2 conversations

In general, we exhibit the same behavior when photographing as we do in other areas of our life. Some of us are impulsive and quick, some of us are contemplative and slow. Which is better? Who knows? The tools don't matter so much.

 

Cartier-Bresson took the new (at the time) 35-mm camera and used it to freeze moments of life in ways that had not been done before. He brought a new sensitivity and sensibility to the process. The new tool made it easier. (Too bad he made the ill-thought remark about the silliness of photographing "rocks and trees". Since then his devotees have hollowly reiterated it again and again.)

 

The new tool of digital photography will bring a fresh perspective and perhaps inspire those using the old tools with new ideas. It will not make us better or worse photographers.

Michelangelo and Rafael were stellar artists, but they weren't photographers.

Photography=writing with light. The bulk of the content should be light that was reflected from the scene being observed, no?

photoshop-graphy = graphic design. Some original light, and paint most of it in photoshop.

If you like to shoot and then paint with image programs, that's fine. But it seems that it's part photography and part painting.

Note that I am also opposed to lots of manipulation in the darkroom.

Weasel,

 

don't you think that when one is looking through the viewfinder of a camera, and adjusting the composition, that one is doing graphic design? After all, one is arranging spatial relationships between shapes one sees in the little rectangle. Why is it so important to insist that photography and graphic design are disjoint?

 

Etymology doesn't help, because the meanings of words commonly change over time. As an example, think of the word computer. It used to refer to a person, and now it refers to a chunk of hardware. We don't say something is not a computer because it is not a person. Why would you say that something is not a photograph because it's production included some "manipulation" (photoshop, or darkroom)?

Neil Baylis , jan 29, 2004; 06:51 p.m.

Weasel,

 

"Don't you think that when one is looking through the viewfinder of a camera, and adjusting the composition, that one is doing graphic design?"

 

No, not at all.

 

"After all, one is arranging spatial relationships between shapes one sees in the little rectangle. Why is it so important to insist that photography and graphic design are disjoint?"

 

Typography and layout on a page are not photography. I do both.

If the definition of photography is arranging objects in a rectangle, then I must have been doing "photography" when I made collages in 2nd grade. My sister is very good at drawing and painting, but she isn't doing photography. Arranging objects in a rectangle can be art, but it's not photography. Photography is arranging light from objects onto a medium that can record it (silver plates, 35mm film, digital media).

"The new tool of digital photography will bring a fresh perspective and perhaps inspire those using the old tools with new ideas. It will not make us better or worse photographers."

 

Or it might just cause us to use tacky effects in the camera and even tackier effects in photoshop.

Is a photogram a photograph? How about an x-ray image on film? Something bleached in the sun? How about the tan line on your skin?

 

To say that photography is the accurate unadulterated documentation of the image it captures is probably too narrow of a definition. It's a perfectly legitimate approach but to say that anything outside that definition is not photography would be unsupported in many circles.

 

It also begs the question of what is an accurate unadulterated image? All images are representations. Perhaps we could say in such a case that the adulteration is kept to a minimum.

 

Each photographer chooses a path. Adulterated/unadulterated, digital/ analog, etc. etc. Why the proclamations of what constitutes the REAL photography for everyone else? All of my work is with a large format camera and wet process. I love it. But it makes no sense to condem the digital photographer using Photoshop. To what end would it serve?

"It depresses me that many people, even ones who view themselves as photographers, don't care about lighting, focus, depth of field, shutter speed, because they're going to fix all of these post- exposure."

 

Hunh? Photoshop doesn�t make the photo for you. Crap in - crap out�

 

I thought that was pretty funny how Hans got burnt on the "nobler" thing. For God's sake, read your freaking dictionaries and stop making a fool of yourself! It�s almost unbearable for me to watch.

<i>

I'm not really interested in snapping a frame and then spending 6 hours screwing around with blurring filters and rgb correction. I'd rather sit by the waterfall for hours and figure out what weather, time of day, focal length, and shutter speed I want to use.

</i>

<br>

<br>

so go do that, whos stopping you...?

Photoshopped, white balanced, airbrushed, botoxed, tummy-tucked, suntanned and spit-shined. Oh yeah, this is the way of the future, get with the program, Tommy Boy. All the little girls and boys on MTV looking perfect/can't sing/dancing-shaking wiggly ass, all the little digitgraphs looking smooth, color-corrected. Instant feedback, immediate gratification, gimme-gimme, fat-baby wants more garbage-in/garbage-out one hole to another. Smooth, sexy, cool, new must be better, looks good, less heart/less soul/less value/good price.

Lee this would make a great song! You've summed it up nicely.

These conversations about "tools" are always amusing to me. 99.9% of all viewers don't care about process, cameras, film vs. digital, graphic art vs. photography, whether or not it took a week to capture the pic or if you got it on the fly. All they care about is the image and does it impact them in some way.

Jake, I can't speak for others but I don't care that much about the viewers in general, especially the public at large. I do care what other photographers think and, as you can see, many do care alot about the process.

Weasel: "If the definition of photography is arranging objects in a rectangle..."

 

Do you honestly think I said that "the definition of photography is arranging objects on a rectangle"? What I was doing was noting that the process of composition when making a photograph is like the process of graphic design -- arranging spatial relationships among shapes in a rectangle. For this reason, I'm saying that there is already some overlap between graphic design and photography, whereas you want to claim that they are entirely separate, and that there's a regrettable movement towards merging them.

 

Perhaps you want to say that photography is ONLY the part with the light, and the recording medium. Well, OK. But then everything that happened before the shutter opened, or after it closed, would not be part of photography. What's the use of such a definition?

 

Hans: similarly, I didn't say that "Typography and layout on a page" were photography. I said (to paraphrase) that when you are composing with a camera, you are doing design. It's the same act, in the abstract, of creating or suggesting meaning through the spatial arrangement of shapes.

 

Bradley: I believe Hans was right about "nobler" vs "more noble". But if you want to discuss, please email me, don't post it to the forum.

 

D. Poinsett: Exactly right. Why are people like Weasel ("It depresses me...") and so many others UPSET by what other photographers (or graphic designers) do? Why does it make any difference to you at all? You are still perfectly free to make images however you want, regardless of how many others you think are "lazy", "don't care", etc.

Andy,

 

Do you only make pictures for other photographers? A rather incestuous audience, don't you think? I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but I guess that's okay for hobbyists. But pros, both commercial and "art", cater to a larger audience and that's the 99.9% I refer to.

 

 

A bigger question(s) perhaps better posed in another thread is; do art, photography, or any of the visual media require an audience? Is communication, ie. feedback/reaction, required to have a valid visual art. Asked another way; if you create an image and no one sees it, what have you created? At the very least, it's an object. But, is it any more than that? Obviously, there will be a lot of varied opinions on this.

Actually Jake I photograph primarily for myself but most of the people who see what I've done are other photographers and I value their opinion more than the general public. I've found that other photographers are more critical. As for artists I've found that they don't tend to alter their work to please others as much as you make out, at least at a higher level. I think that commercial photographers (portrait, advertising) are the only ones who have to photograph to please others first.

If you shoot pictures thinking "I just want to get this on my hard disk and then I'll fix it later", then you are going to shoot a different kind of picture than if you're thinking "I want to make this the best I can right now."

 

That's the starting point from which I think about these things. In my opinion, digital and film photography are of equal value. Both produce great images. However, both have completely DIFFERENT PROCESSES.

 

It isn't about figuring out which one is better or worse, it's about figuring out which process is better for you. In my opinion, it seems like one of those things that you either are or you aren't. People seem to inherently know whether they prefer film or digital. I think they know because they like to create in certain ways; film facilitates on form of creation, digital another.

Andy,

 

You've misunderstood my point, or I've not been clear. I don't think anyone should alter their work to please an audience...except for commercial work, movies, etc. What I'm trying to say, is the process is generally only interesting or satisfying to the photographer/artist. Usually, the viewers just don't care that you had to hang by your toes to capture the image and that you developed it in pineapple juice.

I see what you mean Jake. However I'm just defending the reason why I do care and that is because the people who view my photos care as well.

In the final analysis, does it really matter how someone achieves a great image? I, personally, prefer film to digital but I have seen some really outstanding images taken with digital cameras. I have also seen some disasterous images from digital cameras (over saturated colors, for example). The point is this: a great camera will never make a great photographer unless the person holding the camera knows what he/she is doing. There ARE certain advantages to digital technology, no doubt there, but some of us "old fossils" still enjoy out film cameras. So? Use whatever brings you pleasure! Not every digital user is a "master craftsperson" in digital manipulation and I guess that's why I've seen some horrendous images. Me? I enjoy tinkering with my film camera, and although I can use it on fully automatic (and save time), I prefer to spend time fussing over the aperture and shutter speed settings to achieve a desired d.o.f. What's the point? If someone CAN use a film camera and get great results, GOOD; but, if someone else chooses to use a digital camera and gets the same results (or better, or worse, or whatever) then that's THAT person's decision to do... what difference does it make, really? I enjoy my film and I let others who enjoy digital enjoy whatever they choose to enjoy. Differences are what makes photography such a great hobby (or vocation) for those of us bitten by the proverbial "shutter bug."

 

People used to complain that "darkroom technicians" manipulated the origial image. Gee, that sounds like something I hear about digital manipulation....

 

By the way, digital photography has brought more people to photography than color film did. Isn't that wonderful, to have more people involved in photography, each possibly contributing to our chosen hobby?

"By the way, digital photography has brought more people to photography than color film did. Isn't that wonderful, to have more people involved in photography, each possibly contributing to our chosen hobby?"

 

Numbers are not important to me and I don't find having more people to be 'wonderful' in the slightest. The big problem, for me, and many others is that having more and more people switch to digital means that there is a distinct possibility that film may become restricted, expensive or even lost. I don't particularly desire to switch everything that I've spent a number of years accumulating just because people find digital convenient. I know this is going to bring a chorus of people saying that film will not disappear anytime soon but I don't think they know any better than I what direction film will go. It's very expensive to make good quality film and large volume sales are essential.

 

If digital and film can exist together, with no loss of quality and price, then I have no real problem with it. But I'm not going to become a cheerleader for it just because more people will use it. More people also means more crap images.

Modern Photography merging with graphic design more people more crap images, it's just method to madness, I use an Olympus C4000 in combination with a Nikon FE-2 I like the 2 extremes. full-time student photography 1st semester while the digital is limited in what it can do immediatly it saves film I use it to brainstorm. I have bracket more intelligently with the Nikon. Tools are tools its how they are used A snapshot is a snap shot bad design is bad design. The Brains of the beholder will decide.

Hi all,

 

It's all about WHY you take photographs. If its your business you have to take the photograph as near perfect as fast as you can - so you can move on to the next waterfall -

 

Others only want a single perfect picture of a waterfall and will wait days, not hours, for the perfect exposure.

 

I found it counterproductive to do too much time in PS, since there are other shoots to do.

 

A photographer is a student of the science of photography and an artist in printed media, whether it's done in a darkroom or a computer.

 

Regards

<i> A photographer is a student of the science of photography </i><p>

 

Dude, I am like so totally a scientist it's not funny.

I do not know too much about PS but it did convert some digital photos i took of iggy pop at the queen mary festival last yr smudging out lighting from mr. pops eyes and applying the 2 o'clock shadow to some but spending more than 10 mins is a waste of time, i would rather be taking photos learn the lessons of previous photos getting better at that science.