Frog

[Rick Greely]

​

Nikon D300 105mm Micro f22 1/30 iso 200

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

When I looked at your photograph, I wanted to make the following changes:

1. eliminate some of the clutter so that the focus is solely on the frog
2. make the frog slightly more colorful
3. look at the frogs eyes, arms, and legs...s/he looks as though s/he can change colors and is in the process of doing so

Now look at the eyes, arms, and legs. And, of course, some of the distracting clutter has been removed.

Do you like this version better?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rick Greely: Frog

Nikon D300 105mm Micro f22 1/30 iso 200

Original

Nikon D300 105mm Micro f22 1/30 iso 200

edited by Kevin
​

[/center]

Do you like this version better?

Kevin,

I think the result is better. I find little truth in most of photography anyway unless a whole slew of precautions are taken. To me we are sampling the world in order to have enjoyment and share that experience with others for free of with a fee, LOL!

Notwithstanding that, there we must also respect those who cringe at all but the slightest modifications and for sure wouldn't move a leaf! In a picture like this, I do enjoy the edited version with less distraction. The skill is to be able to leave as much natural disorder so that the picture does not look so perfect that it becomes unreal.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rick,

So where do you stand in exactness, making the image repeat what you saw then and there. The esthetics you want to remember or that which your imagination wishes to materialize?

Asher

 

[Rick Greely]

Asher and Kevin,
Thank you both for taking a look and providing your thoughts. Asher you ask an interesting question and I am not sure where I stand. I do like some of the modifications Kevin made especially removing some of the clutter, but I also like the original with the reality of what I saw. I guess because I am not very skilled at processing pics yet I'm not sure how I feel about changing reality. Perhaps it is and area I can grow.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher and Kevin,
Thank you both for taking a look and providing your thoughts. Asher you ask an interesting question and I am not sure where I stand. I do like some of the modifications Kevin made especially removing some of the clutter, but I also like the original with the reality of what I saw. I guess because I am not very skilled at processing pics yet I'm not sure how I feel about changing reality. Perhaps it is and area I can grow.

Rick,

The skill will come surprisingly quickly if you can get a legal license for just the old fashioned Photoshop 7.0. It has everything you might need and more.

Once you can expertly clean up, like Kevin, you will begin a major new stage of your photography. If you were working in a darkroom it would be harder. With PS it's really easy once you learn the essentials. A clean image might sell as stock photography or contribute to a coffee table book on nature. For art work, one has to face the dilemma of removing things that were there. I think it's good to decide for yourself on each occasion. However, if you don't have the skill, then your creativity could be held back.

Asher

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

The skill will come surprisingly quickly if you can get a legal license for just the old fashioned Photoshop 7.0. It has everything you might need and more.

Once you can expertly clean up, like Kevin, you will begin a major new stage of your photography. If you were working in a darkroom it would be harder. With PS it's really easy once you learn the essentials. A clean image might sell as stock photography or contribute to a coffee table book on nature. For art work, one has to face the dilemma of removing things that were there. I think it's good to decide for yourself on each occasion. However, if you don't have the skill, then your creativity could be held back.

I cannot be more agree with that, It's my own experience...Once you own the skill, once or twice you will go too far, it's predictable, show your picture that's what the forums are for . And sometimes you will go too far, and too far will be great! -> your vision.
And I don't think it's harder when you come from the darkroom...I think it would have been harder If I have been starting (correct my English please!) with the present version of Photoshop, because things are far from easy now. But many stuffs from the curves generated by the colorimeter to the concept of masking and "rubilithing" are easily understandable for any capable printer with a simpler version such as PS7 (or under...PS6 was pretty great too)...

 

[Don Cohen]

I'm not sure how I feel about changing reality.

Just got back in town from a week at the beach - family vacation.

A quick note regarding this statement. In photography, there is no 'absolute' reality. The picture you started with has already undergone a number of modifications as a result of the equipment you used, the electronic idiosyncracies of your camera's sensor, the processing of the digital signal to include tonal curves, white balance, sharpening, etc.

So any image, even one where you've done nothing yourself whatsoever, is simply one of an infinite number of interpretations of the scene you witnessed. Waxing philosophical, even the scene you saw and experienced arose as a result of the signal processing occurring in your eyes, retina, brain, etc.

On this basis, I personally have no problem modifying an image to achieve whatever result is desired. As long as one is not mis-representing the scene (e.g. copying a frog into a desert scene), or simly acknowledges the adjustments one is making, there is no dishonesty.

All that said, there are elements I like in the original, and others in the edited version. There is a 'smoother' quality to the first, and perhaps a bit of 'roughness' to the second. Somewhere in the middle might maintain the best qualities of both.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I like Kevin's amped-up saturation version. But I prefer the un-altered submerged half of the frog in Rick's original. Kevin's alteration side-swipes the boundary between photograph and illustration. Nature is strange enough as is.

I also like the diagonal framing. Can you count the number of triangular shapes in this photo? (An exercise I might assign to "seeing" students. ;-) )

 

[Rick Greely]

Asher, Don and Ken,
Thank you all for taking a look and providing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your time and comments.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, Don and Ken,
Thank you all for taking a look and providing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your time and comments.

Rick,

The beauty is inherent in your work and mind whether or not you consciously depart from what you saw in what you show.

Asher

 

[Rick Greely]

Asher,
Thank you