Editing. Pro or fake? - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

07/15/2012 08:03:51 AM · #1

Some idiot has offended me by saying I'm not a real photographer because I edit my photos in post and 35mm film is the only way to go for true photographers.

I get the occasional person that makes me fume a little because of their hipster '35mm film is better than any digital man' mentality. Debating is like head vs brick wall.

Does anyone else encounter people like this?

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

07/15/2012 08:39:42 AM · #2

I never have, but I wouldn't take too much notice of those comments. Even the serious film photographers edited their photos. Digital has just made it easier.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/15/2012 08:51:06 AM · #3

Oh no I don't let it get to me in that respect- the thing that frustrates me is that they refuse to understand those exact points. I guess I wasn't offended, just frustrated and puzzled.

Even mentioning how lots of film was edited got a response of "lots of it wasn't"...

Hrrrrnt instagram derrrp!

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

07/15/2012 09:45:01 AM · #4

back in 1986 i drove to the outerbanks of nc one night and spent the night in my car, to be there when the sun rose. i shot some keepers, one of them an all-time favorite - a line of pelicans dipping below the horizon. i thought it was a pretty cool shot.

a couple years later, while i was living in goldsboro, nc, a guy opened a film lab. he had this huge, 20' long piece of equipment, and a ton of other stuff. as a grand opening special he offered $2 8x10s. so i took my negative of the pelican shot.

and i was blown away by what he got out of it! just minor, manual adjustments made all the difference in the world. the automated, "non-edited" lab print didn't begin to compare to what a professional was able to do.

now when anybody makes any type of comment that would cause me to think they don't have a clue, i just smile and nod my head ;-)

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

07/15/2012 10:17:43 AM · #5

When i was first learning, i wanted to figure out how to meter for backlit situations. I took a couple of test shots with different metering. When i had them developed at proex, they all looked the same!!

I figured i had done something wrong, so i wasted another roll of film with the same results.

I finally asked at proex, and they said their machine calibrated an average over the roll and printed that. And that i needed to ask for it printed at a -1 or -2 density. From then on, I'd get the prints back, and have them reprint a good chunk with specific color and density corrections.

How foolish to think that good photographers dont make adjustments.

Maybe theyre shooting slide?

UrfaK

Canon EOS-650/T4i Rebel

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/15/2012 10:57:12 AM · #6

Editing was well and alive in the 35mm era so the person obviously knows zilch about actual photography.

sjhuls

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/15/2012 11:34:02 AM · #7

yep, I've run into a few people like that. It really does no good to debate with them because no matter what you say they think they are right. Next time tell them if they only ever get their film developed at Walmart then you will stop editing your digital photos, and see what they say.

PapaBob

07/15/2012 12:19:10 PM · #8

Would he not consider Ansel Adams to be a photographer because he did a lot of tweaking in his post processing, the tools are different but same difference, he took nice shots and made them much more memorable. It does not make a difference if you are shooting film or digital, images need to be taken correctly to get the image the best possible image, then post processing can be used to tweak the image. Digital has helped speed up the learning process and made it easier to learn for several reason like the instant feedback of seeing the image, being able to bracket at little or no cost, being able to see others work on the web along with tutorials on how to recreate effects. I belong to a large wildlife camera club and it is fun to listen to all the old pro photographers in the club that swore they would never shoot digital, they now all shoot digital and would never go back to film. One of the photographers that was slow to give up film now teaches our digital meetings once a month were we work on all types of processing software. One day this so called idiot will likely see the light......

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

07/15/2012 12:32:34 PM · #9

Sheesh. It is simply that person's preference. But I will admit it is easier to get some wow out of a shot with a dab of post processing. I throw some light to moderate tonemapping on most of my shots because it does crank up the visual pop and that appeals to me. But it's not for everyone. Perhaps he feels the need to defend his preferred approach.

Message edited by author 2012-07-15 12:33:00.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/15/2012 12:36:08 PM · #10

I think most of these comments stem from jealousy. the person obviously never learned digital processing and they know their images as a result are visually less appealing.

sjhuls

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/15/2012 12:45:18 PM · #11

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

I think it is fine to defend his approach, but something else entirely when you claim that someone is not a real photographer because they edit photos. The person I dealt with basically said we were all phonies because we edited our photos. I couldn't care one way or another if someone chooses not to edit their photos, if they are that good or have a preference to a more natural looking shot more power to them, but to attack others because they like something else is wrong. I guess someone might feel the need to lash out since they are in such a minority.

alohadave

Pentax K-5

Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL AF

07/15/2012 01:42:43 PM · #12

Originally posted by mike_311:

I think most of these comments stem from jealousy. the person obviously never learned digital processing and they know their images as a result are visually less appealing.

No, hipsters really think that way. There is only one true way, and they have the corner on it.

Giles

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/15/2012 01:56:12 PM · #13

Surely true photographers when shooting film so medium to large format

Opinions are like asre holes everyone got one....

Just ignore and keep on doing it the way you like to work

fldave

Pentax K5II

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

07/15/2012 02:17:19 PM · #14

Originally posted by damoninja:

Some idiot has offended me by saying I'm not a real photographer because I edit my photos in post and 35mm film is the only way to go for true photographers.

I'm curious if this "hipster" thinks that real writers use 1930 Underwood typewriters.... none of that high-tech computer/ laptop fad crap! Everyone knows only hacks use Macs!

kasaba

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

07/15/2012 03:43:04 PM · #15

fldave wrote: I'm curious if this "hipster" thinks that real writers use 1930 Underwood typewriters.

You beat me to that one, exactly what I wanted to say.

In addition, its a bit like telling wildlife photographers with expensive lenses, that they are not real photographers, they would use their kit lense if they were any good ;-)

Just ignore ... perhaps feel sorry for them, but mostly ignore :-)

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

07/15/2012 04:46:24 PM · #16

It's just a matter of preference. Ask why they are not using an 8X10 or larger camera to improve their photography.
There is no need to even discuss the presumption about not editing. The choice of medium to work with is a matter of individual preference and experience, and digital is the current L. da Vinci's paint brush. It's been shown that he actually did quite a bit of post processing on some of his paintings.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

07/15/2012 05:38:05 PM · #17

Here. Problem solved. Just make them watch my new animation. :)

Film vs Digital (with music) :)

Message edited by author 2012-07-15 17:55:47.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

07/15/2012 06:23:37 PM · #18

Originally posted by Cory:

Here. Problem solved. Just make them watch my new animation. :)

But your animation isn't real.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

07/15/2012 06:33:55 PM · #19

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Here. Problem solved. Just make them watch my new animation. :)

But your animation isn't real.

Neither are they man, neither are they. :)

ambaker

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/15/2012 09:23:56 PM · #20

Anyone who thinks image manipulation was invented in the digital age, is sadly mistaken.

From the moment we frame the image in the viewfinder, we are manipulating reality. Read up on Ansel Adams, to see how it was done back in the day. All we have done is trade in dodging wands and air brushes, for photoshop.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/15/2012 09:28:10 PM · #21

Originally posted by Cory:

Here. Problem solved. Just make them watch my new animation. :)

Film vs Digital (with music) :)

Hahaaa! This has been tacked onto the nonsense facebook thread.

Originally posted by fldave:

I'm curious if this "hipster" thinks that real writers use 1930 Underwood typewriters.... none of that high-tech computer/ laptop fad crap! Everyone knows only hacks use Macs!

I'm positive that their definition of a writer is a guy in a turtleneck with slimline glasses and the latest iProducts in coffee shop, tapping away appearing as if they're writing some future best seller novel but actually just facebooking about being in a coffee shop writing a future best selling novel. /hipsters.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/15/2012 09:31:28 PM · #22

Originally posted by ambaker:

From the moment we frame the image in the viewfinder, we are manipulating reality. Read up on Ansel Adams, to see how it was done back in the day. All we have done is trade in dodging wands and air brushes, for photoshop.

Well... To be fair, a LOT of what we do in Photoshop today falls into the category of "airbrushing to extremes" and that's NOT something Ansel, or purists like him, ever did. And the f/64 group purists were united against the "pictorialism" that dominated "fine art photography" before they came along.

So, keeping absolute control of your materials, check. Manipulating contrast and tonality for the desired effect, check. Dodging and burning, always been part of the arsenal. But much beyond that, you're into artificial manipulation. We do a lot of that in DPC. *I* do a lot of it. I'm not saying it's bad, far from it, but I do understand the purist point of view very well, as long as said purists take a rational stance somewhere just south of the extreme photomanipulation line.