Photography, what is it now???

PeteyJ · 08-16-2009, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by KungPOW

I think he was attacking Mac users.

At least I hope so.

This thread needs a good old fashioned Mac Vs. PC Smak Down.

Then we could do Ford vs. Subaru

Or Film vs. Digital, maybe FF Vs. APS-C....

How bout Super Nintendo vs. Sega Genesis, Yankees vs. Red Sox, and "My dad can beat up your dad" while we're at it?

X Man · 08-16-2009, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Pentax pete

Hi I'm new to the forum, and my question is:

What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it.

I first started shooting film, back about 16 years ago, and strived to work hard at it. I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line.

Oh, horse pucky.

Photography is the same as it ever was and yet completely different.

What is photography now? Oh, I don't know... accessible? No longer the exclusive domain of the idly rich amateur or the un-challenged professional?

Originally posted by KungPOW

I think he was attacking Mac users.

At least I hope so.

This thread needs a good old fashioned Mac Vs. PC Smak Down.

Then we could do Ford vs. Subaru

Or Film vs. Digital, maybe FF Vs. APS-C....

Glad I could help. I'm doing my part.

Originally posted by monochrome

Um, it isn't the Mac, per se, it's the playing. I could just as easily have written "a Dell to play on," or "a computer."

But, you didn't.

Originally posted by PeteyJ

How bout Super Nintendo vs. Sega Genesis, Yankees vs. Red Sox, and "My dad can beat up your dad" while we're at it?

Damn Yankees are ruining my beloved Red Sox season, dammit! ...and the Yankees suck!

Not really, but I sure wish they did.

Regards,
Mike

JonPB · 08-16-2009, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Pentax pete

What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it. ... I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line.

For myself, I focus on capturing the best image I can. I try to limit myself to the most minimal post processing. Why? Because that's the part of photography I'm most interested in learning. Why? Because printing skills, or processing skills, aren't nearly as fun when the original image isn't enjoyable to work with. And I'm not good enough at capturing images to enjoy the arts in processing and printing.

But processing and printing are both part of the art of photography. Why? Because art is about communication, and there needs to be something to communicate with. Personally, I love the idea of having an art show that consists of large format film on light-tables. But, unless you are using the film itself as art, the art involves other things.

Post-processing isn't about "needing to fix" the image. Post processing is about making the image better. Sort of like how bananas are good, and quite frequently a good banana is enjoyable in and of itself, but sometimes peanut butter or ice cream can make the banana better. And some people--whom I will not judge--might like peanut butter or ice cream even without a good banana.

And I see no problem with people playing with expensive toys. If they enjoy playing, let them play. If they're taking pictures and working with the images, that's photography. It might be bad photography by your standards, but it is their time and money to spend as they see fit.

JonPB · 08-16-2009, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by PeteyJ

How bout Yankees vs. Red Sox while we're at it?

No need. That's easy. Red Sox.

photog · 08-17-2009, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Pentax pete

Hi I'm new to the forum, and my question is:

What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it.

I first started shooting film, back about 16 years ago, and strived to work hard at it. I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line. Do you know of any clubs around Saskatchewan Canada that one could join to share a common intrest in photography??

Pete I started photography 59 years ago with an Ihaggee 116 roll film camera and have since used 1/4 plate (3 1/4 by 41/4inch) Graphlex using double-dark slides or a film pack holding an enormous 12 films. I used the first 120 roll film slr the Agiflex (now extinct) Mamiya 330 twin lens and several Mamiya RB67's hasselblad. I used a Custom colour processing / printing service and after feeling the need to have more "control" (don't be shocked, Pete) I built my own colour processing equipment and bought 2 Super Chromega enlargers. Volume of production lead to an Expediter roll transport proceddor EP3 and later EP2 and 2 Durst M58 printers. Now retired I play with a K10 and 20 and the Adobe software, CS4 and LR2. Have I been totally corrupted?

Parallax · 08-17-2009, 05:25 AM

News flash:
ALL images are post processed!

Digital - If you shoot raw you, or the default settings of the processing software are making the decision. If you shoot jpg the camera software does it.

Film - With negatives you can crop, enlarge, darken, lighten, control contrast and alter colors. If you want to darken one small area and lighten another, you can do that just as you can with a digital image in phtoshop. Someone who is good at retouching can do unbelievable things to alter the image beyond the basics just mentioned. When you send your film out for processing it is corrected to some extent by either the processing machine or the operator. If a picture is under or over exposed it will try to make the best print that it can from it. Take a look at one of the prints that you are the most proud of and ask yourself if your exposure was spot on or did it get a little help in PP. Even slide film is PP. You can't pull the film directly from the camera and look at it, it has to be processed and you can control the results by altering the time in, and/or temperature of, each chemical.

If I understand your position, then only those who use Polaroid would qualify as real photographers.

**monochrome** · 08-17-2009, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by X Man

But, you didn't.

Nope

But I think we're

I think

emr · 08-17-2009, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Pentax pete

What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop...

Well, you certainly seem to have an opinion on what it is, don't you?

The way I see it is that there's no single one and right way of photography. For somebody it's about just snapping those holiday and family reunion pictures with automatic settings. For others it is about careful composing and planning. Or shooting just raw material and doing a lot of post processing on computer. What modern cameras have done is that with today's automatic cameras even the soccer-moms can shoot pictures that are mostly in focus and correctly exposed. And this annoys some photography enthusiasts to no end, since they feel those snappers take away of the magic and skill of photography. But to me it's just a constantly broadening field of photography and its different uses and goals.

MRRiley · 08-17-2009, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

[b]\
If I understand your position, then only those who use Polaroid would qualify as real photographers.

Even polaroids can be post-processed or manupulated during "processing." Check out "Pola-Art" to see some examples

Originally posted by Pentax pete

Hi I'm new to the forum, and my question is:

What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it.

I first started shooting film, back about 16 years ago, and strived to work hard at it. I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line. Do you know of any clubs around Saskatchewan Canada that one could join to share a common intrest in photography??

Pete... First off, welcome to the forum and good luck finding a club in Saskatchewan. Second, why introduce yourself by making such a derisive statement implying that photographers who chose to post-process their images are somehow lame or not "real" photographers.

EVERY image is post-processed in one way or another, even if you do nothing to it after it comes out of the camera. The camera itself post-processes every image to some extent or other. In fact, every photograph ever taken is or has been both pre-processed AND then post-processed. You pre-process when you select a point of view. You pre-process when you select a certain camera or lens. You pre-process when you select a particular type of film. You are even pre-processing at the very instant that you click the shutter. Everything after the shutter closes is post-processing in one way or another. You post-process when you chose a pro lab over a drug store lab (or visa versa). You post-process when you select a certain temperture for your developing solution. You post-process when you select glossy paper over matte. Or when you crop or dodge or burn.

I really wish people would get over this fantasy that photography is a sacred rite that must be adhered to religiously in order to stay true to some mystical spirit. Photography is nothing more than the fixing, in a relatively stable medium, of the light that was in front of the camera and lens at the time of the exposure. It makes no difference if this image is fixed upon a digital sensor and saved as 0's & 1's or chemically fixed upon a piece of plastic or cellulose coated with a light sensitive substance. It doesn't matter if the film is 1x1mm or 8x10 inches. The only difference lies in the amount of detail which each medium is capable of recording. And, make no mistake there are differences even in the "film" mediums themselves. Take 3 photos from the same vantage point, using the same kind of camera and the same settings, but shoot one on Kodacolor, one on Fujicolor and one on Kodak Infared Film. You WILL get 3 different photos and I don't think you would dispute that.

Turning to post-processing, anything, and I do mean ANYTHING that can be done in digital post-processing can be done with film and traditional (though often difficult) darkroom techniques. Look up Jerry Uelsmann sometime. I had to do those kinds of things to complete my BA in Photography way back in the 1980's.

Where the line is drawn between a factual representation of reality and an entirely fabricated fantasy world is hard to establish and really does not matter to 90% or more of the photographs that most of us will ever take. The only situation where "photographic honesty" is absolutely and legally necessary is in documentary photography. Photos depicting newsworthy or significant events or situations need to be above reproach and there are photographic forensic techniques which can be used to disclose forged, falsified or heavily manipulated photographs. For the rest of us, the only thing that really matters is the final image that the artist wishes to depict.

You are of course, free to totally disagree with me. I can respect your view, but I will not accept it as having any influence upon me or anyone other than yourself. I hope you can see this as well.

Mike

Parallax · 08-17-2009, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Even polaroids can be post-processed or manupulated during "processing." Check out "Pola-Art" to see some examples...........................Mike

Well I'll be............!

By the way, has anybody else noticed that this was the OP's first and only post? Me thinks this was a drive-by posting.

**Kerrowdown** · 08-17-2009, 11:41 AM

Firstly welcome to the forum.

There has always been PP in photography in some form or other, only photojournalists are limited to just a sharpen and contrast enhance for ethical reasons, for all the rest anything goes, enjoy.

Pentax pete · 08-17-2009, 09:25 PM

how do you reduce the file size in order to upload??

Pentax pete · 08-17-2009, 09:32 PM

Thanks, for the attitude adjustment!! I needed that. I guess I do end up doing some pp.

Pentax pete · 08-17-2009, 11:25 PM

Okay, go and find them!!

Pentax pete · 08-17-2009, 11:28 PM

No I am still here, no drive by!!

08-17-2009, 05:25 AM	#21
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	News flash: ALL images are post processed! Digital - If you shoot raw you, or the default settings of the processing software are making the decision. If you shoot jpg the camera software does it. Film - With negatives you can crop, enlarge, darken, lighten, control contrast and alter colors. If you want to darken one small area and lighten another, you can do that just as you can with a digital image in phtoshop. Someone who is good at retouching can do unbelievable things to alter the image beyond the basics just mentioned. When you send your film out for processing it is corrected to some extent by either the processing machine or the operator. If a picture is under or over exposed it will try to make the best print that it can from it. Take a look at one of the prints that you are the most proud of and ask yourself if your exposure was spot on or did it get a little help in PP. Even slide film is PP. You can't pull the film directly from the camera and look at it, it has to be processed and you can control the results by altering the time in, and/or temperature of, each chemical. If I understand your position, then only those who use Polaroid would qualify as real photographers. Last edited by Parallax; 08-17-2009 at 08:29 AM.

08-17-2009, 11:33 AM	#24
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by Parallax [b]\ If I understand your position, then only those who use Polaroid would qualify as real photographers. Even polaroids can be post-processed or manupulated during "processing." Check out "Pola-Art" to see some examples Originally posted by Pentax pete Hi I'm new to the forum, and my question is: What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it. I first started shooting film, back about 16 years ago, and strived to work hard at it. I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line. Do you know of any clubs around Saskatchewan Canada that one could join to share a common intrest in photography?? Pete... First off, welcome to the forum and good luck finding a club in Saskatchewan. Second, why introduce yourself by making such a derisive statement implying that photographers who chose to post-process their images are somehow lame or not "real" photographers. EVERY image is post-processed in one way or another, even if you do nothing to it after it comes out of the camera. The camera itself post-processes every image to some extent or other. In fact, every photograph ever taken is or has been both pre-processed AND then post-processed. You pre-process when you select a point of view. You pre-process when you select a certain camera or lens. You pre-process when you select a particular type of film. You are even pre-processing at the very instant that you click the shutter. Everything after the shutter closes is post-processing in one way or another. You post-process when you chose a pro lab over a drug store lab (or visa versa). You post-process when you select a certain temperture for your developing solution. You post-process when you select glossy paper over matte. Or when you crop or dodge or burn. I really wish people would get over this fantasy that photography is a sacred rite that must be adhered to religiously in order to stay true to some mystical spirit. Photography is nothing more than the fixing, in a relatively stable medium, of the light that was in front of the camera and lens at the time of the exposure. It makes no difference if this image is fixed upon a digital sensor and saved as 0's & 1's or chemically fixed upon a piece of plastic or cellulose coated with a light sensitive substance. It doesn't matter if the film is 1x1mm or 8x10 inches. The only difference lies in the amount of detail which each medium is capable of recording. And, make no mistake there are differences even in the "film" mediums themselves. Take 3 photos from the same vantage point, using the same kind of camera and the same settings, but shoot one on Kodacolor, one on Fujicolor and one on Kodak Infared Film. You WILL get 3 different photos and I don't think you would dispute that. Turning to post-processing, anything, and I do mean ANYTHING that can be done in digital post-processing can be done with film and traditional (though often difficult) darkroom techniques. Look up Jerry Uelsmann sometime. I had to do those kinds of things to complete my BA in Photography way back in the 1980's. Where the line is drawn between a factual representation of reality and an entirely fabricated fantasy world is hard to establish and really does not matter to 90% or more of the photographs that most of us will ever take. The only situation where "photographic honesty" is absolutely and legally necessary is in documentary photography. Photos depicting newsworthy or significant events or situations need to be above reproach and there are photographic forensic techniques which can be used to disclose forged, falsified or heavily manipulated photographs. For the rest of us, the only thing that really matters is the final image that the artist wishes to depict. You are of course, free to totally disagree with me. I can respect your view, but I will not accept it as having any influence upon me or anyone other than yourself. I hope you can see this as well. Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 08-17-2009 at 11:41 AM.

08-17-2009, 11:38 AM	#25
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by MRRiley Even polaroids can be post-processed or manupulated during "processing." Check out "Pola-Art" to see some examples...........................Mike Well I'll be............! By the way, has anybody else noticed that this was the OP's first and only post? Me thinks this was a drive-by posting. Last edited by Parallax; 08-17-2009 at 11:52 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New in here and in photography	Aktivus	Welcomes and Introductions	1	09-12-2010 01:19 PM
New here, not new to photography	Bob photo 4 life	Welcomes and Introductions	5	06-16-2010 06:25 AM
What is photography to you???	Ubuntu_user	Photographic Technique	30	06-01-2010 06:53 AM
3D photography	MattGunn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-29-2009 09:54 PM
More IR photography	jshurak	Post Your Photos!	0	09-23-2007 01:11 PM

08-16-2009, 10:00 PM	#16
PeteyJ Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Chicago/Cleveland Posts: 176	Originally posted by KungPOW I think he was attacking Mac users. At least I hope so. This thread needs a good old fashioned Mac Vs. PC Smak Down. Then we could do Ford vs. Subaru Or Film vs. Digital, maybe FF Vs. APS-C.... How bout Super Nintendo vs. Sega Genesis, Yankees vs. Red Sox, and "My dad can beat up your dad" while we're at it?

08-16-2009, 10:32 PM	#17
X Man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	Originally posted by Pentax pete Hi I'm new to the forum, and my question is: What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it. I first started shooting film, back about 16 years ago, and strived to work hard at it. I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line. Oh, horse pucky. Photography is the same as it ever was and yet completely different. What is photography now? Oh, I don't know... accessible? No longer the exclusive domain of the idly rich amateur or the un-challenged professional? Originally posted by KungPOW I think he was attacking Mac users. At least I hope so. This thread needs a good old fashioned Mac Vs. PC Smak Down. Then we could do Ford vs. Subaru Or Film vs. Digital, maybe FF Vs. APS-C.... Glad I could help. I'm doing my part. Originally posted by monochrome Um, it isn't the Mac, per se, it's the playing. I could just as easily have written "a Dell to play on," or "a computer." But, you didn't. Originally posted by PeteyJ How bout Super Nintendo vs. Sega Genesis, Yankees vs. Red Sox, and "My dad can beat up your dad" while we're at it? Damn Yankees are ruining my beloved Red Sox season, dammit! ...and the Yankees suck! Not really, but I sure wish they did. Regards, Mike

08-16-2009, 11:22 PM	#18
JonPB Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 430	Originally posted by Pentax pete What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it. ... I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line. For myself, I focus on capturing the best image I can. I try to limit myself to the most minimal post processing. Why? Because that's the part of photography I'm most interested in learning. Why? Because printing skills, or processing skills, aren't nearly as fun when the original image isn't enjoyable to work with. And I'm not good enough at capturing images to enjoy the arts in processing and printing. But processing and printing are both part of the art of photography. Why? Because art is about communication, and there needs to be something to communicate with. Personally, I love the idea of having an art show that consists of large format film on light-tables. But, unless you are using the film itself as art, the art involves other things. Post-processing isn't about "needing to fix" the image. Post processing is about making the image better. Sort of like how bananas are good, and quite frequently a good banana is enjoyable in and of itself, but sometimes peanut butter or ice cream can make the banana better. And some people--whom I will not judge--might like peanut butter or ice cream even without a good banana. And I see no problem with people playing with expensive toys. If they enjoy playing, let them play. If they're taking pictures and working with the images, that's photography. It might be bad photography by your standards, but it is their time and money to spend as they see fit.

08-16-2009, 11:25 PM	#19
JonPB Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 430	Originally posted by PeteyJ How bout Yankees vs. Red Sox while we're at it? No need. That's easy. Red Sox.

08-17-2009, 01:54 AM	#20
photog Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia Posts: 165	Originally posted by Pentax pete Hi I'm new to the forum, and my question is: What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop, or get a good shot the first time and then not have the need to fix it. I first started shooting film, back about 16 years ago, and strived to work hard at it. I was afraid to get into digital, because of not knowing what was real and what was not. It takes a real photographer to get the shot the first time and not have to photoshop it later down the line. Do you know of any clubs around Saskatchewan Canada that one could join to share a common intrest in photography?? Pete I started photography 59 years ago with an Ihaggee 116 roll film camera and have since used 1/4 plate (3 1/4 by 41/4inch) Graphlex using double-dark slides or a film pack holding an enormous 12 films. I used the first 120 roll film slr the Agiflex (now extinct) Mamiya 330 twin lens and several Mamiya RB67's hasselblad. I used a Custom colour processing / printing service and after feeling the need to have more "control" (don't be shocked, Pete) I built my own colour processing equipment and bought 2 Super Chromega enlargers. Volume of production lead to an Expediter roll transport proceddor EP3 and later EP2 and 2 Durst M58 printers. Now retired I play with a K10 and 20 and the Adobe software, CS4 and LR2. Have I been totally corrupted?

08-17-2009, 10:23 AM	#22
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by X Man But, you didn't. Nope But I think we're I think

08-17-2009, 10:58 AM	#23
emr Guest	Originally posted by Pentax pete What is it photography? Is it a lame attempt to get a shot and then try and fix it with photoshop... Well, you certainly seem to have an opinion on what it is, don't you? The way I see it is that there's no single one and right way of photography. For somebody it's about just snapping those holiday and family reunion pictures with automatic settings. For others it is about careful composing and planning. Or shooting just raw material and doing a lot of post processing on computer. What modern cameras have done is that with today's automatic cameras even the soccer-moms can shoot pictures that are mostly in focus and correctly exposed. And this annoys some photography enthusiasts to no end, since they feel those snappers take away of the magic and skill of photography. But to me it's just a constantly broadening field of photography and its different uses and goals.

08-17-2009, 11:41 AM	#26
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,866	Firstly welcome to the forum. There has always been PP in photography in some form or other, only photojournalists are limited to just a sharpen and contrast enhance for ethical reasons, for all the rest anything goes, enjoy.

08-17-2009, 09:25 PM	#27
Pentax pete Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery Posts: 49 Original Poster	how do you reduce the file size in order to upload??

08-17-2009, 09:32 PM	#28
Pentax pete Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery Posts: 49 Original Poster	Thanks, for the attitude adjustment!! I needed that. I guess I do end up doing some pp.

08-17-2009, 11:25 PM	#29
Pentax pete Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery Posts: 49 Original Poster	Okay, go and find them!!

08-17-2009, 11:28 PM	#30
Pentax pete Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery Posts: 49 Original Poster	No I am still here, no drive by!!