| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2008 03:31:33 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by option:
Originally posted by Phil:
I think you might wanna turn your sarcasm meter on Mike. ;) |
Why? I was being dead serious, you know... |
Oh yeah, I know. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 03:34:25 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
And you know what else, I think using any sort of camera is cheating. It's not the same scene you saw, it never will be. It's a two-dimensional lie made out of paper. So photographers are liars, who care's. We're still better than politicians and. |
Still better than politicans and periods? |
It depends on the context of the word "period".
;) |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 03:46:46 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
funny this should come up, I was talking to someone yesterday and showing them DPC and they said that most of the pictures weren't real photography because they were "staged". I laughed my butt off at them. |
Perhaps they were thinking more along the lines of photojournalism. I can see their point somewhat when you consider the high number of "staged" studio setups versus candid, landscape, or action photos.
Reminds me of Wildlife vs Zoo's. :) |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 03:53:01 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by sabphoto:
funny this should come up, I was talking to someone yesterday and showing them DPC and they said that most of the pictures weren't real photography because they were "staged". I laughed my butt off at them. |
Perhaps they were thinking more along the lines of photojournalism. I can see their point somewhat when you consider the high number of "staged" studio setups versus candid, landscape, or action photos.
Reminds me of Wildlife vs Zoo's. :) |
alot of photojournalism is also staged. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 03:56:51 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by sabphoto:
funny this should come up, I was talking to someone yesterday and showing them DPC and they said that most of the pictures weren't real photography because they were "staged". I laughed my butt off at them. |
Perhaps they were thinking more along the lines of photojournalism. I can see their point somewhat when you consider the high number of "staged" studio setups versus candid, landscape, or action photos.
Reminds me of Wildlife vs Zoo's. :) |
alot of photojournalism is also staged. |
Ok. How about "Perhaps they were thinking more along the lines of candid, landscape, or action photos versus 'staged' studio setups." :-) |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 05:58:11 PM · #131 |
All real photographers should NOT be using PhotoShop. Stop ALL post-processing immediately, in fact. That's for artists. The camera can connect directly to a printer, & or to a DVD or a jump drive for long-term storage. Don't waste your money on fancy, over-complicated post-processing software, it will turn you into a lazy photographer. Everybody knows that real photographers know how to use their camera equipment to get it right the first time so they have no need to correct a badly-taken shot. Real photographers spend their time on photography. Post-processing is not photography. Photography should not be artful.
Once a real photographer has captured what's in front of the camera objectively, without interpretation, there is no need for post-processing or any further effort, by definition. It is what it is, a faithful copy of the original. It can be used for the record, for identification, or as evidence in a court of law. It's always categorized according to the subject of the photograph. A real photographer does not let events, personal feelings or public opinion influence the taking of the photograph. A real photographer does not become part of the story but remains objective, uninvolved, unemotional.
Every photograph taken & post-processed by an artist using a camera is a contradiction to the ethics of real photographers, & threat to the integrity of real photography. A photograph taken by an artist cannot be counted on to be a failthful copy of the original. And yet, looking at the finished product, there is no immediate way to know whether it is the honest work of a real photographer or a flight of fancy created by an artist.
And yet, every photograph has to be only a part of what was in front of the camera. Selected by the person operating the camera. Necessarily a lie if for no other reason that it does not capture more than a part of the whole. Necessarily interpretive if for no other reason than the person operating the camera had to pick the moment to press the shutter release. How do real photographers come to terms with this art of selection without becoming artists? Once having made these subjective decisions, why draw an arbitrary line at post-processing? It seems self-deluding, to me. But this is nothing more than my personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:18:11 PM · #132 |
Katie -
It's all about what you want to get out of YOUR photography imho. I'm a relative newb to this site as well and I had similar feelings to you when I got here. For example I'd NEVER have considered setting up a shot artificially, or doing silly things to myself to make a photograph. I (previously) preferred to capture 'real life' so to speak, using the camera and in-camera/photography skills to freeze time and capture a slice of life.
However, coming to DPC has opened my mind. It doesn't mean that I'm turning into a cliche, commercial, mass produced kind of photographer...it just means I'm broadening my horizons and trying something new. It's just a project/experiment/learning experience and maybe it would help you if you saw it this way.
What's the worst that can happen? You'll get better photoshop/post production skills and help develop an eye for the populist or commercial. Otherwise, stick to your guns and keep shooting 'au natural'...although this is 2008 and whether you like it or not (and I don't like it either), progess is inevitable and photography...nay post production is growing up fast (as are viewers eyes/taste and expectations).
I've spent HOURS faffing around in a darkroom under various lighting dodging and burning under an enlarger, smelly chemicals everywhere. As Larus said, the only real difference is the undo function in photoshop. And if you think ALL of those classic photographers you love didn't enhance contrast, or dodge out problem areas in the dark room...then think again :) Ergo, if it's okay for them it's okay for you.
The question then lies in how much do you want to enhance your photos, or take them away from the original exposure. That's what I'm trying to work out in my own mind right now.....another stop on the photographic self development highway imho. One end is photography and the other end is digital art. Working out where you are on that line is either a personal choice/artistic statement or on a photo-by-photo basis...I'm still working it out...
N |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:27:18 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
All real photographers should NOT be using PhotoShop. Stop ALL post-processing immediately, in fact. That's for artists. |
RING RING! RING RING!
Hello? Yes, hang on a second.
Pixelpig - It's the clue phone - it's for you :)
N
Message edited by author 2008-01-10 18:28:43. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:32:01 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by fastforward:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
All real photographers should NOT be using PhotoShop. Stop ALL post-processing immediately, in fact. That's for artists. |
RING RING! RING RING!
Hello? Yes, hang on a second.
Pixelpig - It's the clue phone - it's for you :)
N |
Bwaaahaahaa! "D |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:50:04 PM · #135 |
"Photoshop is not photography"
You right, photoshop is only a post-processing tool; And a great piece of software to use in the workflow whem creating a photograph.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:56:50 PM · #136 |
Actually pointing an imaging device (or camera if you want to call it that) at a subject is NOT photography. It's imaging. Turning it into something with meaning is photography :-D
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:04:17 PM · #137 |
Isn't this the same sort of argument that musicians have had for years? There's the Keith Richards school of thought - guitar straight through to amp....and the David Gilmour school of thought - a rack full of filters and fx boards. Both are music.
Likewise in post production...the old adage "fix it in the mix" has been bandied around in practice rooms and studios since recording began. Doesn't mean it's not music, it's just not 'raw' music....and there's plenty of room for both.
N |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:05:14 PM · #138 |
Time to change the subject. Pick one:
"Photoshop is not Pornography"
"Photoshop is not Meteorology"
"Photoshop is not Forensic Toxicology"
or make one up of your own. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:17:09 PM · #139 |
Photoshop is NOT Gynecology.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:22:39 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Photoshop is NOT Gynecology. |
Well...I suppose if you're a hardcore purist you might think that photoshop is for cnuts :O (intentional typo, not the scandinavian king, heh)
N |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:23:12 PM · #141 |
Oh for goodness sake - this again?
Photoshop is not Proctology. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:26:57 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by redjulep:
Oh for goodness sake - this again?
Photoshop is not Proctology. |
Hey, I take offense to that. I'm a butthole and use Photoshop all the time :-D
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:28:07 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by redjulep:
Oh for goodness sake - this again?
Photoshop is not Proctology. |
Hey, I take offense to that. I'm a butthole and use Photoshop all the time :-D |
Yeah, and I use it every time I get a wild hair up my ass. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:31:57 PM · #144 |
Blah blah blah... I think this discussion is as valid as the Canon vs. Nikon or Coke vs. Pepsi. Why to people care what other people believe to be correct? If someone doesn´t want to use photoshop and think the only "pure" photographs are straight out of their camera then why should I care.
Likewise, if I want to selectively darken or lighten parts of my photos, remove skin blemishes, change colors and stuff like that, why should anybody care? I work in the advertisement buisness now and trust me, there are no editing rules in the real world, you just do what you have to, wich is usually as little as needs to be done.
I do however get the feeling that people who start arguments that photoshop is not photography have ever stepped into a darkroom, you people who bash photoshop so much, have you actually done that, developed film and then used enlargers to put those pictures yourselves on paper? Pretty much everything that is possible in photoshop has been possible in the darkroom for many many decades, the only difference to me is that my hands don´t smell from the fixer fluids and I now have an "undo" button. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:35:03 PM · #145 |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:55:00 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Blah blah blah... I think this discussion is as valid as the Canon vs. Nikon or Coke vs. Pepsi. Why to people care what other people believe to be correct? If someone doesn´t want to use photoshop and think the only "pure" photographs are straight out of their camera then why should I care.
|
Youre only saying that because you photoshopped 800 ribbons onto the side of your portfolio... |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 08:01:23 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Larus:
the only difference to me is that my hands don´t smell from the fixer fluids |
I bought a plug-in emulator for that. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 08:04:19 PM · #148 |
I don̢۪t use a camera. Everything I do is the same photo-chopped SP. I only really have one image in my portfolio.
:-))
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 08:06:56 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I don̢۪t use a camera. Everything I do is the same photo-chopped SP. I only really have one image in my portfolio.
:-)) |
and I've got your original! |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 08:07:33 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I don̢۪t use a camera. Everything I do is the same photo-chopped SP. I only really have one image in my portfolio.
:-)) |
and I've got your original! |
That's the one! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 06:41:47 AM EDT.
