Technology vs. Purist photography..

I got on a little "rant" earlier in response to a critique, and this just spilled out. I think i solved something, in myself, that a lot of us "purists" struggle with. So, I thought I'd post it here in hopes of benefiting someone that also struggles with the same delima, yet hasn't thought of it this way...

i dont know where i stand on the digital era in this regard.

i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

however, when i really start to think about things...technology is a wonderful tool to be utilized, not poo-pooed. we dont still shoot b/w exclusively. we dont even shoot film. we dont process our prints anymore. and, even when we did, we dodged and burned, added contrast layers, pushed and pulled film by using "soak times," and used a variety of other techniques to achieve the "look" we wanted. therefore, we always doctored the shots in some way.

and, its funny how we gritch and moan about these things technology provides. the old Burkee machines the newspaper used to "stitch" together the magenta, yellow, and cyan slides for color prints costs thousands more than the future "Photoshop 27 PRO" ever will. so, technology is making things cheaper, too.

so, in a nutshell, i am coming out of my "purist" shell (no pun intended).....albeit slowly. i guess it comes down to motivating myself to learning new techniques to get the absolute best quality image possible. and, besides, photography is all a matter of personal preferences. we don't have to view HDR, or layer work, if we dont like it....lol.

wow, where did that little rant come from so early in the day? today may get interesting after all.

thanks for listening. i feel better now.

I think it is down to personal preference.

An analogy to food - some like the quality of the ingredients to come out, others prefer to show their wizardry with seasoning and how they cook it.

Both are equally valid viewpoints imho.

My preference is to keep the image as near to what i shot as possible (while trying to achieve the image thats in my minds eye). So i PP to try to achieve that end point but not to the extent that i have lost the essence of the original (ie curves, saturation,cloning and sharpening are all i generally do).

There are purists in every hobby I've do and each has the typical "purist" view that considers a technique, technology, or piece of equipment as "not purist". I don't see why everything has to be one-dimensional (aka "if it's not straight out of the camera then it's not photography").

HDR is just sub-part of photography, just because it exists doesn't mean that shots straight out of the camera aren't worth anything anymore and vice versa. I wouldn't compare those 2 types of shots. They are different, and that's a good thing. HDR still requires a photographer to compose a good shot, pick a good subject and story, and properly use his equipment. I use HDR as an example but you can see what what I mean.

Last thing is, where do you draw the line on "cheating". Do you ever straighten your horizons or mess with you RAW files? It's a blurry line.

That's my 2 cents.

"I'm a purist" is really just a fancy way of saying "I don't know squat."

Kudos to you for allowing a change your own perspective.

I have been guilty of dismissing or stubbornly belittling processes/techniques that were different to my own...and it took me a while to admit to myself that the main reason for it was my own ignorance and lack of understanding...

I'm sure your new outlook will allow you to discover things you might have never considered once upon a time.

cdifoto wrote in post #8833206
"I'm a purist" is really just a fancy way of saying "I don't know squat."

In fact...can I change my answer and copy this??

OP. If you had your Caps/shift key fixed people might take you more seriously. It's not cool it just looks stupid.
Liked your content though.

burn,

who isnt taking me seriously? i think the comments have been great so far. and, this was more of a pressure release and realization of MINE than some public service i was trying to provide. i am sorry you feel that everyone must take unnecessary time to properly capitalize/punctuate things when typing in a completely voluntary forum that welcomes all languages and ages.

actually, could this just be a sarcastic comment implying that you are a "purist" when it comes to typing? if so, good one...it got by me at first.

its lazy. its not a sign of intelligence...or lack thereof, imo. few of us are published authors, most of whom even have their work edited.

if we are going to get sticky, however, your first sentence needs a comma, not a period after "OP," as you are addressing me not ending your sentence. your second sentence needs a comma between "people" and "might". and, your third sentence needs a semi-colon after "cool." your fourth lacks a subject and, therefore, is also incorrect.

so, if we want to get sticky about things, you are hardly the one to criticize. but, thanks for liking the content. i appreciate that.

steve, could you really just be Brett Farve in sheep's clothing?

cdifoto wrote in post #8833206
"I'm a purist" is really just a fancy way of saying "I don't know squat."

i'd have to agree. i think there's a distinct difference between not liking a style and believing that other styles and methods are cheating.

burnxkr wrote in post #8833295
OP. If you had your Caps/shift key fixed people might take you more seriously. It's not cool it just looks stupid.

what a useless and ironic comment to make.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833346
burn,

who isnt taking me seriously? i think the comments have been great so far. and, this was more of a pressure release and realization of MINE than some public service i was trying to provide. i am sorry you feel that everyone must take unnecessary time to properly capitalize/punctuate things when typing in a completely voluntary forum that welcomes all languages and ages.

actually, could this just be a sarcastic comment implying that you are a "purist" when it comes to typing? if so, good one...it got by me at first.

its lazy. its not a sign of intelligence...or lack thereof, imo. few of us are published authors, most of whom even have their work edited.

if we are going to get sticky, however, your first sentence needs a comma, not a period after "OP," as you are addressing me not ending your sentence. your second sentence needs a comma between "people" and "might". and, your third sentence needs a semi-colon after "cool." your fourth lacks a subject and, therefore, is also incorrect.

so, if we want to get sticky about things, you are hardly the one to criticize. but, thanks for liking the content. i appreciate that.

+1

i use forums to convey ideas, not publish books. hell, the vast majority of my college professors sent quick emails without capitalizing sentences. if dozens of PhD and MD scholars can grasp the concept of communication and efficiency over perfectly typed articles, i'm sure internet forum users can relax and realize it has nothing to do with intelligence. we've all written our term papers and dissertations in school; believing that the shift key is a measure of merit is pretty ignorant and pretentious.

i guess you can only roll your eyes at the keyboard warriors who riddle their own posts full of spelling and grammatical mistakes, and criticize others for not punctuating properly.

i lyk skool i lurn their

N e msg nt in txt spk is a gd msg.

I think purism stems from the attitude of, "I don't understand it, we didn't have it in the old days, it must be bad."

I know people who still tell me that electronic music isn't real music, you'd think that the synthesizer being so old now that they'd have gotten over it. Alas no, if you can't play it "unplugged" it's not real. You'll get the same in any area. I've used the internet to communicate with friends for the last 15 years and these days it's far more convenient than the telephone but there's still an attitude amongst some people that unless you speak face to face it's not valid.

I'm not a purist, I think that view can be limiting. But I will defend them to a degree in that I find more merit in their approach of trying to get it right in the first place without the aid of excessive pp than I do with some of the new wave who figure you can make any image work with enough PP. I had a recent exchange with a new user who is convinced his rather uninspired photos can become magic if he has the right PP. I myself believe there are PP tools that can improve a photo, and when used judiciously even extreme PP has a place, but I cant help but be saddened a little when so many users think that the work done in the camera is less important than that done on the monitor.

gonzogolf wrote in post #8833846
I'm not a purist, I think that view can be limiting. But I will defend them to a degree in that I find more merit in their approach of trying to get it right in the first place without the aid of excessive pp than I do with some of the new wave who figure you can make any image work with enough PP. I had a recent exchange with a new user who is convinced his rather uninspired photos can become magic if he has the right PP. I myself believe there are PP tools that can improve a photo, and when used judiciously even extreme PP has a place, but I cant help but be saddened a little when so many users think that the work done in the camera is less important than that done on the monitor.

I'll use whatever means necessary and within my capabilities to make a shot look good or great. I don't care how it started, only how it ends.

cdifoto wrote in post #8833859
I'll use whatever means necessary and within my capabilities to make a shot look good or great. I don't care how it started, only how it ends.

Agreed, but you understand that its a process from beginning to end, and doesn't start with a few snazzy actions. I think a lot of bad photography is being done because of the feeling that anything can be fixed or created in photoshop.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
i dont know where i stand on the digital era in this regard.

i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

You realize that you haven't listed any digital technologies there, right? Digital makes them all much, much easier but there's nothing listed here that wasn't being done 40+ years ago with film in wet darkrooms.

I used to think that I was a "purist" but what I eventually realized is that I'm simply somebody who generally prefers realism in my photography.