| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2005 03:23:21 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bear_music:
I can't think of any other art or craft, offhand, that does not allow revision and fine-tuning of the finished product ... |
I bet you had a lot less leeway as a professonal chef. : ) |
You can always put ketchup on it.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:23:32 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bear_music:
I can't think of any other art or craft, offhand, that does not allow revision and fine-tuning of the finished product ... |
I bet you had a lot less leeway as a professonal chef. : ) |
Not really... In a sense yes, in that we were expected to repeat recipes, but that's PRODUCTION. There's a lot of creativity in coming up with the recipe in the first place. In fact, being creative was a REQUIREMENT for my job, it's what I was hired for.
I make a picture, then I fine tune it to look the best it can look, in my eyes. After that, I print the same thing over and over, for customers who want to buy that image. Maybe one day I see a way to make it better, but maybe one day I find a little more pepper works well in the Duck a la Orange, so...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:31:04 PM · #53 |
See my signature.
|
|
|
\/
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:32:59 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'm referring specifically to "creative photography", coolhar. |
When did dpc get whittled down to only "creative photography" ? We had a challenge entitled Photojournalism. We had one called Wildlife, an area that Matt has suggested leans toward the realistic and away from the artistic-creative, at least in the editing methods needed. Do you think that a challenge where we all try to imitate the style of a so-called master fosters creativity? There are lots of discussions in the forums about pictures for newspapers, sports-action shooting, wedding shooting and event photography, etc.
You are still trying to cast dpc as your mythological "playground for artists with cameras". Please try to be a little more open-minded, and please try not to be so condescending to those who hold other views. There is more to dpc and photography than that.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 15:36:33.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:36:02 PM · #55 |
| i think wedding photography can be pretty darn creative ;) |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:38:50 PM · #56 |
| No its not cheating! Our computer are our darkrooms that is all. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:43:21 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by broly:
i think its cheating because its not the photographers skill its the computers |
You obviously never had your photos picked up from the processors with an oval label on them stating they were unable to process them as they were under-exposed...over-exposed! Regardless of what you wanted using film, the processors always tried to manipulate them to what they considered acceptable...how did they do that without using their processing abilities??
You had to put a note in with the film stating that they were intentionally over/under exposed. Now, you do the same with your digital shots. If you take them into a photo print shop, they still ask you if you want them bumped up/bumped down a stop.
PS and other photo software means you have the processing equipment to adjust your photos to the level you want. It is not cheating, it is called using available technology...just as you do when you set exposure compensation in camera, or sharpen in camera.
It is up to the individual how far they go with post processing, some go too far, and this is where, if the photo is entered into a challenge, the voter steps in. Let's stop complicating the subject and take photos, we all take photos that need adjusting at some time.
Steve |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:54:04 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
i think wedding photography can be pretty darn creative ;) |
Of course you are right. That was an oversimplification on my part. What I meant to say was more like that the lower echelons of wedding photography are filled with technicians, not artists. Didn't mean to offend anyone who uses wedding shooting to express their creativity. Not all who practice the craft have the talent to do that; but they can satisify customers so they stay in the business.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 03:57:26 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
i think wedding photography can be pretty darn creative ;) |
Of course you are right. That was an oversimplification on my part. What I meant to say was more like that the lower echelons of wedding photography are filled with technicians, not artists. |
But that is a given as it applies to many aspects of photography. Take portrait photography for example.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:10:05 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'm referring specifically to "creative photography", coolhar. |
When did dpc get whittled down to only "creative photography" ? We had a challenge entitled Photojournalism. We had one called Wildlife, an area that Matt has suggested leans toward the realistic and away from the artistic-creative, at least in the editing methods needed. Do you think that a challenge where we all try to imitate the style of a so-called master fosters creativity? There are lots of discussions in the forums about pictures for newspapers, sports-action shooting, wedding shooting and event photography, etc.
You are still trying to cast dpc as your mythological "playground for artists with cameras". Please try to be a little more open-minded, and please try not to be so condescending to those who hold other views. There is more to dpc and photography than that. |
Ans YOU are still trying to pigeonhole me as something I am not. The issue here is the use of photoshop. I have already acknowledged that there are areas of photography in which one must not take liberties with the recorded image, or with the "truth" it is intended to portray. But my point is that in the OTHER areas, which are anyway mostly what we deal with here, it's just another tool. It can be abused, like nay tool, but it's not "bad" in and of itself.
And speaking of photojournalism, since you brought that up, there's a LOT of post-processing in some photojournalism, it's just not of the obvious kind usually. Contrast, dodging, burning, adjusting color levels, whatever.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:30:19 PM · #61 |
photo editing anymore than cropping and exposure is the equivalent of "steroids" and any ribbons should have asterisks next to them!
but seriously. Its photography, not oil painting. you are supposed to manipulate the final process- its a two step process! ever heard of "developing"
we just have better developing in the modern times.
is sonic maximizing and engineering music cheating? hell no!!!!!!
I say we post process all pictures into a big digitized, pixelated mess! |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:37:34 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
is sonic maximizing and engineering music cheating? hell no!!!!!! |
I have (access to) some original Edison recordings, made without any electricity whatsoever. : ) |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:54:40 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
And speaking of photojournalism, since you brought that up, there's a LOT of post-processing in some photojournalism, it's just not of the obvious kind usually. Contrast, dodging, burning, adjusting color levels, whatever. |
From everything I've read dodge & burn are considered outside the ethics of photojournalism. I'm thinking about newspapers and the like, not photography magazines or art journals. They demand realism, d&b is art. Adjust contrast, WB, saturation, etc. to improve - Yes. Limitations on cropping so as not to distort the story by eliminating an important person or element. D&B - nope. Let the people see it as close to as it was as you can make within the bounds of the technology you are using, but don't add something that was not there, or vice-versa, just to make it look prettier. The news and sports photogs, and one photo-editor, that I have talked with about editing seem to think that if a photo needs a lot of editing, it's not good enough to run. The photogs pride themselves on producing images that make the "photoshop wizards" working under their photo-editor fear for their jobs. And most of the pros can do it fairly consistently.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 04:59:39 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
And speaking of photojournalism, since you brought that up, there's a LOT of post-processing in some photojournalism, it's just not of the obvious kind usually. Contrast, dodging, burning, adjusting color levels, whatever. |
From everything I've read dodge & burn are considered outside the ethics of photojournalism. I'm thinking about newspapers and the like, not photography magazines or art journals. They demand realism, d&b is art. Adjust contrast, WB, saturation, etc. to improve - Yes. Limitations on cropping so as not to distort the story by eliminating an important person or element. D&B - nope. Let the people see it as close to as it was as you can make within the bounds of the technology you are using, but don't add something that was not there, or vice-versa, just to make it look prettier. The news and sports photogs, and one photo-editor, that I have talked with about editing seem to think that if a photo needs a lot of editing, it's not good enough to run. The photogs pride themselves on producing images that make the "photoshop wizards" working under their photo-editor fear for their jobs. And most of the pros can do it fairly consistently. |
My newspaper photo editors were the ones who taught me how to dodge and burn in the darkroom. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 05:02:28 PM · #65 |
Dodging and burning is ok -- it's just adjusting contrasts or for an effect. Not sure if it applies for newspapers, but if the essence of the message is conveyed through, who cares?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 05:13:04 PM · #66 |
ive used photo shop its no better than the rest of them but now its wors it comes on the camera
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 05:17:13 PM · #67 |
coolhar,
Have you any idea what happens when you drop film off at the print place? Sounds to me like you don't. They develop the negative using chemicals and treatments (digital equivelent: exposure). If you think the print they give you is exactly the same as it was taken you're mistaken, badly mistaken.
I do though somewhat agree with you. I work in a portrait studio, that uses a lab that charges for corrective anything. Which means, if we as the photographers can't take pictures that don't need editing, we are of no use to them and will be fired. That said, the camera itself does the developing, sharpening, saturating etc. into the final 'developed' image that you get stored on your memory card. But if you want to talk about cheating, I think correcting your exposure is more cheating. Simply because you should have the knowledge it takes to correctly expose your source be it film or digital. Now to cropping, with the exception of aspect ratio, you should be able to compose within the view finder (at least by what you're suggesting).
Dodging and burning.. Anyone who develops their own B&W photos knows that this is done to film too. It simply enhances certain things that the camera simply cannot. I can't remember who brought it to my attention but it was ansel who said "I was an ok photographer, but an outstanding developer" sorry if it's not word for word quote. Do you really believe ansel got those effects from that bulky camera?
As stated before, using photoshop to create a great photo when there was a crappy one to begin with is greatly cheating, but mostly to yourself in saying your a photographer and not a graphic artist. But to say using it as a developing tool for the digital film we're using is insane.
Joe
edit: for clarification purposes unedited does mean this: hair over eyes, exposure, expression, spots on backgrounds, drool stains on clothes. These are but a few of the things that will keep you a starving artist when it comes down to money and people paying for your 'talent'.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 17:20:18. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 05:38:23 PM · #68 |
i like photo shop but will agree with broly its not the photographers skill
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 05:40:35 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Reddia:
i like photo shop but will agree with broly its not the photographers skill |
its hard to say i agree because i never used photo shop but i see were there heading
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 07:40:20 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by magicshutter:
coolhar,
Have you any idea what happens when you drop film off at the print place? Sounds to me like you don't. They develop the negative using chemicals and treatments (digital equivelent: exposure). If you think the print they give you is exactly the same as it was taken you're mistaken, badly mistaken.
I do though somewhat agree with you. I work in a portrait studio, that uses a lab that charges for corrective anything. Which means, if we as the photographers can't take pictures that don't need editing, we are of no use to them and will be fired. That said, the camera itself does the developing, sharpening, saturating etc. into the final 'developed' image that you get stored on your memory card. But if you want to talk about cheating, I think correcting your exposure is more cheating. Simply because you should have the knowledge it takes to correctly expose your source be it film or digital. Now to cropping, with the exception of aspect ratio, you should be able to compose within the view finder (at least by what you're suggesting).
Dodging and burning.. Anyone who develops their own B&W photos knows that this is done to film too. It simply enhances certain things that the camera simply cannot. I can't remember who brought it to my attention but it was ansel who said "I was an ok photographer, but an outstanding developer" sorry if it's not word for word quote. Do you really believe ansel got those effects from that bulky camera?
As stated before, using photoshop to create a great photo when there was a crappy one to begin with is greatly cheating, but mostly to yourself in saying your a photographer and not a graphic artist. But to say using it as a developing tool for the digital film we're using is insane.
Joe
edit: for clarification purposes unedited does mean this: hair over eyes, exposure, expression, spots on backgrounds, drool stains on clothes. These are but a few of the things that will keep you a starving artist when it comes down to money and people paying for your 'talent'. |
Thank you for addressing the points I am trying to make. You are correct about my knowledge of film developing. My film experience is 25-30 years in the past. I'm sure developing techniques have changed considerably.
I don't think there is anyway I can say what I am feeling without offending some of you, so I'm just going to try to say it plainly and let the chips fall where they may.
I am not a film photographer. When I used to do film, long ago, I didn't like it enough to stick with it. I am trying to be a digital photographer. I think it is a whole new ballgame. It appeals to a much wider audience. I resent the way many people here that have extensive backgrounds in film seem to think all the rest of us should adopt their values about photography. The new digital photographers were not attracted to the hobby by the things you have learned over the years. Obviously these former practitioners of film have switched to digital to some extent, or else they wouldn't be here. But many seem to have their thoughts on photography mired in film and can't break away. I say "CUT THE CORDS". Embrace the new medium and leave the old one behind.
I especially detest the way some old film photogs seem to want to push their way of thinking on the new-to-photography generation that has come here to learn about digital in the 21st century, not about a dying technology. The young people today are exposed to high tech and computers from a very early age, and they are sharper at it than us oldies. It would seem easy for them to fall into the trap of using software to fix up everything and never learn proper camera techniques. That's why I find it so refreshing when someone like broly seems to appreciate the difference and goes for the real.
And I am sick and tired of hearing about Ansel Adams. I don't want the style I am trying to develope with my digital camera (my own personal style) to be influenced by a dinosaur, or by his followers. And, by extension, I hate to see others so influenced.
I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the way I feel. I know that some of the words I use may be perceived as prejudiced or derogatory. They are not intended to insult anyone's views or background. I don't like to see posts in the threads where people try to foist their views on the community as better than other peoples views or positions, and I often speak out when I see that. That does not mean that I don't respect you as a person, or that I say your views are wrong and that you should change them. I ask that I, and others who think as I do, be given the same respect.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 07:51:41 PM · #71 |
I sometimes feel as though I'm 'cheating' when I use PS. I try to use it sparingly and have been working on getting things right in-camera...but that doesn't always work my way. I think part of this feeling of cheating comes from the fact that I've never shot film (other than snapshots) and have never developed film in a darkroom. I don't have that comparison of what is okay or 'legal' in the darkroom and what is 'cheating' or 'illegal' in the digital darkroom.
I'm not sure I call the excessive use of PS (or like) cheating, really. For me, it's more like at some point it makes photography cross the (fine) line of becoming digital art. When I say digital art I mean heavily manipulated images...esp. when multiple images are being blended together. I can't exactly give a definition, but when I look at an image, I personally come up with the conclusion that this is either photography or digital art.
It's all good. It's all art. I just prefer (for the most part) to stay on the photography side of things.
Jen
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 08:05:41 PM · #72 |
AS far as photoshop, it can be as simple as garbage in garbage out.
AS far art, it is whatever the creative mind makes. I have waged the insult war to photography with sculptors and painters, art critics and the layman too. To say photography is not an art is to say the wood crafter is not an artist becuase he did not make the wood but only chose how to cut and blend the different pieces together and finally finish it.I've photographed some amazing floors that only a true artist could have achieved and only an artist (pat pat) could have photographed. OK I've said my piece on art. DPC seems to be a challenge of the artist behind the camera, and not in photoshop, although a little may be done there. ART IS PERCEPTIVE |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 08:29:05 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
I sometimes feel as though I'm 'cheating' when I use PS. I try to use it sparingly and have been working on getting things right in-camera...but that doesn't always work my way. I think part of this feeling of cheating comes from the fact that I've never shot film (other than snapshots) and have never developed film in a darkroom. I don't have that comparison of what is okay or 'legal' in the darkroom and what is 'cheating' or 'illegal' in the digital darkroom.
I'm not sure I call the excessive use of PS (or like) cheating, really. For me, it's more like at some point it makes photography cross the (fine) line of becoming digital art. When I say digital art I mean heavily manipulated images...esp. when multiple images are being blended together. I can't exactly give a definition, but when I look at an image, I personally come up with the conclusion that this is either photography or digital art.
It's all good. It's all art. I just prefer (for the most part) to stay on the photography side of things.
Jen |
I am right there with you as far as not being able to define it in words, but knowing what I call digital art when I see it.
I don't understand why you feel the need to use what was done in film to make your judgements about what is "cheating" or "illegal" in digital. Especially since you don't have the deep film background.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 08:41:21 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am right there with you as far as not being able to define it in words, but knowing what I call digital art when I see it.
I don't understand why you feel the need to use what was done in film to make your judgements about what is "cheating" or "illegal" in digital. Especially since you don't have the deep film background. |
Well, I sort of feel like I sometimes am cheating. I don't have the film background, but I think that's why I feel like that. I guess if I knew what all was possible in the darkroom, or what is typical practice, and I could distinguish its equivalent in PS, then I'd feel better. For the most part, I think I stick to the basics and think most of what I do is typically done in a darkroom.
Jen
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:05:34 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Physics_Guru:
I am sure this topic will stir up some interesting comments. Let me first say that I am not against photo editing and use Photoshop 7 (more like abuse since I hardly know what I am doing at this point) to tweak my own pictures.
Do you think photo editing is 'cheating'? The essence of photography is having the photographer get the shot so that it is perfect from the beginning. While technology has progressed and to stay on top one must embrace technology (it makes life so much easier!). But.... does this specific technology degrade the quality of photographers in todays world? (Not refering to the final product as a bad photographer / good editor could still produce outstanding work).
I think it will be interesting to hear peoples opinions on this one. |
no |
|
