Nice tutorial. Though the example image, the clone tool with the leaves doesn't look right, as the pole on the left should lead to an awning that leaves a shadow. Cloning one of the other awnings over it would look less odd. Though it is a small detail most people would not have noticed. Not sure if I would have noticed if I hadn't seen the process.
I really appreciate this tutorial. It's very helpful to met to learn about other photographer's post processing work flow. I am still learning my way around image editing software and this gives me a great starting point.
According to Wikipedia: 1) Digital art most commonly refers to art created on a computer in digital form. In an expanded sense, "digital art" is a term applied to contemporary art that uses the methods of mass production or digital media.
2)Photo manipulation is the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means. Its uses, cultural impact, and ethical concerns have made it a subject of interest beyond the technical process and skills involved .......................................................................... 1) The image was definitely created in a camera, not in a computer. It was processed in a computer.
2) We cannot see any illusions or deceptions created in this image. On the contrary we can see enhancements and corrections.
By dA definition photo-manipulation is using TWO OR MORE IMAGES to create one, weather it was illusion or deception. That you can easily to and in the traditional dark room with traditional film. This is not the case here. Only one image was PROCESSED in the computer and processing was in order to enhance the moment already captured (by that I mean and the small cloning part). This was "straight" photography by Brian definition. Photoshop is dark room of today...why not use it?
each one has his own definition for photo-manip I'm not against manips, i just think they don't have their place in street photography think the art in street photo is to control all elements before the shot, and if the pic has a failing, just delete it, or it's digital art, or manipulation...
je préfère me laisser surprendre personnellement, c'est plus poétique de laisser la chance venir à moi ou même de la provoquer.
Ensuite se servir de son expérience pour apprendre à cadrer vite et bien, là oui... beaucoup de grand on recardé leurs images ou bien bosser sévère au tirage. Faire une image bien du premier coup c'est bien aussi, mais bon on file dans un débat qui n'est plus de notre temps, ou l'informatique est complètement intégré à la maison...
"laisser la chance venir à moi ou même de la provoquer." entièrement d'accord, chance et hasard sont une grande partie intégrante de toute photo de rue... c'est ce qui fait sa magie et aussi sa difficulté, ça n'empêche pas de controler ce qui passe dans le viseur...
"beaucoup de grand on recardé leurs images"... hmmm...je n'en connais pas trop ...
c'est sur que la photmanip est un débat presque vieux comme la photo (des années 1920 à ma connaissance), mais je ne vois pas en quoi l'ordi le rendrait obsolète... l'outil est moderne (quoique ) mais l'envie de manipuler l'image ou non est inchangée et hors du temps (les soviétiques faisaient fort avec des négatifs).... c'est plus une question de démarche photographique (quand c'est encore de la photo )....
I quoted definition of photo manipulation from dA sources because I think it is appropriate in this case. And you are right, by dA definitions they do not have the place in street photography. As for the "control of elements" as you said...isn't that "staging" a photo? That also has no place in street photography, because, as purest form of photography it has to be about the moment captured...not staged...or controlled...
I'm a big advocate of "straight photography". What that means is, you compose in-camera and shoot. This includes shooting from the hip, however the idea of straight photography is that you present the scene as you saw it, which kinda precludes shooting from the hip (which I find a little cowardly, anyway ).
My general perspective and how I treat street photography as GM: I look for what I consider the 2 major components of street photography: that the image is un-posed and that there is a focus on the moment. I don't mind crops at all. In fact, I know some very good street photographers here at dA that regularly crop their images into a square format for stylistic reasons. I also don't mind "gimmicks" like HDR or visual filters so long as the 2 major components are there and clearly visible. The only real things that bother me are if elements of an image are cloned out or layered in.
Tom, questions: 1 a part of the image (and not a small one) is created on computer How is that? None of the image was created on the computer. The only things that were done were straightening, cropping, and desaturating...all of which could be done with film.
2 you create with the manip illusion and deceptions...What's the illusion and deception? That the world is b&w? I do the same by shooting b&w film. By adjusting the contrast? I do that by increasing processing time and choosing harder paper to print on. By straightening the image? That actually makes the final image look more real as one would see it, doesn't it?
"shooting from the hip (which I find a little cowardly, anyway" shooting from the hip, for me, means shooting unnoticed It has nothing to do with how much bold you are. It has to do with depicting a moment without interfering with it. If people see you aiming at them, they change their attitude in front of the camera, so there goes away the "life as we see it" capture. For example: if I shot the trolley carrying lady with my camera aiming straight at her face from a 2 metres distance I would have gotten a totally different shot. Maybe she would pose, maybe she would curse, maybe she would hit me with her bag. It wouldn't be a "life as we see it" shot then, because we usually don't see life through the viewfinder
"I don't mind crops at all" indeed as a GM it would impossible to choose only uncroped... too restrictive, almost all deviants don't care about crops, and it would be impossible to check out... and so few can buy a 6x6 camera, squares would excluded, bad idea there
"I also don't mind "gimmicks" like HDR" isn't it opposite to "there is a focus on the moment", you have 2 moments with hdr...so you accept also double-exposure shot? I don't see the difference between hdr and multi-exposure (like them and then will suggest for DD)
"The only real things that bother me are if elements of an image are cloned out or layered in." so did you see this part of "Editing Hipshots" between pic 4 and pic 5....with the comment "just grab the cloning tool and fill them (empty areas)"
"How is that? None of the image was created on the computer." between pic 4 and 5
"which could be done with film." don't think so without a scan and computer
"What's the illusion and deception? " creating a new part of the image with cloning tool.... of course it's only a tree and tarmac, but when you start cloning and delete, where is the limit?
"That the world is b&w? I do the same by shooting b&w film. By adjusting the contrast? I do that by increasing processing time and choosing harder paper to print on"
I'm glad that you agree on "however the idea of straight photography is that you present the scene as you saw it" Brian's personal perspective This means that an unprocessed image is NOT the scene as we saw it, simply because the film or the digital censor is incapable to catch all the dynamic range that our eyes can catch. Unless if you mean "as our camera saw it". This is where HDR comes to increase the dynamic range of the photograph and to try to show us what our eyes have really seen. And I do not mean by that, of course, the cartoonish feel many HDR images have. And no, it is not necessary to have 2 different moments with HDR. A single raw shot is enough for that. Regarding the cloning, you can read my answer to Brian right below (I'm refering to pictures 4 and 5). What I want to say as a conclusion to this comment of mine is that I do thank you for the chance you gave me to discuss very interesting photography matters with you. I only wish that my english was my mother language, or that Greek was yours. Then, this conversation would be much more interesting for both of us
I was meaning the historical mean, no manipulation of the scene, no added element and no one deleted of the scene cought by the camera... this limits to the only adjudt of contrasts and tones to express what you felt with this scene that your eye didn't see inevitably...
Tom is right on the cloning part (pictures 4 and 5) but.... the cloning is definitely to a small part of the picture and it is applied to parts of minor significance to the image. I would have cropped otherwise, but i didn't want to cut the ladies feet What I want to point out, is that though I respect Tom's opinion, I suggest that we should take advantage of what a modern (digital) darkroom has to offer us in order to have more interesting processed images. I do not want to argue about the analog-digital era of photography here. I've had enough of that in previous times, outside of dA. One thing interest me though! Have I managed to catch a unique real moment of life on an image? If I have, I really don't care about the means I used. I didn't cheat anyone after all. The lady was there and i was right in front of her taking her picture. Ok, some leaves and a part of asphalt were there too but I missed including them because of cropping. So I put them back. I didn't put UFOS to replace them and deceive anyone, did I?
This is an interesting conversation and I had a thought to add.
My bf worked in a retouch lab, where he manually edited pictures (the old ink and paint technique). So yes, minor cloning is like the digital lab. When reconstructing a torn image, you often have to redraw the missing pieces. And our eyes automatically fill in the pieces of a puzzle. Granted clone tool is way easier than painting in the tree, etc.
This is great tutorial, Stamatis, full of interesting stuff. I have one minor point of critique, not so much to correct you (probably your cloning was purely for educating reasons) as to warn others: if people clone large areas with an amorphous, irregular texture (like leaves, rocks, stains on a wall), they should be on their guard for creating a repetitive, 'semi-regular' effect. You can avoid this by changing the point of origin more often while cloning. It's also important to think '3D' and be careful in reconstructing the reality outside the picture - I wonder if the picture shouldn't have been supplemented with bits and pieces of the stand's parasol instead of leaves. (Which might be easier to clone anyway.) On the whole, I learned a lot from this tutorial, thank you!
Accurate remark Eric! Indeed the cloning was for educating reasons and not the good thing. It would be very time consuming for me to clone accurately the stand's parasol, so I chose the easy way throwing some more leaves there I also know that in this tutorial I used a lot of 3d party plug-ins for CS3, but this is my workflow and I'd be happy to provide more information about these plug-ins (though it's very easy for someone to google them)