whatever happened to photography

I was on another forum, and despite not being a member, and having blocked their email addresses, I keep getting link emails from them. I was bored and clicked on one that turns out was interesting. First i shall post excerpts from that thread dealing with photography and editing

 

That said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you need to know about how to use your camera.

 

Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography.

 

Creating a photo isn't simply taking a picture. That first image is just the beginning of the process.

 

Often when new photographers realize their work is no were near the quality of others they conclude the others must be "cheating."

 

Caution: clickbait.

So you are slowly spoon feeding us statements, that almost everybody could subscribe to, without linking or naming their source. Not overly nice.

1. Photoshop vs camera Sometimes surely true. You could focus stack f1.2 shots instead of stopping down or substitute shifting your lens upwards. Dunno what else. What doesmreally matter? Having a skinned rabbit to sell or the way you got there?
   
2. #editing - Might be obsolete? Can you be Smartphone tech ignorant enough, to let the little bugger go really wild on its own, without noticing or mentioning? I really wouldn't like trying to shoot a half decent SOOC JPEG with my very oldest DSLR; I always edited RAWs.
   
3. Sounds like Joe Edelman "Work your shot" - Is that the big change your headline seems complaining about? - Seems already doable on 120 & 135. The magazine telling me to get a 13x18cm, instead of such cameras, was written 90 years ago.
   

Joc ken, im afraid you have not understood the concept. Although i admit i havent bothered following the post, real life, looking at tripods, checking on photo software, etc. Important things first you know.

 

1. I dont believe you READ that qoute... if you read the qoute youd read it as it was written, although i will emphasize it in its parts.

 

that said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you ACTUALLY need to know about how to use your camera.

That quote came from a person defending the use of photoshop and other editing programs to deal with things that a sane person can deal with at the time of shooting, whether making an alteration to the camera settings regardless of digital or film, controlling the angle of the shot or using hoods and CPL and ND filters to allow a shot to be made in the first place.

 

That qoute more or less relates to the majority of people who leave the camera cotrol dial set to AE and just use the photoshop AI to batch process their 400 shots of a cup of coffee in the hope one shot will be good enough for their instagram.

 

2. Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography.

That is a sell out of the use of photoshop to replace entire parts of photos because "ansel adams did it in the darkroom, its perfectly fine to do with photoshop now".

 

Im not against editing, merely against the creation of digitally imagery. Yeah, you want a picture of your girlfriend in a bikini and want to make her look like ariel complete with tail. Well simply be an adult and get a mermaid costume that has a tail and go with it. Far easier and cheaper then spending an hour cut and pasting a picture of a fish tale on your girlfriends photo..

 

Or better yet if you want to combine a photo of yourself on a mounted cliff edge with a sunset in the background, simply why the hell cant you take the photo AT sunset,, instead of combine a photo of you standing on that ledge at high noon, with one you take the same day at that same spot of the sunset?

Ho Humm.

 

Figure out what you want, feel, and want to execute in your art. OH NO, I said art... Maybe your images.

 

Then do it and scr*w the rest... :D

Oh no, Mr. Bill!

(explanation for newbies: Mr. Bill - Wikipedia)

newbie

The last time a newbie was seen on PN was 1997. :)

These days, everybody under 70 years seems like a "newbie" to me:(

Camera work and post work aren't necessarily incompatible. Tommy, you're speaking dogma, not logic.

Perhaps they stopped taking photos?

 

 

 

 

 

;

Camera work and post work aren't necessarily incompatible. Tommy, you're speaking dogma, not logic.

 

creating an in camera multiple exposure takes skill, and is a bitch..

 

yet the main selling point of most digital editing programs is "a seemless, AI/graphics engine run algorthm that will insert any background into the photo you want.."

 

Hell, even the widdle low end photoshop express claims to have the capability of taking a photo of anyhuman with a closed eye, and replacing the closed eye/s with an open eye from any photograph you posess. and to do it seamlessly.

 

why not have the person OPEN their eyes instead for a photo

Why not do what you want and not stress about what others do?

creating an in camera multiple exposure takes skill, and is a bitch..

 

yet the main selling point of most digital editing programs is "a seemless, AI/graphics engine run algorthm that will insert any background into the photo you want.."

 

Hell, even the widdle low end photoshop express claims to have the capability of taking a photo of anyhuman with a closed eye, and replacing the closed eye/s with an open eye from any photograph you posess. and to do it seamlessly.

 

why not have the person OPEN their eyes instead for a photo[/quote

 

Tommy, this is the tired old rhetoric about digital or film. To me, if a tool is available, why not use it? One more point - - I obtained an Agfaflex camera in 1969 and some years discovered digital cameras. Since I never did any darkroom work, this was the way to go.

To me, if a tool is available, why not use it?

I find plenty of reason not to use available tools. A lot of them simply don't suit me, my vision, or my taste.

 

At the same time, I don't mind the choice being there for others to use. Every photographer is free to use any tool they want and I'm free not to like any particular use of any tool. But I try not to paint with a broad brush. It's not the tools that I critique, it's how well or poorly I think they're used. That someone can do something easier than I can because I've chosen to use traditional tools doesn't upset me. I'm not in a competition. I do my thing the way I want and I expect others to do theirs the way they want.

why not have the person OPEN their eyes instead for a photo

#shutter lag? - Used to be pretty horrible during early digital days.

Have you ever shot groups? - I wasn't aware of PS elements' eye opening capability but fear I might need it some day. Sure, shooting bursts might be a work around but neither is every camera + lighting kit capable of doing, nor every group willing to cope with them.

I find plenty of reason not to use available tools. A lot of them simply don't suit me, my vision, or my taste.

 

At the same time, I don't mind the choice being there for others to use. Every photographer is free to use any tool they want and I'm free not to like any particular use of any tool. But I try not to paint with a broad brush. It's not the tools that I critique, it's how well or poorly I think they're used. That someone can do something easier than I can because I've chosen to use traditional tools doesn't upset me. I'm not in a competition. I do my thing the way I want and I expect others to do theirs the way they want.

 

Indeed, Sam, using an available tool is a matter of choice. One does not need to explain that choice to anyone.

Sort of feel faint...a actual photo ....wow.

inoneeye

 

The shy photographer. Not worthy.

 

ME think, he feels, he has to suck up to loud voices,

Anyway. don't talk show.....

 

why not have the person OPEN their eyes instead for a photo

 

Tommy, let's agree to disagree. You apparently won't budge from your position; I too am quite stubborn about using available tools

I note that your statements are not links to articles that support your title. FWIW , I personally support your statements 2 & 3. In the sense that I usually take many 'burst' shots in RAW. So photo selection and editing of my elected photos are normal parts of my workflow. As always, the better my out-of-camera photos are, the less PP I need to do. I do 95% of photo adjustments in Adobe Lightroom. I very occasionally (5%) use Photoshop to improve photos.

 

 

I was on another forum, and despite not being a member, and having blocked their email addresses, I keep getting link emails from them. I was bored and clicked on one that turns out was interesting. First i shall post excerpts from that thread dealing with photography and editing

 

That said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you need to know about how to use your camera.

 

Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography.

 

Creating a photo isn't simply taking a picture. That first image is just the beginning of the process.

 

Often when new photographers realize their work is no were near the quality of others they conclude the others must be "cheating."

My better out-of-camera shots don’t necessarily mean less post work. I try not to use post processing to make up for failings or shortcomings of my picture-taking. I use post processing to get a desired end result. It’s an integral part of the process of photo-making for me. I will spend more or less time on post processing as my own sense of the ultimate picture demands, not usually as a corrective to something I could have done in camera.

what happened to photography? It evolved, as it always has. It moved on but is still connected to the past, it's a choice. With new tools, techniques and means of expression there are fewer limitations. From beginning to end of the process you can choose your level of involvement and degree of craft.

 

I resisted the transition to digital post until I lost my darkroom. Slowly I began to appreciate the new possibilities PS offered. It opened doors to express myself in ways that I had thought of but would and did take countless sessions in the darkroom. But along the way digital post blew open new doors for me.

 

I often see 'corrections' as part of my pre-visualization process, when time allows. I think of it as consideration of the limitations that are part of the photography experience. I trash fewer photos now because they are useful due to the ease of alterations.

I had one particular photo that I reprinted numerous times over a 15 year period. I was never satisfied. Like Adams making cutouts for the crosses in Moonrise I had so many cutouts that required a number of different exposures to get the balance, nuance I wanted. With PS I was able to 'correct' it in one long session. That was not due to improper camera work. In fact at the time I captured the photo I had a habit of sacrificing a roll of 35 or 2-1/4 film to dedicate the development to x1 particular image that was important.

 

Nowadays is it easier to take a picture and adjust or alter in post? Sure easy access to post processing &or fully automated settings, like point and shoot instant cameras have been for a long time (it is easier to get a good exposure now without the old learning curve requirements). But learning the craft and what you shoot is still a choice.

 

I think sharing on the internet has impacted photography most significantly. New technologies have put cameras and post at the fingertips of a many more than ever. We see it all... making it our responsibility to sift through. If someone wants to point and shoot and display or to create a world of their making, well so what if you don't like what you are seeing just move on to the next page, print or gallery, start sifting. There is a lot of really fine work being produced.