Hurrell said he was light on the makeup--a clean scrubbed face for a natural glow and makeup to define the eyes and lips. Tons of retouching, however, and I'd say that that's been part of the art of portrait photography since the beginning.
If you scroll down to the middle of this page, you can find a good comparison of Joan Crawford, retouched and unretouched, which appears in a number of places.
Personally I don't count this stuff as photography or the people doing it as photographers. It is digital picture-making and it offers wonderful visual effects. But it's all touched with the curse of the hidden pixel: never existed, didn't happen, never looked like that.
Personally I don't count this stuff as photography or the people doing it as photographers. It is digital picture-making and it offers wonderful visual effects. But it's all touched with the curse of the hidden pixel: never existed, didn't happen, never looked like that.
Some printers can sometimes ... become so enamored of the precious print, that the image may or may not deserve such careful treatment.
Are all these tools not just ways for photographers to express themselves, set themselves apart from their peers and ways to explore different or hyper reality?
The example you gave (and it looks like Reykjavík to me) typifies a lot of what I see today. Your last example, while not to my taste, intrigues me greatly because I'm trying to figure out the algorithm that's being applied.
I suppose the HDR photographers who shoot RAW have their unprocessed original files to rework in case their future taste changes.
.
Yeah, much like Ansel could reprint Moonlight Over..... as many different ways as his whim dictates. HDR is a great tool, and as someone mentioned it's been sort of abused in landscape stuff, but so great with other genres, especially architectural.
Yeah, much like Ansel could reprint Moonlight Over..... as many different ways as his whim dictates.
My opinion on the tools in analog and digital is when the tool draws attention to itself.
I think it's harder in many ways to make a great digital picture. There is no texture to rely on, or any visceral film aesthetic to engage the eye except the power (or otherwise) of the image itself. I find myself being far more ruthless in disposing of digital images than film ones. Film photographs often have something to like even if the shot isn't very good. Digital photos have no "carrier signal" to redeem them except the kitsch effects people add retrospectively. That's like putting lipstick on a pig. Let the hog be a hog.My problem with digital is that it's so much easier than film. It's like I'm running a 26km marathon with film and darkroom prints, while a digital photographer is finished after 100 meters. That's why it feels like cheating to me. Especially when the digital photographers say that's all the same and that digital is just as difficult.
....and he does tintypes/ambrotypes and uses a 11x14 camera too.
this guy is a master of collaging new aspects and lighting and
parts of the photo that are from other images to blend them into
a view that is totally different than anything that existed before.
photographer i met over coffee is taking workshops with him far away
in exotic places to learn the technique which seems to blend
HDR and old fashioned collage techniques.
Dead Link Removed
there is a slider so you can see the before and after.
when i first saw the images ( not with the slider )
i thought they were all HDR because of the weird contrast and light
but it isn't ... maybe pieces of the images are, others aren't
it is nice advertising photo illustration.
its funny, the guy i know who took the workshops is learning
how to do this ultra modern slick interior work
and he does tintypes/ambrotypes and uses a 11x14 camera too.
Perhaps it's because when someone is experimental in one form of photography they are that way with other forms as well.
It looks like he uses a lot of multi exposure on the same frame, that I used to see in analog a few years ago. Meaning setting the camera, locking it down, then shoot short exposures from evening to dark, on the same sheet of film.
Actually one of my favorite techniques and rather a mind bending one is long exposure photography of scenes and buildings. It's surrealness comes from the long exposure but still we can never actually see that way in real life. It's the classic thing of looking at a common thing in a new way.
http://briansmith.com/long-exposure-photography-thibault-roland/
To fill in the story about HDR. On a camping trip a couple weeks ago I chatted with a nice photographer who was taking some HDR shots. I admired his getting up early to catch the sunrise, since that's a good thing. A bit later I was looking at some pretty iPhone pictures taken by a friend's wife.
Later on my buddy said to me "Bill, you really need to be more accepting of technology" and my reply was to tell him about the two earlier conversations that prove how open I can be...
But I couldn't resist the urge to add... "It's OK with me if they want to shoot that crap"
I think it's harder in many ways to make a great digital picture. There is no texture to rely on, or any visceral film aesthetic to engage the eye except the power (or otherwise) of the image itself. I find myself being far more ruthless in disposing of digital images than film ones. Film photographs often have something to like even if the shot isn't very good. Digital photos have no "carrier signal" to redeem them except the kitsch effects people add retrospectively. That's like putting lipstick on a pig. Let the hog be a hog.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?