Technology vs. Purist photography..

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

Firstly, with all the advancements that has gone on, I can't believe we are still debating about the "digital era". It's here. Deal with it.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

To me, the term purist might as well be a 4 letter word.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
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."

Sorry. This is silly. I can say the same thing about B&W because we most certainly know that it didn't actually look that way.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
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.

Now you are talkin'.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
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.

Welcome friend...to the real world.

So what do "purists" consider all the legendary film photographers who were masters in the darkroom? Dodging and burning was/is a common practice in the darkroom, as well as many other techniques that are now available in PS or other editing programs. Photoshop is this era's version of the darkroom. It is the digital darkroom, if you will.

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.

That's pretty much how I feel about it, I came from film to digital, one of the first things I learned was tone mapping. I didn't even know there was a name for it, I just wanted the final shot to look more like what I was used to seeing with film. My style of HDR tends to look more realistic but I do like ones that aren't, even a lot of the ones people call the cartoon look. It's the final image that's important to me, if I like it and others don't it really isn't any big deal.

F-117HWK wrote in post #8833956
So what do "purists" consider all the legendary film photographers who were masters in the darkroom? Dodging and burning was/is a common practice in the darkroom, as well as many other techniques that are now available in PS or other editing programs. Photoshop is this era's version of the darkroom. It is the digital darkroom, if you will.

I think they acknowledge that photography from click to print is a process and to get the image you want you have the ability to expand or contract contrast, tonal range etc. But photoshop goes so far beyond the capability of the darkroom masters that you cant rightly considerer those tools to be equal when taken to their ultimate end.

I approached photography backwards. I learned photoshop from a web dev perspective, with a sprinkling of photography as required. I was definatly one of those who would take/find an image that vaguely resembled what I needed and perform a photoshop miracle on it. Then I started to really appreciate photography and the purist aspect of it, and realized that photoshop was really good for adjusting and developing photos!

Right now I'm working my way towards being a purist. As a result of this journey, I think my photography skills are improving rather quickly.

If anyone is a purist they'd be writing with a fingernail dipped in tar and sending letters via carrier pidgeon..

gonzogolf wrote in post #8834042
I think they acknowledge that photography from click to print is a process and to get the image you want you have the ability to expand or contract contrast, tonal range etc. But photoshop goes so far beyond the capability of the darkroom masters that you cant rightly considerer those tools to be equal when taken to their ultimate end.

Obviously they are not "equal" its technology that was created in the darkroom evolving. Just as technology changed in the darkroom from the first film photograph to the ones we see today. It would be stupid to limit ourselves to "old" technology when photography and its post processing has been evolving for years and years.

Do you not think the darkroom masters did not use every "trick" in the book to get the most out of their pictures?

F-117HWK wrote in post #8834128
Obviously they are not "equal" its technology that was created in the darkroom evolving. Just as technology changed in the darkroom from the first film photograph to the ones we see today. It would be stupid to limit ourselves to "old" technology when photography and its post processing has been evolving for years and years.

Do you not think the darkroom masters did not use every "trick" in the book to get the most out of their pictures?

I'm not saying they didnt use any tool available to them. But those tools were still limited to working with the original image. Photoshop tools are not limited in that fashion and I think thats the dividing line for a lot of purists.

nicksan wrote in post #8833919
To me, the term purist might as well be a 4 letter word.

But...douche has 6 letters.

krb wrote in post #8833903
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.

realism is relative, but i do appreciate your use of the word "prefers" in your statement. i've never been under the impression that i'm a "purist" if there even is such a thing in modern photography, but like you, i also prefer images that do not look digitally manufactured. i can certainly respect those who do it well, but it just isn't my cup of tea in terms of aesthetic preference. to me, it isn't cheating or unfaithful, it's just a different style that does not appeal as much to me.

samueli wrote in post #8834061
Right now I'm working my way towards being a purist. As a result of this journey, I think my photography skills are improving rather quickly.

i don't think simplicity and minimalism equate with purism in this trade. i think the context in which it's used around here closer resembles technophobia and/or different tastes in artistic style.. and consequently having a complex of feeling enlightened or superior.

gonzogolf wrote in post #8834154
I'm not saying they didnt use any tool available to them. But those tools were still limited to working with the original image. Photoshop tools are not limited in that fashion and I think thats the dividing line for a lot of purists.

I understand where the divide is coming from, but this is simply the next evolution in tools for photography. People are free to use it or not. Twenty years from now this technology will probably be obsolete and there will be things that the digital era may feel are not "pure" keeping in line the ageless arguments where no one is really right or wrong.

what an awesome discussion. and, so far, it is super civil. maybe there is hope for internet flame wars?

i dont know why, but this statement made me laugh. i started thinking to myself, "i bet i really butcher spelling and punctuation over the telephone." lol.

@krb, no i didnt realize that. but, that is rather funny. i later admit that we doctored photos in darkrooms, but never saw the "techniques" were the same as digital pp. well played, sir.

@nicksan, i have never had one of my "rant" posts, here or anywhere, dissected in such a way. almost argumentative at first....and complimentary later. i love it.

oh, and, actually, as a child i used to think that my grandpa fought WWII in b/w. i literally asked him what it was like when he woke up one day and saw colors. (talk about off the rocker....gramps laughed his ass off....and told my mom, "watch this one, he thinks outside the box.")

ironic that the s/w program "Lightroom" is named the opposite of the darkroom, huh? i may have just realized why. so subtly intelligent.

@yogestee, another one well played.

sorry, guys, over a thousand posts here and i still cant break up those different quotes like you guys do. well, not without typing quote+"X" and /quote after every little piece and manually clipping them out.

i guess i AM lazy...lol.

SwitchBlade wrote in post #8833824
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.

And I've seen the opposite - especially amongst the younger folk - old music isn't real music, and the Internet is the only way to communicate (Face to Face, well just "Talk to the Hand").

In the end, it's all personal preference...

alt4852 wrote in post #8834203
i don't think simplicity and minimalism equate with purism in this trade. i think the context in which it's used around here closer resembles technophobia and/or different tastes in artistic style.. and consequently having a complex of feeling enlightened or superior.

Technology obsoletes skill in many cases, and that plain and simply stinks. Sometimes it feels there is more emphasis on gathering the right equipment then actually perfecting the trade. But you have to if you want to stay on top of the trade. If your a hobbyist, well, you can emerge from a purist shell anytime you want. As an artist, being a purist may help you more than hurt.

But as soon as you mention the word "trade", you are now part of an equipment consumer group that needs the best equipment to provide the customer with the best possible images. If your a wedding tog and a camera comes out next year that gives you an extra step of clean ISO, you simply owe it to your customers to have that camera as soon as you can, for those low light shots. Skill or not, if your competitor has it, he will be better equiped to capture certain situations. Better than you. Equipment and technology is at least 50% of this trade, if not way more.

Maybe it's not so much enlightened or superior, but large amounts of skill and practice being trumped by a camera setting, or a PS action. Not everyone live on boards like this or is aware of every technological advancement, but instead practices their craft.

I'm not trying to argue, there are just so many ways to look at the impact of tech on photography. At times it's sickening, and I respect those on all sides.

gkarris wrote in post #8834708
And I've seen the opposite - especially amongst the younger folk - old music isn't real music, and the Internet is the only way to communicate

au contraire. old music is considered classic. haven't you heard? retro is vogue.

i think you're referencing teenagers from sitcoms in the 80's and 90's. hahaha, i honestly haven't heard "talk to the hand" since i was in elementary or middle school.