Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However you choose to define it! Operators operate equipment. Photographers make photographs. Lots of people don't like to fiddle with cameras any more than necessary, but do want a few snapshots. Are they photographers? Maybe, maybe not. Is someone who shoots snaps with a camera but never makes any attempt at getting the best photograph, using all of the tools available, a photographer? Maybe, maybe not.
I see those probably far less often than I see images that were totally blown, by poor camera configuration before the shutter was pressed. Does that make cameras an evil tool designed to "cheat" people when it comes to memorable images? Or is it just an abuse rather than a use... :-)
IMO, a photographer puts a greater emphasis on the equipment at hand, and on the field, than what can be achieved in post processing. It is easily possible for a casual “camera operator” to take a point and shoot picture and then, if PS savvy, produce a picture that looks stunning and may be comparable (if not better than) a “photographer” who spent time and effort to get the best lighting, sharpness and overall shot.
Where did I use the word evil or cheat? I didn’t, did I? Having said that, I’m as much for technology as any other person around. Heck, I own a camera that is among the fastest focusing and generally pretty advanced. Do I appreciate those features? Certainly. Do I also turn around and go for the old-fashioned ways? Of course I do. I also appreciate the character each lens imparts on its results. To see results with minimal tweaking is something I like about photography.
Personally, I used Photoshop more couple of years ago. In fact, I helped someone here on C-D jazz up their vacation photographs. Now the software remains on a computer I rarely use. I played with CS5 Extended last month for trial and it was okay but not worth spending the money when I could go back to CS3 for pretty much everything I would anyway. If I shoot RAW, I use Sony’s supplied software.
IMO, a photographer puts a greater emphasis on the equipment at hand, and on the field, than what can be achieved in post processing.
You are disagreeing with Ansel Adams. (And with me, but I don't count.)
Quote:
It is easily possible for a casual “camera operator” to take a point and shoot picture and then, if PS savvy, produce a picture that looks stunning and may be comparable (if not better than) a “photographer” who spent time and effort to get the best lighting, sharpness and overall shot.
A non-sequitor due to context. In isolation that is true, but in fact a photographer's output over time and for a variety of subjects is going to be significantly higher quality.
Quote:
Having said that, I’m as much for technology as any other person around.
Well, yes... I noticed that you were going to use an old film camera and insert a digital sensor in place of the film transport. All by your lonesome...
Quote:
Personally, I used Photoshop more couple of years ago. In fact, I helped someone here on C-D jazz up their vacation photographs. Now the software remains on a computer I rarely use.
Not everyone necessarily has to be into photography up to their ears. You can, and many people do, enjoy photography without becoming fully engaged. Just don't kid yourself about whether the intentional restrictions you are applying do or not
void the potential for ever being a master of photography, or even just a plain ol' journeyman photographer.
You are disagreeing with Ansel Adams. (And with me, but I don't count.)
If you would like to think so.
Quote:
A non-sequitor due to context. In isolation that is true, but in fact a photographer's output over time and for a variety of subjects is going to be significantly higher quality.
So you respond with "impossible" to my argument.
Quote:
Well, yes... I noticed that you were going to use an old film camera and insert a digital sensor in place of the film transport. All by your lonesome...
I would like to think that you were trying to make a point here but lost your line of thought. Go ahead and complete your sentence. Thank you.
Quote:
Not everyone necessarily has to be into photography up to their ears. You can, and many people do, enjoy photography without becoming fully engaged. Just don't kid yourself about whether the intentional restrictions you are applying do or not
void the potential for ever being a master of photography, or even just a plain ol' journeyman photographer.
What has that got ANYTHING to do with the paragraph you responded to?
Having just seen a completely useless post (above), when you buy a lens, what do you look for in it, that you can't accomplish in PS?
I have refrained from associating the term “cheating” with PS, or any form of editing for that matter. After all, a nicely photoshopped picture is likely to have a commercial advantage and when that is the purpose, it is delivering what appeals to the customer. They aren’t necessarily being presented a photograph, but a computerized artwork, which holds an appeal to them.
By that rationale, would you argue that Annie Leibovitz is a "computer artist" and not a photographer? Because I feel relatively confident, based on what I've read and seen, that she considers her work Photography and not computerized art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I can’t speak much for the old fashioned dark room as I have virtually no experience in those, but before the advent of heavy editing using PS and like, sometimes quality of picture was about picking the right film for graininess and saturation. The lighting and sharpness, or the blur, was about picking the right angle, lens and settings. It was about trying to maximize involvement on the field as opposed to the office desk at home. Sure, I’ve heard of “tricks” that were used to transform images, but they continue to be tricks. I can now do similar tricks, even placing a full moon on a photograph where it never was, including reflection, simply sitting at home and without waiting for an opportune time and weather.
I wouldn't call them tricks, I'd call it part of the process. When you develop a black and white image for instance, you have filters that can boost contrast, I doubt you'll find a single black and white, film photographer who would argue that using these filters is tricks.
A camera sensor (or film, but sensors more so), lens and processing tools is vastly inferior to the human eye, because of this, photographers have utilized post processing techniques (and retouching for that matter) since the invention of photography.
Do some people take it too far? Certainly. HDR processing is one field where people, especially inexperienced ones tend to go a little overboard, that however, doesn't mean that using PS creates an inferior photograph than not using it.
You say that you predominantly shoot in .jpeg, what you are doing when you do that is allowing the camera to do the post processing for you, the main difference between what you do and what I do is that I do that post processing myself, I don't see how that means one is a trick and computerized art, where the other is "real" photography.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Don’t get me wrong. I would (and do) use PS if the sole purpose was to sell my pictures rather than learn and maximize my personal potential in on-field photography. But I won’t associate it with good photography.
And there is where the argument lies. I simply do not see why digitizing photography means it's no longer good. You are essentially saying that several nationally and internationally known photographers no longer do good photography, but they've been reduced to computer artists.
You probably are unaware of the history. See David Eves' blog for a better view. Check out more than just the front page articles too, and you'll find that nonsense has been going on for years. It is nothing short of absolutely hilarious! You'll enjoy reading it.
Hey, you should be flattered. Some people pay good money for publicity like this.
Well, it's true that there is a whole group of us in Barrow who patiently wait for each new diatribe! Trying to figure out what he's talking about sometimes is just fabulous fun. (One lawyer has to be restrained, because he wants to slap him with a law suit, but I won't let him.)
The current blog entry was what came about after the discussion in this forum on shutter speed and birds in flight.
And on a very serious note, lets be aware that life is not as nice to some people as it is for most of us... so use a little discretion.
We used to have another psychotic in Barrow that faxed a "newsletter" to most of the businesses in town. He had half a dozen people that he railed against regularly, accusing them of all sorts of stuff, mostly involving telecommunications. I only heard of one time that my name got mentioned, which the rest of the people he ranted against thought was really amusing. I knew them all well, and while they all had at least some short/remote connection to the telecommunications industry... I'm the only one had worked for several decades in the industry. Somehow he never figured out who I was, and left me out of it.
And another guy used to sit or stand a short distance away from any of us that he saw in a restaurant or whatever, and mumble all kinds of weird stuff, using a lot of technical key words. He clearly listened to what we talked about, and clearly read things or watched TV or something and made connections. It was all harmless, but total nonsense; except it was really interesting to see what he would come up with. And if we said anything directly to him, or in any way indicated that we were listening, he was just all smiles and obviously felt like he belonged.
Don't know what happened, but all three left Barrow within a few months of each other. It's a little worrisome because the world out there is a nasty place, and here in a little town of 4000 people that is 500 miles from the nearest McDonalds these people are safer than perhaps anywhere else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
