Mixing
Why is software based manipulation of images frowned upon while hardware based manipulation acceptable
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my previous question someone pointed out that unnatural HDR based toning will get more objections from the photography community than cropping. I personally feel that slight HDR based enhancements are OK from an artistic perspective as long as the final image is not changed drastically.
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w film) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
hdr black-and-white
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my previous question someone pointed out that unnatural HDR based toning will get more objections from the photography community than cropping. I personally feel that slight HDR based enhancements are OK from an artistic perspective as long as the final image is not changed drastically.
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w film) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
hdr black-and-white
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
1
Frowned upon by whom? And why do you classify desaturation as "hardware based"? Can you find another example besides long exposure?
– mattdm
1 hour ago
@mattdm mostly from what I read so far about photography, HDR is frowned upon. At least thats the sense I get
– kiran
1 hour ago
2
I think you're generalising from "using HDR on every image at max effect level is bad", which certainly is a common complaint, to "software based manipulation is bad" which is at most a much less prevalent theme.
– Philip Kendall
1 hour ago
Changing the scene to be unreal (for gross example, putting a different head on a body) ought to be frowned on, but simply improving the tonal image is pretty much the goal of photography.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Beyond the hardware that does storage and retrieval of digital data, and the hardware that captures and displays that data, there is very little if any "hardware based manipulation" of images - it's all software. But it might be software running in your camera/phone, or it might be software on your laptop or desktop. Anyone who frowns on "software" manipulation over "hardware" manipulation doesn't get that point...
– twalberg
37 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my previous question someone pointed out that unnatural HDR based toning will get more objections from the photography community than cropping. I personally feel that slight HDR based enhancements are OK from an artistic perspective as long as the final image is not changed drastically.
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w film) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
hdr black-and-white
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
In my previous question someone pointed out that unnatural HDR based toning will get more objections from the photography community than cropping. I personally feel that slight HDR based enhancements are OK from an artistic perspective as long as the final image is not changed drastically.
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w film) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
hdr black-and-white
hdr black-and-white
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
edited 20 mins ago
osullic
5,25811021
5,25811021
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
asked 1 hour ago
kiran
10617
10617
1
Frowned upon by whom? And why do you classify desaturation as "hardware based"? Can you find another example besides long exposure?
– mattdm
1 hour ago
@mattdm mostly from what I read so far about photography, HDR is frowned upon. At least thats the sense I get
– kiran
1 hour ago
2
I think you're generalising from "using HDR on every image at max effect level is bad", which certainly is a common complaint, to "software based manipulation is bad" which is at most a much less prevalent theme.
– Philip Kendall
1 hour ago
Changing the scene to be unreal (for gross example, putting a different head on a body) ought to be frowned on, but simply improving the tonal image is pretty much the goal of photography.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Beyond the hardware that does storage and retrieval of digital data, and the hardware that captures and displays that data, there is very little if any "hardware based manipulation" of images - it's all software. But it might be software running in your camera/phone, or it might be software on your laptop or desktop. Anyone who frowns on "software" manipulation over "hardware" manipulation doesn't get that point...
– twalberg
37 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
Frowned upon by whom? And why do you classify desaturation as "hardware based"? Can you find another example besides long exposure?
– mattdm
1 hour ago
@mattdm mostly from what I read so far about photography, HDR is frowned upon. At least thats the sense I get
– kiran
1 hour ago
2
I think you're generalising from "using HDR on every image at max effect level is bad", which certainly is a common complaint, to "software based manipulation is bad" which is at most a much less prevalent theme.
– Philip Kendall
1 hour ago
Changing the scene to be unreal (for gross example, putting a different head on a body) ought to be frowned on, but simply improving the tonal image is pretty much the goal of photography.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Beyond the hardware that does storage and retrieval of digital data, and the hardware that captures and displays that data, there is very little if any "hardware based manipulation" of images - it's all software. But it might be software running in your camera/phone, or it might be software on your laptop or desktop. Anyone who frowns on "software" manipulation over "hardware" manipulation doesn't get that point...
– twalberg
37 mins ago
1
1
Frowned upon by whom? And why do you classify desaturation as "hardware based"? Can you find another example besides long exposure?
– mattdm
1 hour ago
Frowned upon by whom? And why do you classify desaturation as "hardware based"? Can you find another example besides long exposure?
– mattdm
1 hour ago
@mattdm mostly from what I read so far about photography, HDR is frowned upon. At least thats the sense I get
– kiran
1 hour ago
@mattdm mostly from what I read so far about photography, HDR is frowned upon. At least thats the sense I get
– kiran
1 hour ago
2
2
I think you're generalising from "using HDR on every image at max effect level is bad", which certainly is a common complaint, to "software based manipulation is bad" which is at most a much less prevalent theme.
– Philip Kendall
1 hour ago
I think you're generalising from "using HDR on every image at max effect level is bad", which certainly is a common complaint, to "software based manipulation is bad" which is at most a much less prevalent theme.
– Philip Kendall
1 hour ago
Changing the scene to be unreal (for gross example, putting a different head on a body) ought to be frowned on, but simply improving the tonal image is pretty much the goal of photography.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Changing the scene to be unreal (for gross example, putting a different head on a body) ought to be frowned on, but simply improving the tonal image is pretty much the goal of photography.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Beyond the hardware that does storage and retrieval of digital data, and the hardware that captures and displays that data, there is very little if any "hardware based manipulation" of images - it's all software. But it might be software running in your camera/phone, or it might be software on your laptop or desktop. Anyone who frowns on "software" manipulation over "hardware" manipulation doesn't get that point...
– twalberg
37 mins ago
Beyond the hardware that does storage and retrieval of digital data, and the hardware that captures and displays that data, there is very little if any "hardware based manipulation" of images - it's all software. But it might be software running in your camera/phone, or it might be software on your laptop or desktop. Anyone who frowns on "software" manipulation over "hardware" manipulation doesn't get that point...
– twalberg
37 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Is it frowned upon? Photography has always made use of whatever technology was available, whether in the camera, the darkroom or, now, the computer.
It's a long time since other forms of art were required to be 'photorealistic'. No need for photography to be either! If you find yourself among people who disagree, work within their rules if you find benefit, but work elsewhere as well.
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I'm going to challenge this:
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w camera) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
Specifically, black and white photography is not a "hardware manipulation", even if we consider film to be "hardware". It's a historical technical limitation, and because of its history has become part of the language of photography.
And, long exposure — I'm assuming you're thinking of the smooth-as-butter waterfalls, or traffic as streams of headlights and taillights — may not be exactly as human perception, but here's the thing: neither is a short exposure! The human vision system intrinsically builds an always-updating time-based model of the world. We don't see a stream (or cars!) frozen in time. Any shutter speed selection results in something which is an artifact of the photographic process.
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Is it frowned upon? Photography has always made use of whatever technology was available, whether in the camera, the darkroom or, now, the computer.
It's a long time since other forms of art were required to be 'photorealistic'. No need for photography to be either! If you find yourself among people who disagree, work within their rules if you find benefit, but work elsewhere as well.
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Is it frowned upon? Photography has always made use of whatever technology was available, whether in the camera, the darkroom or, now, the computer.
It's a long time since other forms of art were required to be 'photorealistic'. No need for photography to be either! If you find yourself among people who disagree, work within their rules if you find benefit, but work elsewhere as well.
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Is it frowned upon? Photography has always made use of whatever technology was available, whether in the camera, the darkroom or, now, the computer.
It's a long time since other forms of art were required to be 'photorealistic'. No need for photography to be either! If you find yourself among people who disagree, work within their rules if you find benefit, but work elsewhere as well.
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
Is it frowned upon? Photography has always made use of whatever technology was available, whether in the camera, the darkroom or, now, the computer.
It's a long time since other forms of art were required to be 'photorealistic'. No need for photography to be either! If you find yourself among people who disagree, work within their rules if you find benefit, but work elsewhere as well.
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
answered 1 hour ago
Laurence Payne
1,05135
1,05135
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I'm going to challenge this:
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w camera) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
Specifically, black and white photography is not a "hardware manipulation", even if we consider film to be "hardware". It's a historical technical limitation, and because of its history has become part of the language of photography.
And, long exposure — I'm assuming you're thinking of the smooth-as-butter waterfalls, or traffic as streams of headlights and taillights — may not be exactly as human perception, but here's the thing: neither is a short exposure! The human vision system intrinsically builds an always-updating time-based model of the world. We don't see a stream (or cars!) frozen in time. Any shutter speed selection results in something which is an artifact of the photographic process.
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I'm going to challenge this:
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w camera) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
Specifically, black and white photography is not a "hardware manipulation", even if we consider film to be "hardware". It's a historical technical limitation, and because of its history has become part of the language of photography.
And, long exposure — I'm assuming you're thinking of the smooth-as-butter waterfalls, or traffic as streams of headlights and taillights — may not be exactly as human perception, but here's the thing: neither is a short exposure! The human vision system intrinsically builds an always-updating time-based model of the world. We don't see a stream (or cars!) frozen in time. Any shutter speed selection results in something which is an artifact of the photographic process.
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I'm going to challenge this:
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w camera) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
Specifically, black and white photography is not a "hardware manipulation", even if we consider film to be "hardware". It's a historical technical limitation, and because of its history has become part of the language of photography.
And, long exposure — I'm assuming you're thinking of the smooth-as-butter waterfalls, or traffic as streams of headlights and taillights — may not be exactly as human perception, but here's the thing: neither is a short exposure! The human vision system intrinsically builds an always-updating time-based model of the world. We don't see a stream (or cars!) frozen in time. Any shutter speed selection results in something which is an artifact of the photographic process.
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
I'm going to challenge this:
My question is why is hardware based manipulations like black and white photography( traditionally using b/w camera) , long exposure etc , which also result in an "unnatural" image, are acceptable while software based manipulation(like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
Specifically, black and white photography is not a "hardware manipulation", even if we consider film to be "hardware". It's a historical technical limitation, and because of its history has become part of the language of photography.
And, long exposure — I'm assuming you're thinking of the smooth-as-butter waterfalls, or traffic as streams of headlights and taillights — may not be exactly as human perception, but here's the thing: neither is a short exposure! The human vision system intrinsically builds an always-updating time-based model of the world. We don't see a stream (or cars!) frozen in time. Any shutter speed selection results in something which is an artifact of the photographic process.
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
answered 40 mins ago
mattdm
116k37336629
116k37336629
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101745%2fwhy-is-software-based-manipulation-of-images-frowned-upon-while-hardware-based-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Frowned upon by whom? And why do you classify desaturation as "hardware based"? Can you find another example besides long exposure?
– mattdm
1 hour ago
@mattdm mostly from what I read so far about photography, HDR is frowned upon. At least thats the sense I get
– kiran
1 hour ago
2
I think you're generalising from "using HDR on every image at max effect level is bad", which certainly is a common complaint, to "software based manipulation is bad" which is at most a much less prevalent theme.
– Philip Kendall
1 hour ago
Changing the scene to be unreal (for gross example, putting a different head on a body) ought to be frowned on, but simply improving the tonal image is pretty much the goal of photography.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Beyond the hardware that does storage and retrieval of digital data, and the hardware that captures and displays that data, there is very little if any "hardware based manipulation" of images - it's all software. But it might be software running in your camera/phone, or it might be software on your laptop or desktop. Anyone who frowns on "software" manipulation over "hardware" manipulation doesn't get that point...
– twalberg
37 mins ago