Is this Really Photography?

I have a Point and Shoot camera, Nikon Coolpix s10. Even with the 10x (380mm

equivalant) zoom getting close up nature shots can be:

 

a) Dangerous

b) Impossible

c) Photoshop'd afterwards

 

So, today in low light at sunset across the river I shot some Canada Geese.

Out of many pictures only one really tickled my fancy.

 

Here is the ORIGINAL shot at full zoom. Where are the Geese? Somewhere above

the water.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6665022

 

Then I opened PhotoShop and cropped off most of the clutter.

Autolevels adjustment made the backgrouund really light and the birds stand

out.

Boosting up the curves a LOT made them stand out even more.

A big black border and a shot headed for the trash bin becomes somewhat

useable.

I like the fact I can repair and adjust almost any picture instead of spending

a lot of money on a DSLR.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6664911

 

Now really, is THIS process what Photography is, as most people see it

today? Or does it not count unless I spend a lot of money on a DSLR, long

lenses etc. and get the shot 'for real' right out of the camera?

Sounds like photography to me. You can do everything you did to that image in photoshop with black and white printing. When I print black and white photos in the lab I can crop them, add filters, fix convergence and do quite a lot of other things.

 

A photographer or a photograph are not defined just by their equipment.

it is only you who define what is a photography

 

then it is others who define you as a photographer

 

all other things is marketing ж)

Yes.

Nice photo.

Geese.

seems to me it is. I'm a minimalist when it comes to PS. Your shot is pretty dog-gone good considering the distance you had to work with.

 

I'm almost tired seeing those over-sharpened to the extent of damaged retinas, increased saturation to the point of having mushroom flashbacks with Jim Morrison, Photoshop plugged in to death photographs. Am I alone in this rant?

Sounds like your making the best of what you have. When I used a darkroom to make prints I'd use high or low contrast paper to match the scene. Zoom in the enlarger to crop the photo, burn, dodge, etc. You're just doing the modern process. You're photography is what you make it, that's what makes all our images unique.

It's fine. You're allowed to crop, sharpen, adjust levels and matt images if you so wish. There are no "rules".

You captured, worked on, and have presented a photograph. Now, have some wine, take a deep breath, and just look at it for a while. That's what I'm doing, anyway.

I know people with all the big white lenses, gimbals, carbon and 10 fps who cant take images like that. The most important piece of photographic equipment you will use lies around 6 inches behind the camera.

 

Want to make the image even better? Get rid of some of that black border! It feels like I'm bent over and staring out of the letterbox in my front door.

 

Free the geese!

 

If you also cropped a wee bit less tightly to leave some clear space in front of the leading geese it would give them some 'flying' room and would certainly look more pleasing to me.

 

Excellent shot Leonard, and it is real photography.

Of course it's photography and a nice result you've got from the shot too. The only problem that would come to light would be if you tried to enlarge it much then the big amount of cropping would let you down.

So it seems Unanimous, cropping, lightening and so on count as a 'real' photograph. Y'all may just saved me a couple grand on buying a DSLR for a while ;)

 

I get the feeling it is NOT photography is when you start adding or taking away stuff that was not there to start with... then it falls more into the realm of Digital Alterations...

Stop trying to define photography. If you used a camera then it's photography. If you completely changed the colors who cares? Do you like it? Are you happy? Quit worrying about stupid definitions.