zootshooter

<p>Thanks a lot for the input. I agree that I could do with some more categories for my pics, but I'm going to let my images accumulate a little more before I bother trying to sort something easier to navigate out. For now, the tag cloud system will just have to do. As for the quality of images, I agree that visitors to my site enjoy some more than others, but again, I'll wait until I've got a larger library of images before I start designating which of my images are best, or allow visitors to vote for them. <br>

If anybody could offer me any advice as to how I could add a shopping cart to my site, I'd be very grateful for any pointers especially if I could do so for free. </p>

<p>Hi, I've gotten too frustrated trying to build a proper website with no webskills or cash, but I still wanted to have a place to showcase my work, where I can point any prospective buyers or exhibitors towards. So, I settled for a wordpress photoblog set up that I've been adding to daily, which I do quite enjoy, and I hope this will help bring my work to a wider audience. If anyone here is running a photoblog, I'd love to hear any advice you may have, and all criticism is welcome from anyone interested in giving my work a perusal. <br>

The address is www.feargalnorton.com<br>

Cheers for it checking it out. <br>

Feargal</p>

<p><img src="http://zootsuiter.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/hires11-e1311442253443.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="565" /></p>

<p>First of all I had to conceive, and therefore if possible express properly (even if it is a simple thing) how photography’s referent is not the same as the referent of other systems of representation. I call “photographic referent” not the optionally real thing to which an image or a sign refers but the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens, without which there would be no photograph. Painting can feign reality without having seen it. Discourse combines signs which have referents, of course, but these referents can be and are most often “chimeras” Contrary to these imitations, in Photography I can never deny that thing has been there. There is a superimposition here: of reality and of the past. And since this constraint exists only for photography, we must consider it, reduction, as the very essence, the noeme of photography. What I intentionalise in a photograph ( we are not yet speaking of fill) is neither art nor communication, it is reference, which is the founding order of photography. - <br>

-Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida-</p>

<p>The objective nature of photography confers on it a credibility absent from all other picture making. In spite of any objections our critical spirit may offer, we are forced to accept as real the existence of the object reproduced actually re-presented set before us, that is to say, in time and space, - Andre Bazin -<br>

Getting the facts right is at the heart of good journalism; the more accurate the reporting, the closer to the truth. So, too with photojournalism, even though digital technology has now created the potential for greater ambiguity when it comes to photographic fact versus fiction. For the truth-seeking, socially motivated “concerned photographer,” fact finding has always driven the pursuit of “the decisive moment” - what Cartier Bresson long ago described as happenstance turning into visual logic before the lens. - Philip Gefter -</p>

<p>Photographs really are experience captured, and the camera is the ideal arm of consciousness in its acquisitive mood. -Susan Sontag-</p>

<p>These are views from some respected voices in the theory of photography that prioritise photography's main goal as that of trying to capture a fleeting moment of reality that passes before a lens. Many of you digital artists may do well to read up more instead of reeling off names like Avedon and Ansel Adams to justify your departures from classic photographic practice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Street and documentary photography should never be manipulated, only on photo.net would a discussion like this take place. Quite sad really. </p>

<p>Greg Peterson, this discussion between us is probably not going anywhere, but your arguments are so specious and aired with such pomposity that I find it impossible to resist trying to clarify my views.<br /> "Given that you've now established yourself as an authority on "what photography is about", you must have had a long and distinguished career and a broad range of experience in the manifold aspects of our craft."<br /> NO this is clearly not the case and I've already told you as much. I don't think that my own personal experience has much to do with my entitlement to the opinion that photography is about nailing a good shot through the camera, not through an application on a computer screen afterwards. <br /> "Well that's OK. It could be that, in the course of your doctoral studies, you've developed a comprehensive theory of the nature of photography and are therefore at least provisionally qualified to make such a bold assertion."<br /> Again no I'm not, what has this got to do with my ability to express my opinion? I am indeed a post grad studying photography, but again who cares?<br /> "You make the assumption that to produce photos worthy of "persnickety" clients, you must rely on post production techniques." Well no, I didn't. I only made the assertion (not assumption) that, given my specific client base, I need to do some post production work on more than 2% of my images. You go on to state that "This simply communicates a lack of photographic skill on your part."</p>

<p>So what exactly is your problem with the word assertion; let's look at the dictionary definition then - assertion - the act of taking for granted or supposing. That's exactly what you did through the statement that you made. You took an example of your own personal experiences and from this projected the very general, simplistic, and destructive, conclusion that pernickity clients can only be satisfied with work that has been Photoshopped. <br /> Who is this destructive to then you ask? Well this discussion was started by an amateur like me so I feel especially entitled to express my opinion that for an amateur to hear that they must use Photoshop to satisfy demanding clients, gives people a false impression about the necessity of post production programs to produce work capable of satisfying clients. If everybody continues to use Photoshop to create their professional look, then it doesn't do much for the diversity of photography, and so I would call this destructive.</p>

<p>You then go on to say "This ignorance is endemic on PHOTO.net..." Which ignorance would that be? Ignorance of the fact that, as Jeff pointed out, Avedon did post production manipulation. So did Adams and Weston.<br /> When in the world did i express my like or dislike for any specific photographers, never mind bloody Avedon?<br /> The assumptions that you make based on my stating that I don't think commercial success necessitates the use of Photoshop are really quite stupefying, and to use a list of photographers as an example of my own ignorance is simply puzzling to me.</p>

<p>I don't think that the view I expressed; that for a photo to have commercial potential it doesn't necessitate the use of Photoshop, requires any personal fabrication. There are real examples of this throughout the history of photography. My distaste for your own contribution to this discussion was borne out of the very obvious implications of your request for my own publication credits, simply because I dare to question the views of a more seasoned photographer. I don't think that your argument is at all constructive. </p>

<p>"What's your experience with "marketable work"? Where are your publication credits?"</p>

<p>I have absolutely no professional experience. I am an amateur photographer with a passion for my hobby at the moment, that is why I come to photo.net occasionally to get feedback for my work or to view other people's work and opinions. I don't need to have publication credits to be able to express an opinion on a photography forum. My view that you don't have to deploy Photoshop to have commercial success is informed not by my personal experience, but instead by the many photographers that I admire from throughout the ages that enjoyed commercial success without Photoshop. I abhor your elitist view of photography if you don't think that I am qualified to express an opinion about photography and its market, simply because i am an amateur.</p>

<p>Well Greg I was replying directly to the assumption that you stated, based not on your photographic output, but the comment that you made:<br>

" But, if 98% of your images are totally un-retouched, you must have clients who are far less persnickety than the architects with whom I work!"<br>

You said that for somebody to satisfy demanding clients, they must apply digital post production techniques to their work. Your work may well be of a very high quality, and I do admire the photo that you have submitted, but I was arguing against your simplistic, very general, and I think ultimately destructive declaration. The view that you expressed communicates that for anyone to be able to succeed in creating marketable work, they must deploy programs such as Photoshop. I argue vehemently that this is not the case. </p>

<p>" But, if 98% of your images are totally un-retouched, you must have clients who are far less persnickety than the architects with whom I work!"</p>

<p>This assertion is laughably at odds with what photography is about. You make the assumption that to produce photos worthy of "persnickety" clients, you must rely on post production techniques. This simply communicates a lack of photographic skill on your part. This ignorance is endemic on PHOTO.net, as a result there are very few practitioners of photography here, just a hell of a lot of confused digital artists.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response Robert, you are almost certainly right about the problems i'll face in trying to fix it. But the 70mm alone is worthless to me, so I'm willing to risk breaking the lens if there's any chance I could get the zoom functioning again. Anyone with any ideas about how I should get inside the lens and what I should be looking for?</p>

<p>I have an old sigma 70-300mm lens. Recently the telescopic zoom has ceased to function. It is now stuck at 70mm zoom and turning the ring does nothing, only the focus ring now functions. I took it to a camera shop and they quoted me 150 euros to send it off to sigma to fix it. For a lens that costs less than that it's not worth it, so I wish to fix it myself. Is this possible? could anyone provide me with any guidance as to how I could do this?<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>Kevin you are a legend for trying to rise above tthe pig headedness of the contributors to this forum; I salute your patience in dealing with idiots who can't even see the value of defining what a word means, as an english teacher I'm thoroughly appaled by such ignorance, maybe they could suggest an alternative way to communicate since words have such little value. I gave up on trying to have constructive debates on this site when I realised that the site admin have no interest in this site as a resource for learning; they have sponsors offering photoshop course and retouching services to keep happy, and that most of the digital artists here spend way more time on their computer than I wish to swimming against the tide on these forums. </p>

<p>"If ever there was a thread that shows what this site is all about it's this one. Photographs actually take a back seat at this site. A long time ago this site used to be about photographs. Today it's about money and moderators. "<br>

I've been here just 2 months, but from the evidence displayed throughout this thread in how poorly my original queries have been addressed for the most part. I second this motion. </p>

<p>"It may be that you later wished you'd only asked the question you're now <em>saying</em> you asked, but you didn't. You brought a lot more baggage to the conversation, and we've seen those bags go 'round and 'round a thousand times before you brought them up with your own non-new but dismissive, condescending, passive-aggressive tut-tut, right out of the shoot."<br>

I retract nothing from my original post and proudly stand by it. I politely questioned an element of the site that I found needlessly confusing and wished to find other people's opinions about it and garner an explanation of why things are so. I expressed my personal opinion regarding my preference for images that are unmanipulated according to photo.net's guidlines. You seem to take issue with the word trickery, I fail to see why. I said it before and guess I'll repeat myself once again: open any photography magazine or book or browse many websites; often there are people referring to digital tricks, or there is a digital tricks section. Trickery is an alternate form of the same word with the same connotations. Deal with it. </p>

<p>"Because your standards are not necessarily the standards of anyone else. And photo.net doesn't want to dive into the issue of trying to make everyone agree on what is "manipulated" or "unmanipulated", or trying to police uploads according to some set of arbitrary standards that people will simply disagree with and ignore. (At least that's my read of Josh's posts, and I would agree.)"</p>

<p>Again I'm avoiding being drawn into a debate on what is considered manipulated, it has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. <br>

Photo.net provides guidlines; these are what I would like people to try and stick to, and from my experience people who check that box saying no they are not manipulated seem to be pretty honest about it. <br />In most cases I don't think it would take long for people viewing their work to question the truthfulness of their submission and they can reflect this through critiques of the image or ratings. Also I don't see why people would be inclined to lie. </p>

<p>It seems to me you automatically assume that disagreement = denigrating. At this point no one is trying to put you down, they're trying to make you understand the can of worms you wish to open.<br>

mmmm.. take a look at Bernies helpful input and say the same thing. </p>

<p>Cyrr and Ilkka also thanks for offering viewpoints that are a beacon of light to photographers such as myself amidst all the angry irrelevant diatribes expressed here. Peter also your views though contrasting to mine are interesting and informative and I will try to post something more relevant to your questions when I have the energy after replying to all the haters that have come to this thread. </p>

<p>Daniel thank you so much for a brilliantly informative, balanced and relevant post. You and the others who have posted helpful material and insights have restored some of my faith in this site. Kind Regards. </p>

<p>Jesus what a load of condescending arrogant drop kicks frequent this forum apart from the odd glimmers of hope. It's very sad that the same things must be repeated and the same denigrating stance must be assumed by those of differing viewpoints than me. How many times must it be repeated that I have no problem with digital manipulation, how often must some towering narcissistic idiot gloat over his views and his understanding of the history of photography. Jeeese do you guys like the sound of your own voice. </p>

<p>I will once again return to my original question of<br>

1. why can't a simple checkbox can't be added as a filter in the critique forum to find results that are to my personal tastes i.e photographs submitted wherein the submitter has chosen to state that he believes his images are unmanipulated according to the standards set out by photo.net here they are so we can avoid the same tired discussion about what constitutes a manipulated image:<br>

Your photos in our database here at photo.net are intended to help other readers learn how to become better photographers. It is helpful for them to know whether the photo is more or less as it came out of the camera ("unmanipulated") or whether the photo has been significantly altered ("manipulated"). In other words, to produce a image like yours, do they need to work on their camera technique or their Photoshop technique?<br>

<br />

<table border="0" width="70%" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<h2>Unmanipulated</h2>

<ul>

<li>a single uninterrupted exposure </li>

<li>cropping to taste </li>

<li>common adjustments to the entire image, e.g., color temperature, curves, sharpening, desaturation to black and white </li>

<li>dust spots on sensor cloned out </li>

</ul>

</td>

<td>

<h2>Manipulated</h2>

<ul>

<li>double-exposure or fragments from several exposures </li>

<li>geometric distortion, e.g., to correct perspective </li>

<li>adjustments to just a part of the image, e.g., dodging and burning </li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<br>

For those readers old enough to remember film, "unmanipulated" is a slide processed through standard chemistry; "manipulated" would be a black and white print that had been heavily dodged and burned.<br>

Here are the standards set out by this site, why in the world do we have to keep talking about what constitutes a manipulated image.<br>

Question no. 2 why can't the options be clearer when submitting a photo i.e a simple <strong><em>yes </em></strong>the image is manipulated or <strong><em>no </em></strong>it is not. This is opposed to the current situation wherein the options are <strong><em>no </em></strong>and <strong><em>unknown </em></strong>or<strong><em> yes. </em></strong></p>

<p>Please don't post more irrelevant snidey comments and stick to the original thread cause this is really getting ridiculous. </p>

 

<p>You want a huge market, ok what the hell is photojournalism? War Zone photography, you can't see the moral implications of manipulating images of bloodshed.. how sorry I feel for you. </p>

<p>If you can't see the closer correlation between cinematography and photography in terms of using digital effects and ummm.. sound recording and photography then you too are a lost cause. </p>

<p>"If there were such a filter then it would removed all the images because all digital images are manipulated"</p>

<p>I find it incredible that people are simple enough to actually think that this is a worthwhile thing to say at this point in a thread. I assure you that I get the point that all photos can be interpreted as manipulated. Already there is an option which many people select that states that their image is unmanipulated according to their own thresholds of what counts as manipulating their image. I simply would like a filter that allows me to view only those images from photographers who selected no if i so wish. How far are peoples' heads up their own asses so that they can't simply address the posted query without losing themselves in pointless discussions of the semantics of that query.</p>

<p>Gosh what a lot of bile this forum is filled with and I have lost patience with responding to the same challenges.  As far as camera's being around for centuries I count three; the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st.  Yet again rather than posting a worthwhile response to my queries people instead enjoy dissecting every word i say and posting supposedly witty pithy retorts, well done everyone! you can be funny! hoorah for you! Maybe I should post about why there's not a comedy forum so you deadbeats can have a platform for your juvenile responses.  <br>

I do see there being a market and a huge amount of interest in photos that have not been proccessed with photoshop.  You don't think so, fine, I can deal with that. <br>

As for the outlandish comparisons between the art of sound recording and photography, get real I'm not even going to dignify such an unneccessry tangent with a response. <br>

Peter I did find your division of photography technique to pre shutter release, and post to be interesting and yes you are coming close to the mark in understanding what I'm talking about.  I am trying to learn pre shutter release techniques becacuse they are what interest me.   I feel disinterested by post production techniques because I simply don't find them challenging or stimulating.  It seems impossible to simply get a clearer definition of what post production technique photographers applied to their photos. What in the world is deemed so offensive about a simple query relating to how a photo was produced?<br>

 I feel appalled by the strange interpretations that people on this forum are attaching to a personal preference expressed by myself. </p>

<p>So... dragging an entire production crew back out into the desert to very expensively re-shoot an entire scene because of a three-frame flash of light on the horizon during the "keeper" take is preferrable to a simple, invisible post-production fix because - and only because - it's not <em>lazy</em>?<br>

Yes in most cases for film and photography purists such as myself such a cop out option shouldn't always be readily grasped. For many productions such concerns are completely irrelevant, because the film maker has no problem with making use of all the tools at his disposal... again i say good luck to them, a lot of great art has come out from this outlook. <br>

I myself as a 24 year old find it truly shocking that more senior photographers and members of this site see no value in being able to differentiate between photos that have been taken using techniques available for centuries, and those have been crafted using programs such as photoshop. <br>

I find it sad and I resign myself to finding no satisfaction with a meeting of viewpoints with the majority of modern photographers. I guess it does at least give me a niche in the market to fill.<br>

Good Luck all. </p>

<p>Matt I understand your points about film making, but I don't agree with them at all. I find it absoloutely the laziest form of film making to resort to digital manipulation to correct a lack of craft on the film makers part. For many movies this is perfectly acceptable, but these are for the most part big budget hollywood procutions, that I have little interest in. </p>

<p>Good morning Peter and thanks again for an insightful post, but again I think the waters are being unnecessarily muddied by over analysis of what consitutes a manipulated image. <br>

I have a very modern interpretation of Art and care very little for the techniques deployed to bring about its creation. The aforementioned photographer's work is in no way tainted by the fact that they used post production manipulation to bring about beautiful results. <br>

From my own personal viewpoint though: photography and film that I particularly enjoy are as much about the creative proccess for me as the finished product. That's what sets them apart from other artistic mediums. I am awestruck at how beautiful sequences in film or photographs of moments in time are captured without the use of computer effects. That's just me. <br>

I do not wish to consign myself to only view images on photo.net that I or the relevant photographers feel is unmanipulated. though I would like to have the option if I feel so inclined. <br>

On occassion and especially as an amatuer wishing to learn a craft I do think I should have the option of looking at work that has not been submitted to overt post production manipulation by its creator. <br>

I think that the system suggested by you is mind bogglingly confusing. I just suggest a simple more pronounced option of stating <strong><em>yes</em></strong> or <strong><em>no</em></strong> when submitting your work and perhaps a filter that can be applied when viewing the photo critique forum. People seem to take issue with the mention of images being manipulated, doggedly maintaining that all images are as such. I agree with this so perhaps a different term is more appropraite. I suggested CGI, but I'm sure that someone could think of something more befitting since people also seem to take issue with the lack of clarity enshrined in this term also. </p>

<p>I could give examples of what I'm talking about in relation to specific photos, but I don't deem it neccessary. Look at editors picks, photographers of the month, the preponderance of HDR images in the critique forum and it seems pretty clear to me that the site is swamped by overly manipulated images. Many people enjoy this work I have no problem with that, I also do on occassion. I'm just suggesting a simple tweaking of some options to allow me to explore the work on display on this site according to my own tastes at any given time. <br>

And yes I really should be out there taking some pictures :)<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Ha Bernie thanks it is indeed an uphill struggle to get my point across but I persevere. <br>

Charles, I am not in anyway saying that Ansel Adams' work is tainted as a result of his darkroom techniques. I'd just like to be able to ascertain when a photographer has deployed them. <br>

In a movie it is very clear when a movie uses CGI and from what I know film makers have no problem saying they have deployed Computer Generated Imagery to create alternate realities in their films, in fact they are proud of their mastery of modern techniques and I say good luck to them. <br>

If you are being pedantic you could of course say that any movie created using digital cameras or edited on digital programmes is a CGI creation, but there appears to be a consensus that this is not the case, that CGI implies creating something that would not be possible in reality without digital techniques. <br>

I simply pose the question why the same honesty and clarity can't be applied to photographs when submitted?</p>