All I glean from reading this is a whiff of huge egos who feel upright for supposedly taking their moral high road. Disgusting.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any of the real photographers left?
- Thread starter iBallz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Egos, or defensiveness? Photography is one of those areas where the lines between "pro" and "amateur" are being blurred, the barriers to pro-level equipment are substantially lowered from decades ago, and since the resulting product is a direct expression of one's skill and talent, being "called out" is a direct challenge, particularly when one has a great deal invested, regardless of the use (or abuse) of the investment.
It's similar to carpentry. The tools have improved, and more & more folks are into it than ever before, but a crappy cabinet is still crappy. Photography (and opinions about it) are just easier to share, and hence easier to lay one's pride on the line.
Me? Well, I think I take a fair shot from time to time, but I generally suck, and so don't anticipate quitting my day job anytime soon. I use the tools that are within my reach financially and time-wise, and enjoy some of the things I discover about myself, my skill, and things I can do with an image before, during, and after the actual shot.
The post-production manipulation actually makes me a better photographer on the next shot, because I prove to myself each time that I still missed something in basic composition or setup. Consequently, I have started spending more time before the shot than after it, and the results show.
Bottom line is, I do this because it's fun, it gives me pleasure and occasionally something I can show to someone else with a little pride and say "I did this." But regardless of the body, lens, accessories, or post, it was still me that created the image, nobody else. That's all that should matter.
I dont feel that my comment had anything to do with ego. Perhaps defensiveness. I am merely saying photography is art, and is personal. And to use some editing tools is fine. You are creating something. Valdore, you should understand this of all people, judging by your extensive HDR images.
But I will still stand behind the fact that if it's a lousy image, than it'll stay lousy.
I personally do not do extensive photo editing, I just stick to colour adjustments mainly. But if someone wants to do some funky new style photo, cut some stuff out, edit it, add some cool colours and adjustments, than go ahead. Me personally, I classify photos into different categories. If you majorily edit it, or do what Carl does and create funky images, or an HDR image, they go into different categories.
But I will still stand behind the fact that if it's a lousy image, than it'll stay lousy.
I personally do not do extensive photo editing, I just stick to colour adjustments mainly. But if someone wants to do some funky new style photo, cut some stuff out, edit it, add some cool colours and adjustments, than go ahead. Me personally, I classify photos into different categories. If you majorily edit it, or do what Carl does and create funky images, or an HDR image, they go into different categories.
Marc, that wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at this recurring theme that the rest of us are supposed to be impressed by pounding one's chest proclaiming he or is such a good photographer that manipulation is redundant - which I find arrogant and egotistical.
Something I said earlier in this thread that no one seemed to pay any attention to: The best of the present-day photographers will know both how to adeptly operate their camera AND employ post processing when and where it would enhance the photo. But people keep regarding that as an either/or situation.
And I also keep hearing it repeated over and over again that a crap photo will still be crap after processing - uh, yeah.... no *****, did anyone say otherwise?
Something I said earlier in this thread that no one seemed to pay any attention to: The best of the present-day photographers will know both how to adeptly operate their camera AND employ post processing when and where it would enhance the photo. But people keep regarding that as an either/or situation.
And I also keep hearing it repeated over and over again that a crap photo will still be crap after processing - uh, yeah.... no *****, did anyone say otherwise?
Great minds think alike?
We just like the sound of it?
We like repeating ourselves?
We like repeating ourselves?
Loads of people on this photo forum say things like "The picture wasn't very interesting, so I ran it through PS to see what I could do with it", with optimistic thoughts of creating 'a silk purse out of a sow's ear'.
Didn't do it right in the camera? Then turn it into a drawing or a watercolour painting or something else from a drop-down menu of special effects...
Oh, I completely agree. Photoshop is the processing after an intense shoot itself. When I work, I'll light everything precisely, even though I know I'll be working the image in Photoshop later. Getting it right in camera helps out post a LOT.
Another case-in-point... I have this photo coming up involving a person becoming Superman, jumping over the street and a car in a single bound. Sounds like something destined for Photoshop, and you'd be right. It will be a composite merging studio and location photos, but I have had to put the image off for two weeks. My base shot has to be done outside, and I can't take it yet because it's been overcast every single day. It's better to wait and get the exact exterior lighting I need, rather than just take a diffused photo and digitally create sunlight.
That's using Photoshop and the conventional standards of painting with light to create a final product.
Oh, ok. I thought that was directed at everyone who participated in this discussion (ha). Some people are under the mentality that that's what photoshop is for. (Like I said, the photoshop as a verb thing, when people say things like "i photoshoped this photo to make it look good".
Also, I completely agree with your comment (just now acknowledging it lol) about incorporating photography skills, and post processing skills when it is needed, or wanted to enhance an image.
Exactly. Thats what I mean.
I didn't take the photo...but it was taken from the northern side of the white house. There's a ceremonial entrance there that you can see in the photo -- not used much anymore, but in the past it was where foreign dignitaries would be received when they cam to the white house for dinner.
It's also the the part of the white house closest to the street. It would be very hard to get a picture from any other angle because of the distance and the trees on the white house campus.
The white house is just north of the monument, so you could definitely get an angle like that.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.893956,-77.03918&spn=0.019273,0.02708&z=15&om=0
I've been reading this thread with interest, and I just realised that I have something to say (again )
I have little problem with Photoshop. I use it on every image I produce (to a certain extent). When I see someone post a photo and say "straight from camera" I think why??? Modern digital cameras take nice photos, but they're usually fairly flat and bland. Photos scanned from film (also "straight from camera") have much nicer colours, contrast, texture etc., so why not try to make your digital photos more "film-like"? Essentially I'm saying that every photo can use some levels/curves adjustments, whether you go further or not.
As for the whole idea of PS plug-ins and special effects: frankly, I hate them. I hate the idea that someone can, with just a press of a button, create a "watercolour" painting, or a Dragan effect, or whatever. It takes no skill, and leads to the very kind of discussion we're having here.
I'll admit that some of my photos are heavily, HEAVILY Photoshopped. Yet everything I do to my photos I do manually. I don't use actions, or plug-ins, as I feel that they're a cheat, and frankly don't enhance my technical or artistic experience one bit.
And I agree with the idea that you can't make a bad photo good, or just "run it through Photoshop" to see what can be done. You have to start with quality, and artistic vision. If you have the bases covered like this, and you do everything yourself instead of relying on actions or plug-ins, your whole process becomes art, rather than a technical experiment.
)I have little problem with Photoshop. I use it on every image I produce (to a certain extent). When I see someone post a photo and say "straight from camera" I think why??? Modern digital cameras take nice photos, but they're usually fairly flat and bland. Photos scanned from film (also "straight from camera") have much nicer colours, contrast, texture etc., so why not try to make your digital photos more "film-like"? Essentially I'm saying that every photo can use some levels/curves adjustments, whether you go further or not.
As for the whole idea of PS plug-ins and special effects: frankly, I hate them. I hate the idea that someone can, with just a press of a button, create a "watercolour" painting, or a Dragan effect, or whatever. It takes no skill, and leads to the very kind of discussion we're having here.
I'll admit that some of my photos are heavily, HEAVILY Photoshopped. Yet everything I do to my photos I do manually. I don't use actions, or plug-ins, as I feel that they're a cheat, and frankly don't enhance my technical or artistic experience one bit.
And I agree with the idea that you can't make a bad photo good, or just "run it through Photoshop" to see what can be done. You have to start with quality, and artistic vision. If you have the bases covered like this, and you do everything yourself instead of relying on actions or plug-ins, your whole process becomes art, rather than a technical experiment.
I've been through the front door once or twice in a former life, though I normally went in the door on West Exec if I were headed for the West Wing, or through the press briefing room and out through the Rose Garden if I was headed for the South Lawn.
That shot had to come from the other side of Lafayette Square or possibly over in the New EOB- given the photographer said they weren't a US national, I'd guess the Hay-Adams Hotel. In fact the view is close to the first one in their photo gallery:
http://www.hayadams.com/washington-dc-hotel-gallery.php?#section1
I don't know why anyone who's been to DC wouldn't consider the shot feasible, I certainly did.
"Any of the real photographers left?"
That is so head-strong to imply that we beginners or digital camera users are not a part of this class of 'real photographers' teh op says exist.
OP: btw, when is the last time you took a picture since your gear was ripped in college...
Reminds me of the old salty dogs still riding forty pound logs out in the water talking about how the new young shredders aren't really 'surfing.' Try telling them that!
That is so head-strong to imply that we beginners or digital camera users are not a part of this class of 'real photographers' teh op says exist.
OP: btw, when is the last time you took a picture since your gear was ripped in college...
Reminds me of the old salty dogs still riding forty pound logs out in the water talking about how the new young shredders aren't really 'surfing.' Try telling them that!
"Any of the real photographers left?"
That is so head-strong to imply that we beginners or digital camera users are not a part of this class of 'real photographers' the op says exist.
OP: btw, when is the last time you took a picture since your gear was ripped in college...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee126/surferRob_photos/_1060365.jpg
Well put. Thats how I felt when I first read this thread.
I've never been to DC, but a quick flick around on google earth and it was easy to see how the shot was taken.
Photography is about light, a digital camera is still essentially an analogue device, none of the principles of photography have changed, I still shoot 4x5, but now I use a scanning back instead of film [unless it is too windy]. I think there is way to much emphasis on the value of process in imaging, when really the changes are not that great - its still about the light.
Photoshop is great, helps me in achieving the images I want to make, but no more or less than a darkroom ever did, maybe faster. And lets not forget the amazing quality of the latest range of printers, better color saturation than a Dye Transfer print!, not to mention the tone, the gamut and the sharpness.
I don't think it is a case of whether there are any real photographers left, I think there are just more real photographers.
Photoshop is great, helps me in achieving the images I want to make, but no more or less than a darkroom ever did, maybe faster. And lets not forget the amazing quality of the latest range of printers, better color saturation than a Dye Transfer print!, not to mention the tone, the gamut and the sharpness.
I don't think it is a case of whether there are any real photographers left, I think there are just more real photographers.
Absolutely... It's all about light. Good photographers know this; less good photographers think they can add in Photoshop what was lacking in the original shot.
With a finite amount of time available for photography, I guess I'd rather spend more time out in the landscape, waiting for the light to get 'interesting'... and as little time as possible gazing at a computer monitor, making 'adjustments'.
Both activities are needed, to produce the end result. But, for the me, the post production is time wasted unless the picture is good enough in the first place...
Yes. I can use a full-manual camera, and shoot an entire roll of film using the sunny f/16 rule. A light meter helps, though. Even my dSLR spends 90% of its time in full-manual mode because that's how I think to take pictures.
Photojournalistic standards. You don't want to modify an image that's going to press-- that'd be unethical. I shoot DNG files so that I have the most latitude in exposure after the fact, but I don't modify anything else unless it's a personal photo.
Actually, that's the strongest argument for digital. Hundreds of photos in a single shoot (basically at no cost), near-instantaneous transfer to press. But you're right about the ethical standards issue, as there have already been a few notorious instances of a "tweaked" photo in a newspaper or magazine. That's why photo editors should have the full upload, not just a cherry-picked shot or ten. The need for verification of the selected photo by comparison to the shots preceding & following is critical from a credibility point.
"Any of the real photographers left?"
That is so head-strong to imply that we beginners or digital camera users are not a part of this class of 'real photographers' teh op says exist.
OP: btw, when is the last time you took a picture since your gear was ripped in college...
Reminds me of the old salty dogs still riding forty pound logs out in the water talking about how the new young shredders aren't really 'surfing.' Try telling them that!
I took some today, at the beach in CR. So?
I've been stuck in Costa Rica with a broken MBP and no connection. Sorry I've missed out here.
I been thinking 'maybe' I'll look into CS3 when I get back?? I just don't want to spend another $600 after being here all week being seperated from my money every day! Is there any downside to the versions for students? Thanks
So don't knock it until you've tried it. There are a lot of advantages to digital, for example taking 1,000 pictures in one day without spending a dime on film...
So don't knock it until you've tried it. There are a lot of advantages to digital, for example taking 1,000 pictures in one day without spending a dime on film...
true dat! I don't miss buying film! Memory Cards however are a pain to find out here in the central America.
P.S. I'm not knocking digital. In fact I have a D300 on my next list of things to get. Unless someone can convince me of a better camera.
another question.
I bought Aperture while in SLC on the way to the airport. I loaded it on my MBP and it installed fine.
But it wouldn't let me install the updates. Then shortly after that the Mac just froze up and quit working!
I tried to reboot, and tried command V and S and a few other things and nothing now! Just a blue screen.
Not sure if Aperture caused it, or if the hard drive just happen to give up just then? I'm stuck in Costa Rica with nothing to do, a hundred pictures and NO computer!
I bought Aperture while in SLC on the way to the airport. I loaded it on my MBP and it installed fine.
But it wouldn't let me install the updates. Then shortly after that the Mac just froze up and quit working!
I tried to reboot, and tried command V and S and a few other things and nothing now! Just a blue screen.
Not sure if Aperture caused it, or if the hard drive just happen to give up just then? I'm stuck in Costa Rica with nothing to do, a hundred pictures and NO computer!
another question.
I bought Aperture while in SLC on the way to the airport. I loaded it on my MBP and it installed fine.
But it wouldn't let me install the updates. Then shortly after that the Mac just froze up and quit working!
I tried to reboot, and tried command V and S and a few other things and nothing now! Just a blue screen.
Not sure if Aperture caused it, or if the hard drive just happen to give up just then? I'm stuck in Costa Rica with nothing to do, a hundred pictures and NO computer!
Did you pull the battery then restart?
Didn't photographers of old do some "editing" or "manipulating" in the darkroom?
Slight sarcasm and still a serious question
You mean like " crop ", " dodge ", and " burn " ?
Yeah editing was done in the Dark Room ..... today the Dark Room is on the computer.
Back in the day we could even remove blemishes from faces!
I still have a complete and fully functional darkroom in the basement, and yes we do use it. Not for 35mm like we used to, as those tasks are handled by a digital DSLR, thanks to Canon.
I do a lot of 'studio' work with large format cameras.
As to 'lighting', use some of the same lighting with digital as we did with film.
But I understand the OP to a point, there is a differece between a 'snapshot' and a 'photograph', composition and light control are the key!