When you can produce these THEN you are a photographer

Somebloke wrote in post #17792000
I guess it depends on what the given understanding of the term 'photoshopped' is.

just for the record, I don't have a problem with any level of image manipulation so long as the photographer is honest about his methods. People assign way too much importance to "this hasn't been photoshopped", to the point that people lie about not screwing around with the image. As said, it's been done since the beginning of photographic printing, just don't freakin' lie about it, THAT is what is lame.

Didereaux wrote in post #17791694
When you can produce these THEN you are a photographer...and not a graphics 'artist'.

When you can take a photograph without camera shake or missed focus THEN you are a photographer.

koala yummies wrote in post #17792762
When you can take a photograph without camera shake or missed focus THEN you are a photographer.

At nearly 70 I try for less shake, and simply say my focus is for artistic effect!

Somebloke wrote in post #17791810
Lol it's funny how sensitive people are on this topic.

Ahh well i guess then I can just sell all of my camera equipment and sit at home and put together composite pictures I've pinched from the net in Photoshop and call myself a photographer without never having touched a camera. Sure will be a darn sight cheaper....plus I can do it in my underwear! Nice

Reading comprehension just owned you sensitive British boy. "Just because someone takes two separate photographs with their camera and then combines them later doesn't mean they're not a photographer." Perhaps the world would in fact appreciate you staying home, not touching a camera and just sitting in your underwear, or just not talking about your underwear at all because there may be under-age minors reading this forum. Isn't it sweet when we take things out of context and go on inappropriate unrelated exaggerated tangents while trying to insult other POTN members?

Clearly your images are processed and passed through an image manipulator with the saturation, clarity and exposure adjusted, which is why you felt the need to quickly elaborate and clarify what you think 'photoshopping' is so you wouldn't be seen as self-contradictory.

Somebloke wrote in post #17792000
I guess it depends on what the given understanding of the term 'photoshopped' is.

For my mind it is alteration of the physical scene-adding,removing or distorting key components. I wouldn't classify saturation, exposure, clarity etc as photoshopping.

In the purist's minds, your images are photoshopped, THEN you a not a photographer.

Didereaux wrote in post #17792788
At nearly 70 I try for less shake, and simply say my focus is for artistic effect!

You're a good sport with a sense of humor and I can appreciate what your original post was getting at. It just could have used a little bit of the clarity-slider

Who else noticed that many photos at that link are no better, and may even be worse, than some on POTN?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17792550
Just to muddy the water a little more... There were several ways to combine images long before PS came along.

We talk about "taking a photograph". But I remember when people used to say they were "making a photograph."
Me, either. Discuss.  ; )

I will simply say the Cottingley Faries! Probably the greatest photographic hoax of all time. It even fooled the great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes, who believed that the photographs were true. It was only after exhaustive work by the former Science correspondent of Amature Photography magazine, the Late Gefferoy Crawley, that the surviving sister actually admitted the fraud. I suppose the fact that they were two quite young sisters also helped sway opinion. Not a single dollop of photoshop anywhere, and all done "in camera" Maybe this has a parallel in the current Reuters thread.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17792955
I will simply say the Cottingley Faries! Probably the greatest photographic hoax of all time. It even fooled the great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes, who believed that the photographs were true. It was only after exhaustive work by the former Science correspondent of Amature Photography magazine, the Late Gefferoy Crawley, that the surviving sister actually admitted the fraud. I suppose the fact that they were two quite young sisters also helped sway opinion. Not a single dollop of photoshop anywhere, and all done "in camera" Maybe this has a parallel in the current Reuters thread.
Alan

I remember reading about a woman who took her bellows camera in for repair. During the repair, they noticed pin holes in the bellows & replaced it, along with the original problem.
She took the camera back because it would no longer take "ghost pictures", which she mainly used it for. The repair guys had to put pin holes in the new bellows for her! ; D

koala yummies wrote in post #17792791
Reading comprehension just owned you sensitive British boy. "Just because someone takes two separate photographs with their camera and then combines them later doesn't mean they're not a photographer." Perhaps the world would in fact appreciate you staying home, not touching a camera and just sitting in your underwear, or just not talking about your underwear at all because there may be under-age minors reading this forum. Isn't it sweet when we take things out of context and go on inappropriate unrelated exaggerated tangents while trying to insult other POTN members?

Clearly your images are processed and passed through an image manipulator with the saturation, clarity and exposure adjusted, which is why you felt the need to quickly elaborate and clarify what you think 'photoshopping' is so you wouldn't be seen as self-contradictory.

In the purist's minds, your images are photoshopped, THEN you a not a photographer.

Why are you so upset, why do you need to make it personal? Interesting...I guess I would hate my life if I lived in LA also.

Somebloke wrote in post #17793074
Why are you so upset, why do you need to make it personal?

But then you turn right around and make it personal yourself:

Tit for tat? That's how conflict escalates.

Yes. in the days of film and darkroom, every image we saw was straight out of the camera and nothing was ever done to enhance it. Here is an excellent example by someone who arguably had some skill with things photographic, showing how the image looked SOOC and how he wanted it to be. Hmmmm..... which one did people purchase?

OhLook wrote in post #17793106
But then you turn right around and make it personal yourself:Tit for tat? That's how conflict escalates.

Fair point, SF would be much better

Somebloke wrote in post #17793176
Fair point, SF would be much better

No. Not being snide at all would be much better. But you knew what I meant.

Well, I tried.

OhLook wrote in post #17793298
No. Not being snide at all would be much better. But you knew what I meant.

Well, I tried.

Why was your original comment even needed, and more to the point why direct it solely at me. I wasn't the one who made it personal.

Have to love the bully culture of an Internet forum.

Most pointless thread of 2015 goes to...