Time For A Major Philosophy Change?

[loftus 42]

I have a friend who runs a very successful Graphic Design firm and he always tells me, "Good art evokes emotion."

 

For me, the images I consider "best" are the ones that trigger an emotional response, good or bad. Immediate images that come to mind are Alex's Bohar Snapper, Eric Cheng's "Screaming Turtle" and Jeff's recent winning image "Fire in the Water".

 

Personally, I don't care how you get to where you get as long as you are honest about how you got there. One of the reasons I enjoy taking a class from Alex or attending a class with Jeff is because they are always pushing the boundaries in search of THE image.

 

I think I have probably taken three or four truly great images and each of these came after an iterative process where there was more error than success. However, when you finally GET the image, whether in camera or after several rounds of post, and you cannot stop but say, "Wow", then you know you are onto something.

 

These would be my guidelines:

 

1. Strive to get the best possible image in camera. Sometimes lipstick on a pig is just lipstick on a pig.

2. Work the image in post.

3. Be honest in telling how the result was achieved.

 

Though I'm not quite the ninja some of the wetpixelers are, the reward for me is in the journey.

 

As always, Alex, thanks for stretching the boundaries of the craft.

 

Basim

Basim,

There is only one Ninja in my mind; it is you!

Thanks for the complements.

 

I think people forget, that a digital camera is really a sensor (the film) and a computer. RAW is nothing more or less than all the data recorded in 0's and 1's by the sensor. Lytro simply adds one more parameter of recording an image, focal point, that is dictated by the computer and not by the physical limitations of the lens and sensor combination.

Everything else, every completed digital image ever made is the result of computer manipulation whether in the camera's preset onboard computer or on a remote computer. Camera presets are factory provided to manipulate the image to generally accepted norms of 'reality'. Yes all photographers, your JPEG you just shot is dictated by what others think your image should look like. Even Lytro comes with presets, imagine having a Lytro plug-in in Photoshop. The concept of film processing is simpler, but no less manipulated or dictated by societal norms, from exposure to print. How boring it would be if every shot ever made was an 8x10 view camera B&W or any other single approach. There are no rules, creative and photographic integrity live in the photographer's intent. Be true to yourself, try not to hurt anyone.

Edited March 2, 2012 by loftus

[John Bantin 101]

One of the most satisfying 'underwater' pictures I've ever taken was for an ad for Plessey. We had a model of a deep sea exploration submarine made (about 40cm long) complete with lights. I photographed it in my studio, invisibly suspended against a giant transparency of an underwater scene I especially shot in the Mediterranean and used a little smoke to get the beams from the lamps. It looked fantastic.

The client rejected it because it did not match his expectations of what it might be like underwater so we reshot it with bits of crumpled black background paper in the background instead and got paid - a lot!

 

Art is a difficult subject. The Pope asked Michelangelo to give the Sistene Chapel ceiling a coat of magnolia emulsion but he insisted on painting a lot of cherubs instead!

 

I've shown Alex's wreck interior to a lot of non-divers who were completely unmoved by it. Only underwater photographers can understand what he has achieved.

Edited March 2, 2012 by John Bantin

[SwiftFF5 136]

Digital photography has been around for such a short time and yet has come so far. But it has only really taken us back in time. As some have already mentioned Ansel Adams and his piers manipulated the hell out of their original images and I am changing my attitude back to what it was when I started photography. I'm probably one of the few underwater photographers who actually studied photography at college at a time before digital technology and before slide film was the norm. Sure we had slide film, but mostly we used colour neg and black and white neg. Plus we had 35mm, medium format and large format cameras to play with. We had a massive darkroom with black and white and colour processing and I would spend hours in a chemical infested orange glow dodging and burning, cropping and tweaking until what was on the paper in front of me was how I imagined the final image to be.

 

When magazines wanted colour slides to really justify the cost of the scanners the companies bought, all that creativity died away and while it encouraged many photographers to hone certain in camera skills, it killed some of the creativity in producing a final image. Now that creativity is back and it doesn't turn your silver jewelery black! Photoshop is just a darkroom, without the need to convert the loft or take up the toilet all evening. It's a means to really put into pixels what your mind saw.

 

Many people who think themselves photographers I'm sad to say, can now produce well exposed, pin sharp pictures, but should that be the ultimate end result? I don't think so. Henri Cartier Bresson didn't produce pin sharp, frozen images, nor did my other hero Don MacCullin. But their images had emotions wrapped around the main subject. I'm fed up with seeing lifeless looking fish portraits or frozen nudibranchs. Where is the drama? where is the animal's sense of place in the world (or sea)? Digital photography has given us the world to create beautiful emotion filled images and the majority treat it as a way to try and recreate the constraints of slide film (with a lot of added saturation in many cases).

 

I was about to point out that manipulating images via software is only a different way of achieving, and a different set of tools, to what we used to do with film, but this is a much better explanation of my feelings on this subject. To me, the image in the camera is only part of the process, and the post-processing is an integral part of creating an image.

[Morten Bjørn Larsen 0]

For me the satisfaction of getting it right in camera beats everything!!!

 

I've discused this issue with other uw-photographers, there are some who don't care if they have to spend more time in front of the computer when they come home from a dive. But if they enjoy it just as much as the dive itself, then it's their way of "making" uw-photos. Personally, I love to play with balancing the natural light with strobe light, and still try to get a nice composition (still learning) in the water. And I belive (hope) that in the end no matter how easy technology makes it to photoshop a uv-photo, the craft/art of getting it right in camera will always be respected by judges in competitions and editors of magazines. I live in Denmark where we have dark waters and mostly poor wiz, so of course I sometimes remove particles or give it some black or contrast if it's going to be just the finishing touch to an otherwise pleasing photo. But I'd rather not.

[Puffer Fish 2]

I follow a Japanese photographer who is also famous for his "aquascapes" Takashi Amano is an analog landscape photographer. With the knowledge that his favorite film was to be discontinued he purchased a 20 year supply(whatever that is). He is frantically arranging freezers for the storage of these films. I began my career in photography long before digital technology entered the photographic realm. Nothing was more thrilling, examining a newly processed roll after the ritual performed in complete darkness then seeing an image appear in the amber light of a darkened room. But when every new tool came along I learned about it, questioned it, doubted it, and embraced it's inherent abilities. I applied them in improving the results that my mind's eye envisioned when the shutter slid open. As artists we define the parameters that guide our vision, we do not determine the attributes that bind the hands of everyone else. I cannot say I am not dismayed by the apparent replacement of technique, and skill with sophisticated software fixes. Right clicking for spell check, cordless electric drills, and photoshop are great tools nevertheless. I would much rather be in the fiel=d with an 11X14 Deardorf shooting B&W negs and contact printing them in palladium, but the kids like to eat...

A Deardorf? I have only seen one, and was not allowed to even touch it. Linhof and Sinar myself.

 

The two fields of photography...view cameras versus fixed back seem to have developed very different points of view.

 

Fixed back, now represented by the digital slr cameras, and where most underwater photographers have grown up with, have, at least as long as I know, had the "image taken by the camera is sacred". Any changes made to an image have been viewed with great suspect. Minor White was from that viewpoint, and was ruthless regarding every aspect of an image.

 

View camera users (which is still a very healthy market, just not in the larger sizes), had swings, tilts and shifts to change everything from perspective to variable focus on the image from the camera, and in the darkroom, had as many controls as photoshop does (if not more). HDR was an easily done process, for example. We even did a lot of image stitching.

 

Underwater photography has obviously developed from the fixed back camera world, and there are lots of photographers that still have that fixed camera view point.

 

Oddly, I notice that view camera users (which are mostly professional photographers these days, as the cost of a large digital back is so expensive) complain that software like photoshop does not actually do a very good job when compared to in camera adjustments. While fixed back photographers complain that you can do it at all.

 

To some, giving fixed back camera's all the controls that one had with a view camera is a welcome addition to the tools they have, and to others, it is a violation of their art. While I tend to be on the first side, I kind of admire the clean view of the other side.... until I see images like those insects and marvel at how magical they are.

[Puffer Fish 2]

Digital photography has been around for such a short time and yet has come so far. But it has only really taken us back in time. As some have already mentioned Ansel Adams and his piers manipulated the hell out of their original images and I am changing my attitude back to what it was when I started photography. I'm probably one of the few underwater photographers who actually studied photography at college at a time before digital technology and before slide film was the norm. Sure we had slide film, but mostly we used colour neg and black and white neg. Plus we had 35mm, medium format and large format cameras to play with. We had a massive darkroom with black and white and colour processing and I would spend hours in a chemical infested orange glow dodging and burning, cropping and tweaking until what was on the paper in front of me was how I imagined the final image to be.

 

When magazines wanted colour slides to really justify the cost of the scanners the companies bought, all that creativity died away and while it encouraged many photographers to hone certain in camera skills, it killed some of the creativity in producing a final image. Now that creativity is back and it doesn't turn your silver jewelery black! Photoshop is just a darkroom, without the need to convert the loft or take up the toilet all evening. It's a means to really put into pixels what your mind saw.

 

Many people who think themselves photographers I'm sad to say, can now produce well exposed, pin sharp pictures, but should that be the ultimate end result? I don't think so. Henri Cartier Bresson didn't produce pin sharp, frozen images, nor did my other hero Don MacCullin. But their images had emotions wrapped around the main subject. I'm fed up with seeing lifeless looking fish portraits or frozen nudibranchs. Where is the drama? where is the animal's sense of place in the world (or sea)? Digital photography has given us the world to create beautiful emotion filled images and the majority treat it as a way to try and recreate the constraints of slide film (with a lot of added saturation in many cases).

 

Elegantly written, thanks (and you are not alone). Am very glad to see you picked two of the great photographic communicators, as in today's world it is easy to forget what an incredible tool we have in our hands.

[focker 15]

Wow, I too love and agree with what Fishboy has written, spot on!

[DavidSD619 4]

In reference to the point about macro and super macro, I have been using full-frame (5D and 5D II) and was always envious of the macro and super macro people were getting with crop sensors. I had a ‘duh’ moment when I realized I just had to crop my images more post processing and could achieve similar results (I know technically they are not ). Now I look at my images differently in post production. Before it was just minor adjustments. Now I crop and ‘play’ more post processing in Photoshop to try and create something pleasing that couldn’t be achieved from the ‘out of the camera’ image. I still strive to get the best image possible the first time, but don't pass by imagines during post review if they are not perfect out of the camera.

 

I too came from film and thought it a bit of cheating. But having the ability to capture more than 35 frames on a single dive is ‘cheating’ too. I had a mental adjustment to make when I moved from film to digital , as I’m sure many people have. The first adjustment was I didn’t need to try to compose every shot perfectly the first time. I could shoot, look at the results, re-shoot (if the subject was not gone) and even burst shoot without fear of running out of film for the rest of the dive. I think not having the perfect image from camera, but creating that image in the mind’s eye, or something completely different, post processing is just another mental adjustment film photographers need to make.

 

Now how do we change photo completion judging to take this into account?

[davichin 18]

Having read all the posts I have to congratulate everybody in general and specifically Alex for this well mannered and thought out discussion of a sometimes confronted topic.

 

I thing this is for most of us just a hobby so we should just do and use whatever pleases us most. In my case, I am on the traditional side and I like making the shot on the spot as I don´t like (and I am very bad at) using PS. What I found out is that what I really like is taking the photos and (with the high GB cards) I can dive several days or weeks without even downloading the images because it is not so fun (ok, using a hugy makes it more difficult with its hex bolts... ).

 

I also have more admiration for pictures taken the traditional way than pictures cropped and/or photoshopped. I understand that an image is an image and the message it sends and blah blah blah etc... but when I see an UW photo, part of the "message" the image "sends" to me is provided by imagining myself taking the picture in the photographer´s place and dive, and knowing that a great part of that image was made in front of the computer after a not so good initial shot is somehow less "glamorous" and appealing IMHO

[John Bantin 101]

For my part, and I've said too much already, I like pictures that reflect what it was like to be there. How that is achieved is neither here nor there. I rarely shoot macro because there doesn't seem much demand for it outside fish ID books and photography competitions.

I've just completed a big feature on Truk Lagoon but I'm going back next month with a model - because editors like to see people in the pictures. People relate to people.

Edited March 2, 2012 by John Bantin

[Jock 14]

I rarely shoot macro because there doesn't seem much demand for it outside fish ID books and photography competitions.

 

This is it. If you make your living from U/W photography, you need to meet a demand, and only the final result counts, no matter how it is achieved.

 

I am an amateur who takes photos just for fun. Meanwhile, I enjoy TAKING photos much more than the results. Strange? Maybe. But there are so many phantastic photos araound that there is nothing special in such a photo anymore. Just look at the galleries here. 10 years ago this such a large number of phantastic photos would have been absolutely impossible. but now...

 

So for me, I just have MY personal fun, and I am proud when I shoot a photo that is (IMHO) almost perfect without postprocessing.

 

I am sure that the guys who take photos with a SNOOT on their strobes are also very proud if they get this one perfect shot - but a photo pro told me last summer that she thinks this is one of the most unnecessary tools in U/W photography - "Why don't they just do it in Photoshop???" She is right, isn't she ?

 

Joerg

Edited March 2, 2012 by Jock

[davichin 18]

...but a photo pro told me last summer that she thinks this is one of the most unnecessary tools in U/W photography - "Why don't they just do it in Photoshop???" She is right, isn't she ?

 

Joerg

 

Don´t tell that to Adriano Morettin!

[Andrej Belic 0]

Are we really ready to cut the apron strings to the slide film era?

 

The Lytro camera goes on sale today - and for me it represents a line in the sand on our thinking about what is a photograph. It is a change in philosophy that I struggle to come to terms with, but feel that it is one I probably should take on board. The issue is: with changes in camera technology, should we still strive for the finished image in camera, or not?

 

This is all a hang up from the slide film era. A time when many current underwater photographers started out - and it dominates how we think of images. Even for those who have only shot digital pictures underwater. But as Peter Scoones has pointed out to me (on more than one occasion) the purity of a slide is just a hang up from when you started underwater photography. It was never the originator underwater - seeing it as such is just a relict view from a certain period in the history of underwater imaging (read more here). It is predated by black and white print film photography, which involved as much post processing as we now routinely do with digital. It some ways the slide era is the exception, not the rule underwater.

 

Yet, I find myself, still stuck with most of the hangups of the 35mm slide. I still strive to create images bang on in camera and always value less images that have required lots of cropping or adjustment. The point of this thread is to ask, should I?

 

The Lytro technology is perhaps the most obvious example of this, with its ability to refocus the image after shooting. But the reality is that we have been living with multiple examples for many years. HDR is an obvious one - that most people will have tried - where the post processing makes an image not possible in camera. Nikon's new cameras now offer in-camera HDR for JPG shooting - where this is all done in camera as you shoot (I have tried this on the D800 and it works). This is an underwater HDR, assembled from 5 shots to open up the shadows in a wreck (shot with D700):

 

 

Perhaps a more pertinent area is that of super-macro. Creating a tack-sharp super macro photo can be a real challenge. With razor thin depth of field and the challenges of aiming and losses in optical quality with some solutions. This picture was taken with my reversed lens combo and is the highest magnification shot I have done underwater. These blennies are very small - one of the smallest blenny species - hard to tell from this photo (for those not familiar with Caribbean critters):

 

 

It is not the best example, because I know people don't appreciate how small this guy is. I should go and shoot pygmies with this setup - everyone is more familiar with them. So, it is probably easier to show the magnification of this setup with these test shots I made when working on the system - with a comparison between a straight 105mm (top), a 105mm and Subsee +10 (middle, a very high magnification setup - that many are familiar with) and my reversed lens setup (bottom, which is another level on again):

 

 

All very impressive. But should I be bothering. Why don't I just crop back to the eyeball - the shot would be 100 times easier to take and I would have more depth of field too. Don't laugh, with Nikon's D800 now having 36 megapixels and I am sure that Canon's 5D Mk3 (which I heard was to be announced very soon) likely to have something similar - we can crop away and have plenty of resolution for reproduction - especially in an increasingly online media. I had a discussion on Facebook recently - and opinions were very varied - plenty of supporters in both camps.

 

These are just a couple of examples. There are plenty more.

 

In conclusion, I guess my question is what do others feel? Slide thinking (getting everything perfect in camera) certainly dominates my shooting philosophy. But I am not sure it is the best thing for my photography in this day and age? Should I be freeing my mind and accepting that technology should be changing how I feel about what is a photo? And should contests etc - be changing too. Should more extensive cropping be allowed - many now allow HDR and focus stacking? Are fotosub style - JPGs in camera a relict?

 

I am not mentally ready for all these changes - so I am hoping for some convincing!

 

Alex

 

p.s. Please don't hijack this into a Lytro discussion. We all can see in its current form it is limited - but it is fun, fascinating and thought provoking technology. I remember the first digital I tried underwater (almost 15 years ago now - wow, time flies) and we all thought it was fun, but not serious technology and went back to our slides. And now Kodak has filed for bankruptcy.

 

 

Alex, I've to admit. This is the coolest wreck picture I've ever seen. HDR is the way of the future!

[Drew 0]

Andrej, it's already here. There are cameras now which take 14mp 18 stop shots @60fps, albeit it has to be processed in post. The computer is now the new PA,communicator,encyclopedia and so many other duties on top of being a digital dark room. Anyone who says it's not clearly isn't living in the 21st century. Now with the amount of damage we're doing to the planet to get computers made/run etc., it may be said it's shortlived too!

[Timmoranuk 10]

For what its worth, I believe we are at a threshold. The analogy I would use is mobile phones. Try buying one without email, instant messaging, internet, gps, wifi, camera, video...

 

The functionality of our technology is driven by the manufacturers. Once, we shot (topside) with silver halide and magnesium 'flash', but we moved on and, probably then, much to the chargin of the purists.

 

Technology advances, opportunity increases but the wisdom of its use remains with the user. We (wetpixelers ?) seek excellence and would probably be deprived of that if we relied on technology to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

Today, I see my Photoshop skills as only average. I do not have enough time in my life to process, however enjoyably, my images in 'raw' photoshop. So much of my Photoshop processing is done with Nik Software plugins which simplfy and enhance my workflow. Maybe in doing so, I cross a theshold. But my goal is to produce a pleasing image, which reflects either truth or obvious abstract interpretation. Either for me, are better created or significantly helped, in camera.

 

Thanks, Tim

[TomR1 5]

As a non-professional the real question is how do i challenge myself? I can already wow my friends and i'll never get to Alex's level. So, it's all about me.

 

One of the things I don't strive for is composition within the frame. I don't consider a 3:2 format a very useful size so I always crop anyway.

 

However, i do strive to be the best critter finder on the planet, the finest technical photographer in the solar system and the best artist in the universe.

 

I am proud of exactly 2 shots, the first super-macro shot of a white pigmy. Why am i proud? I found it myself. The second is a colony of tunicates, also a super macro shot. Why am i proud? It shows something beautiful most people have never seen. However, I present a third shot, actually a crop of the White Pigmy shot showing the pigmy's crown.

 

However, just showing unusual glimpses of nature isn't enough. I want art. That's why I am trying to turn a photograph into a painting, in this case a watercolor.

[cabdiver 0]

Thanks everyone for the comments so far. In many ways opinions are the most important thing here.

 

I have a traditional outlook - I guess that was my reason for posting. But I am beginning to conclude that this point of view might be a drawback and does it really have any justification?

 

Alex

 

As your question implies, there is no right or wrong on this. For me, diving opened a beautiful world that very few of us ever see. I was drawn to UW photography as a way to try to capture that beauty and take it home with me. As I've gained experience, I've found that just taking underwater snapshots (photos where the fish or reef is recognizable) is not enough.

 

I'd love to progress in my technical ability to be able to touch the art of underwater photography (defined by me as creating images that convey some of that beauty and emotion to both my fellow divers and 'unenlightened' friends).

 

The odds of achieving my goal are very low if I don't continue to work very hard on the 'in camera' capture side of the equation. I am also devoting a lot of time to understanding the 'digital darkroom' side of the equation. With time, I'll be able to see progress.

 

The risk for me is to allow the software to become a bandaid instead of a tool to better understand what is possible.

 

In closing, I think we are all on different but similar paths and can use these tools to reach our individual goals/visions.

 

Chris Bernhardt

[chidiver 1]

I've always been mystified by the "purists" who insisted the essence of a photo was limited to what was captured by a mechanical/electronic device at a point in time. Full disclosure: I grew up in the digital era.

 

Also, photographers like Ansel Adams might have a thing or two to say about this, as he used every darkroom technique available to him to execute on his artistic vision and show the world the beauty and majesty of his subject matter in print. Photo capture was just step 1. Post processing in the darkroom was just another piece of his artistic workflow towards an end product. Why should it be any different today through computers.

 

I guess I have a relatively simplistic view on art....an artist is allowed any tool available to present his/her artistic vision. All the fancy tools in the world don't make the artist...but they may make it more possible that he/she will be able to execute on a unique idea. For example...I have spent days trying to put together HDR images! Just because there are new and fancy tools, doesn't mean its any easier!

 

BTW...I'd rather see a cropped photo of a tiny rare subject than see the aftermath of "purists" who thrashed a coral/sea fan/gorgonian in order to get that "perfect" shot!

[graffa 0]

Are we really ready to cut the apron strings to the slide film era?

 

The Lytro camera goes on sale today - and for me it represents a line in the sand on our thinking about what is a photograph. It is a change in philosophy that I struggle to come to terms with, but feel that it is one I probably should take on board. The issue is: with changes in camera technology, should we still strive for the finished image in camera, or not?

 

This is all a hang up from the slide film era. A time when many current underwater photographers started out - and it dominates how we think of images. Even for those who have only shot digital pictures underwater. But as Peter Scoones has pointed out to me (on more than one occasion) the purity of a slide is just a hang up from when you started underwater photography. It was never the originator underwater - seeing it as such is just a relict view from a certain period in the history of underwater imaging (read more here). It is predated by black and white print film photography, which involved as much post processing as we now routinely do with digital. It some ways the slide era is the exception, not the rule underwater.

 

Yet, I find myself, still stuck with most of the hangups of the 35mm slide. I still strive to create images bang on in camera and always value less images that have required lots of cropping or adjustment. The point of this thread is to ask, should I?

 

The Lytro technology is perhaps the most obvious example of this, with its ability to refocus the image after shooting. But the reality is that we have been living with multiple examples for many years. HDR is an obvious one - that most people will have tried - where the post processing makes an image not possible in camera. Nikon's new cameras now offer in-camera HDR for JPG shooting - where this is all done in camera as you shoot (I have tried this on the D800 and it works). This is an underwater HDR, assembled from 5 shots to open up the shadows in a wreck (shot with D700):

 

 

Perhaps a more pertinent area is that of super-macro. Creating a tack-sharp super macro photo can be a real challenge. With razor thin depth of field and the challenges of aiming and losses in optical quality with some solutions. This picture was taken with my reversed lens combo and is the highest magnification shot I have done underwater. These blennies are very small - one of the smallest blenny species - hard to tell from this photo (for those not familiar with Caribbean critters):

 

 

It is not the best example, because I know people don't appreciate how small this guy is. I should go and shoot pygmies with this setup - everyone is more familiar with them. So, it is probably easier to show the magnification of this setup with these test shots I made when working on the system - with a comparison between a straight 105mm (top), a 105mm and Subsee +10 (middle, a very high magnification setup - that many are familiar with) and my reversed lens setup (bottom, which is another level on again):

 

 

All very impressive. But should I be bothering. Why don't I just crop back to the eyeball - the shot would be 100 times easier to take and I would have more depth of field too. Don't laugh, with Nikon's D800 now having 36 megapixels and I am sure that Canon's 5D Mk3 (which I heard was to be announced very soon) likely to have something similar - we can crop away and have plenty of resolution for reproduction - especially in an increasingly online media. I had a discussion on Facebook recently - and opinions were very varied - plenty of supporters in both camps.

 

These are just a couple of examples. There are plenty more.

 

In conclusion, I guess my question is what do others feel? Slide thinking (getting everything perfect in camera) certainly dominates my shooting philosophy. But I am not sure it is the best thing for my photography in this day and age? Should I be freeing my mind and accepting that technology should be changing how I feel about what is a photo? And should contests etc - be changing too. Should more extensive cropping be allowed - many now allow HDR and focus stacking? Are fotosub style - JPGs in camera a relict?

 

I am not mentally ready for all these changes - so I am hoping for some convincing!

 

Alex

 

p.s. Please don't hijack this into a Lytro discussion. We all can see in its current form it is limited - but it is fun, fascinating and thought provoking technology. I remember the first digital I tried underwater (almost 15 years ago now - wow, time flies) and we all thought it was fun, but not serious technology and went back to our slides. And now Kodak has filed for bankruptcy.

[graffa 0]

I think that the difference could be likened to the difference between a photo which captures a specific image at a specific moment in time and a painting that produces a specific image over a period of time. These both require specific skills and if used in conjunction can create beautiful images.

[John Bantin 101]

I think that the difference could be likened to the difference between a photo which captures a specific image at a specific moment in time and a painting that produces a specific image over a period of time. These both require specific skills and if used in conjunction can create beautiful images.

 

Spot on!

[davichin 18]

For me it is more the trip than the destination. Today there is a helicopter that can take you to the top of Everest (or K2, which is a far more desired climb)

 

 

but, where is the fun in that? even when we use ropes, jumars, new technology clothes etc... the fun is in climbing or trying to climb (even if we are unsuccesful) the mountain. I think the analogy is clear, I prefer to struggle trying to make the picture underwater (the previous poster snoot example is a good one) than taking a regular picture knowing that I will very much photoshop it at home (like masking and making it look like a snooted pic). It is just a matter of how each one of us enjoy this sport-craft-¿art? I, of course, also use photoshop etc... it is just not so fun for me but I understand that there other that really enjoy (probably because, unlike me, know well how to use it) using it, even more than diving.

 

BTW...I'd rather see a cropped photo of a tiny rare subject than see the aftermath of "purists" who thrashed a coral/sea fan/gorgonian in order to get that "perfect" shot!

 

There are some unsettling implications in that statement... Maybe you may want to elaborate? Because someone could also say:

 

BTW...I´d rather see an experienced "purist" photographer and diver waiting patiently for the perfect moment before shooting than a newbie not perfectly knowing how to maintain buoyancy with a new heavy dslr kit hitting everything and having to shoot 50+ times before leaving the flashed out poor tiny rare subject alone...

 

Generalizing is always wrong and we can all do it...

[John Bantin 101]

For me it is more the trip than the destination. Today there is a helicopter that can take you to the top of Everest (or K2, which is a far more desired climb)

 

 

but, where is the fun in that? even when we use ropes, jumars, new technology clothes etc... the fun is in climbing or trying to climb (even if we are unsuccesful) the mountain. I think the analogy is clear, I prefer to struggle trying to make the picture underwater (the previous poster snoot example is a good one) than taking a regular picture knowing that I will very much photoshop it at home (like masking and making it look like a snooted pic). It is just a matter of how each one of us enjoy this sport-craft-¿art? I, of course, also use photoshop etc... it is just not so fun for me but I understand that there other that really enjoy (probably because, unlike me, know well how to use it) using it, even more than diving.

 

 

 

There are some unsettling implications in that statement... Maybe you may want to elaborate? Because someone could also say:

 

BTW...I´d rather see an experienced "purist" photographer and diver waiting patiently for the perfect moment before shooting than a newbie not perfectly knowing how to maintain buoyancy with a new heavy dslr kit hitting everything and having to shoot 50+ times before leaving the flashed out poor tiny rare subject alone...

 

Generalizing is always wrong and we can all do it...

 

I know what you mean. I have 20-years-worthof pictures from monthly diving trips. A friend asked me if I actually NEEDED to take any more pictures? Probably not and thanks to my more recently acquired computer skills I can now use most of them - but what would I do otherwise? Swim about looking at things?

Edited March 3, 2012 by John Bantin

[loftus 42]

Now here are some pics to get you thinking

 

http://dark-liquid.com/awesome-photomanipu...rdi-rizkiyanto/

[Paul Kay 68]

One of the problem we face is in determining exactly how we define modifications to images. As (not underwater) examples, here are two images. Which represents reality better, and which is more manipulated?