Landscape treatment vs. Portrait treatment in photographs

[Clara Hollyberry]

Photographers, do you feel personally artistically compelled to add treatments to your images, or are you satisfied with your ability to position and capture your image with the Second Life camera and graphics? 

And if you do feel compelled to add treatments to your work, do you find that you treat your landscapes differently from your portraits?  Or do you employ the same processes?

I find that I never feel like retouching my landscapes, but I always feel creatively itchy if I haven't done something extra to a portrait... even cropping if nothing else.  (But usually much more.)

[Alyona Su]

Compelled? no. if it feels compelled then it isn't really "art" is it? The wonder of the art is in the experimentation and trying of new things, going into directions you never intended to go and not even sure when to stop. As for being satisfied with the crop and angle of capturing (snapshotting) with the alt-cam ability - absolutely. I can take equivalently-wonderful snapshots and the self-proclaimed "professionals" with just the keyboard and tools given in the official LL viewer. The "Phototools" widget in Firestorm feels a lot like training wheels to me. But that's good as it allows those who like to do snapshotting (no, it is NOT "photography" by definition) then it's good that they have Instagram-ish tools to help them out.  

And Yes, I do sometimes perform some post-processing when I'm in the mood for it, but not generally.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Clara Hollyberry]

Alyona Su, how do you think your images compare vis a vis PC or Mac? Beyond the scope of the original question of course but I am still interested.  It's time to replace one or the other of my machines, creativity is my bent, I am leaning towards a new 🍎pro, etc...  I find I like the Mac photo editors more but the PC raw snapshots more.  It's a conundrum, albeit a nice one.

[Alyona Su]

26 minutes ago, Clarrellae said:

Alyona Su, how do you think your images compare vis a vis PC or Mac? Beyond the scope of the original question of course but I am still interested.  It's time to replace one or the other of my machines, creativity is my bent, I am leaning towards a new 🍎pro, etc...  I find I like the Mac photo editors more but the PC raw snapshots more.  It's a conundrum, albeit a nice one.

That is a good question!. I think it's best to put it this way: The end result is moot - I would say they are of equal "quality" on Windows and Mac alike. The road to getting there, however, is a massive difference. Even with the same software on both Windows and Macintosh: Firestorm Viewer, Affinity Photo, (or Photoshop, etc.) and On1 RAW or On1 Effects - the process is definitely faster, more pleasurable, and seriously better all the way around on the Macintosh. Retina Display with bold, beautiful color I just can never seem to get on any PC I have *ever* seen - in short: I'll take a 14" Mac with half the "power"over a 36" Windows PC with all the same software.

Edit to add: The software I use is available on Windows and macOS and I cannot recommend them enough and Adobe is seriously irrelevant now and over-priced: for Photographers/Snapshotters - MUST GET: On1 Photo Raw (or On1 Photo Effects - sometimes even offered for free). Nothing you can do in Photoshop that I cannot do just a well and faster and easier in Photo RAW (https://www.on1.com)

If you insist on a photo illustration tool (which is what Photoshop is) the Affinity Photo is a must have, and has a similar interface to Photoshop, does everything Photoshop does, and costs only $60, which is NOT a rental (subscription) - but you *own it*. Go figure (https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/). There is always Gimp and such, as well.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Clara Hollyberry]

"The road to getting there" -- couldn't agree more.  I think that seals it. I do enjoy the process more with Mac.  

Affinity is fantastic, I went in at the beta.  On1 is new to me, I will investigate.  Gimp is what it is; my PC runs it efficiently and reliably, but it's not my very favourite way to spend time.

[Alyona Su]

My PC runs four apps: Second Life, Start Trek Online, Neverwinder, and Brave Browser. Full stop. LOL I do *Everything* else on my Mac, even  run SL sometimes (because it looks so much better than any PC I've seen and new iMac Pro at office: even Firestorm screams on it LOL)

SL is an experience and it's more or less the same experience on any platform. Though outside SL it's a usability experience and for that I personally prefer macOS. Windows is not bad, macOS is just better, I think.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

On 8/7/2019 at 11:13 AM, Clarrellae said:

Photographers, do you feel personally artistically compelled to add treatments to your images, or are you satisfied with your ability to position and capture your image with the Second Life camera and graphics? 

And if you do feel compelled to add treatments to your work, do you find that you treat your landscapes differently from your portraits?  Or do you employ the same processes?

I find that I never feel like retouching my landscapes, but I always feel creatively itchy if I haven't done something extra to a portrait... even cropping if nothing else.  (But usually much more.)

Ok, here's a sort of thumbnail version of my own approach to landscape, cityscape, or architectural images. It's emphatically not prescriptive: this merely describes my own thinking.

One way to think about photographs is to imagine them on a sort of spectrum or continuum.

At one end, we have what you might call "documentary" photography, where the point is to reproduce, to varying degrees of veracity, an original that exists in "real life" or, at least, outside of the photograph. The amount of technical skill and/or "artistry' that you might need for this will, perhaps, depend on what it is that you are attempting to capture and reproduce. Sometimes, a merely clear and legible photograph is sufficient; in other instances, where you are trying to catch a particular moment in time, or things like colour or light, you might be required to employ more technique and craft. But the key point is that what you are attempting to do is produce a two-dimensional record of something outside of the photograph, whether it's a "thing," a text, or a moment in time.

On the other hand, we have the idea of the photography as, in some sense, "art." In these cases, the focus is not upon the thing you are recording, but rather upon the meanings and effects produced by the photograph itself. So, the subject of the photograph might be entirely unimportant -- a staircase, or a still life, or the view from a window. What is important is how that otherwise meaningless thing is transformed into something new, a work of art.

So, on the one end of the spectrum, the photograph is treated as "transparent": it is a means to understand the thing that is being photographed. On the other end, the photograph is "opaque": we don't care that much about the original thing, because what matters is the photograph itself. And of course most photos exist not purely at one or other extreme end of this spectrum, but somewhere in the middle, tending more towards this end, or that.

My own interest in photographing places is with the "opaque" end of the spectrum, where the focus is on the photograph rather than the thing being photographed.  (I don't want to say "artistic" end, because I'm simply not that good.) I'm not an extremist in this regard: if I take a picture of the house at Bellefleurs, for instance, I am, to some degree, recording something that I think is, in its own right, interesting and important. But I'm more interested in capturing, through lighting, colour, composition, and so forth, some of the things that Bellefleurs means to me, rather than to reproduce exactly what I see in my viewer when I visit there. In that sense, I suppose, my approach is kind of "impressionist": I'm trying to bring out and highlight, through a variety of means of photo manipulation (in viewer, and in Photoshop) something quite personal about my responses to the place. And I'm using the photograph to communicate those personal responses, rather than focusing upon "showing you" the thing itself.

The additional point is that photographs, even in RL, always involve some form of manipulation, whether it's the choice of aperture, field of view, use of depth of field, etc. It is an immense amount of work to reproduce in a finished photo exactly what you "see," and generally we aren't actually trying to do that.

It's even more complicated in SL, of course, because nothing that we are photographing has a "real" existence outside of how it is rendered by our computers. It makes no sense to say "this is exactly how something looks" in SL, because there are an enormous number of factors -- screen size, choice of viewer, quality of graphics, graphics settings, and so forth -- that ensure that what I see is going to nearly always be at least somewhat different from what you see. It's all virtual anyway, and employing a particular Windlight really isn't, logically, any different than employing a Photoshop filter: it's merely that one is inside the viewer, and the other is not.

Sorry, that was intended to be brief. I'm not very good at being succinct . . .

Edited August 11, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Clara Hollyberry]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

............. It's even more complicated in SL, of course, because nothing that we are photographing has a "real" existence outside of how it is rendered by our computers. It makes no sense to say "this is exactly how something looks" in SL, because there are an enormous number of factors [.....]  It's all virtual anyway

What a thoughtful comment; I enjoy contemplating it, as I enjoy Alyona's too.  

There is one thing I feel like picking apart and it is this idea of virtual versus non-virtual (?) realities in snapshot.  Nothing we photograph has a real existence outside of Second Life, you say.  Alyona said above, also, that this is snapshotting and not photographing "by definition", and these two ideas put together call into question the very nature of the reality we're capturing in images.  (I like chiselling away at this idea in general as I inhabit SL, at the risk of derailing everything. It's an ongoing conversation, not an argument. Just thinking out loud.)

I like to call it "photograph" because it is an image composed of, revealed by, and determined by light.  Whether in the virtual world of Second Life or outside my livingroom window, everything comes down to light, the spectrum of light, visible light, manipulating how light reflects or shadows, manipulating the intensity or distance of the vantage point... it's all about light.  Virtual worlds are made of light; our world is made of light;  I am happy to call these captures of light a photograph or a snapshot either way because, in the way I understand the words, the words fit.

The computer and the human head are both locked rooms busy interpreting and controlling and to varying degrees processing light.   Reality is virtual anyway so it's all real, or it's all virtual, and I like that.

I take a lot of existential shortcuts in that kind of rationale, of course.  You can poke holes everywhere.  But I think it's the kind of thinking that takes me back on point, to be able to say there are as many ways to view and capture an edifice surrounded by trees as there are computers attempting to capture it -- as you say,  it's impossible to say "this is exactly how something looks in SL," because of the variety of strengths and limitations of the light-interpreters out there trying to capture it.  

I wonder how much enjoyment photographers would get out of a monthly challenge such as this:  "Here is an edifice; photograph how you see it; let's see everybody's perspective of this same edifice." 

[Alyona Su]

17 hours ago, Clarrellae said:

What a thoughtful comment; I enjoy contemplating it, as I enjoy Alyona's too.  

There is one thing I feel like picking apart and it is this idea of virtual versus non-virtual (?) realities in snapshot.  Nothing we photograph has a real existence outside of Second Life, you say.  Alyona said above, also, that this is snapshotting and not photographing "by definition", and these two ideas put together call into question the very nature of the reality we're capturing in images.  (I like chiselling away at this idea in general as I inhabit SL, at the risk of derailing everything. It's an ongoing conversation, not an argument. Just thinking out loud.)

I like to call it "photograph" because it is an image composed of, revealed by, and determined by light.  Whether in the virtual world of Second Life or outside my livingroom window, everything comes down to light, the spectrum of light, visible light, manipulating how light reflects or shadows, manipulating the intensity or distance of the vantage point... it's all about light.  Virtual worlds are made of light; our world is made of light;  I am happy to call these captures of light a photograph or a snapshot either way because, in the way I understand the words, the words fit.

The computer and the human head are both locked rooms busy interpreting and controlling and to varying degrees processing light.   Reality is virtual anyway so it's all real, or it's all virtual, and I like that.

I take a lot of existential shortcuts in that kind of rationale, of course.  You can poke holes everywhere.  But I think it's the kind of thinking that takes me back on point, to be able to say there are as many ways to view and capture an edifice surrounded by trees as there are computers attempting to capture it -- as you say,  it's impossible to say "this is exactly how something looks in SL," because of the variety of strengths and limitations of the light-interpreters out there trying to capture it.  

I wonder how much enjoyment photographers would get out of a monthly challenge such as this:  "Here is an edifice; photograph how you see it; let's see everybody's perspective of this same edifice." 

All great points. I call it "snapshotting" because that what Linden Lab calls it. Photo - by definition, involves actual light. Now, we've been calling them SL "photographs" for years, and there's nothing wrong with that. The degree I was going to school for is Communications. Hence, words have definitive meaning for me - so this all may be me annoying everyone else! LOL.

Now - when words have meaning, then what is the sense of the imagery we are creating with our "Second Life Photography"?

So here's the word-nerd's description on a definitive level: Since we are screen-capturing a computer image, we must see it on the display, which uses light, so we *could* use the word photo in part on a technicality. Since the image is computer-generated and does not exist, what should we call it then? The answer is simply that it is a computer-generated illustration. Therefore, I believe, the technical definition of what we are creating is "computer-generated illustrative synthetic photograph." Dropping and truncating some of those words could allow us to use the simple term "Photo-Illustration." - This is the legal term of any photograph that has been manipulated in any way; changing the shape of the composition of the scene, usually by adding, removing, or 'warping' elements. We are "adding" 100% of the elements in the scene.

So on a technical level: Photo-Illustration would is a legally-acceptable term for what we are creating (and surely there is no need for any legal considerations here; this is a moot discussion.)

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Madelaine McMasters]

My approach to photography depends on the moment, the mood, the tools at hand... too many things to contemplate. My photography ranges from documentation to story telling.

Long ago I realized that, in real-time, my perception of the world around me is unlike most people I meet. It's not that I'm somehow different, it's that we're all different. My own personal abilities (I'm a Tetrachromat, have high Flicker Fusion Threshold and perhaps some other visual/aural hypersensitivities) and experiences (I was raised by crazy-curious people) pretty much ensure that the world I experience is not the same as any of you. That makes it hard to be a purist. Want to "enhance" a photo? Go ahead, Ansel Adams the hell out of it. I've yet to wield a camera that sees what I do. Some see less, some see more, yet all of them freeze the moment for further contemplation. I consider enhancements to be no more or less integral to the image than the choice of subject matter or composition. It's all the work of the same mind.

And I might not see the virtuality of SL in the way many of you do. I have had, for as long as I can remember, the "ability" to de-render objects in RL, to project myself into what I see, and to violate the laws of physics. I might look at a skyscraper and construct a mental image of its occupants floating in air. When I see a bird flying though the trees in my yard, I can instantaneously imagine the first person view. When I see clouds, I can enter them, sometimes feeling the cool mist on my arms. When I see someone in a precarious position, I imagine the worst outcome possible, from which they eventually walk away unscathed.

I'm drawn to the unexpected. Juxtaposition, incongruence, absurdity... my images reflect that because my world is full of it. SL makes it fairly easy to show you what I "see" in RL.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Madelaine McMasters

[Clara Hollyberry]

7 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

All great points. I call it "snapshotting" because that what Linden Lab calls it. Photo - by definition, involves actual light. Now, we've been calling them SL "photographs" for years, and there's nothing wrong with that. The degree I was going to school for is Communications. Hence, words have definitive meaning for me - so this all may be me annoying everyone else! LOL.

Now - when words have meaning, then what is the sense of the imagery we are creating with our "Second Life Photography"?

So here's the word-nerd's description on a definitive level: Since we are screen-capturing a computer image, we must see it on the display, which uses light, so we *could* use the word photo in part on a technicality. Since the image is computer-generated and does not exist, what should we call it then? The answer is simply that it is a computer-generated illustration. Therefore, I believe, the technical definition of what we are creating is "computer-generated illustrative synthetic photograph." Dropping and truncating some of those words could allow us to use the simple term "Photo-Illustration." - This is the legal term of any photograph that has been manipulated in any way; changing the shape of the composition of the scene, usually by adding, removing, or 'warping' elements. We are "adding" 100% of the elements in the scene.

So on a technical level: Photo-Illustration would is a legally-acceptable term for what we are creating (and surely there is no need for any legal considerations here; this is a moot discussion.)

 

That was most entertaining 🍾

[Clara Hollyberry]

5 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

My approach to photography depends on the moment, the mood, the tools at hand... too many things to contemplate. My photography ranges from documentation to story telling.

Long ago I realized that, in real-time, my perception of the world around me is unlike most people I meet. It's not that I'm somehow different, it's that we're all different. My own personal abilities (I'm a Tetrachromat, have high Flicker Fusion Threshold and perhaps some other visual/aural hypersensitivities) and experiences (I was raised by crazy-curious people) pretty much ensure that the world I experience is not the same as any of you. That makes it hard to be a purist. Want to "enhance" a photo? Go ahead, Ansel Adams the hell out of it. I've yet to wield a camera that sees what I do. Some see less, some see more, yet all of them freeze the moment for further contemplation. I consider enhancements to be no more or less integral to the image than the choice of subject matter or composition. It's all the work of the same mind.

And I might not see the virtuality of SL in the way many of you do. I have had, for as long as I can remember, the "ability" to de-render objects in RL, to project myself into what I see, and to violate the laws of physics. I might look at a skyscraper and construct a mental image of its occupants floating in air. When I see a bird flying though the trees in my yard, I can instantaneously imagine the first person view. When I see clouds, I can enter them, sometimes feeling the cool mist on my arms. When I see someone in a precarious position, I imagine the worst outcome possible, from which they eventually walk away unscathed.

I'm drawn to the unexpected. Juxtaposition, incongruence, absurdity... my images reflect that because my world is full of it. SL makes it fairly easy to show you what I "see" in RL.

That was most intriguing!  I have some new words to study. 

Enhancements as all work of the same mind -- I share your opinion.

[Alyona Su]

20 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Go ahead, Ansel Adams the hell out of it.

This. And it's just one click on On1 Photo Effects.