# when do you consider photography as graphic design?



## iPhoto17 (Oct 13, 2010)

i was at the mall the other day and there was an advertising booth for a "photographer" and the pictures that were displayed up were obviously photo-shopped to the point that i wouldnt have considered photography.

photography to me means capturing a moment in time for what it really is, and by photoshopping a photo to the point that its a completely different photo seems like cheating to me and then i would not consider it as a photograph but as graphic design.

what are your takes when it comes to photoshop in photography? personally i prefer messing around in a darkroom instead of clicking away on a picture until its completely something different than the original photo


----------



## Studio7Four (Oct 13, 2010)

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with you, there is a point at which it seems like an image has been manipulated too much to be called "photography".  It's such a grey area though that I couldn't even begin to define where that line is.

Just to play devil's advocate, "messing around in a darkroom" is still manipulation.  Most of what is done digitally in Photoshop these days comes from film/darkroom origins.  Actions such as Dodge and Burn (and even the icons for them in Photoshop) reflect those darkroom origins.

"Capturing a moment in time for what it really is" is pretty much the definition of photojournalism, which while a noble endeavor is only a small part of the realm of photography.  If you put ten photographers on a street corner you could get ten very different images, from the most sincere photojournalistic attempt, to an image which tells exactly the opposite story, to a completely abstract image capturing a reflection in a puddle.  And all of that with zero post processing manipulation.  And that diversity is why photography is so popular as an artform and is not simply boring science (for all the science that goes into doing it well).


----------



## iPhoto17 (Oct 13, 2010)

Studio7Four said:


> Let me preface this by saying that I agree with you, there is a point at which it seems like an image has been manipulated too much to be called "photography".  It's such a grey area though that I couldn't even begin to define where that line is.
> 
> Just to play devil's advocate, "messing around in a darkroom" is still manipulation.  Most of what is done digitally in Photoshop these days comes from film/darkroom origins.  Actions such as Dodge and Burn (and even the icons for them in Photoshop) reflect those darkroom origins.
> 
> "Capturing a moment in time for what it really is" is pretty much the definition of photojournalism, which while a noble endeavor is only a small part of the realm of photography.  If you put ten photographers on a street corner you could get ten very different images, from the most sincere photojournalistic attempt, to an image which tells exactly the opposite story, to a completely abstract image capturing a reflection in a puddle.  And all of that with zero post processing manipulation.  And that diversity is why photography is so popular as an artform and is not simply boring science (for all the science that goes into doing it well).


yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography


----------



## KmH (Oct 13, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> *when do you consider photography as graphic design?*


When that is what the artist calls it.




iPhoto17 said:


> yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography


 :thumbdown:

Uh!....Every photo every taken is a _fake_. So are all paintings. So are all sculptures. So are all graphic arts.

One can easily surmise that all art is fake.


----------



## iPhoto17 (Oct 13, 2010)

KmH said:


> iPhoto17 said:
> 
> 
> > *when do you consider photography as graphic design?*
> ...


i dont understand your logic on how photography is fake, so i guess your saying the things we see and touch are fake.....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 13, 2010)

When I first started seeing how much photos are being changed by P.P. I felt somewhat let down, that people were "faking" pictures. but the more I am geting into photography and viewing other people's work i started viewing it as an art form as well, and i realised its just another way for people to express themselves. There is room for all kinds of photography and people should just enjoy the many different styles available.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 13, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > iPhoto17 said:
> ...


 

id say since what your taking is just an image of say a sunset, its not a real sunset. a recreation of an actual sunset. in that sence the pictures is just a copy of the real thing. in essence a fake of the original


----------



## white (Oct 13, 2010)

What I think KmH is saying is the notion that photography represents "reality" or "truth" is misguided at best. I agree. Photographers -- artists -- have been manipulating their photographs for more than a century.

You said:





> photography to me means capturing a moment in time for what it really is,


I love this. So narrow-minded. The underlined part of your quote assumes that events, moments, etc. can be distilled into a "true essence", when the reality is that people perceive things in a myriad of different ways. Maybe the essence of the moment a photographer captures and wishes to portray is intangible, like an emotion.


----------



## Fedaykin (Oct 13, 2010)

I gotta agree with KmH. Not even a RAW file straight SOOC is an accurate representation of reality. Art to me is a way of expressing how _you_ perceive reality through a medium like photography or painting or the written word. 

Sorry but to me you're just coming off as an elitist who states that he doesn't photoshop his images in an effort to feel better about himself and how others perceive him. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Oct 13, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> .....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??



I'm pretty sure kmh meant, "surmise" but I could be wrong.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 13, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> i was at the mall the other day and there was an advertising booth for a "photographer" and the pictures that were displayed up were obviously photo-shopped to the point that i wouldnt have considered photography.



Were the images something he created from scratch by hand? Or did the pictures he created  start from a photograph?

If an artist were start out with a painting and then bring it into Photoshop and continue on from there until such a point was reached that one could no longer tell it had started out as a painting does this mean the artist is not a painter?



iPhoto17 said:


> photography to me means capturing a moment in time for what it really is, and by photoshopping a photo to the point that its a completely different photo seems like cheating to me and then i would not consider it as a photograph but as graphic design.



The art or profession of Graphic Design has little to do with the amount of change that is to be applied to a photograph.  It's more about the communicating of information in such a way as to get a desired outcome or effect. That is usually done by the combining of images, words, and ideas.  If your photograph is an image, that through it's composition conveys an idea, then it should be easy to see how a clean capture of one moment in time can itself fall into the category of Graphic Design.



iPhoto17 said:


> what are your takes when it comes to photoshop in photography? personally i prefer messing around in a darkroom instead of clicking away on a picture until its completely something different than the original photo



I'm pretty sure you are not saying that messing around in a darkroom does not allow the photographer to ebb away on a picture until it's completely something different then the original photo.

I say use whatever works for you. 

It is my opinion that you can always misuse tools software, chemicals or whatever you may be using at the time.  Unless your using a wrench as a hammer or a screwdriver as a punch my thoughts on your use of a tool is really just an opinion not a fact.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 13, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography



- You call it fake, I call it composite.  

- Poor HDR dudes... your images are fake!

- Ask a die hard film guys who has never touched a computer and I am sure he'll tell you photoshop is not easier.

- Filters on the front of a camera distort or bend the truth in order to make it look more closely to the way the photographer wishes.  This then makes the image "fake" before it's even downloaded or developed?   Rats!   KMH, you are right I guess!


----------



## KmH (Oct 14, 2010)

iPhoto17 said:


> i dont understand your logic on how photography is fake, so i guess your saying the things we see and touch are fake.....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??


Cameras don't work like the human eye. They can only record an approximation of what we see. The human eye works non-linearly, cameras are only capable of linear performance, hence, all photos are fake. There has also been pre and post production, to one degree or another, involved with every photo _that has ever been made_. 
And no, I did not mean summarize. I typed a "z" when I wanted to type an "s" and failed (again) at proofing a post. :blushing:

Surmise | Define Surmise at Dictionary.com


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

It ceases to be photography and becomes graphic design once it crosses over that imaginary line between photography and graphic design!


----------



## Garbz (Oct 14, 2010)

It becomes graphic design when the photo itself is either no longer used or there was no photo to begin with. If someone takes a photo it's still photography.

Photoshopping is as old as the art, dating back to long before colour film where people would manually paint colour onto their prints. It was still photography then, why should image manipulation now be any different?


----------



## Patrice (Oct 15, 2010)

Photography can be purely documentary in purpose, purely interpretive and all degrees in between. The amount of manipulation between the capture and the viewing of an image is part and parcel of the photographer's tools in creating an image that conveys his vision.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 15, 2010)

NEVER.

One has nothing to do with the other.

I wonder what you would think of the first stuff I showed in a gallery. In most of the images the photo part was so far gone that you may not have had an idea there was a photo to start with. But the show was billed as a photo show, the images were done on photo paper with photo chemicals...

What was I supposed to call it? LOL. It sure wasn't graphic design though.


----------



## sammy (Oct 19, 2010)

Some of these new HDR images are looking so unrealistic they may as well be graphic design IMO... I honestly can't stand a lot of them


----------



## skieur (Oct 22, 2010)

It's graphic design when I completely create an image on the computer and then take a similulated photo of it on the computer too..... No, that is photography too? :er:

Or maybe not.  Is simulated photography really photography?

skieur


----------



## sabbath999 (Oct 22, 2010)

I personally don't care one little bit about categorizing photography.

Honestly, when I do a picture I don't care about anything except making it look good to me. I use the tools it takes. Sometimes that is nothing more than printing a negative or showing a slide on the screen. Sometimes it is 95 percent digital darkroom to create the image I am looking for.

Labels are meaningless.


----------



## skieur (Oct 23, 2010)

sabbath999 said:


> I personally don't care one little bit about categorizing photography.
> 
> Honestly, when I do a picture I don't care about anything except making it look good to me. I use the tools it takes. Sometimes that is nothing more than printing a negative or showing a slide on the screen. Sometimes it is 95 percent digital darkroom to create the image I am looking for.
> 
> Labels are meaningless.


 
True.  I have seen the term: photography and imaging,  and that covers EVERYTHING.

skieur


----------



## white (Oct 23, 2010)

Yeah, what gives with labels? Stupid things. Let's go back to calling everything images. Wicked timesaver that will be.

:er:


----------



## kkamin (Oct 25, 2010)

Photography is fake. If you think it is an objective recording medium you are sadly mistaken, and are not thinking very far. 

Photography can look "real", BUT unfortunately all the artistic/design elements innate to photography are aggressively manipulating your experience (e.g. subject placement/composition, color relationships, depth of field, patterns, rhythm, formal relationships, interplay between tones, angle of capture, focal length, perspective distortions, connotations within, denotations within, themes, motifs, color treatment, type of lighting, exposure, blah, blah, etc.)

Photography is 2-D. It is a flat piece of paper or a flat screen littered with colored dots or pixels. Life is 3-D with infinite resolution.

Our eyes see many times the dynamic range of cameras. Our eyes perceive colors different than cameras. Our eyes create contrast where there is none. Go do some optical illusion games. It's complicated. 

Grab your camera and take a photograph of what you see right now in your field of view, make a print, and then compare that print to your real life eyes. It is a billion times different in every which way.

Pointing your camera square at a subject and snapping your camera is not a photo journalistic photograph or an authentic capture of reality. It probably is a lackluster photograph where the photographer did not consider the range of creative choices at their disposal to best capture their interpretation of the scene.

For people who don't believe in processing...there is NO SUCH THING! Your photographs are captured as unformed clay on your memory card or negative and needs some subjective instruction on what to do. It is just a string of data and is not a picture; it needs instructions on how to interpret that data. If you shoot jpeg, your camera is applying a boat load of template corrective adjustments, color instructions, contrast, and sharpening to your images. If you take your images to a consumer photo processor to get prints they are doing the same thing to make your prints. 

If you take the same photograph and adjust its exposure, saturation, sharpness or cropping, people will probably read and experience your photograph in a different way. e.g., Just by adding a few points of color, you can dramatically change the tone of a photograph or sometimes by changing your crop, you can turn an unbalanced, unresolved photograph into a compelling and engaging one. So if shooting jpeg, you are leaving these creative choices up to a 'camera preset' algorithm. There is no "normal" for these parameters. It's being decided by your Rebel, the computer at Target, or you. 

Photography isn't objective reality, even in the slightest.

Photography means something like 'picture with light'. It doesn't mean truth, nor does it capture it. Last thing: Imagine shooting continuous frames of a celebrity walking down a red carpet. Go through frame by frame of their ten second walk. There will be some frames where they look fantastic. There will be some frames where they look like they have down syndrome (weird face angle, about to speak, transitory expression moment). What is real? Do we experience life as stills ever? No. Besides life being in 3D instead of 2D, it is also time based. Photography is still; Life is never frozen still. Photography is a creative artifact.


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 25, 2010)

When you take something out of context and use it or manipulate it into an image that is wholly your own.

A tree is a tree until it becomes a 2X4 in my house.


----------



## photographystudent (Oct 25, 2010)

I think photography just like everything else, grows and evolves with culture, society and technology. Photography in general has not been around for that long, i mean compared to how long humanity has been in existence, it's a short period of time.
So imagine what it will be like in another 20 years when technology has grown.

For now i think it's not fully accepted to digitally recreate an image, i think there is a lot of room for interpretation but if it ends up on photoshop disasters blog then i think it's crossed the line lol.


----------



## white (Oct 26, 2010)

Post 23 wins at life.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 26, 2010)

wow, so many opinions 
my opinion is that if you use photoshop you are CHEATING !!
I belive photography is a SKILL of being able to be at the right place, at the right time being able to capture a moment in time for what it really is !!! 
 Many people use photoshop to change the sky, to change the tones, to crop it  & many more ..... is that photography ?  noooo, that's cheating !!! 
Why should some "photographer" which uses photoshop get the same credits - fame, with an other Photographer who uses ONLY his Skills - Camera with out editing the photo ?
 Just in case you ask, No I don't use Photoshop or any kind of photo editing program on my photos.


----------



## kkamin (Oct 26, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> wow, so many opinions
> my opinion is that if you use photoshop you are CHEATING !!
> I belive photography is a SKILL of being able to be at the right place, at the right time being able to capture a moment in time for what it really is !!!
> Many people use photoshop to change the sky, to change the tones, to crop it  & many more ..... is that photography ?  noooo, that's cheating !!!
> ...



Your opinion is fine, but it doesn't make sense. If you shoot jpegs, YOUR CAMERA is applying color settings (e.g. deciding what color the sky is, image saturation levels) and deciding on your photograph's tonal values through exposure adjustments and contrast presets.

SOOC 'straight out of the camera' is not pure; you are just letting your camera decide how to handle these things, and usually its terrible. Ever see a snap shot?

If you've ever shot film, you capture information on a negative. The negative is not a finished print. You need to go to the darkroom and decide on the exposure/tones and the contrast as well as the cropping. Are you saying film photography is cheating?

Learn image processing, it has always been a part of photography since it began in 1826.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 26, 2010)

kkamin said:


> Emmanuel said:
> 
> 
> > wow, so many opinions
> ...



I get the point of what you mean, but when you see my photo, you can also see what camera & equipment I am using ( here in the forum ) and Imagine how the real eye view was by taking in consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the camera - equipment. 
 As for the sky color and all the rest, seen people edit there photos, by applying other sky's and other things by using multiple photo layers in photoshop !!  Is that fair for me who will have to wait for the exact time to get the, perfect lite I need, and all that I want in THE photo ? 
 Do people that edit there photos put a tag on there work saying it's edited on photoshop ?

Leonardo da Vinci  is famous about his paintings, he had imagination and a steady hand so that he could make perfect paintings, I bet if they had photoshop at his time, he would not be famous for his paintings, as everybody would paint (draw) perfect things.
 A believe A good photographer is the person that can take photos and sell, give, show his work right away without having to edit them on the computer.
just to finish, want to make it clear that I don't want to offend anyone, WE ARE  in a free world, and can do as we like


----------



## white (Oct 26, 2010)

Photoshop is not the devil. There is nothing to be afraid of. It is a tool.

When you put a circular polarizer over your lens you are changing the reality of the scene as you see it, and as it would have been recorded had you not used the filter.

Black and white film is highly sensitive to blue and ultraviolet wavelengths. That's why skies turn pure white on the negative and in prints. Ordinarily I shoot with a yellow filter, as that _tool_ helps produce photos closer to what I see, but sometimes for (gasp!) artistic effect, I purposely shoot without a filter knowing the sky will turn pure white. This, again, is changing the "reality" of the scene. I am now interpreting it.

Oftentimes a good crop makes an image hundreds and thousands of times better. See Newman's portrait of Stravinsky; google _Dali Atomicus_.


----------



## kkamin (Oct 26, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> A believe A good photographer is the person that can take photos and sell, give, show his work right away without having to edit them on the computer.
> just to finish, want to make it clear that I don't want to offend anyone, WE ARE  in a free world, and can do as we like



What do you mean show 'his work right away'? Again, if you are shooting jpegs, YOUR CAMERA is making color and tonal adjustments and sharpening to your images without you probably knowing it. YOUR CAMERA is doing Photoshop things to your photographs in a way. Your camera captures binary data, a series of '1's' and '0's'. It is not capturing a finished photograph.

If you shoot RAW files, you would know that your camera is capturing garbage until you process e.g., push tones around, color correct, sharpen, etc.

As much as you would like to believe you are capturing 'real life' by not processing, it just isn't true. The human eye and a camera don't see things in the same way. That's why people use lights. That's why people process photographs. That's why people use different lenses. 

You are not trying to capture a scientific record of what you see, because it is impossible. Doing something as small as changing the camera height or angle will effect a feeling of a photograph. There is no objective viewpoint. There is no objective moment of capture. Our jobs as photographers is to express what we see, with every artistic tool at our disposal.


----------



## Overread (Oct 26, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> I get the point of what you mean, but when you see my photo, you can also see what camera & equipment I am using ( here in the forum ) and Imagine how the real eye view was by taking in consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the camera - equipment.
> As for the sky color and all the rest, seen people edit there photos, by applying other sky's and other things by using multiple photo layers in photoshop !!  Is that fair for me who will have to wait for the exact time to get the, perfect lite I need, and all that I want in THE photo ?
> Do people that edit there photos put a tag on there work saying it's edited on photoshop ?



I'm not meaning this as an insult but the vast majority of people I meet who hold this and similar views tend to be those who have never got to grips with even basic use of photoshop or any other editing software. Instead the viewpoint is made up of two things (in general)

1) Fear and missunderstanding of how to use the software editing tool (often boosted by media reports of how easy it is to cheat)

2) Fear/missunderstanding that a previous past of film shooting (often colour) is in some way made invalid because now people can do stuff outside of the camera (This is often boosted because many people didn't process their colour film and instead sent it to labs - not realising that labs were making the choices).


You can do a lot in editing - you can take a photo and use only the smallest part as the component of a collage through editing - and you can take a photo and help bring the best out of it without doing much at all. Furthermore if you start to edit you'll quickly find that its not about "fixing it in editing" but it really is about capturing it perfect in the camera first - if you don't have the data in the photo to work with it takes a long time to build that missing data up in editing. A long time spent slaving away when getting it right in camera would make it a far quicker process. 

In addition its already been pointed out that your camera is making key choices for you (white balance, contrast, sharpening, noise) when you shoot in JPEG mode - sometimes it gets it right and sometimes you can make  far better result with a tiny bit of personal editing to those settings. Things that are done easily with a RAW shot in editing software outside of the camera body.

Photography is a two part process - shooting and processing - with neither part being more or less important than the other (with the exception that you can't process what you don't shoot). Cutting down on the important of one or trying to exclude it only harms the final overall image. Even if you are shooting a scientific shot and want perfect capture you'll still benefit from the correct processing of such a result.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 27, 2010)

Good morning
 seems as you all are getting a bit jumpy over the subject, and that's not good  any way .....



kkamin said:


> Emmanuel said:
> 
> 
> > A believe A good photographer is the person that can take photos and sell,
> ...


----------



## kkamin (Oct 27, 2010)

Emmanuel, if your friend is an expert at post-processing and is she able to capture great source footage from a point and shoot, then she is a good photographer imo. Why not? Is good photography owning a D-SLR? Does good photography mean fully 'manual' settings? I always thought the photographer's brain was the actual camera...how much credit can you give a brush to a painting, or Microsoft Word to a writer?

I'm not trying to pick on you but your photographs of castles are not straight. Your vertical lines are slanted. This is why tripods with levels exist, and post-processing straightening tools exist. It might not seem like a big deal, but this is a good example of how our eyes are different from a camera. 

As an exercise, focus on some straight lines, like the corner of a room, and then tilt your head side to side. If you stay within a reasonable radius, the vertical lines in your field of view will not change. The world remains straight up and down and does not seem to tilt when your head tilts. This is your brain preventing you from throwing up every time you tilt your head. Look UP at tall buildings in a city. If you are at a reasonable distance, they vertical lines will seem to be more or less parallel. Take a photo of the same thing and they will be converging lines. Same principal. Architectural basics is to shoot with a level camera and avoid keystoning or our brains will find something not quite right with the image (I'm only talking about 'straight forward' arch shots).

You could also see more detail in the shadows of the castle with your actual eyes. So I don't think this is what you 'actually saw'. Your camera makes light things lighter and dark things darker than they actually are. It is a creative choice that you left the images so contrasty.


----------



## Overread (Oct 27, 2010)

Emmanuel I might be missing it but I haven't seen people getting argumentative at you - they are debating your point because several people (myself included) do not agree with your view point and approach. 

The thing is you example and your latter wording is showing exactly what I mentioned before - you're "fearing" photoshop - heck no photoshop isn't the only editing software out there you're fearing any form of editing from paintshop pro to GIMP to elements etc... The other thing is that you're picking at the more extreme examples to show you point and processing photos isn't all about that. Using editing software doesn't mean you have to cheat and sometimes its the only way to show a scene that you eyes saw.

Consider the following examples: 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

In that example I've managed to use the photo data that I captured from the correct shot taken in camera in order to show more than the in-camera processing on a JPEG could show. I haven't "cheated" and used something from another shot nor have I tried to push things beyond what were there are the time. What I have done however is taken a limitation of the camera (in this case dynamic range in a single shot) and pulled enough data out of that correct first shot in order to better present the final shot.
Could I have lit it better - sure but my subject would not sit still long enough for me to light the shot any better. These are real world limitations imposed on us and I've no problem with using those methods to pull better out. 

Here's another shot where I used the very same method: 
IMG_1699m | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
In that shot the sky was far to blown in a single shot, yet the camera did capture those details in the sky. In order to show those details however I had to process the shot twice again and then merge the results to show both the details in the sky and the ground. I could have used a filter to try and get it all in one shot but I lack owning a filter - furthermore filters give a gradient change in a straight line - great for a seascape, but a nightmare if you have trees/buildings appearing in the middle of the sky. 

Or what about this method: (read further down for the examples) 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/127146-stacked-flower-shot.html
which attempts to again show more truly what my eyes saw, but which the camera is incapable of achieving. Sure there are compositions and angles you can choose to shoot from that would mean that you don't need to use this method, but for the times when I need it I enjoy being able to bring out those details and shape with this method even if it does mean using more than a single shot.




In the end we aren't trying to fight you, but we are tyring to show you that editing isn't the great evil that you are making it out to be. Furthermore there are some outstanding photographers who do just use only a selection of editing methods:
No Cropping Zone
The key thing being that they do at least understand that editing isn't a lie or something to be feared and that things like dustspots on the sensor - noise - sharpening - colour correctness etc... are things they can impose control over the perfect in camera shot.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 27, 2010)

Photography is graphic design after the 433rd thread asking this question is posted.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 27, 2010)

> Emmanuel, if your friend is an expert at post-processing and is she able to capture great source footage from a point and shoot, then she is a good photographer imo. Why not? Is good photography owning a D-SLR? Does good photography mean fully 'manual' settings? I always thought the photographer's brain was the actual camera...how much credit can you give a brush to a painting, or Microsoft Word to a writer?




Well to be honest, she admits being a graphic designer, and calls her work as "Images" 
not photographs. Leonardo da Vinci Painting of "Mona Lisa" it's her portrait, but called a painting and not a photo.


> Leonardo da Vinci is famous about his paintings, he had imagination and a steady hand so that he could make perfect paintings,
> I bet if they had photoshop at his time, he would not be famous for his paintings, as everybody would paint (draw) perfect things.



Why didn't anybody make any comments on that, everybody passed by it as thy agree !!!



> I'm not trying to pick on you but your photographs of castles are not straight.
> Your vertical lines are slanted. This is why tripods with levels exist, and post-processing straightening tools exist.
> It might not seem like a big deal, but this is a good example of how our eyes are different from a camera.



thanks for the comment, I am not taking it as an insult or you picking on me, I know the photo is not straight, as I didn't
 have my tripod with me and had to use what was around me, wall, bench ......
the reason though I did put the photos up is because I had problems with focus, it was very dark and AF could not work, 
and MF was very hard to get a subject to focus on, and was expecting people to comment on it and get some pointers 
on what to do on those situations, isn't that one of the reasons the forum exists ? or is it just to show off your best work ?



> The thing is you example and your latter wording is showing exactly what I mentioned before - you're "fearing" photoshop - heck no photoshop isn't the only editing software out there you're fearing any form of editing from paintshop pro to GIMP
> to elements etc... The other thing is that you're picking at the more extreme examples to show you point and processing photos isn't all about that. Using editing software doesn't mean you have to cheat and sometimes its the only way to show a scene that you eyes saw.



I am aware of all the editing programs, and just referring to photoshop, to avoid typing them all ( hope you understand what I mean) By picking at the more extreme examples, is to show you that once a photo is taken, and put into a editing program, nobody except 
the creator knows how it originally looked, and I prefer to call that kind of work an "Image" and not a photograph.
You mentioned a few examples



> Consider the following examples:
> Tricks to using RAW - don't burn the results!
> 
> Here's another shot where I used the very same method:
> ...



you did good work on those images, and what I like - respect the most, is that you admit how you made them !!

Did you not like my image of the moon and the trees ? 
the moon is the August full moon, and the trees where taken last month.put together in photo shop and got it nice  
and the main point is that once your in the photoshop, there are no "limitations" on what you can do
to a photo.



> you are a Photographer, spent time reading and going to classes, in order to know what to use and how to take the right photo.I have never been to photograph classes , but just because of SC5 "I look like a pro"
> *Is that fair for you ?*
> I met a girl this summer, her Job is a graphic designer, She has no Idea on how to use a SLR, she only has a 10Mpix compact camera !!!! Her work though looks like a professional photographer, because of photo shop, and all the other editing programs she uses.
> *Is that fair for you ?*
> ...



I think it's just cheating, cheating is just something that can't stop in our life today, everybody does it and nobody cares !!

*but is it fair ? ? ?*


----------



## Overread (Oct 27, 2010)

You forget two key points

1) Photoshop has been out for decades and we still have fantastic artists drawing with pencil, pen, paint and more. Just because one can work in a different medium (ie digital) does not diminish the quality of art produced by other formats. 

2) Most of photoshop was possible in the darkroom with film - infact many of the processes are direct ports of darkroom methods. Dodging and blurring even cut and paste work like you did with the moon and the trees could be done under the red haze light of a darkroom. Once in the darkroom there is no limits save how long you can stand the chemical smell 

The difference today is that photoshop is cheaper and quicker than the darkroom and uses electronics rather than chemicals.

Your point that one can lie with the editing software is also missing the point that with the right tools I can lie with the camera alone. Modify and control a scene - even the act of framing a shot with the camera can give a very different feel and suggestion to the viewer as to what I am trying to show. 
As for your point on "is it fair" is what fair? That someone with different skills produces a decent product and gets paid for it? Remember paid work isn't always the best, but its work that someone does for a fee that is to a standard that the employer wants - heck many of THE best artists were dirt poor in their time or were just hobbysits.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 27, 2010)

Overread said:


> You forget two key points
> 
> 1) Photoshop has been out for decades and we still have fantastic artists drawing with pencil, pen, paint and more. Just because one can work in a different medium (ie digital) does not diminish the quality of art produced by other formats.
> 
> 2) Most of photoshop was possible in the darkroom with film - infact many of the processes are direct ports of darkroom methods. Dodging and blurring even cut and paste work like you did with the moon and the trees could be done under the red haze light of a darkroom. Once in the darkroom there is no limits save how long you can stand the chemical smell



yes I did not wright many things ( had my son pressing buttons on my key board, and deleteing all I had typed, about 5 times ) anyway ......
 you are right about the dark room, but you have to consider that dark rooms only existed in photographers work place, and they were specialized on how to do there work,wich means only He could be titled as a photographer,   today there is a "dark room" (editing program ) on every computer, just by playing around with the tools you get to know how to use the program, and make perfect images, Does that make everybody a photographer ? If yes, then the profession of a photographer should stop, and let everybody make there own photos. 

this conversation can go on for ages, just like the one with the chicken  and the egg ( who came first)  I have said my opinion, and hope to managed to make it clear enough to understand , As you did with your opinion.


Following the flow of technology doesn't mean that it's the best thing for human kind.


----------



## Overread (Oct 27, 2010)

You've confused me now and it seems that your lamenting the death of the professional photographer and saying that its the result of easier access to editing facilities - strange as most take the line that its the commercialisation and massive move by manufacturers to put pro end gear in the commercial sector of the market. 

I still don't understand your aversion to considering editing wholey as you seem to be against it (as far as I can tell) because some people could use it to (in your view) cheat with photographs. 
However one could say that in the right hands anything can be abused to any lengths yet we still use those tools. I can build a terrible series of torture devises with hammer, nails wood and saw, but I don't and I still use those tools to perform jobs when needed. The same is true of photoshop. Use it for what you want to improve your work as far as needed and don't worry about what anyone else is doing


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 27, 2010)

Overread said:


> You've confused me now and it seems that your lamenting the death of the professional photographer and saying that its the result of easier access to editing facilities - strange as most take the line that its the commercialisation and massive move by manufacturers to put pro end gear in the commercial sector of the market.



is it not true ?
I have been talking to a friend of mine who owns a photo studio - shop, and he admits that the profession is dieing, the only income he makes is just by things he sells, batteries, cameras, ......  nobody uses Film anymore, many photo studios have closed. and all because everybody is going Digital !!!!
Last summer the company I work for, hosted parties and concerts, my manager asked me to make the photo coverage for it ( for free, during work) so they don't get a photographer. is that not the begging of  the professional photographer  death ?



> I still don't understand your aversion to considering editing wholey as  you seem to be against it (as far as I can tell) because some people  could use it to (in your view) cheat with photographs.
> However one could say that in the right hands anything can be abused to  any lengths yet we still use those tools. I can build a terrible series  of torture devises with hammer, nails wood and saw, but I don't and I  still use those tools to perform jobs when needed. The same is true of  photoshop. Use it for what you want to improve your work as far as  needed and don't worry about what anyone else is doing



just going to make it Quick :
I believe, it would of been more professional for me to wait in front of the trees and take the photo of the full moon in August, rather than just making a image in photoshop cs5 of what I believe it would of looked like that night.

As for which way all others make there photos, I am really not bothered, it's just that I believe it would be better to try and make it perfect with out the computer. 
   the end :thumbup:
nice aviator you got there


----------



## kkamin (Oct 27, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> yes I did not wright many things ( had my son pressing buttons on my key board, and deleteing all I had typed, about 5 times ) anyway ......
> you are right about the dark room, but you have to consider that dark rooms only existed in photographers work place, and they were specialized on how to do there work,wich means only He could be titled as a photographer,   today there is a "dark room" (editing program ) on every computer, just by playing around with the tools you get to know how to use the program, and make perfect images, Does that make everybody a photographer ? If yes, then the profession of a photographer should stop, and let everybody make there own photos.



I don't think Photoshop is easy. To use Photoshop well is very, very difficult--it takes years of practice and talent. Just because image editing software is easily available doesn't mean people are good with it. Does owning Microsoft Word make people automatic novelists? No. 

I've been using Photoshop for eleven years. I have a BFA from art school. I've spent thousands of hours inside Photoshop. I use Photoshop for work. I still only know a fraction of what the program can do. 

Having Photoshop doesn't allow people to make perfect images. You need to start with a great image to really get anywhere worth going. Despite what many people think, an expensive camera will not make a good photographer. And despite what you think, Photoshop will not make good photographs. Good photography comes from the vision and talent of the photographer. They could be using a $30,000 Hasselblad or a $7 disposable camera and figure out how to capture an engaging and compelling photograph.

For inspiration take a look at:
Browse the Book :: AtEdge

This is a collection of the United States best, avant garde Advertising photographers. This is amazing photography. A lot of it could be considered fine art. 
Everything in print today goes through Photoshop. Everything printed at the above link went through Photoshop. Are they cheating? Are they not making photographs?


----------



## davisphotos (Oct 27, 2010)

I am a graphic designer as well as a photographer, so I always consider my images as graphic design-I strive for a strong graphic element. 
If the post work is strong and adds to this photographer's own vision, there isn't really a problem with that. This is like going back to the era of the f64 group and the debate between the romanticized, soft focus, colorized photos that were popular of the time, and the sharp, 'realistic' photographs of Adams, Weston, etc.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 28, 2010)

> Good photography comes from the vision and talent of the photographer.  They could be using a $30,000 Hasselblad or a $7 disposable camera and  figure out how to capture an engaging and compelling photograph.



very nicely said, must agree with 100%

as for usage of photoShop, don't be so sure about it, I know plenty of people that use photosShop very well more than 50% of it's compatibilities, just by watching tutorials  on U-tube and practicing on work time  
not me thogh, I just know the basics as I don't need it for anything more than that.



davisphotos said:


> I am a graphic designer as well as a  photographer, so I always consider my images as graphic design-I strive  for a strong graphic element.
> If the post work is strong and adds to this photographer's own vision,  there isn't really a problem with that. This is like going back to the  era of the f64 group and the debate between the romanticized, soft  focus, colorized photos that were popular of the time, and the sharp,  'realistic' photographs of Adams, Weston, etc.



Hi davisphotos
 hope you where not offended in any way in all that was written till now. Just want to add that I don't have anything against you "graphic designes" for the simple reason that you state your profesion as graphic designer and don't pretend that all your work was done just by the camera.


----------



## abraxas (Oct 28, 2010)

It's somewhat entertaining to skim through a thread like this occasionally.  It helps me realize that whatever it is I do with a camera and my images isn't being done while I'm reading about splitting hairs, drawing lines in the sand, defining definitions, making rules, spitfighting and other **** that absolutely doesn't matter, I'm not doing what I like to do, which is expressing myself through creative photography.


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> just by watching tutorials  on U-tube and practicing on work time



Is it bad that that is how I've learnt most of my photography (if you add in reading forums from time to time too)? :blushing:


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 28, 2010)

Overread said:


> Emmanuel said:
> 
> 
> > just by watching tutorials  on U-tube and practicing on work time
> ...




No Overread, it's not bad if you do it on your free time, but it is if you do it wile you being paid to work and do something else........


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 28, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Emmanuel said:
> ...



Emmanuel, sorry, but your arguments make not the slightest bit of sense and that is showing in the fact that you have now totally veered off the subject. Although I totally agree that people should work when they are at work (my employees do, lol), that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

You seem to be so stuck in this fantasy of yours that you cannot realize how incredible what you are saying is. By your definition of real/fake photography, photography is fake right from the get go since it had to be treated in the/a darkroom. But that's ok because there was nothing but fake photography until digital came along since we didn't just connect our film cameras to the computer and post our images/photos for the world to see.

What would you have done in the film days? I guess you could not have been a photographer since every film out there had to go through a darkroom. Even transparency films (the closest to your totally skewed vision) had to be processed.

By the way, I had a darkroom when I was 14. I was hardly a pro and I was hardly the only non-pro with a darkroom.

It is fine to want to do as little darkroom/PS work as possible. I agree with that. The better you shoot, the less time you have to spend in the darkroom, digital or analog. the darkroom is not here to fix problems, it is here to enhance the great work you have done in camera.

Do some people abuse the darkroom? No. Because photography is an art and in art everything goes. Who made you god?

Get over yourself. Live by your rules if you will but don't tell others how to live.


----------



## Emmanuel (Oct 28, 2010)

> Emmanuel, sorry, but your arguments make not the slightest bit of sense  and that is showing in the fact that you have now totally veered off the  subject. Although I totally agree that people should work when they are  at work (my employees do, lol), that has nothing to do with the subject  of this thread.



yes I know it's off the topic, was there just to put a laugh in. hope I didn't offend your employees if there are watching u-tube while you are away 

as for 


> Get over yourself. Live by your rules if you will but don't tell others how to live.



I am living with my rules and not telling anyone else how to live, or what to do !!
 Aren't forums for saying peoples opinions and ideas ? 
as for you having a Dark room, at the age of 14, good for you, that gives me the impression, that you really do know the difference between analog and digital, and also know if you can edit a color photo, in the dark room just as you can on the computer. I never had a dark room, but have been using analog SLR's since 1987  and seen differences.

that is my opinion, anything wrong with that ?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 28, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> > Emmanuel, sorry, but your arguments make not the slightest bit of sense  and that is showing in the fact that you have now totally veered off the  subject. Although I totally agree that people should work when they are  at work (my employees do, lol), that has nothing to do with the subject  of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> yes I know it's off the topic, was there just to put a laugh in.



Sure. Because it is easier to make a joke than to deal with reality.

Name one (1) well known photographer who does not process his/her photos and we'll talk again. In the meantime, keep making jokes.


----------



## white (Oct 28, 2010)

abraxas said:


> It's somewhat entertaining to skim through a thread like this occasionally.  It helps me realize that whatever it is I do with a camera and my images isn't being done while I'm reading about splitting hairs, drawing lines in the sand, defining definitions, making rules, spitfighting and other **** that absolutely doesn't matter, I'm not doing what I like to do, which is expressing myself through creative photography.


Cue the artist on his high horse.

Right on time, my good sir.


----------



## kkamin (Oct 28, 2010)

abraxas said:


> It's somewhat entertaining to skim through a thread like this occasionally.  It helps me realize that whatever it is I do with a camera and my images isn't being done while I'm reading about splitting hairs, drawing lines in the sand, defining definitions, making rules, spitfighting and other **** that absolutely doesn't matter, I'm not doing what I like to do, which is expressing myself through creative photography.



I think the discussion at hand is important. I think a lot of people feel like Emmanuel, people who haven't really come to terms with the reality of photography. It's all fake and an "unnatural" mechanical or digital process.

Abraxas, for someone with 9,000+ posts, I don't think you should put others down for being engaged in a debate.  

High horse indeed? :lmao:


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 29, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> > Emmanuel, if your friend is an expert at post-processing and is she able to capture great source footage from a point and shoot, then she is a good photographer imo. Why not? Is good photography owning a D-SLR? Does good photography mean fully 'manual' settings? I always thought the photographer's brain was the actual camera...how much credit can you give a brush to a painting, or Microsoft Word to a writer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Some things just can't be done in the camera, but it's still phtoography. If you try and argue otherwise, I'll think you're an imbecile and lose all respect I never had for you.

So, how could you have done this shot totally in camera?


----------



## abraxas (Oct 29, 2010)

white said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> > It's somewhat entertaining to skim through a thread like this occasionally.  It helps me realize that whatever it is I do with a camera and my images isn't being done while I'm reading about splitting hairs, drawing lines in the sand, defining definitions, making rules, spitfighting and other **** that absolutely doesn't matter, I'm not doing what I like to do, which is expressing myself through creative photography.
> ...



Entertaining, yes?



kkamin said:


> ...
> 
> I think the discussion at hand is important. I think a lot of people feel like Emmanuel, people who haven't really come to terms with the reality of photography. It's all fake and an "unnatural" mechanical or digital process.
> 
> ...



Briefly:
Word association.  

--
The discussion may be important to those who haven't been though it, but if I can stir things up by making a provocative statement, how cool is that? I didn't think anyone read my posts.


----------



## kkamin (Oct 29, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> as for you having a Dark room, at the age of 14, good for you, that gives me the impression, that you really do know the difference between analog and digital, and also know if you can edit a color photo, in the dark room just as you can on the computer. I never had a dark room, but have been using analog SLR's since 1987  and seen differences.
> 
> that is my opinion, anything wrong with that ?



I think I'm beating a dead horse, but this is evidence of such a flawed argument.

You never had a darkroom but you shoot film. That means SOMEONE ELSE is doing image processing to your photos!!! When you take your film to a lab to make prints, a person or a computer is determining your exposure, contrast, color and CROPPING! Do you think labs print your images full frame..without cropping? Does a 4x6 or 5x7 or 8x10 have the same aspect ratio? NO, THEY ARE CUTTING OFF SOME OF YOUR PICTURE! CROPPING!

Do what you want Emmauel, and believe whatever nonsense you want. But you've constructed a very simplistic fantasy for yourself that holds no bearing to the realities of photography. 

My final thoughts is to go find a darkroom class somewhere and take some of your film negatives to print. I guarantee your mind will be blown once you realize how much power is in processing and how subjective of a process it really is.


----------

