The obvious answer (for me) is when I say so--if I'm writing the critique or taking the picture. I like it if it looks good to me.

All optics have an effect on all photo images, but we routinely accept some (bokeh, foreshortening, vignetting) and pick apart others (digital noise, over-sharpening, perspective distortion (in most cases.) The common bias is to minimize the visible impact of the lens/filter on the image except in special circumstances (fisheye, polarization and warming, etc.) If you disagree with my examples, substitute your own but stay with the question. Say what types of artifacts you like and dislike. If you have examples you might link to them.

Read 169 times

Reply 

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 6, 2009 12:14:15 PM CST my 2 cents. we, think we need the specials bokeh's for shoot an interesting image and we run out legs to get one. In fact, we pass by motives ever day but we dismiss them. i think, it possible to shoot good images without changing the base too much. Reply

From hankbenson/Hank (43,997) on November 6, 2009 1:48:49 PM CST Hi, Barbro. Can you explain further or give other examples? Reply

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 7, 2009 3:28:40 AM CST I made some translation this morning Hank, of what your really wrote. Hdr is a flaw. May be I'm old-fashioned in that aspect. It's to save an bad image. However, I can understand that new tools are interesting to use but it should not become an end in itself. Reply

From sheena/Administrator (0) on November 7, 2009 8:46:00 AM CST "Hdr is a flaw. May be I'm old-fashioned in that aspect. It's to save an bad image." Can you please explain what you mean here? Why is that technique a flaw and why do you think it is applied to save a bad image? And what does it have to do with being old fashioned. Gustave Le Gray was using HDR techniques in the 1850's. It's a very old technique. Reply

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 7, 2009 9:23:25 AM CST if the photographer uses hdr with reason, the image can be really good. But some, creams on too much and then I feel the picture become unnatural. What is unnatural? Unnatural is when the color scheme released for bright colors. I've no direct evidence that HDR is a way to rescue poor images. Art and artistry are - often - associated with vanity, pride sometimes. Nothing wrong with that, just that we have so difficult to balance the attribute/quality/capacity. Vanity need not be a bad thing. But sometimes I feel that the picture has become 'holy' and then I want to save it, how 'bad' it may be and because we have technology to do so. Our computers and Adobe Photoshop. When we used analog cameras, I think we were shooting a lot more sensitive to the subject that the picture would be fine, from the very beginning. In person, what I mean with old-fashion, is that, the photo it self, has to stand for itself with so little adjustment as it can. May be, I'm wrong, but is what I feel. Reply

From sheena/Administrator (0) on November 7, 2009 9:50:38 AM CST When we used analog cameras, I think we were shooting a lot more sensitive to the subject that the picture would be fine, from the very beginning. I think you can only speak for yourself on this. I am as considered now as I ever was with film. Are you against film dark room work as well? Reply

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 7, 2009 9:55:37 AM CST Are you against film dark room work as well? nope Reply

From sheena/Administrator (0) on November 7, 2009 10:42:20 PM CST Pretty much everything that can be done in Photoshop can also be done in a darkroom. If you one can rescue a bad photo in Photoshop it can be rescued in the darkroom. Do you use Photoshop? If so what's your skill level? Reply

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 8, 2009 5:26:15 AM CST Do you use Photoshop? If so what's your skill level? I use photoshop to get a bit brighter images, contrast, sharpness. I dont quite understand what you mean by skill level? Reply

From marshall/Marshall (9,896) on November 7, 2009 11:45:54 AM CST When we used analog cameras, I think we were shooting a lot more sensitive to the subject that the picture would be fine, from the very beginning. WAY too much of a generalization. SOME people are machine-gunning insensitive gearheads. MANY people are not. Reply

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 7, 2009 12:34:04 PM CST absolute, some are and some are not. i didnt mean every photographer Reply

From swanda/John (1,019) on November 7, 2009 2:13:51 PM CST When you say a photographer uses HDR with reason, you seem to mean your reason. I don't quite understand what you mean with "Unnatural is when the color scheme released for bright colors." But all photographs are unnatural, that is, they are only representations of reality, and some are less natural than others. Some people who use HDR intend for the photo to look different than "reality." If you don't like to do "unnatural photos" then don't, but don't impose your standard of naturalness on others. Reply

From hankbenson/Hank (43,997) on November 7, 2009 10:34:11 AM CST It's usually an attempt to correct over and under-exposure in a particular scene which are flaws per se. Seems useful to me and I'll get around to using it. It offers corrections not always available in other post-processing modes and has the attraction of occurring in camera. It seems over-used, that is when it's not necessary to correct problems, but some folks like the illustration-like look of the manipulated shadows. Reply

From yellowgrey/Barbro (6,021) on November 8, 2009 5:23:27 AM CST Artifact (error), undesired alteration in data, introduced by a technique and/or technology You had the information Sheena, for artifacts. Hdr has nothing to with artifacts. hdr is merely an personal opinion. Artifact Reply

From bcskier/Arie (6,362) on November 6, 2009 1:05:38 PM CST Been thinking about digital noise this morning. Lots of people out there on the net analyzing digital noise at high iso. In the past I used to dislike noise, but these days I'm much less disturbed by it. In fact in some cases I like some noise. Then I got thinking about why this might be. Seems to me the quality of noise has changed with camera evolution. My old 300D had lousy noise quality - it was very "clumpy". Filters with a small operator size (i.e. radius) would only remove the pixel-by-pixel noise but not the "clumps". Noise on newer cameras is much nicer, in some cases almost filmgrain-like. Reply

From hankbenson/Hank (43,997) on November 6, 2009 2:13:57 PM CST Good examples, Ari, of good noise and bad noise. Digital clumps aren't attractive. So technology works to eliminate or improve the appearance of artifacts. Sometimes I like perspective distortion in architectural shots, but I can envision a time when there will be affordable lenses that do the work of PC lenses and swings and tilts for view cameras. Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on November 6, 2009 2:36:48 PM CST It is all subjective to me. They are flaw when they are obnoxious, and they enhance the image when they are not too obnoxious or you want more ugly. I'm with you on when you say so, as well as adopting the common bias to reduce them unless we want more of them. The artifact I dislike most is added digital noise, next is oversharpening. Fisheye is overused, to me, as are star filters. Polarizing and, to some extent, warming filters, are not very obnoxious when they are not needed, great when they are. Moose's combination filter is a great idea for landscapes. Perspective from camera tilt bothers me mainly because it comes (usually) from laziness. Del Reply

From wdeon/Wayne (8,231) on November 7, 2009 3:32:37 AM CST I like anything that I like...... which is to say that I can like photos that use processes or tools that, in general, I don't go for. If I instantly forgive or let pass something because the photo is fantastic in my mind, then I would say that the success of the photo negates what might have been considered a shortfall in another photo. I like HDR that instantly stand out for their quality and lack of halos. I have only seen a few that have made me think "OMG, that is fricken awesome". I like filtered sunsets that look plausible and not like an orange LED. I like blue skies that don't get bluer than what a polarizing filter will do. I accept noise in areas that don't really effect the overall quality of the photograph. Sometimes noise happens;) I accept hot spots in difficult lighting situations. I accept most perspective distortion with fisheye because it is the nature of the beast. The conehead thing with closeups isn't attractive though. I dislike filters and plugins gone wild. Basically any photo where something in the processing instantly makes one think "WTF happened to this photo?" I dislike seeing B&W where more careful processing would have produced shades that contrasted better IMO. Reply

From sheena/Administrator (0) on November 7, 2009 8:36:48 AM CST For me you are mixing apples and oranges so it's impossible to agree or disagree with your examples. They are unrelated to each other. The word artifact in the digital realm refers to result of imperfect capture, processing, transmission, storage, and/or decoding of binary information. Often it can be expressed as misinterpreted information from a JPEG or compressed image or as colour faults or line faults that visibly impact the image negatively. Artifacts are routinely thought of as any artificial glitch or blemish inadvertently created in or by the digital process. In short it is an error that occurs after the photograph is taken. On the other hand bokeh, foreshortening, perspective etc. are the result of the lens you choose. This is not accidental. Digital noise, over sharpening are not optics. These are a result of imperfect digital processing. People choose and use their lenses for exactly the effect they want, because they intend to have a buttery bokeh background, or because they want to express an extreme perspective or foreshorten a foreground to make a foot look huge. Of course it is up the critic if the choice of lens is successful in expressing the vision of the photographer. Artifacts, digital noise from under exposure, halos from over sharpening, etc, are not in my experience conscious choices the photographer makes. They are errors that occur in post processing. Most photographers are not pleased to see them. It is not impossible that a digital flaw could end up as a happy mistake and make the photograph better in some people's eyes. For me that would be a very rare occurrence, one I have not seen yet. So in my experience people accept bokeh, foreshortening, perspective etc. because these are tools photographers use to express themselves. People are less likely enjoy digital noise, halos, artifacts and other flaws introduced in post processing because they are considered undesirable and usually are a detriment to the photograph. Reply

From hankbenson/Hank (43,997) on November 7, 2009 9:44:04 AM CST "The word artifact in the digital realm refers to result of imperfect capture, processing, transmission, storage, and/or decoding of binary information." This broader definition better expresses my intent as opposed to the more limited "post capture" and processing errors. Thanks for your clarifications. Reply

From sheena/Administrator (0) on November 7, 2009 9:52:25 AM CST An artifact can only be introduced post capture, as in after the shutter has been released. All the other issues you mention are pre-capture as it were. Reply

From hankbenson/Hank (43,997) on November 7, 2009 10:19:41 AM CST I suspect that some people do appreciate the occasional "happy accident" and that some photographers experiment creatively with processes known to produce visible artifacts (call them flaws if that's better). Dispite my imprecision, most folks seem to know what I was getting at. You're probably right in your observations about what most people like and don't like but I thought it would be good to hear from some of them. Makes it more lively. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (9,896) on November 7, 2009 11:49:11 AM CST If the production obscures the content, it bothers me. If it doesn't, or if it adds to the experience, then it's great. Reply

Return to forum