20mins of myth busting and common sense. This is gold. Sean, the best of the best for you.

@rich3419

4 жыл бұрын

I hope he feels better now that he has confessed. Now, let me see him fully disclose all of the doctoring (whoops, I mean digital enhancements), he has applied to all of his images.

@BusyBeanz

4 жыл бұрын

I agree - I like how he debunks nearly every myth about editing, and gives solid examples of editing before the digital age! Photography is an art and he’s a great artist

@sandb1867

4 жыл бұрын

Puritans exist in every religion and these are often the social rejects of society. Anyone who believes a photo must be a literal capture of reality (which is impossible) should limit their photography to forensics or some other drab non-art form.

@rich3419

4 жыл бұрын

@@sandb1867 They are not photos. They are digital images created by desktop software.

@sandb1867

4 жыл бұрын

Said like a true zealot. BTW, a TRUE photo is one that's printed. More manipulation goes on in the darkroom than on a desktop.

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." - Ansel Adams

"Sky replacement"... reminded me of the time Peter Mckinnon added an entire mountain in the desert lol!

@Grainme47

4 жыл бұрын

Liyo Kikon loll 😂😂😂

@FAHtazz11

4 жыл бұрын

LMAO!!

@kingsamvisuals

4 жыл бұрын

That was gold. It made the image worse

@NielsdeKemp

4 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@maxhammitzsch1795

4 жыл бұрын

Oh i want to see this so bad xD

I have to edit heavily because my family are very ugly.

@briefcasemanx

4 жыл бұрын

Whoa!

@RobinMarkowitzcoolmedia

4 жыл бұрын

😂

@jeffreydamron6376

4 жыл бұрын

Scott Williams Photography 😂

@RichardSeal

4 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

@farrelfoster-lynam6683

4 жыл бұрын

This is one of the best things I've read on youtube

I remember how when I started photography a decade ago I got frustrated because I thought good photographers didn't edit their photos and I simply couldn't understand how their pictures were so flawless while I couldn't achieve that straight out of camera

A photograph is NEVER an exact copy of reality. Photography is manipulation of light and time. The manipulation starts when you set your shutter speed to capture a certain amount of time. It continues when you adjust your aperture to let the desired amount of light in. These are captured on an emulsion or sensor, which are designed by others to represent the light that goes trough your lens in a certain way. In the digital age, when you shoot "straight out of camera" JPGs - your images further manipulated by the built in software. When you shoot "straight out of camera" you already get a heavily manipulated representation of "reality". You also let others decide how your photos look (camera or film manufacturer). As a photographer, I believe my photographs represent my perception of reality. I start shaping this perception when I dial in my exposure settings. I fine tune it in post-process. It's OK for someone to like the SOOC results. But to claim that one can take a photo that "doesn't change reality" is not understanding how photography works. Further more, to claim that you can't process your photo if you want to be a "good" photographer is just an absurd lie with no grip on reality. Thanks Sean for this insightful video.

@markmalasics8413

4 жыл бұрын

Clear evidence of why cannabis should NOT be legalized.

@carlkristensen8398

4 жыл бұрын

So true. When I look at e person, that person looks sharp. So does the background. Meaning even dept of field is manipulation.

@bruce9313

4 жыл бұрын

The manipulation actually starts when the photographer decides "This is the frame I want to capture"

@aaronalbores3999

4 жыл бұрын

@@carlkristensen8398 When you look at a person, the person looks sharp, but not the background. The background will only look sharp when you move your eyes and unconsciously adjust the focus to look at it. But still you're right, we can manipulate a picture using depth of field to tell the viewer what we think it's important in that scene

@markhantla7915

4 жыл бұрын

"A photograph is NEVER an exact copy of reality." Indeed, and I would add that human vision is not an exact copy of reality either! The eye and brain together are an exposure and composition duo. We pretend as if what we see is "right," but in reality, it is a subjective viewpoint in two senses: 1. Our point of view is always exclusionary and never encapsulates the whole, and 2. How we take in that viewpoint adds subjective, interpretive layers. We consciously and unconsciously choose what grabs our attention or creates the viewpoint. And we also try to make sense of our imagery by applying a layer of our knowledge onto what we are viewing. We then react to what our brain tells us is going on as if it is the one true reality. The more we keep this in mind, the more likely we are to understand that visual mediums are doing more of what our eyes and brains do all the time, whether we realize it or not.

I often find that people who say something like "It's not really art if you edit" is people who don't produce art or is in the infant state of their own journey, and therefore don't feel comfortable editing themself. Just like me. I tell myself that I think that using other light than the sun is a bit cheaty. But in reality, I'm afraid to try shooting with a lamp and fail. When I write I often come back and edit something I wrote a month ago. When a painter paints he often goes back and redoes or "edit" the painting. A musician edits the music, so it sounds the best, and sometimes they do an alternative version of a song, a kind of edit. And lastly, a chef corrects the spices in the end so the dish taste just right. It's all a form of an edit. It's all to enhance the experience. But yes. Be honest! Great video Sean.

"Don't waste your time looking around for other people's work to denigrate." Wise words to live by. When I feel I'm getting to the point where critique turns into criticism, I find it helpful to ask myself that particular piece of art or creative process offends me beyond simple differences in taste? More often than not, this approach will uncover areas within my own process or knowledge that I would be unable to cogently defend or explain, assumptions I might have for reasons that are entirely my own. These, of course, are all actionable items I can focus on. Focus on your own craft first and foremost, and try to take away lessons rather than scalps from others' work.

@mras402

4 жыл бұрын

In a way this video just did that, to folks, both sides of the fence. lol

@michaeljdauben

4 жыл бұрын

If everyone followed that statement, it would eliminate half the internet.

When I take photographs, I want to capture what my eyes see. But my camera can only capture what it sees. I use editing to transform what the camera found in reality into the vision I saw there. My preference is for light editing because my focus is to learn my camera - I want to learn how to get the best photo I can in-camera so I can have good ingredients to work with. Thanks for another great video!

@manjeetsinghbhati3939

4 жыл бұрын

Came down to comment the same this is what resonates with me everytime I hear well editing your photos is not photography in its truest sense

@photographybyliamanderson1659

4 жыл бұрын

im with you on that. sometimes the colours change when imported to lightroom or the contrast isnt how i like it in camera i would change it to make the best image possible with as little editing as i can. i want to capture whats on the day but make it look as good as it can. including taking out small distractions.

@BokushingusKendoTV

4 жыл бұрын

My process is to create what my mind perceives. From what my eye sees to what my camera captures to my process of editing to what my mind imagines that I can share with whoever would view it.

@jorgepeterbarton

4 жыл бұрын

or go further: why not what the MEMORY sees. or even: what the SUBCONSCIOUS sees. (surrealism= "above real" in its literal etymology, they believed accurate representation was only a bourgouse value that was no more a measure of reality than inner thoughts.)

@DoctorZebedee

2 жыл бұрын

That’s a great way to put it.

I own couple of digital cameras and couple of film cameras. I'm sorry if this socks someone's world but some editing has always been done even before the artist has hit the shutter button. With film the pre-editing is done by the manufacturer. The chemicals on the film dictate how the scene is saved on the medium. I have not used a film that accurately replicates the scene 1-to-1 as I saw or felt it. There is always some kind of "Fuji-look" or "Kodachrome-feel" in the image that is captured on the film. Same applies for digital cameras. Design and engineering teams at the manufacturer decide what is "Canon-look", "Olympus-colors" or "Sony-shadow". After that the camera saves the scene as it is programmed. I haven't used a digital camera that replicates the scene 1-to-1 as I saw or felt it.

@fernandosocorro3651

4 жыл бұрын

Yep. This goes even deeper into the process of "pre-editing." Cool.

@jevgenijbalezin

4 жыл бұрын

that's actually a super valid point!

@catmonkey6826

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly! We are lucky that we now can record a RAW image that across different camera sensors has a smaller difference. And that difference can on the whole be negated by the editing that follows. I still use film and chose which film according to the look I want, that is an out and out edit, like you say Pekka, before the shutter button is pushed.

@gamingdimension7

2 жыл бұрын

YESSSSS thank you, great opinion :)

My favorite story about post-processing of film images is Ansel Adams' own description of his most popular image -- Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico. He didn't like the sky in his original print -- it was too light and there wasn't enough contrast with the moon --so he re-did it and pushed the sky to completely black. Adams, who was trained in classical music, liked to compare photography to the performance of classical music; he would say , "The negative is like the score, and the print is like the performance." The real magic in Adams' photographs was done in his darkroom. As for digital shots "straight out of camera"... What most folks don't realize is that every digital photo has been processed, in camera, using an algorithm developed by the manufacturer's engineers. If you've every heard someone argue that some cameras produce better colors than others, that's why. Photos of the same scene taken with different cameras look different because they're been processed differently, in camera. And high-end digital cameras allow the user to adjust the in-camera settings used to process the images. For example, you can change the contrast setting in-camera, so what comes "straight out of camera" -- in a jpeg, say -- can vary. The truth is, people who criticize digital photography for not being "realistic" like film photography, don't really understand either one.

It’s an art form people just experience the image and enjoy or move on.

@rich3419

4 жыл бұрын

Sure it's an art form. It's called digital art. It's not photography. And who is he kidding equating limited darkroom techniques to digital manipulation that is available with Photoshop? Really, is this what he has to do to feel absolved?

@josephcole3187

4 жыл бұрын

@@rich3419 sorry man but I have to agree with Sean on this one. I am a trained artist and will use any technique possible to get my intended vision across. ALL art is manipulated in some way including purist photography because you can actually manipulate the image in camera. There is no precise mathematical equation for a proper image. What I mean by this is I can make a long expose which is fake, I can increase the contrast in camera to make harsh lights and darks which is fake, I can move my camera during exposure to create an abstract image which is fake, using film I can double expose a negative to have 2 separate images on top of one another to create a distortion or layering effect which is fake. These are just some of a multitude of tricks that can be performed. If you don't like it i'm sorry but a true artist is a problem solver and uses anything within reach to make their vision come to life. If you are a purist well then shoot everything at f/8 1/250 iso 400 and use a 50 mm lens since that is what your eye sees and that is the closest you will get to what you want.

@rich3419

4 жыл бұрын

@@josephcole3187 No problem, you are a digital artist. Just disclose it as such.

@josephcole3187

4 жыл бұрын

Rich F I can agree with that

I am continually impressed with your thoughtful, informative, and instructive communications.

"To edit or not to edit is a choice, and *it's not a moral one.*" This statement really resonates with me. Quite often in my life I have encountered people who give moral weight to things when it only serves to alienate others. Accept people have their own ways of doing things, especially when it comes to something as subjective as art. Great video!

@redlumberjack8320

Жыл бұрын

This question of art being subjective is an interesting one. In a sense it is, of course. But, in my opinion, it's not only subjective, neither should it be. There used to be "rules" in art, rules that, if applied today, would spare us the so-called "modern / contemporary art" - things like Artist's Shit, by Manzoni... In photography, you could say that it would spare us selective color, overuse of saturation or clarity, (bad) HDR, and the like. But hey, that's just my opinion so...

Thanks Sean. I'm just a hobbyist but Cropping, dodging, and burner were techniques I learned in high-school back in the film days. I never learned how to remove objects so always felt bad about using the clone stamp to remove a distraction of something I didn't notice, but knowing it was done before in film makes me more at ease. Always enjoy your content.

What can I say? Mr Tucker grabs my attention every second during these videos. He is an oasis in the middle of this desert called KZread.

Love this, Sean. Always the best when it comes to dissecting these kind of questions we all ask ourselves. 👏🏻 Also, that Elliott Erwitt Photo is my favorite example when people preach about cropping. I think he would just laugh if people ever questioned his work because of cropping.

@seantuck

4 жыл бұрын

Cheers Matt. Yeah I didn't know about that one until researching for this video. A friend pointed it out to me. Love it!

Well said , just enjoy the art and other peoples creative vision. Everyone has a process .

Sean's photography is so much different than my own. But there is no one more authentic, whose videos I enjoy more and whose KZread likes to dislikes is so high. Kudos.

I completely agree with you Sean. Still so many people thinks of photography as a way to show objective reality, it never was really, is always the photographer's reality. Even reality itself is different for everyone..

I love that part; “just don’t lie”

Half the FUN of my photography is editing! That is ART.

Mr. Tucker - incredibly well done. People who think pros never used to retouch, crop, dodge and burn, have never been in a darkroom themselves and wanted to see their vision on paper. Why do they think Photoshop still uses the terminology from the film days? Its great to get it all right in camera, but few of us are Cartier-Bresson. Please keep up the excellent work.

This touches on a debate I have seen ad nauseam on some websites. Thank you Sean for putting some common-sense perspective on it. I have spent some time researching the history of photography and can completely concur that cropping, editing and retouching have been around as long as it was technically possible to do so. So too has the debate if a photography is a work or art, a mechanical contrivance and if it is "the truth" - another great subject for a video, if I may be so bold. When I hear people say that a photo is not truthful I respond with the question "What is truth?". There are so many differences between what we perceive and what the camera captures that truth is a very dubious term to use. Just to name a few for still photographs: * We correct distortion & colour shift, the camera does not * Our eyes adapt to tonal differences, the camera less so * Our eyes scan continuously, a camera does not * The camera has no emotional attachments, we do * We see what we expect to see and ignore things we take for granted, the camera does not * Our brains isolate, the camera does not * We see in 3D, the camera captures in 2D - we need to create the illusion of depth with composition or by using dual cameras How we isolate * We have evolved as part of our survival and social demands to be selective in what we observe: * The brightest element - particularly useful for finding food * The strongest, most saturated, and warmest colours * Our brains have a bias towards green (hence the Bayer Array setup) * Sharp or well-defined or well-contrasted areas * Texture - hard light vs. soft light and back light * Contrasting movement and stillness * The largest element * Leading Curves and perspective lines - frame placement * People (esp. children, faces, eyes) or animals * Patterns attract us * We read text! So when one questions if what a photograph produces is "truth" or "accurate" we have to ask exactly in what context that is meant.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you Sean for your words and your examples. I'm really struck by this particular image by Fan Ho.

Over the span of these last few months, I have come to appreciate the style and content of your videos. They are quite enjoyable ... well executed ... thought provoking ... and in my opinion, a breath of fresh air in this world of photography related youtubery. Thank you!

Never thought I would ever say this, but you are such a wise photographer! Thanks!

What a fantastic post Sean. I love your respect and honesty. Keep it up, thanks for giving to the community.

Probably the best use of 19 minutes ever on KZread. Bravo Sean. Class content as always. Thanks

"Nobody bothers how you got the image" .Great Sean. You have explained in a different way. Thanks.

I have to agree with GVP in his description of the process of photography. I have found that my photos are rarely what I see with my eyes no matter how good the lens or the camera is supposed to be. I spend my time post processing to make my photos more in line with what I thought I saw when I took the photo. We also have to remember that our own minds post process images we see with our eyes constantly. Our mental post processing is happening very quickly so it isn’t like we always see an image that slowly improves as our mind chugs along. That same mental image can be mentally processed over and over as our biases and perceptions change the memory of that image as times goes on. I admit, I don’t like images that have the color enhanced far beyond reality could ever be and yet I have done it over and over myself, thinking I was improving the photo. I really liked this vlog! Sean made some really great observations.

I took a picture as a last one before getting back on the tube with a deliberate intention to edit it and in a specific way. Thankfully it worked out, pushed my edit skills up a little and I enjoyed the thought, Taking and editing process. Posted it on Insta and other seem to like it to. A Win Win in my mind. Thank you for the inspiring videos.

I photograph for my self as a hobbyist. I crop and colour grade. I love the film aesthetic and I think that I get pretty close to it. I remember editing a photo of my dog to look like it was shot with a disposable camera. I added a horrible light leak and some dust/scratches. The majority of people loved the image as it reminded them of their old family photos and for some it reminded them of their old family pets. As it got shared around, the photo snobs had to leave their negative opinions. Funnily enough they told me it was a horrible photo from a disposable camera which made me happy as it was obviously a digital photo. I was criticised for the bad composition which was intentional as I wanted it to feel like a shot by Dad or mum photograph. I explained it to them but they just didn't get it. All I can say is trolls gotta troll and I have a block button.

@marcd7332

4 жыл бұрын

You do you, no need to explain yourself, if they don’t like it or understand it they can go on with their day

That Arnold Newman example speaks wonders! I love the way you integrate the history of photography in this video! Delightful as always.

After viewing this video I have to say AMEN BROTHER ! I couldn't have said it better. In my opinion editing your work is what makes photography a true art form. I really enjoy your videos and this is one of your best. Photographers need to stop worrying what and how others choose to create there photos and just enjoy them or move on. 🤔🤔🤔 😁📸😁 Thanks for all your hard work.

This episode should get the KZread Video of the Year Award ... it has in my mind!

I’ve been waiting for a vid on this subject from you. Nice one.

Three hoorays Sean, totally agree with you! I want to put my stamp on MY photographes, that’s MY art, not someone elses. And I’m totally open about what I do in post.

Once again, Sean, I couldn't agree more. Don't use post processing as a crutch to try to make a bad image good. Use it as PART of the art of photography. When it all comes down to it, that's what it all is: art, especially if you use it correctly. I've seen many photographers use very heavy post processing to add an amazing quality, if you will, to their images. If it's done right, even if I don't agree or am not particularly moved by the image, I can still tell when it is done correctly or is just a means to paint lipstick on a pig. It's pretty much the same as appreciating what good music is whether it's music I like or not. Just because I don't like a particular kind of music, doesn't mean it's not well done. As it's been said many times before, beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Whether it's well done or not is still even rather subjective. If I do criticize a piece of art, I often say that it's a nice piece but not my taste (which I've heard you say often as well). Please keep "doing you" and don't listen to those who say you're doing it wrong. I have found so little to disagree with your philosophy, it's not even worth mentioning. Thanks for your great work.

Awesome Sean. Integrity is key. Disclose honestly how you do things. Most hateful comments comes from lack of knowledge or fear. I love to edit, it's winter 11.9 months a year here in Canada :) So it's not always fun to go out. So during those colds days I dig up older images and work some creative edits on them in. To me it's an added layer of creativity, another opportunity for photographers to show their vision.

That was 19 mins incredibly well spent as I consumed a late supper. I remember reading a long time ago that a writer should either do something worth writing about or write something worth reading. Perhaps the modern video analog of that would be to do something worth making a video about or make content worth watching. You have succeeded on all fronts. This video essay simply resonated with me. Thank you.

@seantuck

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks Marcus:)

The commenter you quoted talks about "reality", but he doesn't seem to realize that there is NO actual common reality, what I mean is, we all see and experience the world in our own individual way. When we are born we learn to interpret what our senses feed us, our interpretations are influenced greatly by our environment, our society, our experiences and our feelings at the time. In this respect we can say that there are over 7 billion versions of "reality" out there. We all have a unique "take" on so called reality. What I see and feel in an image you may not and vice versa. I see photography as producing images that portray what you want them to and what you like, there is no right or wrong, we are expressing our individuality. The bottom line... process your images all you like, or don't process them, it's up to you, there's no reason to call either stance right or wrong.

@achimrecktenwald9671

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with what you wrote, but I also think that it is even impossible to have a photographic copy of reality. Whether it is film or digital, the colors, contrast in the picture, the specific look rendered by a lens of a specific focal length, all is different to what we as humans see. For instance, the sensor in a digital camera will record the differences in brightness as a linear curve; our human eye uses a logarithmic recording, allowing it to have a much higher dynamic range, than any sensor currently available. A photograph is 2-dimensional, we see in 3D ... and so on. Photography is an approximation of reality, but not a copy of it.

@achimrecktenwald9671

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with what you wrote, but I also think that it is even impossible to have a photographic copy of reality. Whether it is film or digital, the colors, contrast in the picture, the specific look rendered by a lens of a specific focal length, all is different to what we as humans see. For instance, the sensor in a digital camera will record the differences in brightness as a linear curve; our human eye uses a logarithmic recording, allowing it to have a much higher dynamic range, than any sensor currently available. A photograph is 2-dimensional, we see in 3D ... and so on. Photography is an approximation of reality, but not a copy of it.

@colin-4794

4 жыл бұрын

@@achimrecktenwald9671 Absolutely correct my friend!

@RobinMarkowitzcoolmedia

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed. But I think when you actually "replace the sky," that's just not defensible. The entire sky! Changing the shadows accordingly. Life has limits. And I think everyone knows when they've crossed the limits of honesty. A gray day IS a gray day. That doesn't mean you can't make it very much more interesting, but replacing it with a day of cheery blue skies is what the British call "dodgy." Imho.

@colin-4794

4 жыл бұрын

@@RobinMarkowitzcoolmedia Yes I do see your point of view, but as Sean pointed out in this video, if you're not trying to be underhanded and deceitful then it's not really an issue. I certainly don't mind if people replace skies in photos, skies are very often manipulated with filters outside of the software anyway. I'm only really concerned with how the image looks, what is trying to be conveyed etc. Each to his own as they say, and I respect yours and others points of view, we can agree to disagree and still be friends :))

You are absolutely right in reminding people that editing has always existed, and that it was, for some photographers (like Ansel Adams) a very important part of their work. There are a few things that should be noted though : 1) When people criticize editing and say that photography cannot be trusted anymore, they usually (apart from the few elitists) "criticize" people who take a snapshot of a landscape, and then add a different sky, a mountain, a few animals, sunrays, etc... That was not something you could do with analog. That is what they (and I include myself in it) mean when they say that you can't trust what you see anymore. When I see a film photography of a landscape, I know that the colors were there in the first place, and so were the clouds, and the other elements of the picture (except for double exposures but that's a different story). In this sense, they are right, I think. On a side note, I have 100 times more respect for the landscape photographers who take the time to have all the elements in the frame, who go back to the location again and again until the light is right, the sky is right, than I have for those who tweak everything in post. That amount of work, I think, should be "rewarded", distinguished from what I tend to call "visual art", not "photography". One example : Nick Brandt, who spent 17 days on the field with a Pentax 67 to take one picture of a lion. That deserves respect, I think. By the way, I do not despise "visual art", or "graphic design", whatever you want to call it. Some people, like Rafy A, produce amazing work in Photoshop. I just don't call it photography. 2) Retouching and editing was far more complicated in analog. Dodging and burning is pretty basic as a technique, but mastering it is something else, and it takes a lot of time and practice. Today, you can try millions of things without needing to go in and out of the darkroom, using a ton of paper. Another example : the hand on the Dorothea Lange picture is still visible, and so is the alarm clock. It's mostly gone, but it's still there. Today, you can make things completely disappear, and no one will know (the new content aware feature in PS is amazing for that). 3) You're right, it comes down to a choice we must all make. I have used PS a lot in the past. I have produced "moments" that were never really recorded in camera by compositing 2 images. I have taken people and objects out of a lot of pictures. I have retouched skin, a lot. But it has always bothered me, and I try to not do it anymore. I want to be more like the photographers whose work I admire, photojournalists in particular (McCullin, Burnett...). But I also follow people on Instagram whose work I can tell has been heavily edited, and I also admire their editing skills. I try not to judge people based on what choice they have made in terms of editing "philosophy". Ok, I rambled on enough :) As always, great content ! Take care of yourself in this time of quarantine. Cheers from France, Sam.

Summed up the debate on image editing perfectly Sean. If you are only concerned with the technical aspect of how an image is put together, to represent reality, then you are not creating anything new. When you stage or apply digital manipulation, to achieve your own subjective interpretation of an image, you are creating your own personal art and pushing the boundaries. We remember those photographers who broke the rules to create a new artistic vision, rather than those who aimed to be technically correct. To reinforce how long image manipulation has been around in the 1860's French photographer Gustove Le Gray joined two separate negatives, in his seascapes, to replace the sky and balance the tones with the sea in his final prints.

Thanks Sean for addressing this rather controversial issue. It is an important conversation to have. I tried posting on National Geograohic's website some time ago but quit because I could not in good conscience follow their very definite guidelines that they only wanted images that had very little to no post processing, straight out of the camera. Their statement was that they only wanted to see the image as I had seen it. This is odd because it is often the case that only after post processing that the image truely captures what I saw. Best, Mel

I just had a relatable conversation with a photographer friend of mine. He was talking about shooting with film, portrait photography, and the lens and camera he used to produce the photo. Very little was spoken of in terms of the actual merits of the photo itself, but he felt it necessary to qualify the photo with the process. I'm not one to judge whether a photo is good or bad, but my philosophy is that you should stand by your work and let the photograph speak for themselves. Then some Q&A if you would like! Loving the content, style, delivery, perspectives and everything between. Keep it up!

Great messages here Sean. These are debates we are always confronted with and it is great to have some evidence to show this is nothing new. It is these techniques that enable us to become artists. Thank you.

Dodging, burning and cropping were darkroom skills I learned in the 1970's. I wasn't very good at it. I can't tell you how good it made me feel the first time I pushed the shadows slider in lightroom and it made a difference as to how much better it made the photo look. I've digitized some of my negatives from back when and it is so nice to re-edit those pictures using photoshop and lightroom. Having the edit appear on a screen as opposed to watching it show up on photo paper is luxury.

I love how honest and calm you are about this kind of stuff. I discovered your channel about two hours ago and I haven't taken a break since. Great views on photography as an art form and great tips. Thanks, man.

4:42 "He just presented an image to the world and said: enjoy!"

Sean, I am in the main a black and white film photographer, (I also use digital and my phone) I love the fact that I shoot, develop and scan my own images which are then edited in photoshop. Its a beautiful process that works for me. However in another life as a product photographer before the days of photoshop all images had to be perfect before being accepted for printing. I just wish all those years ago I could have tweaked my images to prevent the wasted time re-shooting products. Having the ability to edit images yourself is an absolute miracle and a must in todays world...great video as always

Taking a complex issue and making it comprehensible. Thank you.

Love this. I can't believe this has ever been an argument, taking the photo is only half the job.

Hey if you can crop in with a zoom lens or "foot-zoom" then you can crop in after you take the shot. In my street photography I always shoot with a prime, like 35mm, so I tend to crop a lot. The only time it is unacceptable to add in or take out something is in crime scene photography.

THIS. IS. SUPER. Thank you again for the wisdom! More power to Sean Tucker!

I very much doubt anybody else could have said this any better. Thank you Sean.

I still use a darksoom and shoot on film, as well as shooting digital. Shooting film, it has always been 50% in the field and 50% in the darkroom. Same applies to digital.

@kurtpleavin

4 жыл бұрын

Let's not forget that every single film stock, lens coating, and developing technique alters the outcome of a film shoot before it even hits an enlarger.

I've had this so much through my career. My images are not meant to be 'real-life' they are polished versions of what I want to represent, yet I get lots of criticism about 'It's all Photoshop'... I honestly don't care though, I didn't 'ASK' for an opinion so it is simply ignored... Great advice as always Sean, I do really appreciate your down to earth, modest approach to Photography...

Photographers just need to chill out and get out there, have fun and take photos for THEIR own pleasure instead of shooting what they think others will like. Those that harp on about 'real' photography and criticize, those that edit, or those dont shoot film, or don't produce full-frame images, funnily enough, they NEVER seem to have an online portfolio or have their images published so we can see their work :-). This is another great video Sean thanks for making it, ♥ Sean in Belfast

Great video Sean. Those people who gave it a thumbs down, this video is for YOU! Artistic licensing is a thing!

Thank you for making this video. "Don't lie about how you got it." great advice. Starting out as an amateur trying to figure how people get the results, then realizing they did not actually do it "in camera" was a real eye opener. I don't care at all how someone edits, but it is enlightening to know how the artist got there. Really great thoughts and ideas here. Really enjoy your videos.

@TTROPVNR

4 жыл бұрын

dont jump to that conclusion. It happens that you get shot that don't need edit at all.

@DflyDude

4 жыл бұрын

Fredo true enough.

“Just show us compelling photos!” My guy!

I'm incredibly grateful you made this video. Eloquent as always.

It’s a shame some people think the photographer work is just Xerox copying the reality. Photographers create images using everything in their hands. I dare to say that the best photographers create better reality. Thank you Sean!

Walking with a friend he told me "Look, is that the same dog i saw the other day? i think it was white, not yellow". He was wearing yellow tinted sun glasses. You don't need photoshop to alter reality. Do you wear makeup? Do you place the light in a certain position maybe to hide some imperfections in the shadows? Do you arrange objects in a scene, or move with your camera to a certain angle to avoid or hide some elements in your composition? Do you shoot at 200mm? Do you use a shallow dof? Do you use long shutter speeds? Do you use color or gradient nd filters? Then where's the line? Just Lightroom but not Photoshop? Do you realize how much a picture can change just by using basic controls in Lightroom? You can alter the mood of a scene just by changing the white balance. You can hide elements in the shadows just by tweaking your exposure and contrast. Or as i read in previous comments, the same process of converting a raw picture into a jpg involves a lot of changes in the color representation. Of course i think there are moral limits, and that's just what Sean said: you shouldn't deceive. It depends on the kind of photography we do. But maybe we shouldn't liquify all the beautiful girls in the magazines because it affects badly on our perception of reality, and it may ruin young girls mental and physical health.

This, this, and more of this!

late on the comment but for a long time I heard "don't use presets"....another you tuber released 5 of his presets for free. I really enjoy his work so I though what the heck, I'll see what it does. It opened a whole new approach for me. I was amazed at how hist approach/preset really opened up on my images in certain situations. I learned a ton from it. Im just a hobbyist and make no money from photography. Nor do I publish anything (even on social media), but when showing my photos to my family over the holidays i even told them that the inspiration was from one of the guys I learn from on KZread. Having watched this, Im glad I did. Im continually amazed by your content. Please continue to share your philosophical approach to photography but more so to life itself.

I've watched tens of videos dedicated to this subject. But when Sean does it, it's a whole other dimension. I am absolutely gobsmacked. Keep up the fantastic work!

20min with a coffee, avoiding a list of jobs to be done well spent as always.

I edit my images because I want you, the viewer, to see what I saw in the moment of its creation.

I've just found Sean's channel a couple weeks ago and I'm totally mesmerized of the quality of content it has, and his style its just unique. Thank you Sean for sharing with the rest of us

I really, really like your videos, your viewpoints and the way you express them! Keep up the great work!

If you turn off all the image profiles, sharpness and contrast settings in the camera, you will get a very flat image profile which doesnt look like real life either. The real world is very hard to capture accurately or objectively anyway, and to get it close to what you 'see' takes post processing, and some people dont know that modern cameras do post processing as well.

Everyone: editing photos is wrong Steve McCurry: hold my Kodachrome

Another breath of fresh air from Sean Tucker, love this guy!

Really love your view and input on this subject. Keep educating the masses. Love your content.

Can I hit the “I like button” one million times? I’m so fed up with all the art fundamentalists. Let artists do what the feel they have to do! There are no rules in art.

Internet: "Real photography never did ANY post-processing" Sean: "Lie detector says... THAT was a lie"

This is by far the best video I’ve seen from you. I was so drawn in listening to you. Love it!

I love how you always show all sides of a situation objectively and then share yours, that's deep and personal. Congrats!

In my early 20s - 1970s - I worked in a camera store and did custom B&W editing and printing for people. They could bring in their print and film, tell me what they wanted, and I did the darkroom work that the commercial photo labs didn't do. Similarly, my wife's father did wedding photography and her mother did the retouching in the days when B&W prints were touched up with pastel paints. Then when my son got into photography a few years ago he was all very pure and 'straight out of camera' was his catch-cry. It was time to tell him his family's history. :) He learned post processing and these days he produces the most extraordinary images that I sometimes wonder if we really are his parents after all. One of the things I send people towards when I hear the SOOC argument is this site that shows how some of the world great photographers marked up their proofs for darkroom editing to produce their iconic images. petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

Where does someone get off sending you that bloody email in the first place 🤨😠. I don’t see many art reviews of the impressionists criticising them for being too abstract. You can like an image or not like an image, the rest just feels like bitterness to me. Good video though Sean 👍

@peterlemke3468

4 жыл бұрын

When they were first shown their paintings were very much criticised by the arts establishment. That's why they organised their own exhibitions.

@stevebennettphotography

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Lemke indeed, however I was referring to current day reverence of those artists taking varying degrees of liberties in the name of art but god forbid a photographer should do the same.

@ishanr8697

4 жыл бұрын

@@stevebennettphotography There are plenty of people who critisise art for being too abstract, even now.

I love your honesty bru. Art is personal. Shoot, edit, create however YOU want to. It's your process

I think you hit the nail on the head (As usual) "Be Honest" I don't care what people do, it's their image to change if they want to as long as you don't claim it's documentary, I take pictures and view them as raw material (no pun intended) to hopefully produce something pleasing at some point, sometimes it's months later before I find an image in a shot...

Ansel Adams Quotes. “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” IMO - photography is art. A photograph is a work of art. Every medium has a process. If you edit, you edit, if you don’t then you don’t. For me, as an armature/enthusiasts, trying to get better and better. I spend hours studying photography. I use the editing process to learn how my composition could have been better, or how I should’ve set the camera in a specific lighting condition so that the next time I’m faced with a similar situation, I will have a better idea of how to take the shot. Editing helps me learn.

@gaza4543

4 жыл бұрын

Interesting points, But i would take care when describing photography as art, yes art subjective but where does the art begin? eg architecture photography you're capturing perspectives and shapes that another artist/designer has already thought about and envisioned (and in my mind dragging the shutter for streaking clouds does not make it instantly art). At one level you're just documenting what that person/persons have created. What are you doing different to turn it into art? When i go out to take pictures, its not with the view to create art its with the view to document the world the way i see it with the colours, shapes and so on that stand out to me, like the landscape artists of old before cameras where invented. If you go out with the mind to create art then your putting a lot of pressure on yourself and probably wont come back with anything. As designer myself i studied my fair amount of art history and to be honest what most consider art (even the greatest pieces) i see as very gifted person documenting a place and many see things in those paintings, symbolisms that just art there at all, people see what they want to see yes there are exceptions where the artist where generally going out there way to create real art but there in the minority. Constable i'm sure just went to a spot to paint just because he took his dog for a walk in the morning and thought "that would be a lovely scene to paint" and thats probably all there was to his thought process and probably painted the colours he did because maybe preferred a more teal sky. And its much the same with photography in most cases, you're documenting something because its "pretty" nothing more nothing less. But as stated all subjective

You know (and I've said this in the odd video... and I do make some odd videos), I find that attitude all the time and it is one that really annoys me. What they're actually saying is "this is what photography is and if you don't do it the way I want you to do it, you're not a photographer." It's utter claptrap. It's gatekeeping of the highest order when photography at its purest is really an art form. The final image you get has to be one that is pleasing to you and your audience. What's worse, many of the people who say this seem to produce the most pedestrian photos because... well, they're not editing them. The image is everything. If you can't be pleased with your final image beyond knowing that you got the technicalities right, that image is not going to connect with your audience. Unfortunately, editing is a big part of the photography process, especially when shooting Raw. In fact, it always has been, right from the early days of the technology (it's worth visiting Lacock Abbey to see the history of photography exhibition and see this in action). Photography is not just getting everything right technically. It's about getting the image right, transplanting the world inside your head onto the screen/page. Nothing about it is 'natural'. The very process of exposing a chemically soaked material to light (or nowadays, an electronic sensor) means that it can't be. Editing isn't about making bad photos good and somehow cheating to get people's attention. It's about producing an image that will inspire and delight your audience. It's about producing art the way you want your art to be. So, be the guy who never edits their photos. That's fine! But, don't complain that others aren't doing things the way you want them to. You do you and let others do what they want.

Your ideas and perceptions really popped out like your photographs. Thanks

Sean Tucker....always, always appreciate your presentations//perspectives...thanks...

From now on, I'm just going to post my RAW images and hope people like them. Hehe.

@bi1iruben

4 жыл бұрын

Wait until the RAW-purists catch up with you - which RAW format is "proper" photography - proprietary raw formats or DNG ? LOL (and ducks head below parapet)

Dabbing On Haters: The Musical

Thank you very much, Sean, for another brilliant vlog. I realized lately that I always feel much better after listening to you and the subject of your vlog doesn't really matter.

Fantastic points over and over again. Going to be linking people to this video any time this topic comes up in the future.

"The true authenticity of photographs for me is that they usually manipulate and lie about what is in front of the camera, but never lie about the intentions behind the camera.” ― Wolfgang Tillmans, German photographer

And I was just about to log out from KZread for the evening...

Another enlightening content coming from your sir! Thank you for this!

Once again a great video. I really love the spirit of your channel, and one more time you bring great content and exemples. It’s been 1,5 year I’ve been following you since I decided to jump into photography, and it helped a lot in this journey. Thank you Sean.

I have to say I'm shocked actually. It's 2019 and there are still people out there who consider editing is a thing next to crime? We do photography for arts (whatever the purpose of the art is, from business to self-satisfaction). Life never gives you chances on a golden plate; One MUST edit to make that golden plate true. Heck, even when one opens a RAW file, they are actually editing even without changing any variable in the editor because it's raw data and shaped by the editor to some default parameters. Please, anyone reading this and think that editing is not real art or real photography, and you own a camera: Sell it. You need this money for something else. Trust me.

the writer of that initial quote should never, ever, ever look at an Ansel Adams image again. YOU ARE HEREBY BANNED.

Another great video Sean - you hit the nail on the head!

Thanks Sean. I always learn something from watching your work. Thanks for sharing.