[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??

[DAZ]

You could do what Ansel Adams did. Go out and work really hard to get the photo you want in the camera then work even harder in the dark room to get the photo you had in your minds eye.

Some people use to shoot slide film and some would shoot negative film. With slide you don’t have to go into the dark room (although some did). With negative film someone went into the dark room (or used a processing machine, same thing) so someone did some adjusting. Even if it was not you someone did some post processing to the photo and if it was not you they may have done more then you think.

Dark room work has always been part of photography. To say that only photographers that shoot slide film and never do any PP to it are the only good photographers is the same as saying that photographers that shoot digital and never PP are the only good photographers. I think they are plenty of photographers (and if Ansel Adams was alive possibly him) that disagree with the idea that real photographers don’t PP. Unless one is going for an art form that is more like painting PP can only take a bad photo and make it look OK. To get a really good photo even with PP you need to start with a good photo to PP with.

DAZ

[mithrandir]

No camera thus far manufactured can replicate what the human eye can see. And no camera can capture what a talented photographer can envision. Ansel Adams knew this and so do many great photographers, many on this forum. Post Processing will always be part of the vision (even if cameras are developed to capture scenes akin to the human eye).

[Ash]

Welcome to the forum Pete.
Photography itself is the recording of light, or even painting with light - no more.
All the added features of dSLR, whilst handy in some circumstances does little to enhance a photo once taken.
PP, whilst an art and a skill in itself, is separate from photography, although is inextricably connected to it, just as the darkroom is with film.
Photography, including the PP process, is what you make it - as real or as unreal as you like, and should please yourself (and/or others) with the results.

[raymeedc]

Makes no difference how much or how little is accomplished pre or post the actual shot. Whatever it takes to get the final image you're looking for is valid, even if that means dipping the final print in battery acid..... this is a creative outlet, not a pointless technical exercise (IMO of course).

[CWyatt]

I agree with your concern about use of photoshop. I generally dislike photos that are very obviously computer-processed, or spliced together to create a scene that never really occurred. I usually prefer a journalistic-type style of minimal enhancement without alterations to objects.

However, I'm told that there's little or nothing that can be achieved in photoshop that couldn't be achieved in the dark room. Now serious post-processing is just easier, quicker, and more available to the average photographer.

I agree with what previous posters also pointed out. No photograph is a true representation of reality anyway. Even our own eyes are just lenses. No colour/contrast is going to match 'reality'.

And, I'd still hope, you can't create great photos after you've pressed the shutter (just enhance and bring them out as you envisioned).

[monochrome]

If you really think it through, nothing in the workflow of photography has changed.

The medium and the location of the capital have changed - and consumables have become digital bodies with an 18-month half-life and software upgrades.

I shot analog yesterday - a roll of Tri-x with an SV. Three hours for 36 exposures.

I actually hand-metered and twisted dials on camera and lens. I bracketed by hand and thought about EV conversions. Very "old-days."

I used three prime lenses and a short zoom, a Y2 filter, and a CP, and a GND. I took notes for each shot on index cards from my shirt pocket since there's no EXIF.

I know (and knew at the time) at least a few shots will need some darkroom work to achieve the full effect I imagined - push a bit, dodge, burn, select paper - I'll write a work order for Tom, the labtech, tomorrow when I drop the film. He'll call before printing anything that doesn't work!!

How does that really differ from applying a Y2 filter in PS, or adjusting curves, or anything else I might do in PP to get the effect I want? Why can't I have the negs scanned and PP myself in PhotoShop? Why couldn't I just have done all the same thinking, taken digital images, but applied the analog tech work in Photoshop - or even in-camera?

Would that diminish the work that went into my afternoon?

The issue is the people who have a $1000 point-n-shoot, auto-presets and a Mac to play on.

[X Man]

...and a Mac to play on.

And wtf does that have to do with anything at all?

[KungPOW]

Ok, Mr. "Real Photographer", post up some shots.

Lets see what you've got.

And not some "lame" fixed it in the dark room junk either. No straightening of horizons, or dodging, burning, contrast adjustments, or, even dare I say it?.... cropping.

[monochrome]

And wtf does that have to do with anything at all?

Excuse me?

[X Man]

Excuse me?

So, a Mac user would have to be a what, exactly?

X

[PeteyJ]

Excuse me?

I think he thinks you were attacking all Mac users, when in reality you were probably attacking people who think they're artists just because they have a Mac. Or at least I hope that's what you were trying to say.

[innershell]

I see a beautiful sunset of oranges and pinks. I shoot it with my camera and when I preview in my computer, all I see is silhouette and oranges. Should I PP to bring the colors back the way I saw it, or just leave what the camera took in the "essense of not doing any PP work"?

I prefer to PP to bring back what my mind's eye saw.

[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....

[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."