even more twitchy when it comes to quality.

OP

I admit I think Ansel Adams is overrated. Now Vivian Meier and Henri Cartier-Bresson? They're much more my speed and spent more working getting the shot in camera.

Magnum (Cartier-Bresson) also adjusted print exposure in the darkroom.

AYRT

As you point out, though, it was Magnum (iniro) that did all of that work, not Cartier-Bresson. The photographer's disdain for darkroom technique showed up in his NYT obituary (https://web.archive.org/web/20130510202747/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/arts/04CND-CARTIER.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=11443904bc0a721f&ex=1249358400&partner=rssuserland), so anything that happened in the darkroom is technically not his work.

First of all, that's not what the obituary says. Secondly, some level of "darkroom technique" is inevitable unless you're working directly to instant film. Basically, you're demanding that photographers hobble themselves regarding techniques that are basic to the art. If you want to limit yourself in that way, that's your choice.

I am not sure I would go that far. There are differences between the traditional (or analog) workflow and the digital. Digital is much more precise and consistent from print to print - that doesn't happen with in the wet darkroom where the chemicals if nothing else will mean there will slight differences from print to print.

I am very much traditional photography girl - I love the wet darkroom and working there in a way that I don't when I am use Photoshop. But that doesn't mean I don't think that people who use Photoshop are substandard photographers. Photoshop is a tool - and is only as good as the person using it.

The fundamental problem is the same regardless of which photographic technology you use. Every capture and display medium has various forms of bias (actually, it's human visual perception that's the worst). So what "I don't use photoshop" (or related tools) really means is "I'm too lazy to give a shit about how my images look when printed or displayed. " Many people don't use the Clone or Liquify tools, and those who do are often called out as photoshop fails.

Especially since the OP talks about applying sepia effects in-camera, which is a dumber version of the same thing from a different software vendor.

[ SECRET POST #3077 ]

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!

Re: Unpopular Opinions!