# I post process therefore I can't take a good photo.



## Garbz (Dec 27, 2008)

Sorry but I have to vent. When did post processing become a synonym for correcting a mistake or polishing a turd? When did it change from what it really is which is finishing the damn picture.  I am sure I am not alone in that I polish off my photos in a RAW processor when I finish shooting but every so often I see posts on this forum where the sheer naivety amazes me.

Currently there's a thread in the Digital forum where someone asked the common question of ''how much post processing...'' and as predictable there was a reply telling the OP to get it right in the camera.

I am sorry but did Sony or some other company release a camera which does customisable USM in camera? What about dodging and burning? Selective and adjustable tone control? My Nikon does none of this.

What gives.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 27, 2008)

Keep in mind that those posters are Digital Babies.  They never set a foot in a darkroom unless it was their kitchen at 3am to get a snack and not let the wife or husband know. 

They have no clue that back in the film days post processing occurred when they sent their film off to the lab, be it a high quality lab or the one used by Walmart.  Terms like dodge or burn are unknown so they don't understand that everything was post processed, just by someone else.  

Most probably don't even realize that if they shoot in .jpg that the camera manufacturer has set the camera up to do post processing in camera.  Otherwise there wouldn't be the questions about RAW that are all the time popping up. 

Keep in mind that part of the problem is that the last couple of generations were raised on TV and video games.  They are not used to the old fashion method of RTFM or other materials.  They are used to turning on a box and having the info handed to them.  Unfortunately there is no Nikon or Canon Channel.  They just want to pick it up and go.  While that may be fine for a video game, it doesn't work so well for a camera.  If only Canon or Nikon would put cheat's in their cameras so you could type in a code and get Ansel Adams mode. :lmao:


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> When did post processing become a synonym for correcting a mistake or polishing a turd?



I know what you mean.  I recently had someone ask me if those colors "are real or made in Photoshop?"  I answered "Both."  They were made in Photoshop, as there is no such thing as a "true color" photo process, yet I feel that were the viewer to stand where I was standing that day, under similar lighting, they would see that my colors were fairly accurate to reality.  Although that's no guarantee that if they were to try and take the same photo themselves that their colors would turn out as nice as mine, particularly if they don't understand processing.

Some of the contact printers of the late 19th century claimed that photogs who "fixed it in the darkroom" weren't good enough photographers.  After WWI the automated processing and printing of film was so common that several generations of photographers have grown up thinking that photos are created with the push of a button, and all the magic occurs in camera (tiny magic elves).

My opinion is that the photographer wants to take pride in the creation of the photo, yet if they credit over half the work to lab techs it sort of lessens it.  It's easier on the ego to pretend that processing isn't important or that it's some sort of trick.

Don't worry about it.  The photographers who have understood the importance of processing, whether they do it themselves or hire skilled lab techs to take care of it, have almost always ended up with better photos than those who disregard what happens after the exposure is made.  

It's like people saying "Great photo, you must have a nice camera."  What can you do?  Photography is considered a pud art:  anyone can do it.

One thing we can do is to stop calling it "post processing".  All processing is post exposure processing.  Get rid of the "post" and call it what it is:  processing.  And while we're at it stop using the term "crop factor".  If we all stop using it maybe it will go away, and we can just go back to discussing different formats like the last 150 years.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> ...did Sony or some other company release a camera which does customisable USM in camera? What about dodging and burning? Selective and adjustable tone control? My Nikon does none of this.



Soon we will have this.  We will be able to replace camera manufacturer processing software with Adobe (or whoever) processing software.  We'll be able to upload our favorite Lightroom presets into our camera.

Even so this still won't change the fact that processing is vital.  It just changes the physical location of where it occurs.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 27, 2008)

If you're going for a realistic and natural look, I think it's best to get it as right as possible in the camera so that you spend less time dicking around on your computer and more time getting out to get great photos.

Most of my processing is minimal, usually involving only contrast, saturation and tone tweaking.  I'll also rotate and crop if I feel I didn't get it quite right.

Post processing can correct small technical mistakes and emphasize certain aspects of a photo, but it's not going to make a good result out of a shot with lousy composition, lighting, balance, gesture, etc.

Wasn't the dark room full of "post processing" equipment before digital sensors were ever invented?


----------



## Arch (Dec 27, 2008)

Im never just 'fixing mistakes', im creating the image i want.

I couldn't agree more with the OP... so many times i see good photographers with years of experience preaching only about how PP can correct mistakes but by 'getting it right' in camera should minimise PP... i mean, for what? Certainly not for the type of work i produce.

I spend time with my PPing.. for me its part of the whole process of creating an image. Of course, according to Mr. Rockwell people like me are 'Tweekers' or someone who just like to 'twidde' with my images. (/facepalm).


----------



## LaFoto (Dec 27, 2008)

I keep explaining and explaining more to people that when I work on a photo in Photoshop I'm not "fixing errors" or making amends for things that went wrong. OK, I still manage to create slanting horizons and I do "fix" those, but my dad did the same in the darkroom when he put the paper for the print onto the table at a slant so the horizon would then look right! And he dodged and burnt, too, I witnessed that!

I understand processing in Photoshop as "making my photo more mine". Which says the very same Arch said: "it is the whole process of creating an image", I emphasise it and say "*my* image". Since I'm not SUCH a photoshop whizz, my work is usually short and quick, and photos that have technical errors will simply get deleted, as no Photoshop can make THAT go away! 

But when I feel that the image as it FIRST shows on the computer does not represent what I want to "say" with my photo, then I work on it further, so that in the end it is as close to the photo *I* wanted to create as possible. No more. No less.

So Garbz: I hear you!

(And I once more bit my tongue a little when I gave someone his photos - photographed him during his own potato harvest, he's a farmer - as a present and his farm aid said "With a camera like that photos must be this good" ... I never replied, just smiled ... and thought my thoughts).


----------



## saycheese76 (Dec 27, 2008)

Arch said:


> Of course, according to Mr. Rockwell people like me are 'Tweekers' or someone who just like to 'twidde' with my images. (/facepalm).


You and Ansel Adams both.  You are in good company.  Even trying to get just a decent print in the darkroom, you have to spend a pretty good chunk of time.  By that guy's logic, anything underexposed or overexposed is tweaking.  Or shot with a filter.  Or cropped.


----------



## Battou (Dec 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Sorry but I have to vent. When did post processing become a synonym for correcting a mistake or polishing a turd? When did it change from what it really is which is finishing the damn picture.  I am sure I am not alone in that I polish off my photos in a RAW processor when I finish shooting but every so often I see posts on this forum where the sheer naivety amazes me.
> 
> Currently there's a thread in the Digital forum where someone asked the common question of ''how much post processing...'' and as predictable there was a reply telling the OP to get it right in the camera.
> 
> ...



Well, My nikon does not either, nore my Canon, Pentax, Olympus or even my Kodak, but what's it matter, I don't care who you are you don't need the camera to do that sht. 

Back to the initial subject, To be honest with you I'm one of those people who will tell beginners to get it right in the camera. There are many reasons for this, One major one is the simple fact that anyone with more than a year experience in post processing film or digital already knows, One can not "fix" a shitty photo with post processing. We know this, newbies do not so may as well not let them get into the mind set that Photoshop can fix anything. Another major one is photoshop it self. I create digital illustration work and yet I can not figure out photoshop to save my life. I personally feel that a person who is just trying to learn how to use their camera is not ready to take on learning Photoshop simultaniously. Mayas well tell them to get it right in the cameras and minimize the photoshop needs to the more smple easy to use functions like USM, brightness/contrast and whatnot. 

Long story short, get them into the mind set to take good photos then post process to great, not take junk and try to make it acceptable.


----------



## pm63 (Dec 27, 2008)

I've also come across this attitude. Many people, especially laypeople and non-photographers or at least people new to photography don't realise that processing is for minor improving tweaks such as contrast, levels, curves, etc, and that it doesn't totally transform a photo. They think that for you to have had to process it, it had to be rubbish in the first place and needed fixing. People don't realise that EVERY professional photo they see these days, in newspapers or magazines, is processed in some way, and God help them if they ever found out the lengths to which retouchers for beauty and glamour magazines go to!

In fact, I think there's a very strong argument to be made for saying that it is less fair NOT to process a shot than it is to process one. Photos out of the camera never come out as the eye sees them. Often, we need localised adjustments to draw attention to the focal points in a photo rather than giving all elements equal attention (think vingettes or localised boosts in exposure). By processing, we are giving the shot the imact the scene had in real life.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 27, 2008)

epp_b said:


> If you're going for a realistic and natural look, I think it's best to get it as right as possible in the camera so that you spend less time dicking around on your computer and more time getting out to get great photos.


Once again, I find myself disagreeing with you. Sorry, I don't have anything against you, really! 

You can get a photo as right as you possibly can in camera, but that doesn't mean it will be the most accurate depiction of what you saw.  Even an expertly captured photograph won't necessarily have the same feeling as the real scene. That's not the photographer's fault; the machines we use for capturing images are just simple machines. Increasing or decreasing saturation or subtle vignetting or dodging is sometimes what's needed to make an image appear more "realistic and natural" according to how it should feel.


----------



## keith204 (Dec 27, 2008)

Battou said:


> Long story short, get them into the mind set to take good photos then post process to great, not take junk and try to make it acceptable.



Ah :thumbup:


----------



## mrodgers (Dec 27, 2008)

I've mentioned it before on this forum.  Start making the change from calling it "editing" or "post processing" to calling it "digital developing" or just simply "developing".


----------



## LaFoto (Dec 27, 2008)

pm63 said:


> ...it is less fair NOT to process a shot than it is to process one...


 
Quite some truth in this ... or have you ever sat through a "let me show you my holiday pics-session" with someone who happily dumps the entire contents of their camera on you, no matter which photos would actually need to be binned and which sorely cry out for some (and if only SOME!) work? It is a CHALLENGE, I tell you!

And I say, "post processing" begins with weeding out ones photos and making choices on which ones are for showing and which ones are not! That is the first step.

Other than that, I do agree with Battou, of course, in so far as yes, you at best take a GOOD photo to BEGIN with, for no software CAN make a faulty photo perfect. This is NOT what it does! So learn your "grammar", and learn the "basic words" plus some or many more ... and THEN start "writing your story", i.e. give your photography the necessary basis or foundation on which it can stand first.


----------



## Joves (Dec 27, 2008)

While I dont develop all of my photos I do some. Some of mine do actually come out as shot. I do find though that there are some who think that PP will make a silk purse from a sows ear. Thats where I have a problem with the whole PP debate. Novices think they can PP anything out when they get the advice to do it from experienced people. Im in the camp of trying to get it right in camera first and, PP second if it doesnt quite work out.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 27, 2008)

For me "getting it right in camera" doesn't mean the photo will come out of the camera looking like it's supposed to as the finished print.  Whether I'm shooting film or digital, getting it right in camera means creating a neg or file that has the most processing potential.  

For instance I don't want nice, contrasty negs that would look good contact printed.  Those can be a pain in the ass to enlarge; I always seemed to get better results increasing contrast during printing than trying to decrease it.  I want a nice, low contrast neg, and then I can control contrast with filters.

The same with digital.  I "expose to the right" so my raw files come out of the camera looking overexposed, but after processing they look great and have a lot less noise.

A photo is a progression of steps:  idea, subject, lighting, exposure, processing, and printing.  Choke anywhere along the line and the results will be lessened.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 28, 2008)

I knew this would be preaching to the converted. All the sensible people who know what they are doing and also display some very nice works here on this forum are posting. What an agreeathon 



ksmattfish said:


> Soon we will have this.


Actually it occurred to me we do have this. Nikon already allows custom RAW curves to be uploaded to the camera. Don't see the point though, if the curve needs to be custom its highly unreasonable to predict the scene beforehand.



Arch said:


> Im never just 'fixing mistakes', im creating the image i want.





LaFoto said:


> I understand processing in Photoshop as "making my photo more mine". Which says the very same Arch said: "it is the whole process of creating an image", I emphasise it and say "*my* image".



Truer words have never been spoken.



Battou said:


> Back to the initial subject, To be honest with you I'm one of those people who will tell beginners to get it right in the camera.



Yeah Battou but I have never seen you tell someone to get it right in camera with the context of "so you do not need to process it afterwards". The two are distinctly different parts of photography, and there's only so much you can fix in processing anyway if you foul up the shot.


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2008)

It is necessary to have a good shot in the first place before considering postprocessing. I think we have all seen on this site: "How do I fix this photo in postprocessing?" where the answer really is throw it out and spend more time learning how to take a good shot. So it is indeed impossible to get it "right" in camera, but it is necessary to have something of reasonable quality to work with.

The one thing that most forget is that it is necessary to have a good eye in order to postprocess with any skill. That "good eye" is dependant on some inbred artistic talent for some and on experience for others. A combination of a little of both is probably the case for many successful enthusiasts or pros. Without a "good eye" for technical details and composition, it becomes impossible to spot what needs to be done in postprocessing and how much is too much, in that the result becomes very artificial looking.

I think also that there is rationalization going on from some enthusiasts and pros to cover up their lack of skill and know-how in postprocessing.
The attitude that after postprocessing, it is no longer a "real" photo.
The notion that because the colours are vibrant, that they must have been enhanced in Photoshop. The cliché comment: "Well, that is a great shot, but I would like to see the original". 

Rationalizations\excuses for no postprocessing go really "off-the-wall", when it comes to portraiture. I have probably seen a considerable number of models made to appear ugly through a combination of poor shooting and absolutely no postprocessing.

skieur


----------



## fwellers (Dec 28, 2008)

My goal is to get better with the Camera so I have less or even no post processing to do for most pics.
If I take a lot of pics at a family event or something, it's too much of a pain to pp them on my slow computer. 
So, I'm getting slowly better at learning my camera and being able to go to the proper wb, exposure settings etc...
Of course if I were ever to do something really nice and worthy ( someday ), I would probably post process it very carefully.

The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality. There is just too much that can be done with pp to believe or rely on anything anymore.  In that one respect I don't like it. I wish there were a way you can tell if a pic is 'real' or not.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 28, 2008)

fwellers said:


> The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see *anymore*, necessarily reflect reality.



If I were home I'd source an image from 1957 of a swimmer about 10cm tall sunbathing on a frozen pond from one of my Time Life photography books. Pictures haven't necessarily reflected reality since the invention of the darkroom.


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2008)

fwellers said:


> My goal is to get better with the Camera so I have less or even no post processing to do for most pics.
> If I take a lot of pics at a family event or something, it's too much of a pain to pp them on my slow computer.
> So, I'm getting slowly better at learning my camera and being able to go to the proper wb, exposure settings etc...
> Of course if I were ever to do something really nice and worthy ( someday ), I would probably post process it very carefully.
> ...


 
As has been indicated above your goal is impossible, since postprocessing is necessary on all photos if your intention is to try and make them "real".

All photos are a "representation" of reality.  The intention of photography has never been to accurately duplicate reality since it is not possible.  The photographer is distorting reality by framing one small part of it in the viewfinder and excluding everything else.  Then there is the distortion of perspective by lenses, colour inaccuracies, detail and contrast that don't match the scene, selective focus and depth of field, etc.  

No picture is "real" and anyone who thinks otherwise does not really understand the technology and capability of photography.

skieur


----------



## LaFoto (Dec 28, 2008)

More so, the way in which one particular photographer decided to frame "the world" represents also that self same photographer's INTERPRETATION of the world. It is HIS/HER photo, it is not _reality_.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 28, 2008)

Garbz may correct me or at least disagree with me on this, but I think that we have taken a bit of _"a left turn at Albuquerque_" to quote a wascally wabbit friend of mine.  Getting it right in the camera and post processing are two totally separate issues.

Getting it right in the camera, means just that.  Getting the exposure exactly right in terms of what you are wanting artistically.  The combination of ISO shutter speed, aperture, focus, and composition for your vision.  When you have achieved that, you "Got it right" in the camera.  

Post processing is the assembly of that vision.  I live in the "Air Capital of the World."  Well that's what it says on the city limits signs at least.  The machinist strives to "get it right" when they machine a part for the 747.  That doesn't make the 747 though when he is done at his machine.  The post processing there is the assembly of that part with a host of others to create that final 747.  

Post processing a photograph is the final assembly of that photo with the tools at hand.  For the wedding photographer, does the bride really want that zit on the right side of their nose showing, or do you post process it out and help that bride have their dream day?  Same for the fashion/portrait photographer.  Do you give them or the client the stark reality of the photo or do you give them the vision that they see?  I know what you do if you want to stay in business.  

The first color photograph was taken in 1861.  Color film didn't come along for the 35mm until 1936.  Have you ever seen a photograph taken between that time or even after that was hand tinted.  It was a popular and expensive process in it's day. A post process that, at least to me, does not devalue the artistic nor historic value of the photograph. Back then it was done with a brush, now it's done in photoshop.  

For some post processing may mean trying to rescue a photo from the error or errors made when taking the photo.  That is part of the package as well. But any attempt to correct a serious error can be spotted easily.  If it makes a better photograph for the taker then again they have at least come closer to their vision. 

There are only two groups that I find to be "photographic purists."  The uninformed that don't possess the knowledge to understand the part processing plays in photography and the one group that should be in part purists, being the photojournalists.  Even then a bit of post processing is acceptable for publication in terms of contrasts, color correction etc.  As long as the photo still represents what was captured.  

As for Garbz and his rant.  Hope you fell better. :thumbup: Sometimes a good rant can lower blood preasure and just make the day go a little better.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 28, 2008)

fwellers said:


> My goal is to get better with the Camera so I have less or even no post processing to do for most pics.
> If I take a lot of pics at a family event or something, it's too much of a pain to pp them on my slow computer.
> So, I'm getting slowly better at learning my camera and being able to go to the proper wb, exposure settings etc...
> Of course if I were ever to do something really nice and worthy ( someday ), I would probably post process it very carefully.
> ...



Reality is a state of mind.  There has never been a time in photography when the photograph depicted true reality.  Little story I don't often tell.  In 1972 while in high school I had a little "darkroom fun."  I worked for a fashion/portrait photographer in the large city I was living in. 

I thought one day that it would be funny to take the face shot I had taken of a friend of mine and combine it with the body of a playboy pinup.  I took the centerfold, flattened it and carefully copied it.  I then took that negative and the negative of my friend and after a bit of work (ok a lot of work in modern terms) I dodged and burnt her face into the final print.  We were both 17 at the time and I have to brag, I did a d@%$ fine job in the dark room on that one.  So good it almost got the two of us expelled.  

Stupidly I took the thing to school and showed it to her.  She was a good friend and she loved it and laughed her @$$ off.  The two things I didn't know were, 1. the photo depicted the centerfold model in a locker room setting and apparently it closely resembled the girls locker room at our school and 2. that she was going to get caught by a teacher with the thing while showing it off to some frineds.  

Needless to say all hell broke loose in the principals office.  They thought that I had actually taken nude photographs of her in the school no less.  That matter wasn't resolved until I retrieved the negatives and showed them to the principal and he compared the background in the photo that I created with the actual girls locker room to see the differences.  We got detention for the photo itself but at least we didn't get expelled.  

To this day we still laugh about the whole incident when we get together, but we sure were not laughing then.


----------



## fwellers (Dec 28, 2008)

Ha. Good story Gryph. I stand corrected. Photography has ALWAYS been capable of deception. 
I wonder why then, people have so much trust in what they see. 
I don't know squat, but the little I know about photo-shop already, proves to me that I won't trust anything 100 percent. ( probably shouldn't anyway ).
I do think though, as good as you apparently were at 17 with film, today, the capability to decieve with photography seems magnified by an order or two at least.
I'm not talking about removing zits, and fixing light issues, although that is essentially the same thing, but to a lesser degree, and without any harm or intent to defraud.

But I am probably taking this thread where it wasn't designed to go, so I apologize for that.
I will still continue to try and accomplish my 'vision' as much as possible in the camera if for no other reason than to save some time on the computer. ( I don't think it will be possible though for me to ever do a professional type shot without PP. )

Peace,
Floyd


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 28, 2008)

lol... funny story indeed. 

I'm very much of the opinion that if someone told me this to my face, I could just laugh it off, but inside I know I would be wanting to share a few choices words.

To me, post processing and developing *are* of equivalent meaning when it comes to digital and film photography.  You needed it then, you need it now, if you want to try to draw out the most from any given picture.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 28, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Garbz may correct me or at least disagree with me on this, but I think that we have taken a bit of _"a left turn at Albuquerque_" to quote a wascally wabbit friend of mine.  Getting it right in the camera and post processing are two totally separate issues.



Quite on the contrary. You said exactly what I was trying to only clearer. Definitely nothing here that I disagree with.


----------



## JohnMF (Dec 28, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Needless to say all hell broke loose in the principals office.  They thought that I had actually taken nude photographs of her in the school no less.  That matter wasn't resolved until I retrieved the negatives and showed them to the principal and he compared the background in the photo that I created with the actual girls locker room to see the differences.



did the principal keep hold of that photo 'as evidence'?


----------



## Chiller (Dec 28, 2008)

I was not going to reply to this, cause my opinion is useless, but I was bored. 
One of the reasons I got into photography was to capture what I see. I was shooting film for a while, but when digital came out, I realized I could create images I wanted, by using the photograph as a bass image for what I wanted.   With the horror images I need for our halloween advertising, and displays, many are manipulated in photoshop, and there for are not a photograph anymore...I guess.  The way I see it...the tools are there, I can use them to my advantage.  I guess that is where that argument of when does a photograph not be a photograph starts again....oh joy....blah blah blah. 
 As for taking other photos, I would rather get it right the first time, cause I hate wasting time on all the post processing. 
 o.k...Im off to another forum, it is too complicated here...:mrgreen: ..


----------



## stsinner (Dec 28, 2008)

fwellers said:


> The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality.



I hear ya!  I love seeing pictures that amaze or thrill me, but you're right-you can't tell real from fake anymore, and that's why I don't like Photoshop..  I wish they'd make a law that photoshop has to put a visible PS or something somewhere on the picture or in the exif once a picture has been doctored.


----------



## Joves (Dec 28, 2008)

OOOOoo! I would love some primer caps with little hearts on them.


----------



## mrodgers (Dec 28, 2008)

Chiller said:


> I was shooting film for a while, but when digital came out.....


You said you were 12 in that thread "how old are you?"  I got my first digital camera in 1996.  Were you shooting film before you were born?  :lmao:

Yes, I know you weren't telling the truth in the other thread....


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 28, 2008)

That Casantablanca poster is supreme!  Man, I never get tired of the internet.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 28, 2008)

JohnMF said:


> did the principal keep hold of that photo 'as evidence'?



Nope, I got it back.  Remember this was the 70's.  Our high school had a student lounge when I was there.  A couple of years after I graduated they did away with it.


----------



## fwellers (Dec 28, 2008)

I would NEVER get on a ride like that ! It looks dangerous.
Is it real or is it ....... memorex ?


----------



## Chiller (Dec 28, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> You said you were 12 in that thread "how old are you?" I got my first digital camera in 1996. Were you shooting film before you were born? :lmao:
> 
> Yes, I know you weren't telling the truth in the other thread....


 

That was Chiller...just ignore him.  Sometimes we let him out to have a say every now and then. :mrgreen:


----------



## Garbz (Dec 28, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I hear ya!  I love seeing pictures that amaze or thrill me, but you're right-you can't tell real from fake anymore, and that's why I don't like Photoshop..  I wish they'd make a law that photoshop has to put a visible PS or something somewhere on the picture or in the exif once a picture has been doctored.



See this is a problem where the best tool for processing photos is also the best tool for image doctoring. It always has been, just look at Gryph's story. 

Actually this ties in with sabbath's thread quite well. Just like the mass production of DSLRs has reduced the quality of images, the mass availability of software manipulation tools has lead to a mass abuse of it's abilities to the extent that the very tool which is responsible for adding the finishing touches to fantastic images is now suddenly a unanimous with doctoring images, clouding reality, and not keeping it pure.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 28, 2008)

I guess it all depends on whether you consider photography to be an art form, or merely a way to document events.

If it's art, how cares what's been done to it?

While you're out taking photos are you creating art, or are you recording events so that future generations will know what happened?

If it's the former - I don't care what you do to the image once you take it.  But just because you "fixed" it in photoshop, doesn't mean you made it better.

If the later, I think major alterations (I'm talking outright 'lying' here; not WB adjustment or curves, or even cloning out dust spots or skin imperfections) are unethical and should be avoided.  I think most people are ethical, but I realise that some are not...  Not much that can be done about that.  How do we know the pictures in _our_ history books aren't 'photoshopped'?  Altering photographs is not a new idea.


----------



## keith204 (Dec 28, 2008)

This topic keeps coming to mind.  A family member asked me to edit wedding photos he took.  I'll do it because it's for a family member and due to the situation (Sabbath, one of your posts comes to mind), but I am definitely in a "photo saving" mode rather than a "photo tweaking/finishing" mode.

So, that's what I'm up to - post-processing 900 photos - 850 of which I would have considered throw-aways from the start, had they been mine.


----------



## PhilGarber (Dec 28, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Sorry but I have to vent. When did post processing become a synonym for correcting a mistake or polishing a turd? When did it change from what it really is which is finishing the damn picture.  I am sure I am not alone in that I polish off my photos in a RAW processor when I finish shooting but every so often I see posts on this forum where the sheer naivety amazes me.
> 
> Currently there's a thread in the Digital forum where someone asked the common question of ''how much post processing...'' and as predictable there was a reply telling the OP to get it right in the camera.
> 
> ...



I agree completely. Pp can turn a great photo into an uber pwnage photo:mrgreen:. 

Seriously though, pp is just another step in the process.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Dec 29, 2008)

I just have to chime in... Me and my big mouth...

I have a friend whom I admire very much as a photographer and he told me something I'll never forget about image manipulation. You begin to manipulate the image as soon as you choose your aperature, shutter speed, ISO... When you manipulate the light source and determine your exposure, you manipulate the image to be what you want it to be. Post-processing is no different. No image from a camera is exactly reality, even if you never touch it in photoshop. It's an image that has been CREATED by the photographer. Don't take the art out of photography. If you do, none of us are better than the soccer mom shooting in auto.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 29, 2008)

That pretty much echos my sentiments as well.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 30, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> I have a friend whom I admire very much as a photographer and he told me something I'll never forget about image manipulation. You begin to manipulate the image as soon as you choose your aperature, shutter speed, ISO....



This is the first time I have heard this, and I like it!


----------



## stsinner (Dec 30, 2008)

Garbz said:


> This is the first time I have heard this, and I like it!



Why would you agree with that?  When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no?  Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it?  That would be weird.

So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.


----------



## saltface (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Why would you agree with that?  When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no?  Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it?  That would be weird.



Hmmm....
I don't know about the rest of you, but my eyes lack an integrate function that let me see stellar dust too faint for a one minute view. I've also never seen star trails or the blur of tail lights. Nor do I have polarizing cornea. I only see through a cross screen filter when I squint or I'm really tired. I'd say the majority of my shots are perversions of reality.

As for my 2¢ on the main topic, I'd say we all prefer grape juice to wine.


----------



## Overread (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Why would you agree with that?  When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no?  Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it?  That would be weird.
> 
> So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.



Nope - - it depends what the person holding the camera wants from the photo and I am sure that few((er) photographers only stick to one type of shooting.
I do all 3:
try to recreate what I see with my own eyes:
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/... works/British Wildlife Centre 2/IMG_1344.jpg
mostly what I got in camera and sort of similar to what my eyes saw - though with some contrast and saturation added

try change what I see to something different using the camera settings
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/yorkshire 2/IMG_1073.jpg
(taken in very late evening long after sunset - so very little light around - even for my eyes)

and also alter what I get in the camera in editing to alter the view to something that I find more pleasing
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/insect 6/IMG_0060a.jpg
fake HDR used on this one


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Why would you agree with that?  When you are choosing the settings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no?  Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it?  That would be weird.
> 
> So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.



Reading that really shocked me. Do you honestly believe that the _only_ purpose of a photograph is to accurately record what you see? I browsed some of your work and I can see that this is your style.  There's nothing wrong with that. Your shots all use very small aperture and you don't try to make "art" out of anything.  But you have to realize that very many photographers do not shoot like this.

EDIT: and by the way, do you notice how in your shots, you use your flash? That's manipulating the scene and making a visual choice.  You are shooting images which are modified through your actions. You're doing this and not even realizing it.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Why would you agree with that? When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no? Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it? That would be weird.
> 
> So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.


 He would say it because it's true. When I open my aperature up to acheive a bokeh, is that what my eyes saw? No. I don't see in bokeh. I wish, that would be awesome... Anyway, right there, I've changed the image. When I shoot a photo at night and do a long exposure, once again, I've manipulated the image to allow more light than my eyes see. When I took photos of our zoos light and I stopped down my aperature to get a starburst, once again the image was altered. Do you see a pattern? Photography is about more than capturing exactly what you see the way everyone else sees it. It's about creating the image YOU see and sharing it with others. It's your own unique perspective on life and the world and a glimpse inside the head of the artist.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 30, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> He would say it because it's true. When I open my aperature up to acheive a bokeh, is that what my eyes saw? No. I don't see in bokeh. I wish, that would be awesome... Anyway, right there, I've changed the image. When I shoot a photo at night and do a long exposure, once again, I've manipulated the image to allow more light than my eyes see. When I took photos of our zoos light and I stopped down my aperature to get a starburst, once again the image was altered. Do you see a pattern? Photography is about more than capturing exactly what you see the way everyone else sees it. It's about creating the image YOU see and sharing it with others. It's your own unique perspective on life and the world and a glimpse inside the head of the artist.




That is where the difference between taking pictures (capturing the moment) and creating the most pleasing photograph come in to play.  A simple example, you need to take a photograph of some sort of award or recognition.  To get a proper exposure you need to add you own light, in this case a portable flash unit.  You have an ugly background to your photo.  Set a shutter speed of 1/60th and get a proper exposure of the subjects and light up the ugly background as well, or set a shutter speed of 1/250th and get properly exposed subjects with a dark, but now much more pleasing background.  

That is manipulation and it renders stsinner's assumption as false as he is assuming that the purpose of the photograph is to capture exactly what the photographer sees.  Did you see star trails?  Did you see the star pattern of the lights at the zoo?

If you use the functions that you camera provides you, then you can see bokeh when you stop down.  Learn to use the DOF preview buttion.  It takes practice but it has been done for years and is a helpful skill to develop.


----------



## pm63 (Dec 30, 2008)

I also strongly disagree that the purpose of photography is just to capture what the eye sees. Faithful reproduction may be neccessary for scientific work or digitising (e.g. paintings) but not in artistic, creative photography. More often than not, we try to make the scene look better than it is in real life.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 30, 2008)

pm63 said:


> I also strongly disagree that the purpose of photography is just to capture what the eye sees. Faithful reproduction may be neccessary for scientific work or digitising (e.g. paintings) but not in artistic, creative photography. More often than not, we try to make the scene look better than it is in real life.



I think you're confusing photography with art or maybe graphic design.


----------



## pm63 (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I think you're confusing photography with art or maybe graphic design.



So photography to you is not an art? To me, it is. I don't want to go further down that route because that is an endless discussion in itself.

I am not "confusing" it with anything, and the graphic design part implies I 'make' my shots with digital manipulation (I only do basic adjustments, as that is all I know). Just because my view of photography differs from yours, it is not incorrect. If you think all that there is to photography is attempting to reproduce a scene exactly as you saw it, my friend, you and I are on different planes. To me, photography is about making a scene look interesting or better than it was through careful use of lighting and composition, among other elements. A photograph can make a scene so much more exciting and vivid than it was in real life. To each his own, I suppose. Lifelike reproduction is not exactly my goal, though it may be yours.


----------



## Judge Sharpe (Dec 30, 2008)

I agree with both sides- I think that the question is, how do we see? 
Monet painted what he saw, in his own way of expressing it. That is the essence of photography- the expression of what our eyes behold. My wife looks at me and I am the same slim well built stud she married 37 years ago. Even if she takes a photo of me she sees what SHE sees. 
I can not say how you perceive an object nor can you describe it as it exists, only your sense of it. Think of the discussions we have on here- some perceive beauty, some would suggest changes.  We manipulate the image to bring it to our own ideal. 
I do not know what you see as red. 
My eyes translate the wavelengths to a certain nerve function that I recognise as the colour known as red. I can no more say that the particular brain translation of the nerve impulses that occur in my brain are the same as yours than I can say what you think of as pretty girl or a handsome boy. So with a camera, I record what I want the image to be, because that is my reality. If I drew it that would be my reality, but you would not be able to tell what it is. Our equipment has certain limitations that we must accommodate, hence the f stop and shutter speed, film size or sensor pixels.   
The uncertainty principal states that any thing you do to an object changes it, so you can never have an exact record of what it was before you interfered. This includes burning its image on a recording media. 

My 2 cents, which may not be worth as much today as yesterday. 
Judge Sharpe


----------



## stsinner (Dec 30, 2008)

Maybe I'm just boring.  That could be.   But if I see.. oh, a horse, for instance and I think it would make a beautiful photograph because there are snow capped mountains behind it, I take the picture.  I've never once looked at something that begged to have its picture taken and thought, "Wow.. That would be a beautiful shot if only it had some contrast and saturation adjustments and a little dodging of the shadows and burning of the sky...."  I thought it was beautiful when I looked at it, so I took its picture for posterity.  Of course I could just be saying this because I suck at Photoshop.

And to answer your question, no, I do not consider photography an art.  I consider it a hobby-one that some people get paid for.  I think it is art when you start manipulating the pictures and adding your own touches to it.  But the textbook definition of photography-depressing the shutter release on a camera, is not art any more than my son building a Lego Star Destroyer is art.

Funny thing-as I've been mulling this over in my head how some of you are dead-set on taking the reality out of the image and "making it your own," I can't help think of my uncle who was a painter.  His favorite subject was country stuff-you know, barns and deer..  Now, what he would do is take a photograph and fold it very symmetrically over and over so that the picture then consisted of a number of squares when unfolded.  Then he would pencil these same squares on his canvas before he began..  He would then begin to recreate the photograph on his canvas one square at a time.  His goal was to paint a picture that when you held up the photo next to it looked as much like the photo as absolutely possible.  He wanted to create a painting of his own that looked just like the picture..  The more it looked like the picture, the happier he was with it.  Almost the inverse of many opinions in this thread...  He was considered a good painter when you couldn't tell the painting from the original, but it seems you're considered a good photographer when you make photos "your own," meaning they look nothing like the original photograph.


----------



## Overread (Dec 30, 2008)

building with lego is an art!
its certainly not a science  though there is (like in a lot of art) hard science behind the creation. 
Photography is an art form - this is something that you really can't argue against. As a whole its seen as an art and in that you have your realistic shots that are hardly edited - your slightly adjusted shots - your HDR - your abstract - your photo collages - the whole lot.

Its different things to different people and its impossible to say that it should only be one thing or another. Also there is far more to photography than just pressing the shutter - there is framing the shot, choosing which parts are to be and not to be in the shot; choosing the settings (Even if the camera picks for you- that is still a choice that you have made); the lighting availble at the time as well as what editing is applied to the shot.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 30, 2008)

I'll concede that some pictures, once hung on the wall, become art.  I think that the pictures that are so good, composed so right and exposed so well are just the result of someone mastering their hobby, not becoming an artist..   Someone that you would call an artist, I would simply call a good photographer.  It's not meant as an insult or to diminish anyone's skill in any way-I just have a different word for it than some.  I've never heard of a photographer being referred to as an artist.  If there is a beautiful picture on the wall and a name in the lower corner of the person who shot it, I don't think anyone would call that the "artist's" name.  I think it would most likely be referred to as the photographer's name.


----------



## fwellers (Dec 30, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Learn to use the DOF preview buttion.  It takes practice but it has been done for years and is a helpful skill to develop.



Don't want to derail this conversation, as it's been an interesting and informative read for a beginner like me. But my boss who got me into photography says he'd love to understand how to use the DOF preview. I tried and get the same results as him, which is, at higher fstop numbers it just darkens the image you see.  How does one use that information to accurately predict the DOF ?  

Thanks,
floyd


----------



## Overread (Dec 30, 2008)

are you then saying that photos posted on the internet are not a form of art? 
I think you are working yourself into a corner with this viewpoint that you have. Photography is an art form (heck if you want more proof its listed as an art at universities - unless one is studying the theory behind photography - ie the science of light) though art takes a lot of different forms. 
Though you yourself are not going very arty with your shots - ie editing and boosting contrast and other things beyond the natural - you are still performing art - you are choosing what to include in the frame - you are choosing to create an image form what you have seen and in the end creative activities are an art form. 
With the lego example you son could make the star destroyer from the manual guide with the lego - there is then skill in following the manual, but not really artistic ability since your son is making no choice on the final image - a bit like painting by numbers. However make him make a star destroyer from scratch and an aspect of art will be added *though chances are scale aspects will be thrown out the window )


----------



## Overread (Dec 30, 2008)

fwellers said:


> Don't want to derail this conversation, as it's been an interesting and informative read for a beginner like me. But my boss who got me into photography says he'd love to understand how to use the DOF preview. I tried and get the same results as him, which is, at higher fstop numbers it just darkens the image you see.  How does one use that information to accurately predict the DOF ?
> 
> Thanks,
> floyd



Personally I have never found the depth of field preview button to be any use myself either - I also cannot read what the camera is showing me and with digital if I have time to press and consider the depth of field in an image I should have time to shoot at a range of settings and then see how things look on the computer. If I am pushed for time I have to go with experience and my gut feeling (As well as lighting availble).
Also the button - at least on Canon DSLRs - is in a horrid position that I cannot comfortably use when handholding the kit - which means it has to be on a tripod anyway


----------



## Garbz (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I'll concede that some pictures, once hung on the wall, become art.  I think that the pictures that are so good, composed so right and exposed so well are just the result of someone mastering their hobby, not becoming an artist..   Someone that you would call an artist, I would simply call a good photographer.  It's not meant as an insult or to diminish anyone's skill in any way-I just have a different word for it than some.  I've never heard of a photographer being referred to as an artist.



This is weird. 

For the earlier question why do I believe in manipulation due to the camera? Because I do star trails, long exposures, black and white, I push things brighter than the eye can see, and I shoot into a sun in a way that would blind you if you tried to do it in real life.

Also you are officially one of only 3 people I know who don't consider photography art. The other two one works for the newspaper, and the other at a quick snap portrait place in a supermarket booth. I am not sure on your outlook or why you started photography or what even tickles your fancy for photography, but for me and many of us it is the creative outlet, the infinite possibilities of playing with lights and angles.

The one thing which clearly defines it as art in my eyes is an example from a photography book I own (can't quote title since I am out of the country atm). What they did is give 10 photographers an identical wooden doll and told them to photograph it. The 10 results were not just different pictures, but different concepts and insights into the minds of the photographers. The pictures displayed their moods and ideas very creatively.

Also:

Dictionary Definition:
Art: noun: A product of human creativity.

Therefore if the camera is able to manipulate reality through exposures times, apertures, and magnification then the images it produces relies on the creativity of the person using it. If you can't call photography art, then the only thing you can call art is a painting.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 30, 2008)

I guess just about everything anyone does is art of they're good at it, hence the cliche-"they have turned it into an art form... "


----------



## MACollum (Dec 30, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Keep in mind that part of the problem is that the last couple of generations were raised on TV and video games.  They are not used to the old fashion method of RTFM or other materials.  They are used to turning on a box and having the info handed to them.



For me, half the fun in getting a new electronic toy is reading the manual that comes with it. I've read my camera manual several times, as well as every photography book at my local library. I can't help it, I'm a confirmed bibliophile


----------



## table1349 (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I guess just about everything anyone does is art of they're good at it, hence the cliche-"they have turned it into an art form... "



*art*

1&#8194;           

 &#8194;/&#593;rt/  Show Spelled Pronunciation  

 [ahrt] 
 noun   
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according 
to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.     
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.      
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. 
     4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.      
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.      
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?      
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.      
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.     
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.      
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.     
11. arts,   a. (used with a singular verb
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.      b. (used with a plural verb
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)  liberal arts. 
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.     
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.      
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.     
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.      16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.   


Some good reading:

What is Art? by Bart Rosier

A New Fine Art Photography Directory at Photography-Now.Net

http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/humanities/beckman/artclasses/Art.htm

Reflections on Photography and Art

"Is Photography Art?" by Robert Balcomb (The Essay Page): TheScreamOnline Internet e-Journal of Fiction, Art, Photography, Essays, The Strange & Bizarre

Photography - Art or Science?


----------



## Arch (Dec 30, 2008)

Photography IS an artform whether one person thinks so or not.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 30, 2008)

fwellers said:


> Don't want to derail this conversation, as it's been an interesting and informative read for a beginner like me. But my boss who got me into photography says he'd love to understand how to use the DOF preview. I tried and get the same results as him, which is, at higher fstop numbers it just darkens the image you see.  How does one use that information to accurately predict the DOF ?
> 
> Thanks,
> floyd



The _*ART*_  of being able to see DOF with the DOF preview is something that can only be learned by practice.  Modern DSLR's do make it more difficult than the older 35mm SLR film bodies due to their croped sensor and smaller viewfinder.  If you have a film body around and a decently fast lens, I would suggest that you start there.  If not then use the DSLR that you have.  

First put on your fastest lens as it will give you the greatest varience to begin seeing the DOF.  Use a tripod and go out on a bright day.  The more light in the viewfinder the easier it will be to observe the DOF.  Set up the camera, focus on a particular subject that has various features at differnt depths that are visible in the forground and background.  Something like a lamp post in a park say.  Your subject should not take up an large amount of you view but should be large enough to give you a good viewing reference point. 

Set your camera about 3 or 4 meters from your subject and bring that subject into focus.  Now set your aperture to something small like f16 or f22.  This is where the bright day comes in.  Acutate the DOF preview and look not at the subject, it's already in focus, but on the various objects in the forground and background.  You will see a large number if not all of them are also in focus. 

Now set you aperture to it's widest and do the same thing.  Forget the subject, but carefully look at the forground objects and background objects.  You should see that they are at out of focus by varying degrees depending on the distance they are from the subject.  

That is what you are looking for when you use the DOF preview, not the the focus of the subject itself, it should already be in focus, but where does that DOF start and stop and is everything you wnat depicted in that DOF.  It does take practice, but it is something that can be learned and mastered.  

Once you learn to see that DOF that is there in the viewfinder you can use it to create the image that you want by ensuring you have what you want in focus.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 30, 2008)

MACollum said:


> For me, half the fun in getting a new electronic toy is reading the manual that comes with it. I've read my camera manual several times, as well as every photography book at my local library. I can't help it, I'm a confirmed bibliophile



Well there is always one bad apple in every barrel. :lmao:  :lmao:  :lmao:  

I was of course making a general reference to the trends of the generations I spoke of, not a direct reference to each and every individual.  

My grandfather taught me that If you learn one new thing every day, no matter what it was, then that day was not wasted.  Keep reading.


----------



## Joves (Dec 30, 2008)

pm63 said:


> I also strongly disagree that the purpose of photography is just to capture what the eye sees. Faithful reproduction may be neccessary for scientific work or digitising (e.g. paintings) but not in artistic, creative photography. More often than not, we try to make the scene look better than it is in real life.


Well to me I want as a general rule the lighting as it was and, the colors to be what I saw. Where you get into the artist side is choosing the angles at which what you are shooting is shot. It set the mood of the photo and the perception to the viewer.


----------



## Chiller (Dec 30, 2008)

Arch said:


> Photography IS an artform whether one person thinks so or not.


   I agree with Arch.   I feel that if something  created is visually appealing it would be considered art(my opinion only), whether it is a photograph, a finger paint, a sculpture,a model, cartoon, or even graffitti.  Gheesh...I have even heard that some of the creations we do for halloween are called "art".  To me I dont really care how I achieved the image I was going for, as long as I get it.  I also know that 20 years ago, I would never have been able to create what I wanted to, but now with the tools in photoshop I can.  It is my image, so I am not going to worry if how I get that image is right or wrong.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 30, 2008)

Arch said:


> Photography IS an artform whether one person thinks so or not.



And because you have said it, it shall be so..


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 30, 2008)

stsinner said:


> And because you have said it, it shall be so..


You appear to be trying to annoy people.

_You _take photos to record what you see, as you see it. You are almost completely alone in this forum. There are mainly two types of people in the world who shoot the way you insist: 

1. Emotionally detached photographers recording a sterile documentation of their surroundings, like a crime scene photographer or geologist. 

2. Rank amateurs.

I don't think you're a geologist or work for the government...


----------



## fwellers (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks for the explanation Gryph.  
I do know enough that I'm not looking at the subject. , but with me just using a kit lense, that isn't very fast, I guess I'll have to try it outside with lots of light and see if I can get the results you mentioned.


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2008)

There is an art in taking and editing photos that do look "natural".
Just as there is an art in taking and editing photos to look "arty"

Even a record keeping photos have a skill and creative aspect to their creation, though they might never see a place in an art gallery they are still a form of artistic creation.
I don't see photos that are taken to look normal as being a lacking of abilty or emotion - heck I have seen some outstanding wildlife photos that are very natual in their look (no contrast boosting or such) and yet are still a fanstic bit of art that I would stick on my wall (but then that's me)

The only way to get a totally artless photo would be to let a computer take each and every shot (not just choosing the settings, I mean choosing the scene, timing, lighting, when to press the shutter  what and how to edit - - the whole thing)


----------



## Chiller (Dec 31, 2008)

I think photography is just a name for something. Sort of like a Painter.   A painter can paint a wall, or he paints on a canvass. 
 I find art in everything.  Music is an art. Hell...the human voice is one of the most beautiful instruments, when used right.   Im not talking Sepultura here. :lmao::lmao::lmaosorry to any Supultura fans) Everyone has an eye that is tuned differently, and can see something that another can not visually.  The camera is just a tool so that we can capture that.  If we want to take it further, we have tools like photoshop, and whatever those darkroom junkies do to take that image one step beyond the capibilties of the camera. 
  Im just going to enjoy whatever I can do , while I still have the functunality to be able to do it.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Dec 31, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> You appear to be trying to annoy people.
> 
> _You _take photos to record what you see, as you see it. You are almost completely alone in this forum. There are mainly two types of people in the world who shoot the way you insist:
> 
> ...


 
You are officially my favorite person today!


----------



## Joves (Dec 31, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> You appear to be trying to annoy people.
> 
> _You _take photos to record what you see, as you see it. You are almost completely alone in this forum. There are mainly two types of people in the world who shoot the way you insist:
> 
> ...


 Well if I shot dead bodies for a living, they would be nice artsy shots.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 31, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> You are officially my favorite person today!



You like hateful people...  That's neat.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 31, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> You appear to be trying to annoy people.
> 
> _You _take photos to record what you see, as you see it. You are almost completely alone in this forum. There are mainly two types of people in the world who shoot the way you insist:
> 
> ...



You're right, oh hateful one.  I aim to get good at photography, not distorting reality.  Guess that makes me a perpetual amateur..

If I'm alone in this forum, maybe that's why I couldn't get my christmas photos right with the advice here-I was trying to get them right out of the camera.  I guess everyone else would have just Photoshopped their kids into the shot..  Not my style.

Now I'll just politely bow out of this conversation and concentrate on learning my camera, not manipulating the images that come out of it...  Let the slings and arrows fly....


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2008)

lets leave the fight to pms shall we people - come on its a new year!

As for what we have here its a difference of opinion - there is no right way to take photos just the way that gets you the results that you want. If that is really overdone HDR or family snapshots then that is your choice and its no right of others to tell you that its not right to shoot as such.

However one has to accept that the tools at ones use are not perfect nor that every possible shot can be achived through the camera alone. Wind the clock back and in the film days you could not get a photo out of a camera without procesing it first until we got the instand Polaroid cameras. DSLRs are like the polaroid - they let you get a photo straight out of the camer without any need for editing - however you have to accept that the photo is already edited by the cameras own built in editing programs.

The RAW file is processed by the camera into a JPEG with the cameras own idea of white balance, sharpness, contrast, noise, sharpening etc.. applied to the shot. This is great for some, but on a forum dedicated to photography quality is something that many aspire to and one way to increase quality is to edit a shot yourself out of the camera with more powerful and specific editing tools. 

Also a camera is not able to shoot everything nor is it perfect - that is why people combine images and such to try and work around the limitations that the equipment has - its also common that many photos edited are contrast and saturation boosted to look more arty and less realistic. This does not have to be your end result and its fully possible to edit shots to look natural.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 31, 2008)

stsinner said:


> You're right, oh hateful one.  I aim to get good at photography, not distorting reality.  Guess that makes me a perpetual amateur..
> 
> If I'm alone in this forum, maybe that's why I couldn't get my christmas photos right with the advice here-I was trying to get them right out of the camera.  I guess everyone else would have just Photoshopped their kids into the shot..  Not my style.



If you want to get what you want, the way you want, then work at that. Don't let frustration and personalities distract you. This is the beginning of a sad downward spiral that's a waste of everyone's time, including yours. Many photographers here learned about photography long before there was an internet.  

There are many types of photography.  I've seen some excellent right out of the camera work that was just posted today in fact.  I've also seen some excellent work that was developed with photoshop, that was just posted today in fact.

Also, I like to think I've produced some decent images that document geology and geomorphics as well as being some damn fine landscapes.   Likewise with botanical documentation.

I had an interesting conversation with a forensic photographer Christmas Eve, and a look-see at some vacation photos of a place I've never been to before on a cell phone.  These two photographers were very excited about their work, as much as I am mine.

Play your own game, do your own homework and depend on yourself to provide for yourself.  

[/rant]


----------



## table1349 (Dec 31, 2008)

Overread said:


> lets leave the fight to pms shall we people - come on its a new year!



Dang, I looked at the time of your post, added 6 hours for the time difference and realized that you were right, it is the new year in the UK.  

Happy New Years.  :smileys::cheers:


----------



## Jklersy (Dec 31, 2008)

I have finally reached the end of this thread and I have to say it makes me feel much better knowing that Im not doin something wrong when I adjust my contrast and WB and a Little exposure tweek here and there.  I was really getting frustrated, wondering how on earth can I really get what I want strait out of my camera.  I used to do it with my 35mm Elan 7.  Then someone said that the camera store where I get my film developed PP for me.  That had never accured to me, I bet they would brighten up a pic a bit or colour correct slightly for me.  I was really started to get put off by always having to shoot in raw and PP every pic just a little before saving the jpeg.  Thanks for started this thread and thanks for all the honest opinions, it really has eased my mind a bit.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!


----------

