Are they real?

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

I've got enough to learn about photography I'd have to work at it 40 hours a week for about the next 100 years to catch up to even a moderate understanding of what some of the pros know. That said, I was surfing for the answer to a question yesterday about the famous photographer "Weegee" and his "F/8 and be there" comment which somehow led to this gentleman's website: http://www.stevekossack.com/

His photos are just absolutely gorgeous and I could look at them for hours, but they left me with a question: can a person actually take pictures like that "for real" in the field, or have all these probably received such rather generous enhancement on the computer (post processing?) before we got to see them that we'd hardly recognize the "before and after"?

Rick C

 

[TBear77]

I used to be into 35mm photography before the digital era. Immediately recognized his use of filters, some color enhancing and split filters. Then checked his Tips tab and he mentions the specific brand filters he is using.

So to answer your question, yes they are real...just enhanced with appropriate filters.

Ted

 

[Jeepnik]

Are they real? Probably. Were they enhanced with a photo editing program probably. But, part of photography has always been how the film and later the prints were processed. Used to do things like push the ASA on film, use high contrast film and papers for stark B&W prints.

So are they real, in a word yes. The photographer in not only talented, but lucky enough to have the time to do such work. Setting up shots like those, waiting for the light to be just right, bracketing the various camera setting take much time and patients, but then again those with talent do some fantastic work. Me, I get lucky sometimes, I'll take the luck. :mrgreen:

 

[Rumrunner]

Regardless, they are some awesome pictures.

 

[don44]

Really very nice!

 

[RSIno1]

The pro photographer has the opportuninty to travel to the best spots and sit for hours waiting for the right light/weather. Even back when I was shooting for car magazines we'd arrive very early for the right light or wait for golden hour just before the sun went down. Once in awhile I'd use filters to change the sky.

 

[6GUNSONLY]

Stunning pictures.

 

[doccash]

I wrestle with this question daily. I do not subscribe to Photoshop for many personal reasons but understand why some people do. I think that digital photography has gotten a black eye because of photoshop and its endless capability. Yes, many images are fake and they are such good fakes that only common sense would question them. I am driven by IDK what to take an image that is real and would rival one that would be doctored up. When I was drag racing I avoided the electronic devices that took the driver out of the equation and always felt good on those rare occasions when I actually outran an electronic marvel, but that is another story. Photographic enhancements seem to me to take the photographer out of the equation to some degree. I don't wast to see this thread go to the Lounge but that is just my take in a nutshell. Dr.C

 

[Jeepnik]

I wrestle with this question daily. I do not subscribe to Photoshop for many personal reasons but understand why some people do. I think that digital photography has gotten a black eye because of photoshop and its endless capability. Yes, many images are fake and they are such good fakes that only common sense would question them. I am driven by IDK what to take an image that is real and would rival one that would be doctored up. When I was drag racing I avoided the electronic devices that took the driver out of the equation and always felt good on those rare occasions when I actually outran an electronic marvel, but that is another story. Photographic enhancements seem to me to take the photographer out of the equation to some degree. I don't wast to see this thread go to the Lounge but that is just my take in a nutshell. Dr.C

I'm guessing that like me you started with film. I won't edit a photo other than to crop or resize it. But these were things we did when printing photos. I will admit I shoot in RAW and in order to post I have to convert to a jpeg. As I said, sometimes I get lucky. I know the technical side of things, but some that don't have a better eye than I do. Then there are those that a blessed with both. Seems you fall into that category.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

As I already mentioned, I'm not gonna know what some of you guys do if I keep trying to learn for the next century! So some of my questions may seem a touch naive or amateurish. But I ask a few of them to everybody I know who loves to shoot their cameras as much as their guns, and some of the answers are remarkably similar. I especially like to hear from the guys who started with film.

One of my favorite questions has to do with quantity vs quality, in particular since digital photography's pretty much taken over the market for many of us. What I mean by that is that instead of really taking the time to compose a good photo, and shooting it a couple of times knowing it will be pretty much what the photographer wanted, folks just go out and shoot and shoot, then pick out something they like from the 100s or 1000s of shots they take off the card. One of the online sources I've used to learn a couple of things puts it like this, a lot of people take snapshots, just a few take photographs. I think that was their way of saying what I'm asking about.

For example, wedding photos when I was a kid were a big deal, with the photographer shooting maybe a couple hundred frames at the outside. I know I hated being in wedding photos because they always seemed to take so long while the photographer moved folks around, moved his equipment around, and generally fiddled about a lot, at least to the untrained eye. Years later, when my nephew got married, in 2007, his photographer put up 700 and some pictures on her website to peruse and choose from for prints. I have no idea how many rejects never made the website collection. As busy as she seemed to be, I think she'd have shot plenty more, but memory cards and batteries weren't what they are today, so she probably spent more time swapping out these items than she has to now. I could only imagine changing enough rolls of film to take that number!

Jump forward to a couple of weeks ago, when my other nephew got married. His photographer put up somewhere over 1000 shots on the studio website. I didn't notice it so much with his brother's pictures, but it looks a bit like the second photographer liked to just hit one of the burst modes and let 'er rip. I know at least some of that was done. And frankly, I didn't like most of what I saw, because it didn't "tell a story" as one photographer I know (a neighbor) says she tries to do and tries to teach her students to do as well. She's a high school teacher--officially videography in class, but she does a lot of still work outside of the classroom.

Am I imagining things, or do you guys who've done both, film and digital, notice the same change in the art? Especially since Photoshop or Light Room or whatever the latest and greatest editing program is seem like they can all but build up a photo from a blank page!

Rick C

 

[Pocketfisherman]

Several of them are composites of multiple images using a technique called focus stacking. This is done to get both the near field and far field both in sharp focus. It can be done with Photoshop and other software to composite the images, but many current higher end cameras also offer the same capability internally where multiple exposures of varying focus points can be rendered into a single file. What is "real" anyway? A camera has far less dynamic range capability than the human eye. If you are going to try and render a captured image the way you actually saw it, you will have to perform some kind of post processing work to make it look the same. BTW, Ansel Adams did not leave his images as originally exposed. He used selective dodging, burning, and masking in his wet darkroom to get the images' tonality to what his eyes actually saw (or better).