new photo blog

i started this blog in 2006, and it's shifted along with my interests through the years. it's been witness to a lot of learning for me...

still, i feel that i need a home for my photography -- so from now on, i'll be posting my pictures on the journal on my reworked website. if you like my photos, you might decide to follow me there!

my first post is here -- check it out!

as for this blog, i'm not sure what will happen. i don't think i'm willing to let it go, and certainly i'll keep it as an archive, but i need some time to figure it out.

for those of you that pop in from time to time, thanks for the visits and encouragement.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

pale blue dandy

pale blue dandelion clock
like it? give it a click!
there was an interesting article yesterday by trey ratcliffe, a photographer whose work got me started with HDR a year ago, and who has had the honor of having the first HDR image displayed by the smithsonian institution, about his submission this year being disqualified because it was digitally enhanced.

i can understand having a separate category for digitally altered images -- those that change the original content of the picture.

my opinion on this is that digital photography is, by definition, digitally enhanced and that a pixel has a long journey from RAW file to JPG.

to start with, various makes of cameras create different types of RAW, and RAW is subsequently converted differently by varying types of software.

it's up to the photographer's discretion whether he/she wants the image straight out of the camera or tweaked here and there -- or processed greatly -- in order to convey thoughts, emotions, or even to more accurately convey what the human eye saw at the time, which is often way more than a camera can possibly grab.

there's nothing inherently superior or inferior to an image that's SOOC and it says little about the skill of the photographer.

color enhancement is not the same as color replacement or adding / subtracting elements to a picture -- and there certainly is a difference in requirements between photo journalism, and photo art / personal expression.

so someone will have to show me one digital image that was not effected by software.

additionally, i'd like to see one film image that was not a result of decisions in the darkroom by burning, dodging, by choice of paper, etc., etc., etc.

finally, what is more important -- what a piece of equipment sees -- or what the photographer wants to show?

more reading here, here and here.

the above file was taken by a canon 40D camera in RAW (CR2) format. i then decided to change the white balance to fluorescent (thus the blue tinge) and sharpened up the image with a filter. it's not SOOC. but it's exactly what i want it to be.

i'd appreciate your thoughts, especially if i haven't understood something, or just for fun.

finally, the image's title is because yesterday was earth day and because pale blue dot is prominent in my mind.

No comments:

Post a Comment