8 ms·

Whether you need masking or such level of tools is dependent on how you approach photography. You can change your method of taking photos to remove such a need

Whether you need masking or such level of tools is dependent on how you approach photography. You can change your method of taking photos to remove such a need for editing.

nradov 6mo ago
How?
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  A lot of pulitzer prize winners are straight out of a canon 5d jpegs. It’s about composition and using light well. Same as it has always been.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    OK so just always do it right the first time and never make mistakes. Also, get lucky. Got it.
    - datadrivenangel 6mo ago
      Being at the right place at the right time is more important than your equipment 80% of the time. Predict the composition and lighting and you don't need to do anywhere near as much editing.
      - nradov 6mo ago
        Ha ha good luck doing that reliably with wide-angle underwater photography. You're always moving around, conditions are constantly changing, and wildlife is inherently unpredictable.
        deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
        kjkjadksj 6mo ago
        That is probably a good part of the excitement in wildlife photography. Some people camp for years waiting for a shot of a snow leopard, well the pros on contract at least.
    - ktallett 6mo ago
      Many creative pursuits are based on time put in. Giving yourself more opportunities to get a shot helps. You will make mistakes, you will miss shots, you will take shots that could of been better, but for me that makes those photos that I have taken that I do think are spot on that much more enjoyable.
      - nradov 6mo ago
        That's easy for you to say. Most of my photography is underwater where we are inherently very limited on time. On deeper tech dives we might only get 20 minutes of bottom time, and I can only be shooting for part of that.
    - kjkjadksj 6mo ago
      Most of those shots are technically imperfect. Sometimes that adds a lot of impact to the image. Well composed though. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/apr/08/reuters.pressandpublishing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/apr/08/reuters.pressa...
  - 0x38B 6mo ago
    To quote Henri Cartier-Bresson: “Composition must be one of our constant preoccupations, but at the moment of shooting it can stem only from our intuition, for we are out to capture the fugitive moment, and all the interrelationships involved are on the move. In applying the Golden Rule, the only pair of compasses at the photographer's disposal is his own pair of eyes. [...] If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom's enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there. There is a lot of talk about camera angles; but the only valid angles in existence are the angles of the geometry of composition and not the ones fabricated by the photographer who falls flat on his stomach or performs other antics to procure his effects.” (“The Mind’s Eye” p34, 1999 Aperture ed.)
vjvjvjvjghv 6mo ago
Give us a tutorial please. Otherwise this statement makes no sense.
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  What is confusing? A well exposed shot shouldn’t need any editing really.
  - CWuestefeld 6mo ago
    This is so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't even know where to start. There are plenty of potential photographs that even modern sensor (or film) technology just can't do, like with questions of dynamic range. There are opportunities for cleaning up noise and sharpening to create a technically-better image. There are reasons beyond count for compositing of different kinds. But most importantly, supporting the artist's efforts to achieve their vision is the whole point. If someone vision can't be achieved either with their physical toolset, or with their suite of tools, why should they limit themselves?
  - vjvjvjvjghv 6mo ago
    And a real programmer doesn't need a debugger because he gets his code right from the start... I don't think too many people manage to get a wildlife, landscape, astro, macro or night shot so well exposed that no editing is needed.
    - ktallett 6mo ago
      Landscape, macro, and night are very much composition and the right equipment. I agree wildlife, action, and astro photography may need some editing to some extent although I took photos of skateboarding for years and never found much need to edit. For me the tool to create the photo is the camera, past minimal editing it becomes a different medium of art, not a bad one as I love some photos that people have edited but it is a different form of art.
larusso 6mo ago
I mean yes. But the advent of exposure / focus bracketing lifted the dynamic range limit for most cameras. The only other way, at least for landscape I see is to buy expensive ND filter plates or invest into a camera with more dynamic range.
CWuestefeld 6mo ago
There's a kernel of truth here. But it's not true in the general case. Others have responded about dynamic range and HDR, and that's one area where a particular feature set is necessary for certain kinds of photography. Astrophotography and macrophotography both very nearly require focus-stacking abilities. There's certainly a lot of photography you can do with just a camera, or with just a camera and very basic editing tools. But having advanced tools opens up a whole world of possibilities. Those aren't all going to be things that everyone wants or needs to do. But there's a huge number of artists who will want or need some of them.

Whether you need masking or such level of tools is dependent on how you approach photography. You can change your method of taking photos to remove such a need for editing.

nradov 6mo ago

How?

kjkjadksj 6mo ago
A lot of pulitzer prize winners are straight out of a canon 5d jpegs. It’s about composition and using light well. Same as it has always been.
- nradov 6mo ago
  OK so just always do it right the first time and never make mistakes. Also, get lucky. Got it.
  - datadrivenangel 6mo ago
    Being at the right place at the right time is more important than your equipment 80% of the time. Predict the composition and lighting and you don't need to do anywhere near as much editing.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      Ha ha good luck doing that reliably with wide-angle underwater photography. You're always moving around, conditions are constantly changing, and wildlife is inherently unpredictable.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - kjkjadksj 6mo ago
        That is probably a good part of the excitement in wildlife photography. Some people camp for years waiting for a shot of a snow leopard, well the pros on contract at least.
  - ktallett 6mo ago
    Many creative pursuits are based on time put in. Giving yourself more opportunities to get a shot helps. You will make mistakes, you will miss shots, you will take shots that could of been better, but for me that makes those photos that I have taken that I do think are spot on that much more enjoyable.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      That's easy for you to say. Most of my photography is underwater where we are inherently very limited on time. On deeper tech dives we might only get 20 minutes of bottom time, and I can only be shooting for part of that.
  - kjkjadksj 6mo ago
    Most of those shots are technically imperfect. Sometimes that adds a lot of impact to the image. Well composed though. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/apr/08/reuters.pressandpublishing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/apr/08/reuters.pressa...
- 0x38B 6mo ago
  To quote Henri Cartier-Bresson: “Composition must be one of our constant preoccupations, but at the moment of shooting it can stem only from our intuition, for we are out to capture the fugitive moment, and all the interrelationships involved are on the move. In applying the Golden Rule, the only pair of compasses at the photographer's disposal is his own pair of eyes. [...] If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom's enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there. There is a lot of talk about camera angles; but the only valid angles in existence are the angles of the geometry of composition and not the ones fabricated by the photographer who falls flat on his stomach or performs other antics to procure his effects.” (“The Mind’s Eye” p34, 1999 Aperture ed.)

vjvjvjvjghv 6mo ago

Give us a tutorial please. Otherwise this statement makes no sense.

kjkjadksj 6mo ago
What is confusing? A well exposed shot shouldn’t need any editing really.
- CWuestefeld 6mo ago
  This is so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't even know where to start. There are plenty of potential photographs that even modern sensor (or film) technology just can't do, like with questions of dynamic range. There are opportunities for cleaning up noise and sharpening to create a technically-better image. There are reasons beyond count for compositing of different kinds. But most importantly, supporting the artist's efforts to achieve their vision is the whole point. If someone vision can't be achieved either with their physical toolset, or with their suite of tools, why should they limit themselves?
- vjvjvjvjghv 6mo ago
  And a real programmer doesn't need a debugger because he gets his code right from the start... I don't think too many people manage to get a wildlife, landscape, astro, macro or night shot so well exposed that no editing is needed.
  - ktallett 6mo ago
    Landscape, macro, and night are very much composition and the right equipment. I agree wildlife, action, and astro photography may need some editing to some extent although I took photos of skateboarding for years and never found much need to edit. For me the tool to create the photo is the camera, past minimal editing it becomes a different medium of art, not a bad one as I love some photos that people have edited but it is a different form of art.

larusso 6mo ago

I mean yes. But the advent of exposure / focus bracketing lifted the dynamic range limit for most cameras. The only other way, at least for landscape I see is to buy expensive ND filter plates or invest into a camera with more dynamic range.

CWuestefeld 6mo ago

There's a kernel of truth here. But it's not true in the general case. Others have responded about dynamic range and HDR, and that's one area where a particular feature set is necessary for certain kinds of photography. Astrophotography and macrophotography both very nearly require focus-stacking abilities. There's certainly a lot of photography you can do with just a camera, or with just a camera and very basic editing tools. But having advanced tools opens up a whole world of possibilities. Those aren't all going to be things that everyone wants or needs to do. But there's a huge number of artists who will want or need some of them.