Where have all the photographers gone!!

[jcpoulin]

This is purely a rant or observation but....where have they gone. Being a member of this forum has been great, the learning experience is outstanding! However, watching the evolution of photography go from a keen knowledge of light and subject matter, to a keen knowledge of computer graphics is somewhat disheartening. The days of film, both color and black & white, with the tweaks and effects in developing, are minimal compared to the effects of a computer and software. Too often I see a picture where the photographer states he/she....changed this, added that, adjusted for this, eliminated that... to the point where the picture is nothing like the original!!! I have even seen noted photographers ( recently on a wedding forum) state that he is not concerned about exposure too much ( needs to be close enough!)...he will fix it in PS!!! Just take a look at all the available "actions" one can purchase! That is why I would like to see pictures posted with an original and the end picture. Of course, it will be said that even Ansel Adams worked wonders in the darkroom, but he himself has stated the importance of the quality of the original as being the key to the image! I also feel there is a difference between screwing in a filter on a lens to acheive an effect, than to change this and that on a computer screen.
Again, this is purely observational, and not meant to be critical of any one profession, just the change that is taking place!! C&C as you wish!

[Mark_Cohran]

I'm a firm believer of pre-visualizing, getting it right in camera, and minimizing the post-processing phase - but, I do realilze that post-processing in Photoshop is as important to digital photography as the darkroom is to print photography.

Mark

[René Damkot]

PS is just a tool, like the enlarger was just a tool...
It's still about getting the results you had in mind.
CICO still applies ;)

[cosworth]

If I could build an ultra modern, foldable, desktop darkroom in everyone's house that automates every process in 1/1000 of the time with zero chemicals, no special room and all at a price of a cheap lens, I'm sure that you'd see lots of people loosening their tight control and thinking more about the creative process.

I think post processing now can liberate the mind to think in a less liear fashion. Does it happen for all? No.

[airfrogusmc]

Mark I'm with ya. Being an old darkroom rat and never letting anyone else touch my B&W negs for processing or printing I look at the entire process the way (sorry for mentioning him again) Adams looked at it. "Making the exposure and correctly processing the film is like writing the musical score and making the print is performing the piece." Its para phrased sorry. I think only the photographer knows the way the final image should look so I see tools like photoshop which by the way gives you far more control than I ever had in the darkroom as a way to help the photographer express what he envisioned when the exposure was made. It shouldn't be used but can be to help a bad image but to bring a good image to the vision the photographer had when writing the score.

[Jon, The Elder]

Some people actually ENJOY the post processing procedures. this results in a less-than-critical attention to in-camera work. Computers had/have a 10-12 year jump on Digital cameras, so the computer oriented folks look forward to the Post processing. One reason is that computers are somewhat easier to work with and a bit more predictable, plus you get instant gratification on screen.
Human nature at work.

[Doug Pardee]

I dunno. I can't get excited about this topic. Some people like working with cameras, some like working with computers. I think that both are "photographers". Maybe we need some new terms for camera-oriented photographers and computer-oriented photographers.

You can count me among the camera-oriented folks. I shoot JPEG with a goal of zero post-processing. I almost never retouch a photo any more. Currently I'm working on learning to shoot B&W in-camera. But I don't consider computer-oriented types to be any less a "photographer" than I am—they've just got different techniques and tools.

[nicksan]

I am very computer oriented as that is my profession.

"Photographer" is just a term for me...I think of myself as a typical guy who just like taking nice photos. No labels for me, thank you very much...;)

I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I will admit that I have never shot film before, therefore never spent time in a darkroom before. I don't know the pleasures of giving "birth" to a photograph by spending countless hours in the darkroom. I have friends who have done that. However I am pretty sure there are many of us who have never experienced this.

Does that make us inferior in some way? Hmmm...Elitist?

2 years, or 20 years...it doesn't really matter.
Sometimes you just can't beat the concept called "vision" into people's minds. Same thing with music. It doesn't matter if you've been playing for 5 years or 25 years. If you have "tin ears"...well then, you have "tin ears"...And if you have tin ears, you aren't really improvising/creating, which is pretty much the essence of Music as an Artform...at least in my view that is. (Well..maybe not in Popular Music...)

[jcpoulin]

My question then.....are there photographers and perhaps digital imagists??? ie...people who make the camera work vs people who make the computer work. It is most likely a combination of both. I guess my point is that when someone takes a picture with a camera, changes the image to the point where it no longer resembles the actual event, then is it that still a " photograph" or is it an "image".
What is a photograph?

[In2Photos]

As new "photographers" come to this forum you will most likely find that more and more of them are more computer literate than the previous batch of members. It is a natural transition for them to use PS to alter there images. You live in the age of the computer and then wonder why the computer is used during photography? Even your camera is a computer. It is processing the light that hits the sensor no matter what you do.

EDIT: I wonder. How good are you at PS? My guess is that you can't make the images that others do so you complain about it.

[airfrogusmc]

My question then.....are there photographers and perhaps digital imagists??? ie...people who make the camera work vs people who make the computer work. It is most likely a combination of both. I guess my point is that when someone takes a picture with a camera, changes the image to the point where it no longer resembles the actual event, then is it that still a " photograph" or is it an "image".
What is a photograph?

Its just another tool. The photographer is the one that knows light and how to expose it, manipulate it and capture it at that decisive moment. The computer is just his digital darkroom. Helps him finish the vision he started when he made the exposure. The better the capture the more possible it is for him to see that vision realized. I'm sure photographers went through similar feeling when things went from wet to dry plate, color, smaller cameras, etc. This is a big change but its still just a tool.

[TomPierce]

In the past during the "Dark Room Ages", most post processing was fairly limited in what it could do (or what a regular Photographer would do).

Now in the Digital Age, dropping a new background behind a model is a fairly trivial task - something that could have been done in the darkroom but rarely was done due to the complexity of the task.

So now you see more "unreal" backgrounds than you would have seen before (including some unrealistic backgrounds as well).

Whether digital manipulation increases or decreases the artistry of the final print is still in the hands of the artist - as it has always been.

[aro]

A photograph is just light captured on a light sensitive medium, what makes a photograph interesting is what is represented and more importantly how it makes you feel. A good photographer has the ability to not only take a sharp picture they can make the viewer feel something about the image or because of the image.

To say someone who uses a digital darkroom isn’t a photographer is like saying someone who plays and electric guitar with a distortion petal isn't a guitarist. Though I suspect that if you found a guitarist forum a similar discussion may be in progress.

[nicksan]

Sure, a photograph is a "recorded" image.

However people have different reasons for taking photographs. Aside from the fundamental "rules" that seem to dictate what a good photo should look like or have as features (rule of thirds and what not...), judging the photograph is highly subjective in my opinion.

Most of us feel differently about a lot of things, therefore the same can be applied to judging photography. A photo could be "gripping" to one person, but "indifferent" to the next. Such is life. (or at least it should be...people should like something because it appeals to them at some level, not because someone else tells that person to...)

Manipulating images on the computer shouldn't be frowned upon at all. A photograph is just a canvas to a lot of people. In PP, they realize their final vision. There is nothing wrong with that. NOTHING!

"Not fair...not fair!" Is that what this cry is all about?

Kinda like me thinking it's not fair for kids these days to have the internet as a source for their papers. Or have MS Word and a laser printer. When I used to be a student, I used to go to my local library, open up books, make copies, go home, and type it up...or bring it to school to type it up...or worse yet, hand write it. I WISH I had the internet...I could have gotten all B's instead of C's...;););) (I was pretty much a slacker back then...and nothing has changed:lol:)

Technology marches on...I'll use my CF card thank you very much!

[Mike R]

Some people actually ENJOY the post processing procedures. this results in a less-than-critical attention to in-camera work. Computers had/have a 10-12 year jump on Digital cameras, so the computer oriented folks look forward to the Post processing. One reason is that computers are somewhat easier to work with and a bit more predictable, plus you get instant gratification on screen.
Human nature at work.

I agree, but if some enjoy editing more than creative shooting, they should be called Photo Editors, not Photographers. I think a lot has to do with if the person ever shot film.

[Jon, The Elder]

I introduced this thought back at the beginning of the page in order to keep the conversation away from "The-good-old-days' theme.
I grew up before television, transistors, electronic anything. I started with cut film, and 16mm movies, 1" video, digital video, etc.
Technology is continuing at rapid pace, and leaves much of the the old behind us. This includes the values and appreciation some things brought to our lives.
Back in 1997/98 there was a tremendous amount of arguing and flaming over just what was "allowed" in order for a digital image to be qualified as a photograph as opposed to "photographic Art", (even that term was argued over).

We still reference things related to 35mm film, with the term Full Frame being used to define sensor size in the everyday world.

Yes, we still need the basics in order to get the kind of images that draw emotion, however we have many more tools to use, without relying on others to do the work for us.

If you strive to 'get-it-in-camera' fine, that is the approach that works for some and a good thing to strive for. PP is for those of us who for some reason or other can't reach that state, but still want quality outcome in the print.

[John_B]

jcpoulin,
There are still some of us that can live fine without Photoshop :) I treat my camera like its loaded with slide film and shoot all photos (98%) in full Manual mode (I even MF most of the time). I use software for resizing and USM (need to sharpen after resize) for posting on the Internet. For prints I use software just to send the file to the printer and placement/sizing for different print sizes. I can do this by getting the photo right in the camera not later in software. Heck, I don't even bother with RAW, jpegs are fine as long as you can work well with the camera, my eyes and others have agreed. With many, many, many and larger prints then I got with film it seems to work fine for me :)
Hey, all I do know is I can say "I took the Photo, not the camera or software" and thats a good feeling :)

In2Photos,
Some are good at graphics but don't bother to ruin or manipulate photos because of it. Instead they work on getting there equipment to do what they want or need. ;)

aro,
I don't agree, a pedal is more like a filter adjusting the sound before it reaches the amp. Not manipulating later in software then sending it to the amp/speakers.

Theoretically manipulation is like lying, like saying I saw a person wearing a green shirt but I didn't they were wearing a red shirt because I changed it in software.

[cdifoto]

I wish they'd make a Twister pad that LightRoom and Photoshop could respond to. That would make Post-Processing a lot more fun. I think they did something similar with Nintendo.

[cdifoto]

Theoretically manipulation is like lying, like saying I saw a person wearing a green shirt but I didn't they were wearing a red shirt because I changed it in software.

Sex and dishonesty sell.

[John_B]

cdifoto,
:lol: Yea as long as you don't get caught :lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

Where has the math gone?

nobody can multiply two numbers anymore in their head. Everybody uses calculators.

You need to use a little more your brain to expose "correctly" and for many people it's too much to ask.

[Mark_Cohran]

cdifoto,
:lol: Yea as long as you don't get caught :lol:

Oh, I don't know about that. How many book deals do you see come from sex and political scandals?

Mark

[John_B]

Mark_Cohran,
Yea, I didn't include the free advertising time you get when you get caught :lol:

[aro]

Theoretically manipulation is like lying, like saying I saw a person wearing a green shirt but I didn't they were wearing a red shirt because I changed it in software.

If you saw a person in a red shirt and a photograph of them would be the 'perfect' shot if only the shirt was green. You have two choices; ask the person to change their shirt, or change it in pp. Either way, you get a great shot that's going to be pleasing to your intended audience and at that point does it really matter?

[mcmadkat]

I shoot film and digital. I use film because it conveys (IMHO) more than digital to the image. But...I use digital, because there are so many things that film cannot do (think ISO1600) with any decent quality.

I shoot digital 99% of the time now for one reason: cost. I cannot afford to spend 30p every time I press the shutter. I have already saved more than I spend on the camera (and that's in two months).

Yes PS is useful, but I rarely do more than convert in Lightroom then print. Sometimes dust spots and stuff have to be taken out.

Yes there is a fine line between photography, and digital imagery these day, but not everyone can afford CS3 (although most seem to somehow....), yet can still take amazing pictures.

Personally I would rather use PS to get me an 'amazing' photo than an out of camera JPEG 'great' photo.

[Mark_Cohran]

If you saw a person in a red shirt and a photograph of them would be the 'perfect' shot if only the shirt was green. You have two choices; ask the person to change their shirt, or change it in pp. Either way, you get a great shot that's going to be pleasing to your intended audience and at that point does it really matter?

It matters a great deal if you represent the photo as being an accurate representation of the event/scene/activity, etc.

Mark

[jcpoulin]

Some people choose to take a quality picture, some people choose to make a quality picture!!!
Why learn about DOF, shutter speed, ISO and light when you can sit at home and create your picture. I personally like the " hunt", to arrive at a place, at the right time, right place, right angle, and try to capture the experience. Then, there is always sitting home and making up what you wanted.
Honestly, I am young in my learning curve with PS and post processing, and learning is fun. But I never wish to give up the mechanics of photography by sitting home and pressing computer keys!!! Nor did I want this to become negative. I enjoy my skills and learning with my camera, I am glad others get their appreciation with their computer skills. This is what turns the world......

[John_B]

aro,
Actually yes it does really matter, if its changed in PP its not a photograph as per my definition (or many others definition of photograph), it is a manipulated graphic art.
A photograph as per Wikipedia
A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip. <-- click to see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph)
not the color made in software.
Here is an example that you are talking about:
This was the image I took
http://johnbdigital.com/pets/spring_fever.jpg

but it was not pleasing to my eye, so I manipulated it to please my intended audience!

http://johnbdigital.com/temp/manipulated.jpg


Either way I get a great shot, right? ???

[nicksan]

If your intention was to honestly depict what you saw as accurately as possible, then changing the color of the shirt in PS is "cheating" by that definition. Sure.

However, not everyone shoots photos for the same reason.
OP didn't ask "What is a photograph"...as defined by wiki.

If you choose to embelish a photo by PP, really, what it the big deal? These are the tools available today. Either you use it or you don't. Saying things like "PP is cheating" sounds to me like whining and bitterness.

BTW, in reference to adding distortion to a guitar signal via pedal (these days you can run it through the PC and out again)...cheating or not cheating? They used to achieve that through Tube amps, then solid state amps, and now we have amp modelling technology that can emulate 10 different amps. Is there a difference between that and the real thing? Oh yes. Does it beat carrying around a bunch of half stacks, miking them up, go into a board? Hell yeah!!!

[nicksan]

Freaky!
But kinda cute...(well at least the first pics. I have 3 cats myself!!!)

aro,
Actually yes it does really matter, if its changed in PP its not a photograph as per my definition (or many others definition of photograph), it is a manipulated graphic art.
A photograph as per Wikipedia
A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip. <-- click to see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph)
not the color made in software.
Here is an example that you are talking about:
This was the image I took
http://johnbdigital.com/pets/spring_fever.jpg

but it was not pleasing to my eye, so I manipulated it to please my intended audience!

http://johnbdigital.com/temp/manipulated.jpg


Either way I get a great shot, right? ???

[bieber]

Here's how I see it; I try to make the photograph as absolutely beautiful as I can out of the camera. Once it's in the computer, I try to make it as absolutely beautiful as I can there. Why should I give anything but my all at either step? I did do digital imaging a long time before photography, so I am really good at the post processing, but that's not going to help a bit if the RAW file I bring in out of the field is crap to begin with.

If you want to think of it in terms of the old ways, Ansel Adams never would have accomplished what he did if he hadn't been great at making photographs, but he also wouldn't have gone as far if he hadn't mastered darkroom techniques the way he did. It's the same way now, except that the latter part of the imaging process is now infinitely more accessible. The way I see it, that's a good thing. Good art is good art; pursue it for the sake of beauty, not for some self-inflating sense of "purism."

[Wilt]

There has always been the 'shooter' and the person who loves darkroom work and the creativity and manipulation in the darkroom, back in the days when film was everthing. Now there are 'shooters' and the person who loves creativity and manipulation in the computer. Different tools, computer vs. darkroom, but similar in concept of altering what the camera captured into a different virtual reality! Neither film nor digital is any less photography, and neither is darkroom nor computer graphics is any less photography of a different form.

I will admit to getting less personal relaxation and satisfaction from spending an hour on the computer working to get one perfect shot, but get tremendous satisfaction (and relaxation) from spending an hour in the darkroom for one perfect shot!

I find it far sadder that the 'shooter' of today puts the camera on continuos and 'sprays' their shots at 5-8 fps, rather than carefully composing or waiting for the shot to be right, and then press the shutter. 'Free' exposures invite machine gun shooting styles and all too many who run 25000 shots thru a camera in a year. A great shot for the machine gunner is a gamble...if you play roulette enough, your number eventually comes up!

[aro]

Here's what it comes down to in my opinion:

How we define photography is not important. If you love taking photographs take them, if you love working on them in Photoshop do that too. Personally I quite enjoy doing both as to many others, and I can tell you that no amount of time in pp can make any of my bad shots look good.

;)

[Mike R]

Here's what it comes down to in my opinion:

How we define photography is not important. If you love taking photographs take them, if you love working on them in Photoshop do that too.
;)

You're right, But when people leave their camera on Auto and say "I'll just fix it later" That is not photography, They could save their money and just purchase a P&S camera, This is not directed to the person who is completely new to the craft.

[Cyth0n]

I think that some people fail to understand that if they're shooting JPG, there is still post processing being done to their photo. You can't say that it's a purer form of photography to get all the settings right in JPG than it is to edit the image yourself via Photoshop. The only difference is that it's a camera doing the editing, rather than a human. One could even argue the opposite, that it's harder to do the post processing yourself as you have to deal with tones and curves and such, rather than letting the camera do it all for you.

If you take John_B's definition of a photograph, the only pure (digital) photograph is an unedited RAW. And we all know that those tend to suck, no matter how many L lenses you have.

Anyway, my point is that it's unhelpful to rationalise different photographic processes in terms of purity. What you see, what the sensor sees and what post processing produces are all entirely subjective. If you want to compare processes in terms of how truthful they were to the subject at the time, well that's an entirely different arguement.

[nicksan]

Why not?

There are some who know what PS is capable of doing and would shoot accordingly in a "planned" fashion knowing there are some things they can fix later in PP.

Quite obviously the DSLR + nice lens combo, even in Auto mode, would take higher quality (IQ-wise) pics than at least most of the P&S cameras out there.

So which mode on the DSLR finally brings the shooter to "Photgraphy"???


You're right, But when people leave their camera on Auto and say "I'll just fix it later" That is not photography, They could save their money and just purchase a P&S camera, This is not directed to the person who is completely new to the craft.

[airfrogusmc]

In my opinion what maters is the final image. How you get to it is up to each individual. Adams manipulated his film development times and used different dilutions and temps to produce negatives to give him a tonal range that he saw in his minds eye when he exposed the negatives and manipulated prints (burn, dodge split print developers) and he was considered by some to be a purist. If you've ever been to Yosemite you can plainly see how creative his eye really was. This new technology is nothing more than another tool for you to express your vision. I think how much you manipulate an image depends on what kind of things you are doing. News and documentary photographers have a different set of standards they need to live by because of credibility issues. I read that a photographer was fired from a major paper for artworking a distracting spot out of one of his images.

[airfrogusmc]

Why not?

There are some who know what PS is capable of doing and would shoot accordingly in a "planned" fashion knowing there are some things they can fix later in PP.

Quite obviously the DSLR + nice lens combo, even in Auto mode, would take higher quality (IQ-wise) pics than at least most of the P&S cameras out there.

So which mode on the DSLR finally brings the shooter to "Photgraphy"???

Nicksan its not the gear that'll get you there...

[Tomi Hawk]

Here's how I see it; I try to make the photograph as absolutely beautiful as I can out of the camera. Once it's in the computer, I try to make it as absolutely beautiful as I can there. Why should I give anything but my all at either step? I did do digital imaging a long time before photography, so I am really good at the post processing, but that's not going to help a bit if the RAW file I bring in out of the field is crap to begin with.

If you want to think of it in terms of the old ways, Ansel Adams never would have accomplished what he did if he hadn't been great at making photographs, but he also wouldn't have gone as far if he hadn't mastered darkroom techniques the way he did. It's the same way now, except that the latter part of the imaging process is now infinitely more accessible. The way I see it, that's a good thing. Good art is good art; pursue it for the sake of beauty, not for some self-inflating sense of "purism."

I'm not sure if alotta folks know or not .. however, Ansel Adams did not do most of his PP.
His brother (ferget his name) was instrumentel in how and what was done for Ansel in the darkroom ..
There was an article I was reading last year .. if I can find it .. I'll post it ..

And I agree .. "pursue it for the sake of beauty, not for some self-inflating sense of "purism."
It seems to me that we've got caught up in *definitions* .. it is the digital age, is it not?
I'll take full advantage of it myself .. does that make me any less of a photographer
then I was 20 years ago? I sure hope not .. lol .. It's simply a *changing of the gaurd*.

There are graphic artists, and .. there are photographers .. I'd love to be both ..
I guess in some sense .. now that I'm using a computer to process my images ..
I could be a graphic artist .. or .. I could be both .. afterall .. I shot the image to begin with ..

PS, or CS .. or LightRoom .. or any other program is just another medium .. that's all ..

[Tomi Hawk]

Technology is continuing at rapid pace, and leaves much of the the old behind us. This includes the values and appreciation some things brought to our lives.

This is by far, a very profound statement .. and quite accurate .. to say the least!
Wonder where this *medium* we call photography today .. will be in ohhhh, 20 years?

[airfrogusmc]

The ones with Adams signature were all printed by Ansel. I saw a piece an interview where he took you into the darkroom with him to see how he worked. For his big prints he ad an easel on the wall and would project the enlarger on it. He would make an exposure and take a piece of the paper where his highlights were and put them in a micro wave to see if the highlight still snapped after dry down. When he was satisfied he had his highlight right he would make his exposure. Also his printing got heavier (darker) as he got older.

[Mike R]

So which mode on the DSLR finally brings the shooter to "Photgraphy"???

Av,TV or M. When you make the decision about the DOF you want or the shutter speed. Along with other creative decisions. Even in "P" mode when you make a basic decision so you control the look of the image.

[DrPablo]

Av,TV or M. When you make the decision about the DOF you want or the shutter speed. Along with other creative decisions. Even in "P" mode when you make a basic decision so you control the look of the image.

I don't think it's mode dependant. The most important creative decision in all of photography is deciding what to shoot. You can take one meter reading and plug-in one setting and then shoot under the same lighting forever without taking another reading or altering your settings. Of course there are creative possibilities when you allow yourself control of the exposure settings -- but at the same time, the primary way to control the look of the image is through composition. Of course DOF is a compositional parameter and shutter speed can be as well, so these aren't mutually exclusive.

[cdifoto]

"P" Mode is most often mistakenly called "Program" Mode (even incorrectly labeled as such in camera manuals and books) but the truth is it actually stands for "Photography" Mode.

[Wilt]

"P" Mode is most often mistakenly called "Program" Mode (even incorrectly labeled as such in camera manuals and books) but the truth is it actually stands for "Photography" Mode.

If your statement is true, even Canon has it wrong in their user guide...for example "P Program AE" in my manual. And from one of the companies that first brought the mode into SLRs via the OM-2s, Olympus, "Programmed Automatic Exposure Control", they must have it wrong, too.

[cdifoto]

If your statement is true, even Canon has it wrong in their user guide...for example "P Program AE" in my manual. And from one of the companies that first brought the mode into SLRs via the OM-2s, Olympus, "Programmed Automatic Exposure Control", they must have it wrong, too.

They do. They all do. It's a government-corporate joint conspiracy initiated by the aliens at Roswell.

[zacker]

to me, if one takes an image with a camera, he took a photograph, thus he is a photographer...if he then takes the photograph into photoshop and manipulates it, he is a digital artist, if the photographer then is considered a digital artist, i want to, from now on, be known as a digital artist-ographer, or, Photogrartister :)

[Wilt]

They do. They all do. It's a government-corporate joint conspiracy initiated by the aliens at Roswell.

I am beginning to understand your point.

They also planted the silly notion that Earth is a sphere, when it truly is a disk (flat!). And we are in a lab somewhere on a desktop of a giant race, in a simulated 'universe' environment that is projected on a planetarium dome around us, while the scientists watch our every move. Every once in a while one of them reaches in with a black glove and grabs someone for examination. Those things we think of as 'flying saucers' are actually gigantic (to us) dental mirrors so they can inspect easier from about our level!

[cdifoto]

I am beginning to understand your point.

They also planted the silly notion that Earth is a sphere, when it truly is a disk (flat!). And we are in a lab somewhere on a desktop of a giant race, in a simulated 'universe' environment that is projected on a planetarium dome around us, while the scientists watch our every move. Every once in a while one of them reaches in with a black glove and grabs someone for examination. Those things we think of as 'flying saucers' are actually gigantic (to us) dental mirrors so they can inspect easier from about our level!

Exactly! Now you're catching on! :)




Look out! The glove! Runnnnnn! :eek:

[René Damkot]

when it truly is a disk (flat!).
Yep: Carried by 4 elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle...
And we are in a lab somewhere on a desktop of a giant race, in a simulated 'universe' environment that is projected on a planetarium dome around us, while the scientists watch our every move.
Actually, the Earth was originally commissioned by white mice (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/mice.shtml) ;)

[nicksan]

I was being a bit sarcastic when I asked this...

I shoot in M most of the time. (Doesn't really matter...just my style)
The person next to me might shoot in P mode.
The person next to the person next to me might shoot in Auto mode.

If the third person captures something profound, then well...that person captured something profound. Luck? Talent?

Who cares...

I've captured plenty of "keepers" with my Canon Powershot P & S. Call it want you want. The end result was that I achieved a pleasing photograph.

That's what I was trying to depict...



Av,TV or M. When you make the decision about the DOF you want or the shutter speed. Along with other creative decisions. Even in "P" mode when you make a basic decision so you control the look of the image.

[cdifoto]

I still want a Twister Tablet. Maybe I could get some of the G&N models to help me with my post-processing.

[Mike R]

Lets just call this another "endless debate" like
raw vs jpeg

use of a UV filter for lens protection,

HDR vs GND filters

If your prints capture you vision of the scene, You're a photographer :)