[Jonathan Mac]

Every now and then someone comes along to ask (or even declare) if photography is dead. It's not, of course, but the situation is the same as it is with music - there's still plenty of good stuff around, so your impression that good stuff isn't made any more is wrong, it's just much easier to make cr*p and so there's much more cr*p that needs to be waded through or filtered out to get to the good stuff.

[JohnMc]

If you've never used a knife or/and a pencil on a negative you just haven't lived.

[normhead]

If you've never used a knife or/and a pencil on a negative you just haven't lived.

People forget, in the old days, "cut and paste" was literal.

[jgnfld]

Let's posit a system which could take any scene and render the exact, full spectral signature from each pixel-sized area in a scene across all visible wavelength and would allow a full immersion in that scene at a later time.


Would it be "real"? Yeah, I suppose. To a fairly high degree, anyway.


Would it be photography? Yeah, of a sort. A photograph, anyway, at least. Like a webcam taking a pic every thirty seconds while focused on a bird feeder or aquarium is taking photographs, anyway. That said, with careful setup, it might constitute photography in the sense of communication as well.


Would I bother to look? Only if the artist chose the scene, the subjects, the backgrounds, the focal points, the perspectives, and thousands of other things in order to make my looking at it worth the time. Most ALL of these require manipulations from time to time. A highlighting of something IS an edit. An artist doesn't necessarily see more. But they most definitely can see specific, visionworthy aspects of a scene better and can communicate that vision. Why bother looking, otherwise?

[normhead]

Let's posit a system which could take any scene and render the exact, full spectral signature from each pixel-sized area in a scene across all visible wavelength and would allow a full immersion in that scene at a later time.


Would it be "real"? Yeah, I suppose. To a fairly high degree, anyway.


Would it be photography? Yeah, of a sort. A photograph, anyway, at least. Like a webcam taking a pic every thirty seconds while focused on a bird feeder or aquarium is taking photographs, anyway. That said, with careful setup, it might constitute photography in the sense of communication as well.


Would I bother to look? Only if the artist chose the scene, the subjects, the backgrounds, the focal points, the perspectives, and thousands of other things in order to make my looking at it worth the time. Most ALL of these require manipulations from time to time. A highlighting of something IS an edit. An artist doesn't necessarily see more. But they most definitely can see specific, visionworthy aspects of a scene better and can communicate that vision. Why bother looking, otherwise?

The age old quote "I don't photograph what I see, I photograph what I experience."

[filmmaster]

once again the defenders of digital manipulation shine through and fail to save the day.

In those photos i linked too, you should have noticed a few things. In MOST of the after photos, you have facial parts removed that ruin the photo, remove the persons identify. And in 1 you have useless artifacts added, that technically could have been done as props via taking a photo in a butterfly filled garden. instead of using photo editing software.

Then that last one of the woman in the dark background, the before is atually better. You may say "highly done highlights" my 35mm kodak gold would say BLOWN/over exposed... Yet, with SIMPLE camera knowledge, even just a spot light, the photographer would have gotten a better image then the after photo shop.

SO explain to me, how images taken from "professional" websites using images from "professional photographers" as a means of advertising editing software... actually are better or a source of comfort that SKILL and KNOW HOW?

Back in the 70s 80s 90s there was a term "guy with a camera", Dude would buy a camera, flashes, lenses, and have no clue even as to how to take the lens cap off or to put the camera battery in.

Now , the PROFESSONALS all seem to be "GWC" whom cant do a photo unless they put it into photoshop or light room, etc.

[normhead]

SO explain to me, how images taken from "professional" websites using images from "professional photographers" as a means of advertising editing software... actually are better or a source of comfort that SKILL and KNOW HOW?

I already did.
They are better because the clients look at them and that's the look they want.
Your taste isn't every body's taste.

[slartibartfast01]

once again the defenders of digital manipulation shine through and fail to save the day.

In those photos i linked too, you should have noticed a few things. In MOST of the after photos, you have facial parts removed that ruin the photo, remove the persons identify. And in 1 you have useless artifacts added, that technically could have been done as props via taking a photo in a butterfly filled garden. instead of using photo editing software.

Then that last one of the woman in the dark background, the before is atually better. You may say "highly done highlights" my 35mm kodak gold would say BLOWN/over exposed... Yet, with SIMPLE camera knowledge, even just a spot light, the photographer would have gotten a better image then the after photo shop.

SO explain to me, how images taken from "professional" websites using images from "professional photographers" as a means of advertising editing software... actually are better or a source of comfort that SKILL and KNOW HOW?

Back in the 70s 80s 90s there was a term "guy with a camera", Dude would buy a camera, flashes, lenses, and have no clue even as to how to take the lens cap off or to put the camera battery in.

Now , the PROFESSONALS all seem to be "GWC" whom cant do a photo unless they put it into photoshop or light room, etc.

Despite REPEATED requests we still haven't seen any of your images.

[JohnMc]

once again the defenders of digital manipulation shine through and fail to save the day.

In those photos i linked too, ...

Once again any kind of a cogent argument has failed to materialize. Perhaps sticking with which material is bester for developing film in would be a more productive avenue to walk. Now, not meaning to be rude, but I'm going back outside to see if the sky is falling yet.

[jersey]

@filmmaster But what does it matter? You either like the photograph or not. When you hire photograph you expect him to deliver what you require. Be it perfect RAW or already processed image. As long as you like the end result - photographer is good. If he cannot deliver what he promised - he is bad.

There were few times I hired photographer and I always order HQ prints - either ready books or separate photos. I never care how he or she shots, what camera is used, what skill, if there is photoshop and how much of it. I care about end result. I would not mind if it was photographed with smartphone or big format with wet collodion and a plate as long as I get what I pay for.

[BigMackCam]

SO explain to me, how images taken from "professional" websites using images from "professional photographers" as a means of advertising editing software... actually are better or a source of comfort that SKILL and KNOW HOW?

For my own part, I feel I've explained enough. Let's just agree that everyone finds different things appealing, and everyone develops their own ways of working. We get that you don't like heavy re-touching and editing. OK, fine. Some do... and that's fine too (some may even be fellow members here... a point to consider, perhaps). They're not hindering your own path or anyone else's, and it's hardly the death of photography.

Out of curiosity, is this the kind of opinionated, invective-led discussion you cultivated on the forums you were booted from? If so, it would make sense... too many of these would quickly earn someone a difficult-to-shed reputation for "stirring things up"... It's a quick and efficient way to alienate yourself from other members, and I trust that's not your intention

I'm retiring from this discussion now, as I don't see how it can lead anywhere good. It's entirely up to you, but in your shoes I'd ask the mods to close the thread. Damage limitation, and all that...

[DeadJohn]

once again the defenders of digital manipulation shine through and fail to save the day...

(Sarcasm and hyperbole alert)

Yeah, it's everyone else's fault that photography died. I could have saved it all by saying processing is bad, but I failed. Photography is DOOOOOMED! Pentax/Ricoh should abandon digital and only make film cameras for the "pros".

I'm beginning to understand why you've had problems with so many other photo forums. 99% of photographers today don't care about film and benefit from digital workflow.

[blues_hawk]

I've seen some very good pictures taken by folks with fully automatic point-and-shoot cameras and smartphones. It definitely helps enormously to know and apply the basic rules of photography, but everyone has to start somewhere, and it's still possible to take great photos with minimal knowledge and experience. A good eye gets you an awfully long way. Actually, one of the things with technological advancement is that it's making it much easier to get great results in a variety of situations without so much understanding and application of the fundamentals... and some folks don't like that, as it's rapidly eating away at their "special status" in being able to produce great photos. It's that elitism thing I mentioned in my previous post. But, you know, if what they produce looks good, why should that matter? I'll say again, it doesn't stop us from doing things the hard way for our own enjoyment and satisfaction

At the risk of derailing the thread... :P I never did get my license but my dad was an operator for a very long time(WH6AJS out of Hawaii) and I remember he was upset saying that the CB crowd would take over when 10 meter novice got voice. Seems like it's all uhf and repeaters nowadays but I haven't kept up. MURS/GMRS and FRS serve my needs locally, but I do miss those dx calls once in a while. I have too many hobbies. :P

I think there is a bit of a parallel to be found in this, but imo it ends where composition is still dependent on the basics, even if it is easier to repair bad light or crop out a power line, or add fake sky etc. Most of what I post is straight from the camera unless the in camera version needs a bit of help for a dynamic range issue or harsh light.
On that note, maybe we could make a "straight from the sensor" challenge.

[BigMackCam]

At the risk of derailing the thread... :P I never did get my license but my dad was an operator for a very long time(WH6AJS out of Hawaii) and I remember he was upset saying that the CB crowd would take over when 10 meter novice got voice. Seems like it's all uhf and repeaters nowadays but I haven't kept up. MURS/GMRS and FRS serve my needs locally, but I do miss those dx calls once in a while. I have too many hobbies. :P

My Dad and I started off with CB when I was a kid, before it was even legal over here We both went on to become hams (I much later than he), and I'd say roughly half the other hams I know of my Dad's age and younger started with CB. It was their first taste of two-way radio. A good number of them became excellent ham radio operators, some of them very knowledgable with electronics and antenna design. Many didn't, of course - but all bought radios, and many still do. Without them, the bands would be much quieter than they already are, and radio manufacturers would have folded due to lack of sales. There's definitely a parallel with the photographic industry... no matter how skilled or unskilled, how traditional or modern, how pleasing or displeasing to us their methods and results may be, every active photographer - amateur or professional - is helping to keep the hobby and our camera and lens manufacturers alive. We'd be worse off without them... so I'm pretty grateful for anyone that picks up a camera, however they use it and however they choose to create their art...

[StiffLegged]

once again the defenders of digital manipulation shine through and fail to save the day. ...

Since this is verging on personal, I'm stepping out of this thread now. I'll suggest this thread has shown photography to be as dead as the OP.