alternatives to CS3

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by walwyn

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/gimp/interesting/

Great link

Originally Posted by greenbunion

Sorry, but what is a competition style pic?

I would define it by a tendency to emphasize technique over, preferably minimal, content; but fortunately usually relieved by enough exceptions, where the technique has been applied to a subject worth experiencing in itself.

Other mannerisms can become a fashion and allow to pass, eg all those milkfalls where one could argue there should be waterfalls and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.

Conversely many subjects have too much diffuse but interesting content/detail to be thus condensed, or to use such artificial drawing of attention; it is them i am arguing for and I feel need a more restrained approach to PP & for which PS is less necessary.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by Chris

Other mannerisms can become a fashion and allow to pass,

That’s always the case. Isn’t it Chris?
This reminds me of an old headline for a denim ad campaign: Tradition gets started when people take chance. If you don’t want to play by the rule, make a new one.

Originally Posted by Chris

eg all those milkfalls where one could argue there should be waterfalls and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.

So you’re against it? Or not? Why do you say it’s impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion?

[Birdsnapper]

[quote=Chris;26838]

....... and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.


There is no credit to the photographer when taking a building face-on or at a slight angle, only to the Architect: this is just passive photography. Only by capturing the building at an unusual angle or from from a viewpoint that the Architect did not envisage, or by manipulating the image, can the photographer claim any credit for the photgraph: this is active photography.

[greenbunion]

[quote=birdsnapper;26855]

Originally Posted by Chris

....... and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.


There is no credit to the photographer when taking a building face-on or at a slight angle, only to the Architect: this is just passive photography. Only by capturing the building at an unusual angle or from from a viewpoint that the Architect did not envisage, or by manipulating the image, can the photographer claim any credit for the photgraph: this is active photography.

I couldn't agree more. Beautifully put.

[walwyn]

Why do you say it’s impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion?

I think what he is saying is that there are certain techniques which achieve their WOW effect in the equipment alone. An extreme wide-angle shot will do that, because we are not used to seeing images like that. Macro photography also has a WOW effect too

HDR processed images when first seen fall into the same category, Orton does as well. OOB images have a certain cuteness, and so it goes on.

One needs to move outside of the application of raw technique or technology.

Check this out, for photos that aren't just your standard macros and closeups.
http://flickr.com/photos/98265926@N00/

[greenbunion]

HDR processed images when first seen fall into the same category, Orton does as well. OOB images have a certain cuteness, and so it goes on.

But if you don't experiment, how will you know what works and what doesn't?
These techniques still require the original shot to be well composed and well exposed. It is just trying to take a documented scene and turning it into something "other". The abstracts that you linked to are very well done, but one page is enough and so should it be for all types of experimental photography. Master the technique, move on, then return to it when the skill is genuinely required.

What this has now got to do with CS3 I haven't a clue!

[walwyn]

But if you don't experiment, how will you know what works and what doesn't?

You know by looking at examples of the technique.

As for HDR automatic exposure does pretty well, and if you can't get a half way decent composition out of a +6 megapix image something is seriously wrong. Personally since seeing the first batch of HDR image they rarely get a second glance.

What this has now got to do with CS3 I haven't a clue!

The issue is that most software, and most equipment is adequate nowadays. When you look at the results of work done by PS, PI, GIMP, or any of the other packages one would have to conclude that there is either not a great deal of difference, or that the GIMP users are more skilled than the PS users. What do you think?

[quote=birdsnapper;26855]

Originally Posted by Chris

....... and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.


There is no credit to the photographer when taking a building face-on or at a slight angle, only to the Architect: this is just passive photography. Only by capturing the building at an unusual angle or from from a viewpoint that the Architect did not envisage, or by manipulating the image, can the photographer claim any credit for the photgraph: this is active photography.

Originally Posted by greenbunion

I couldn't agree more. Beautifully put.

I have been wondering why you two feel obliged to subject buildings and landscapes to treatments no one would dream of applying to, say, birds or dragonflies - also whether the thread had gone way off topic.

I conclude that whereas at the start I was alleging that CS3 was just unecessarily expensive and complicated, I would now go further. PS was a product of the marketing industry and thus instrumental in trying to apply to real objects magical additional properties which they do not have. My first digital camera, bought for building site record shots, immediately revealed to me that it was a revolutionary aid in observing and learning about the world around me. Soon after, that it provided a way of sharing the joys of this process that was often appreciated by others.

DSLRs are still not able to capture the wind, scent and sound that go with a particular landscape or nature study, so I am happy to be learning how composition and a degree of PP can provide mood in the same way that competent landscape artists always have done. For this a programme like NX produced like a glove for the camera by the manufacturer who designed the sensor and conversion firmware seems perfectly adequate. "Snaps" and totally unoriginal and unartistic if you wish to think of them that way.

This really is my last post here & I look forward with interest to see how my "snaps" of two of yesterday's particular joys go down in the gallery. If it is like lead balloons, I will know to go elsewhere.

[greenbunion]

The "snaps" you have posted are very good, but that's because you are attempting to freeze a very fast moving subject that will look completely different every time you press the shutter. That may well be hundreds of times. Every shot different. You don't need to add anything, the subject is giving you thousands of poses. A static building is just that. Static.The only thing that changes is light. Press the shutter hundreds of times and you will get the same shot. It is up to you, the artist, to decide how to make your shot capture something that every other photographer before you has missed. If all you are documenting is the existence of the building then that is fine. Living objects evolve before your eyes, even flowers will look different in the evening to how they look in the morning. This is where picking the moment is critical. Exactly as you have done for the fantastic shots of the kestrel. And no, they won't look out of place on Birdforum or Pbase.

With respect
Nick