Are we artists or computer programmers

[burnxkr]

Its really cool to see all of the contrasty, colourful, sharp images that are posted throughout this forum but I see a trend towards computer dominated photos.

It seams as though any old snap shot can be turned into a sunet pristine landscape with some cunning pp. Have we lost the art of realism or are we turning into a bunch of computer maipulators and its not what you do with the little black box but more importantly how good you are at improving what you couldnt capture in the first place?

How many genuine photgraphs do we see these days and how much does it matter? Does turning up the sharp and colour settings in our cameras make us fakes? Does the computer just imitate what the dark room did twenty years ago?

It makes me smile when I see photos posted that have the caption "straight out of the camera".

Your thoughts?

[cdifoto]

Your thoughts?
Mmmmmm this coffee is really good...

[papagei]

I know what you mean. It's like the beauty industry showing us that young and skinny is all that counts. So-called 'normal' photography is not good enough. Sharpening is mandatory - but the crossing into dodge/burn and HDR is clearly a computer product.

[Richard_Miami]

Spend ten minutes and research what photographers used to do in a dark room.

Sigh

[basroil]

first of all, i am an engineer, not an art major (art majors never really graduate), so i am more of a computer programmer than an artist.

that aside, why think that it's not been happening for the last 100 years with different media? now that we have digital, it's easier to make multiple changes whenever you want, but a vast majority of those changes could be made in the darkroom (sharpening/NR are not so common things in a darkroom). i follow a simple principle when editing photos. i will never add or remove information. by doing that, you have the artistic license to let others see what you see.

btw, go look up the kodak article on how a camera sees differently than we do, and then think about which is the real photo, the camera one or the edited one.

[DAMphyne]

Pardon Me if I disagree.
Burn and Dodge are film terms.
Thank the programmers for including these and other old school terms.
These manipulations are an integral part of photography.

[burnxkr]

I understand that a picture is never really reality but it seams that the competence of our work is judged not by what is done with aperture and shutter speed but on how knowledable a person is with tools in photoshop. The same could be said about recordings in studios.

I took some bw's yesterday and out of the camera was not delighted but knew that I could correct all of my short comings by spending half an hour on my Macbook.

Is it possible to produce quality without processing?

[cdifoto]

Is it possible to produce quality without processing?

No.

[burnxkr]

As we say in the music world "What happened to doing things in one take?"

[Mark_Cohran]

Manipulation of the image in Photoshop is no different than manipulation of the final print in the dark room (within some limits). Retouching prints (dodging, buring, spotting, cropping, etc.) including the use of Unsharp Masks (a term also gleaned from the darkroom), diffusion filters, and other manipultions were and still are required to produce good prints. That we are able to do it in the computer vs. the darkroom doesn't detract one whit from the legitimacy of the final image.

Mark

[Roy Mathers]

Not computer programmers - computer users!

[FIREWALLROB]

1. If you sell your photos - the client will decide what is good or not.

2. If you don't sell your photos, then only you or friends etc will decide if you like them.

In both of these cases, who cares whether they are out of the camera or not :roll:

[crn3371]

An uninteresting, poorly composed shot, generally remains as such, no matter how much we sharpen, saturate, and generally tweak on the computer. The artistry is in the initial composition and vision of the photographer.

[SuperBet]

Not computer programmers - computer users!

Well... I AM a programmer! :lol:

[silvex]

Its really cool to see all of the contrasty, colourful, sharp images that are posted throughout this forum but I see a trend towards computer dominated photos.

Your thoughts?

Today cameras ARE computers with lenses. An artist is an artist not because of the tools choosen to create art. Carlos Santana uses an electric guitar, Andres Segovia used an acoustic guitar. Both legends with different art tools.

[Glenn NK]

Have we lost the art of realism or are we turning into a bunch of computer manipulators and its not what you do with the little black box but more importantly how good you are at improving what you couldnt capture in the first place?

How many genuine photgraphs do we see these days and how much does it matter? Does turning up the sharp and colour settings in our cameras make us fakes? Does the computer just imitate what the dark room did twenty years ago?

It makes me smile when I see photos posted that have the caption "straight out of the camera".

Your thoughts?


"Have we lost the art of realism . . . ?" I wonder what Picasso would have said in reply?;)


It's reputed (at least suspected) that Ansel Adams spent more time in the darkroom than he did in the field actually composing and snapping.

Strangely enough, I spend more time in the "lightroom" than I do in the field actually composing and snapping (this IS NOT to suggest that I'm in the same league as him).

Creativity occurs at all stages of the artistic process be it photography or watercolour painting (for example). There is nothing inherently creative about an artist's brush or the paint he uses, yet choosing these elements is part of the creative process, and will affect the outcome.

We can choose from a variety of cameras, lenses, subject, composition, time of day, filters, etc.. These all part of the creative process.

During processing, we have even more choices that affect the creative process and the result. Are these choices less valid than those made in the field?

Are they less valid than the choice of brush and paint made by the artist?

Graphic artists regularly use a composite of several scenes (adding a rustic fence for example); are they cheating by doing this?

If we add birds or clouds to a blank sky, are we cheating?


This topic came up a few months back; at that time I stated that any good technician can make a reasonably good photograph.

I don't want to just be technically good - I strive for creativity too.

[cdifoto]

Mmmm Folger's...

[Pinto]

I wondering if this isn't the same type of question that was asked when photographers first started using flash powder to create artificial light for their images. Some must have viewed It as a very shocking development.

Or go further back and think how painters must have complained when photography came along. "All my hours put into my paintings and now all someone has to do is push a button on a box to make a picture! Disgusting!"

Photographer's and artists have always used the latest technology available to them. Computer assistance is just another step.

[gjl711]

...what is done with aperture and shutter speed but on how knowledable a person is with tools in photoshop.
Why limit oneself to only one tool just because that's what was done in the past. We once walked, then we tamed horses, now we have cars. Should we still all ride horses because that's what we once did.
I see photography exactly the same way. The tools advance every year both software and hardware. With each advance a new style or image is possible, or a previously difficult task limited to only a few becomes easy so that anyone can do it.
I think many here play with the new tools to understand it's uses and how best to incorporate it into image creation. Sure aperture and shutter are still important but so are the proper use of HDR, image combination, easy sky replacement, stacking or a number of other techniques.

[cdifoto]

I wonder if coffee enthusiasts consider it blasphemy that I use Folger's and a dispenser style coffee maker instead of a carafe. Or that I use a coffee maker at all!

"You don't go to Colombia and pick your own beans then grind them at home? You heathen!"

Sometimes I even drink truck stop coffee...what is this world coming to!?!?!?!

[papagei]

Actually, the whole subject is moot and not a problem if we remember - or approach - photography as another medium - along with oil painting, watercolor, etc.

If we are creating an image - and I think that is what we are doing now - then we are just using the medium of computer pixels.

It's the general public that may be confused as to "reality" of photographs (at least the good ones :) )

It's also a process of pushing that envelope - to stretch and see what we can do.

[airfrogusmc]

Something I posted in another thread but it fits in perfect here also.

I think great photographers are still much like the large format west coast F 64 group. You not only need to be able to capture what your minds eye saw in the scene but to reproduce that image you saw in a final print.

Adams, Weston, Cunningham, Caponigro, DeCarava, Siskind, Meyerowitz, Stieglitz, I could go on all night all made great exposures but through control of negative processing and very creative print controls were all able to make final prints of what they envisioned at the time of exposure.

Adams said making the exposure was writing the score and printing it was performing that score.

If you don't see the process through I think you are cheating your vision. The final print is what matters. If these photographers had not of manipulated their craft (as any artist does) into the final print the world would be missing some of the finest photographs ever taken and finest prints made.

[thekid24]

I wonder if coffee enthusiasts consider it blasphemy that I use Folger's and a dispenser style coffee maker instead of a carafe. Or that I use a coffee maker at all!

"You don't go to Colombia and pick your own beans then grind them at home? You heathen!"

Sometimes I even drink truck stop coffee...what is this world coming to!?!?!?!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1xRFrL9f9oA

[cdifoto]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1xRFrL9f9oA

:-)

[Mark_Cohran]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1xRFrL9f9oA

Sweet. :)

[airfrogusmc]

A little more food for thought,

No one was better at getting exposure right than Adams. In fact he redefined getting it right, in the sense of getting the exposure right as he saw the scene, which can be very different than the way the scene really was. Expose for shadow and develop the negative for highlight is the basis of the zone system. I agree with his philosophy that great exposure is the key; but to not finish making the print as close to the way you envisioned the scene when you made the exposure is not putting your stamp on the final print. I don't think that theres a print I make that I haven't done some PP to and my exposures are very good. To me a great photographer has got to be very good at both to be able to fully express his/her vision. It should go beyond good exposure and what the photographer captured but into what he and only he saw. To me thats what separates the so-so from the really good.

[Glenn NK]

I wondering if this isn't the same type of question that was asked when photographers first started using flash powder to create artificial light for their images. Some must have viewed It as a very shocking development.

Or go further back and think how painters must have complained when photography came along. "All my hours put into my paintings and now all someone has to do is push a button on a box to make a picture! Disgusting!"

Photographer's and artists have always used the latest technology available to them. Computer assistance is just another step.


So, I gather that we are generally in agreement:

1. We aren't cheating.

2. We are being creative and are artists.

3. We are able to both compose and perform the "score".

4. We don't have to pick and grind our own beans.:D

5. Truck stop coffee - you've gone too far.:rolleyes:

EDIT: Airfrogusmc's comments are worth thinking about. (now if I could just figure out his name - I think I follow the last four letters).

[gjl711]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1xRFrL9f9oA:) Makes me want to have a cup of coffee. :)

[Radtech1]

Your thoughts?

I like grapes.

[airfrogusmc]

So, I gather that we are generally in agreement:

1. We aren't cheating.

2. We are being creative and are artists.

3. We are able to both compose and perform the "score".

4. We don't have to pick and grind our own beans.:D

5. Truck stop coffee - you've gone too far.:rolleyes:

EDIT: Airfrogusmc's comments are worth thinking about. (now if I could just figure out his name - I think I follow the last four letters).

:lol::lol:
When I was young, lean, mean and green, I was a CH-46 crewchief. CH-46s were affectionately called Phrogs by aircrew.

[Radtech1]

Are we artisits or computer programers

When you give the false alternatives of "artist" or "computer programmer" you are making an unwarranted assumption that we are one or the other. Your troll like question fails to address the fact that there is another, more accurate choice: I don't know about you, but I identify myself as a photographer.

[TMR Design]

There are no rules. Some enjoy shooting images, some enjoy processing, some like both. Some like Dunkin' Donuts and others like Krispy Cream.

No one forces us to make these decisions. If you don't want to process, don't. If you don't want to look at images that are processed, then don't look.

[ChasP505]

There are no rules. Some enjoy shooting images, some enjoy processing, some like both. Some like Dunkin' Donuts and others like Krispy Cream.

And some like bagels with lox and a shmear...

I'm one of the group who hates processing. They would have to PAY me to process digital photos. In fact, they DO pay me! Sometimes I feel like an artist but more often I feel like an assembly line worker at General Motors.

[thekid24]

There are no rules. Some enjoy shooting images, some enjoy processing, some like both. Some like Dunkin' Donuts and others like Krispy Cream.

No one forces us to make these decisions. If you don't want to process, don't. If you don't want to look at images that are processed, then don't look.
Same here.

If you(in general) dont like post processing....dont do it. If you make money with photos that have been processed...why are you whinning, stop it? Its money.

If you dont like looking at post processed photos...close your eyes or click the 'back' button. Unless of course youve already looked at it and comfirmed it was processed...in which case...the photographer that took the photo accomplished what he/she wanted..for their picture to be looked at.:D

Also, how do you know a favorite photo of yours(taken by another person of course) hasnt been processed whatsoever? Even if its a small amount...processing is processing right?

Its been a part of photography for a LONG time...why stop it now? Long live processing;)...now whos go the coffee?

[cdifoto]

...now whos go the coffee?

Not me. I've moved on. To beer. The processed kind...Bud Light. :)

[FlyingPhotog]

Today cameras ARE computers with lenses. An artist is an artist not because of the tools choosen to create art. Carlos Santana uses an electric guitar, Andres Segovia used an acoustic guitar. Both legends with different art tools.

However both of them actually played guitar.

If you apply the theory being put forth by the OP, they would have just sat at a computer and made tracks using digital samples of guitar notes.

But would they still be recognized as guitar virtuosi? ;)

[Richard_Miami]

But would they still be recognized as guitar virtuosi? ;)

Nope..they would be synthesizer virtuosi. So what?:D

[queenbee288]

Today I looked thru a book in the library by Ansel Adams. It depicted his darkroom techniques, equipment and chemicals he used to achieve certain effects. He went into quite a bit of detail explaining how he did it. I was lost because I don't know anything about film or darkroom processing.

Digital is the same. Just a different media.

I think that sometimes photogs who go on about "realism" just don't want to put in the time and effort to learn to process "digital" files.

That is what the results coming out of our camera are. "Digital Files".

[the_incubus]

Im to lazy to read the entire thread right now but i will give my opinion.

Photoshop/lightroom processing is the exact same thing as a film photographer would do in a darkroom. This processing and photography come hand in hand. Times change and tools change. Its still photography and it is still developing the picture even though the tools are different.

To say it isnt is like saying a drummer who uses electric drums isnt really drumming. Or its like saying a person who uses spray paint to paint isnt really a painter.

[cdifoto]

To say it isnt is like saying a drummer who uses electric drums isnt really drumming. Or its like saying a person who uses spray paint to paint isnt really a painter.

Actually it's more like saying someone who's drinking Folger's instead of home grown hand ground beans isn't really drinking coffee.

:)

[thekid24]

Actually coffee, painting, or muscial instruments have nothing to do with post processing an image:D

[cdifoto]

Actually coffee, painting, or muscial instruments have nothing to do with post processing an image:D

Coffee has everything to do with processing an image. Unless your companion of choice is alcohol. ;)

[thekid24]

Coffee has everything to do with processing an image. Unless your companion of choice is alcohol. ;)
you are wrong:D Simple as that...I win. NEXT!

[cdifoto]

you are wrong:D Simple as that...I win. NEXT!

I'm not wrong. You're just inexperienced.

[thekid24]

I'm not wrong. You're just inexperienced.
Im not inexperienced, you're in denial:D

[Riff Raff]

Your thoughts?

As it happens, I actually am a computer programmer.

[eddarr]

It's funny, we were in Sedona last weekend and went into every gallery within 20 miles. Which is about 14,000 if you haven't been there. Every single one of them made it a point to tell us within the first minute of the conversation that their photographers only shoot with film. I will admit that every picture in every gallery was better than my best. But not because it was shot on film.

I posted the same question in this forum a few days ago. After reading everyone response in both threads and spending some serious time thinking; this is my opinion.

1. Photoshop is very much the newer version of a darkroom. Things can be done to manipulate the photo. Sharpening, contrast, exposure, saturation etc.
2. I have no desire to create an image that was not there to begin with. The camera does see light differently than a human eye or a photographers interpretation of a scene. That is not the same thing as replacing an ordinary sky with one that is more dramatic or putting a persons head on a lion. Fixing a blown out sky or adding a warming filter is part of the game.

[Tandem]

Not me. I've moved on. To beer. The processed kind...Bud Light. :)
Over processing a photo is like making beer with rice. It's not natural. :p

[cctsm]

My approach to processing is to just not overdo it. Your real work should lie in the source material, any processing done on it should just drag out the interesting bits.

Cropping, fixing levels, sharpening, usually fixing exposure (whups), etc are entirely OK with me. I do process some rare images a lot though - usually if it's a one-of-a-kind kind of thing which happened to be OOF, or something ugly entered the frame, like a terrible reflection from my flash on a door. Those get ripped out. Also, my IR photos get a lot of processing, but those are a bit of an exception anyway.

I also really, really hate processing my images. :/

*goes back to some proper programming*

[sam walker]

I'm the son of a film pro and a past photo buyer. My father claims he can spot a digital print quick from a darkroom positive. I can too in most cases I liked photo retouch done by a pro with film. I guess I appreciated the skill taken to put a brush to a print or transparency and pulling off a fix. Tricky and risky. Very expensive in the day and done by rare people. My father's work with film has taught me to try to get it as right as you can through the lens. Keep the tetouch to a minimum. Work hard to know what your talent and gear can do at the moment the shutter moves. And always cover your a**
Sam
owner of Microsoft Picture It software. The $10 photoshop

[DrPablo]

Spend ten minutes and research what photographers used to do in a dark room.

And some still do.

Have you ever dodged and burned in a darkroom? It's completely and totally different than dodging and burning in Photoshop. While I agree with you that it's ignorant not to realize that the idea comes from the traditional darkroom, it's equally ignorant to equate the two in any way.

In Photoshop, dodging and burning simply add or subtract luminosity values from pixels. You can weight it towards highlights, midtones, or shadows, but it doesn't know where details begin and end. Thus, dodging and burning just darkens and lightens indiscriminately, and can very quickly make an area look muddy. There is zero detail specificity when you dodge or burn in Photoshop.

Dodging and burning in a darkroom takes place under an enlarger. A light is shining through a negative, then through a lens, and casting the image of the negative onto photo paper. Dodging and burning means you allow more or less light to expose specific areas of the photo.

Thus, with traditional dodging and burning, the negative is always a template for the dodge or the burn, and this is the critical difference. In other words, rather than just basically 'coloring in' sections of a digital image, the darkroom process is completely beholden to the details in the negative.

They are conceptually related processes, but the digital equivalent is far sloppier than the darkroom approach.

[Tony-S]

Your thoughts?

I have mixed emotions about this, but I can say, unequivocally, that since I no longer smell like stop bath and fixer, my sex life has improved dramatically.

[RedHot]

This is about the 3rd topic on this concept within the last week, I even started one. One thing I forgot to mention in the other 2 debates were commercials. What computers do for television commercials effect what the general public thinks about digital photography.

TV commercials have gotten to the point where Toyota, for their Tundra, has put "actual demonstration at xxx location" on their commercials because computer graphics can make anything appear "real" looking for a commercial. The ability to make computer generated effects of commercials has a direct tie to what people think can be done to digital photographs.

I attended a photo club meeting where someone spoke about selling photographs at art shows. During his speach he mentioned another exhibitor that was a painter had to put a sign up that said "Paintings not Photographs". And the speaker considered putting a sign up saying "Photographs, not paintings".

[Belmondo]

This is an interesting topic. Let's not ruin it with overreaction and feigned indignation. Please stay on topic and leave personality out of it. It makes my life so much simpler.;)

[jacobsen1]

first of all, i am an engineer, not an art major (art majors never really graduate), so i am more of a computer programmer than an artist.

Something something ASSUME something much?
I have a BFA in photography.
I also have a BS in computer science.

Spend ten minutes and research what photographers used to do in a dark room.

Sigh

While it's not exactly the same, it is very similar... I think while I'm working with PS and digital images I'm still a photographer. Weather or not it's "art" or not is very subjective, but my approach in digital photography is very much the same as my approach in film photography was. I don't over do my manipulation of my images, but I do adjust colors, contrast, brightness, saturation and everything else I did in the dark room. Now it's with a mouse instead of different films/papers/filters etc, but it's still the same goal.

$.02
YMMV

[WaltA]

I loved reading this thread and I believe that the differences expressed here in how we view/hear/create things are what make life fun.

Back 200 or 300 years ago when I was starting in the music business I obsessed about what "kind" of music to play. An old timer in the business told me "Do what makes you feel good. Cause that will be your best. And you will attract people who like it and those that don't will stay away".

You guys rock!!

[Pinto]

I loved reading this thread and I believe that the differences expressed here in how we view/hear/create things are what make life fun.

Back 200 or 300 years ago when I was starting in the music business I obsessed about what "kind" of music to play. An old timer in the business told me "Do what makes you feel good. Cause that will be your best. And you will attract people who like it and those that don't will stay away".
You guys rock!!

Excellent advice!

[gymell]

Weird question - I would tend to think artists would be those likely to manipulate reality. Yet your question implies that the artist is the realistic one and the computer programmer is not, which is backwards from the typical view of these two roles. Interesting.

And I'd have to disagree that any old snapshot can be turned into a masterpiece through computer PP magic. A bad photo is going to still be a bad photo, no matter how much processing is done. There are many examples of that on this forum - usually the shots that are great to start with really stand out. I have many examples of bad shots of my own that no amount of PP is going to help, and I'm a computer programmer! Who also has a masters degree in music, BTW.

[Cubix Rube]

As we say in the music world "What happened to doing things in one take?"

I'm also a musician, who has done a fair bit of recording, and this is a silly question IMHO. Even if I nail a song in one take, the signal from my bass has already been engineered to some extent before it hits tape. And when was the last time you saw a band take their finished tracks directly off the studio tape without a final master session?

Just like photographs, post processing is absolutely necessary, every time, for a top quality product.

[rammy]

I like having the opportunity to post process my images as I like. Very rarely do I get a shot that I don't need to PP in some way, apart from the obvious sharpening because of the filter on the front of the sensor.

Funnily enough, all my images that did not need the addition of any further corrections where taken at the golden hour times; night shots or ones where I completely fluked it :-)

I agree with Mark Cohran in that the PC has become the "darkroom" for the digital age, except that you can do a lot more with digital images.

BUT saying that:

I guess YOU are the one that will ultimately be proud of your accomplishment, SOOC or PP'd. The SOOC shots WILL give you a bigger thrill than the PP'd ones but will any one ever believe you actually did accomplish that shot, as is. Well yes, you will. And you will go out and try and capture another one, until it becomes an addiction. For the ones that PP everything to death (no disrespect intended), they just won't get that buzz, that thrill, that adrenaline rush when you download off the CF, view it on the screen first time and think to yourself, did i really take that!

Me, I'm the junkie looking for the next fix! PP just doesn't do it for me! Now where's that needle, I mean camera :lol:

Happy shooting (up), and PPing everyone :-)

[WaltA]

I'm also a musician, who has done a fair bit of recording, and this is a silly question IMHO. Even if I nail a song in one take, the signal from my bass has already been engineered to some extent before it hits tape. And when was the last time you saw a band take their finished tracks directly off the studio tape without a final master session?

Just like photographs, post processing is absolutely necessary, every time, for a top quality product.

Doesn't that depend on what the audience is? To some of us (that don't sell photos) the phrase "top quality" means a really good picture I just took with my P&S.

So lets take that the music analogy a step further as we compare it to the same questions that are being asked about photo post-processing.

There were some live albums recorded in the 70's and 80' (and probably before and after) and you could tell they were live albums. With all their warts.

But now with noise-cancelling directional mikes and all the post-processing capabilities you can create a "live" album that sounds like it was done in a studio. You've created a top quality product thats not a true reflection of the original recording. Does that take anything away fom it? IMO - That depends on whether you'd ever heard the original.

Different strokes ......

[bwolford]

It's funny, we were in Sedona last weekend and went into every gallery within 20 miles. Which is about 14,000 if you haven't been there. Every single one of them made it a point to tell us within the first minute of the conversation that their photographers only shoot with film.

Did you believe them? I wouldn't, not for a second. They can't tell the difference. Period.

[DrPablo]

Back 200 or 300 years ago when I was starting in the music business I obsessed about what "kind" of music to play. An old timer in the business told me "Do what makes you feel good. Cause that will be your best. And you will attract people who like it and those that don't will stay away"

It's an interesting analogy, especially the electric revolution in the '60s. Bob Dylan going electric was so scandalous at the time, but everyone was going in that direction -- and I think Dylan felt the folk scene was full of self-important luddites themselves.

But that was 40 years ago, and there are plenty of successful folksy performers who play acoustic guitars these days.

[eddarr]

Did you believe them? I wouldn't, not for a second. They can't tell the difference. Period.

They don't have any reason to lie, except to sell me a $2,500 framed photo. Which I don't understand why they would try so hard. I walked into all of them with a lowepro camera bag and most of them with a tripod. Apparently, they aren't into photography enough to know that I'm not interested in buying someone else's photo.

It's just interesting how digital photography gets a bad rap because it can be manipulated to a degree of unbelievability. Most of this is due to the photos published by the press that are later determined to be fabricated with the use of a computer. But if what we do is art and not used to determine guilt then I guess it just doesn't matter. If you like the photo and your customer is willing to pay for it then it must be ok for the two of you.

[Roy Mathers]

It's just interesting how digital photography gets a bad rap because it can be manipulated to a degree of unbelievability. Most of this is due to the photos published by the press that are later determined to be fabricated with the use of a computer.

They used to do that in the days of film as well.

[airfrogusmc]

They don't have any reason to lie, except to sell me a $2,500 framed photo. Which I don't understand why they would try so hard. I walked into all of them with a lowepro camera bag and most of them with a tripod. Apparently, they aren't into photography enough to know that I'm not interested in buying someone else's photo.

It's just interesting how digital photography gets a bad rap because it can be manipulated to a degree of unbelievability. Most of this is due to the photos published by the press that are later determined to be fabricated with the use of a computer. But if what we do is art and not used to determine guilt then I guess it just doesn't matter. If you like the photo and your customer is willing to pay for it then it must be ok for the two of you.

Not interested in buying someone elses photo :shock:? Man I would be honored and humbled to have an original Robert Frank, W.Eugene Smith, Bruce Davidson, Aaron Siskind or Harry Callahan hang'n on my livingroom wall. I know other photographer that collect photograph. Your love for photography shouldn't be limited to your own work :confused:.

[StewartR]

There were some live albums recorded in the 70's and 80' (and probably before and after) and you could tell they were live albums. With all their warts.And they hadn't been processed (produced) at all? Riiiight...

At the very least, they'll usually have recorded several whole concerts and picked the best version of each song from each concert. (Example: Deep Purple, Made In Japan - one of the all time classics.) Sometimes they'll have picked a guitar solo from one song and dropped it into another song. (Example: Allman Bothers, Fillmore East - another all time classic.) Often, they'll have over-dubbed the odd bit for technical or artistic reasons. (Example: Thin Lizzy, Live And Dangerous - another all time classic.) And of course all that is after they've decided how to mix the inputs from the different mikes, how to spread the instruments across the stereo images, and other stuff like that.

There aren't many live albums that have not been produced at all, for the simple reason that they're not very good. Listen to (unproduced) Rainbow Live In Munich, for example, and compare it with the conventional Rainbow On Stage. The Munich album is heaver, faster, louder, more dynamic, ... but listening to it is painful because the sound quality is so poor.

[Roy Mathers]

It's not only pop records that this applies to - it is extremely rare for a classical studio recording to consist of one complete take.

[WaltA]

....... The Munich album is heaver, faster, louder, more dynamic, ... but listening to it is painful because the sound quality is so poor.

I fully agree with your comments that there is always "some" post-processing - even in concert situations. One of the hot topics in this thread is the "amount" of processing in these creative mediums that take to product far from its origins.

It depends on what your intention is in the viewing (or listening). I some times go to Photo Shows of shots taken by photographers of the old west who took photos in the 1800's. My intent is to see what they could do with their "tools of the day". Would I want to see their photos scanned and Photoshopped? Probably not. But someone else might.

I have also listened to old original Jimmy Rogers recordings done with the available tools just to hear a bit of history in the making.

Just like PPing photos - its all about intention and perspective.

[Cubix Rube]

Thanks, Stewart for helping to make my point! I couldn't have said it better...

[WaltA]

Hmmmm Deep Purple and Jimmy Rogers.....

StewartR - methinks our musical tastes tastes might range somewhat differently ;)

[elTwitcho]

how good you are at improving what you couldnt capture in the first place?

I think at this point in time we're entering the realm of photography becomming *more* or an artform as opposed to less because of the possibilities digital affords us. With film there were certain limitations and restrictions on the possibilities an artist had to impart his/her "vision" on the photograph. Today these limitations no longer exist, and artists are free to impose their will as they see fit rather than being held back by the constraints of the photographic process. I fail to se how "more creativity" = "less art" holds any water except perhaps with those dinosaurs who have made it clear they aren't interested in evolving with the technology.

[WaltA]

I fail to se how "more creativity" = "less art" holds any water except perhaps with those dinosaurs who have made it clear they aren't interested in evolving with the technology.

There are always the early adopters (adapters?) who are the first to enage new technology and there are those that continue to fine tune their trade and get dragged into the "new space" at a later date - for whatever reason.

I think the term "dinosaur" might be a little strong - after all there are still people using film cameras - are there not? And people still buy their photos - do they not?

EDIT to Clarify -I don't think unwillingness to embrace new technology is an indicator of a lack of creativity.

[elTwitcho]

There are always the early adopters (adapters?) who are the first to enage new technology and there are those that continue to fine tune their trade and get dragged into the "new space" at a later date - for whatever reason.

I think the term "dinosaur" might be a little strong - after all there are still people using film cameras - are there not? And people still buy their photos - do they not?

EDIT to Clarify -I don't think unwillingness to embrace new technology is an indicator of a lack of creativity.

I don't think dinosaur is a strong term.

There's a place for using tried and traditional methods, and I believe people who do so will continue to have a market and will continue to make viable art. I doubt many of these people take the time to slag the new technology though, as I personally think the desire to attack change stems from insecurity. These people who are truly talented likely have very little to worry about.

The people who refuse to adopt new technology simply because they're scared of it rather than because of a conscious artistic decision (and certainly you'd agree that there are those people around) IMO are the ones who are going to go extinct. They're too scared to evolve and the market is going to leave them behind.


I guess what I'm saying (and none too gracefully I realize) is that for the decision to use film to be sensible in my eyes, the person making that decision will have to have at least some familiarity with digital in order to claim they are making a rational decision rather than a decision based on fear of change. If your only factor is fear keeping you from digital, you're handicapping yourself and well... you probably won't be around much longer in the rapidly changing marketplace. So "dinosaur" might be harsh, but it's a harsh reality at this time I think.

[StewartR]

Hmmmm Deep Purple and Jimmy Rogers.....

StewartR - methinks our musical tastes tastes might range somewhat differently ;)Well, when you mentioned great live albums of the 70s, I thought you just had to be talking about heavy rock...:D But I'm glad that you weren't. I've just Googled Jimmy Rogers and concluded that there is probably a non-zero overlap between our tastes. My world is just a little bit bigger now than it was a few hours ago.

[WaltA]

Well, when you mentioned great live albums of the 70s, I thought you just had to be talking about heavy rock...:D But I'm glad that you weren't. I've just Googled Jimmy Rogers and concluded that there is probably a non-zero overlap between our tastes. My world is just a little bit bigger now than it was a few hours ago.

Cool - as we used to say in the 60's :D

[gjl711]

Cool - as we used to say in the 60's :D
Wouldn't the phrase of the 60's be groovie?

[gymell]

Wouldn't the phrase of the 60's be groovie?

Nah - the 60's were cool, the 70's were groovy and the 80's were awesome! After that I lost track. ;)

[WaltA]

The 50's were hip - daddio

PS - are we off topic ?

[gymell]

The 50's were hip - daddio

PS - are we off topic ?

No, we are not OT. We are being artistic with our posts. ;)

[Sabarika]

Its really cool to see all of the contrasty, colourful, sharp images that are posted throughout this forum but I see a trend towards computer dominated photos.

It seams as though any old snap shot can be turned into a sunet pristine landscape with some cunning pp. Have we lost the art of realism or are we turning into a bunch of computer maipulators and its not what you do with the little black box but more importantly how good you are at improving what you couldnt capture in the first place?

How many genuine photgraphs do we see these days and how much does it matter? Does turning up the sharp and colour settings in our cameras make us fakes? Does the computer just imitate what the dark room did twenty years ago?

It makes me smile when I see photos posted that have the caption "straight out of the camera".
I'm an artist, and before I began using digital art programs I was jaded towards them. I felt that if I couldn't do it in real media, then using a filter or program to recreate it for me was cheating and the image wasn't really "mine."

Now that I own a tablet, Photoshop, and a few other programs alongside a slew of real media, I feel much differently. My real media skills improved because of Photoshop and my Photoshopping skills improved because of my real media knowledge.

I admire photographers that can create an image just as stunning straight out of the camera as much as I admire a photographer that can take any image and create a striking printworthy photograph from it.

I first thought tweaking photos was lessening their value - I mean, if you couldn't make it look just right from the get-go, obviously you can't be that good. But the more I worked on processing "crapshot" photos from my archives, the more I realized that I appreciate processing just as much as getting the photo right from the camera. Sure, a program like Photoshop has a vast array of filters, features, brushes and options--but those are completely useless unless you learn to use them. A healing brush and cloner could be an easy-out for someone who accidentally got something in their shot, but it's not so easy as 1-2-3 it's gone. It takes just as much skill to use these features and a knowledge of what you're trying to achieve as it would to set up a spectacular shot. I can't compose my way out of a cardboard box but I have the comfort of knowing that I can successfully remove the offending objects (http://www.spiralingdreams.com/albums/dreadmess/Edits_005.jpg) and still get the image I imagined (http://www.spiralingdreams.com/albums/Mfur/ND70s_m01.jpg). Then, the next time I shoot, I'll have in mind what I had to fix the last time.

I developed more of a respect for processing. Being able to take a normal scene or even a "bad" photo and turn it into something worth viewing, something incredible is just as valuable as having the skill to take "the perfect shot" . Being able to use a program efficiently and fix things like blemishes, stray hair, in-the-way objects or completely erasing a form from a picture is a skill all its' own that not everyone can do, and I think should be treated with respect. I know I can't completely re-light a scene or erase a strap from someone's shoulder, or even place an object in the image. A computer program like Lightroom or Photoshop is (to me) more or less an essential extension of digital photography. I don't want to use it as a crutch for taking bad photos, but I find that the more I learn to really use these programs to touch-up and "create" my images, the more I'm learning about taking the images. I fix the lighting in a portrait using Photoshop, and the next time I do a shoot, I've learned from my first mistake and use that to better my lighting and shot so I'll have less to process when it's finished. They work hand-in-hand for me so I don't focus on just learning to process images and don't focus only on setting up the perfect shot without any processing. If I did that, I'd drive myself crazy from finding "imperfections" and be striving not to create an image but struggling on how I'm going to get that image. I want it to come naturally, but I also feel very comfortable knowing that, "hey, if I mess up this shot, it's not a total waste. I have the ability to fix that squinting eye or remove that collar from a dog." To me it's all just a part of the production of an image, not some "extra fancy way of covering up bad photography".

Then again, I'm not a stickler for "only out of camera shots are real pictures". I like seeing processed images that have obviously unreal elements, such as oversaturated colors, added/subtracted elements, etc. To me it isn't about the processing so much as it's whether or not you achieved the final result you wanted.

Kind of not on topic to the general gist of the thread, but eh. :P I wanted to contribute.

[Richard_Miami]

I feel that some elaboration on my original one liner is in order.

Since the point is rather subjective, I have taken a bit of thought to sort out my ideas.

Modern photography technology is subject to an age old debate - are the pictures good (or bad) because the technology is good (or bad)? Or is it the photographer's talents and skills? This gets discussed all the time - usually following a comment to a photographer something along the lines of: "That camera takes great pictures" or "I could take great photos with gear like that."

I see the answer as a combination of three things - tools, skills and talent. Yes, the better tools are CAPABLE of producing better photos. I have no doubt in my mind that my Canon 5D is versatile, can focus and shoot well under adverse conditions and is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! However, it is also very capable of missing a shot...I keep proving that point- ;)

Similarly, the debate in this thread focusses on the post-processing tools and skill of the person. Does s/he use more powerful editing tools or simpler ones? What is his/her skill level with them?

Both hardware and software contribute to the debate- I recognize that the OP focussed on the sofware (computer programming) side of the issue- but I feel the responses have been broad enough to include the hardware variables as well.

It takes two more factors to make it all work together - skill and talent. The skill part as I define it involves the knowledge of the technology-it is VERY complex. How one knows which combinations of aperture, shutter speed and ISO to use, along with selecting white balance, AF mode and a zillion other parameters is a question of skill in my definition. Your definition may be different. Tons of practice with an understanding of what the different permutations will do to the image in the end helps to develop skills, if we pay close enough attention.

The talent part relates to composition - the photographer's "eye" - aka the use of light.

Many many photographs (and still lots of mine) are either cliches - similar to shots taken millions of times by thousands of photographers before- and/or merely snaphots - photos taken purely to capture a memory of a person or a place on film with little artistic interpretation involved. Here is where talent will out- can I be creative in my expression? - revealing a unique vision of the world? Can I bring the viewer to a new interpretation of something beautiful? Does the photo capture one's interest? Does it tell a story? These are, in my humble opinion, the questions that are really important and that are impacted only AFTER the technology and skill questions have been transcended. I only hope that 1% of my work reaches this level someday.

In the end, we are a sum total of artist/programmer/crafstman/engineer. All of those types of names come into play. What is adjustable by us is the degree to which we utilize any of those roles - less dependence on post processing and high tech equipment means we are more dependent on our skills and talents to complete our vision. I am totally convinced there is no right answer - and I am also totally convinced that the answer is different, not only for each of us individually, but also for each of us over time.

While the playing field has changed significantly with the advent of digital media, this blend has been the case to varying degrees in all art forms. Whether we work in images, words or music, there are many technologies which empower and other technologies which restrict. It is up to us to control the mix as we see fit. This was the case in my father's generation, in mine, and in my son's. I suspect it will always be up to us how we use the tools available to us.

[WaltA]

Well said, Richard.

[Richard_Miami]

Well said, Richard.

thank you!

[bpiper7]

Richard,
Well I'm sure glad I worked my way to the end of this thread. I think you synthesized some important things. I'm JUST starting this digital thing and have waves of vertigo when I realize that the old combination of aperture, shutter speed, light and composition aren't quite enough anymore. Then of course I sent it off to the lab for the magic to happen.

My first pictures with my new DSLR were REALLY disappointing. And I've got examples of what I could do OOC 30+ years ago on the walls of my office to torment me.

Fortunately a week off at the beach and some practice allowed one of my co-workers to exclaim a few times that "that's a really awesome camera you got there". And there was a JUST a little PP involved.

This is a great forum. Thanks to all of you.

[Richard_Miami]

Richard,
Well I'm sure glad I worked my way to the end of this thread. I think you synthesized some important things. I'm JUST starting this digital thing and have waves of vertigo when I realize that the old combination of aperture, shutter speed, light and composition aren't quite enough anymore. Then of course I sent it off to the lab for the magic to happen.

My first pictures with my new DSLR were REALLY disappointing. And I've got examples of what I could do OOC 30+ years ago on the walls of my office to torment me.

Fortunately a week off at the beach and some practice allowed one of my co-workers to exclaim a few times that "that's a really awesome camera you got there". And there was a JUST a little PP involved.

This is a great forum. Thanks to all of you.

That's great Piper.. stick with it.. the best is yet to come! :D