Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-09-2007, 07:14 PM   #31
Xgear
Guest




Steroids are for cheating and technology is just a fancy name for a hammer

Just give me a cardboard box with a pinhole I photograph not the camera not the
darkroom, computer or processing software. It is about the photograph the content its life and soul that I capture.
Photography from it discovery is technology and digital photography is evolution.

01-09-2007, 07:41 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,939
QuoteOriginally posted by joele Quote
I think of the camera still being the camera no change, the RAW file is the film and your computer is the darkroom... Its actually better now as more people have their own darkroom, less chemicals too ;-)
I think that is the best summary.

No offense to Trog - (I understand (sort of) your point) but the issue of "cheating" is sort of silly. Cheat what? Are we in some contest to see who can manipulate the controls of his camera only, to produce an image? I hope not. "Use a tripod - cheating - you should just hand-hold!" "Use a light meter - cheating - the sun is shining, can't you figure it out?!" "Filters? Cheating!" Much less auto focus...

A testicularity contest should be saved for the big two, where they have "the best" equipment, yet argue over the best PP software to use in their shots :-)

Last edited by SpecialK; 01-10-2007 at 02:20 PM.
01-09-2007, 07:50 PM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,115
Maybe yes- maybe no

I don't see any problem with processing a shot to improve it. We don't demand that the leather seats in our vehicles retain the natural hair/colors/smell that was original, anyhow I don't. I see a lot of "purists" in the photo world, and they tend to worry to much about pixels, technology, and what is "proper" above what is a great picture. If a shot catches your attention, and "speaks" to you, what difference does it make if it was Jpeg or Raw converted? Just my opinion, not worth much, but as much as any other I've seen. LOL
01-09-2007, 08:45 PM   #34
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Xgear Quote
Just give me a cardboard box with a pinhole
Well, that seems just a tad extreme. :-)

Ken Rockwell - not known for his nuance - has a nice piece titled "Your camera does not matter." I don't think he really means it, but the essay does make fairly well the point that the camera does not matter (nearly) as much as the photographer.

Will

01-09-2007, 10:28 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
u seem to be an intelligent guy WMBP.. i have always thought i could put together a good arguement.. but if u dont know or understand where i am coming from.. something is odd.. he he

one thing is clear the majority dont seem to know where i am coming from or pehaps dont want to know where i am coming from..

its seems to most folks the end result is all that matters.. my futile attempts to suggest the "means" might have some importance as well is falling on deaf ears.. he he

time for me to shut up it think..

trog
01-09-2007, 10:59 PM   #36
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
u seem to be an intelligent guy WMBP.. i have always thought i could put together a good arguement.. but if u dont know or understand where i am coming from.. something is odd.. he he

....

its seems to most folks the end result is all that matters.. my futile attempts to suggest the "means" might have some importance as well is falling on deaf ears..
I don't think I'm deaf. Really, I'm trying hard to follow you. That's why I asked if you could help me understand you, either by giving me a specific example of something you don't like, or by referring to something somebody has said that you think is wrong, objectionable, troubling, whatever you don't like. I could give lots of specifics of things I don't like in photography. I could also name lots of things I don't object to but don't personally want to bother with, starting with pretty much anything that involves Photoshop.

I'm not at all sure why you say that for most folks - by which I take it you mean most of us here - "the end result is all that matters." That simply can't be true. I enjoy every aspect of what I'm doing with photography now: shooting the pictures in the first place, reviewing, selecting and post-processing them on the computer, then finally putting my pictures on line (or less often, printing them) so I can share them with others - and of course, I look forward occasionally to getting a compliment from someone. But of all those aspects of the process, the end result - the final picture - is perhaps the least important, while holding the camera and actually shooting photographs is the part I like the best. It's not that I don't care about the end product. I certainly do. But the people who really care about the end product most are either (a) pros who are getting paid for that end product or (b) snapshot takers who don't actually like cameras at all but do want a picture of little Larry's birthday party for the scrapbook. We hobbyists, on the other hand, fall in the middle. We're really into the means and the processes for their own sake, because they're FUN.

I have the feeling you are unhappy about something, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. If you're just a techno-curmudgeon, well, that's fine, I can respect that position. Occasionally, I even feel that way myself about certain things. :-)

Will
01-10-2007, 03:32 AM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
An observation, aimed at no one in particular...

A club to which I used to belong had an occasional competition which we called the "Nikoff" competition.

One or more Kodak Instamatic cameras - the more basic the better (ideally no focussing, no exposure adjustment) - were loaded with rolls of 126 Kodachrome 64, and were passed around the club members. Each member took a prescribed number of shots - four I think.

The resulting exposed films were sent off to Kodak for processing and the results were judged (without the photographers even getting their hands on them first). It was an interesting experiment in "it's the photogrpher that matters, not the camera". There were usually some interesting shots, and I'm pleased to say I even won the competition one year with a shot I would have been pleased to have taken on my Pentax SLR.

This was an interesting exercise, but there's nothing to say that we have to always take this "hair shirt" approach to photography. While I don't agree with Will that for the amateur the end product is necessarily of little importance (do we not exhibit, enter into competition, show firends, relations, maybe even occasionally sell!), I do agree that the process is also very important. The amateur, at least as much, if not more than, the professional, will experiment with the process of getting from his raw materials (a scene, found or set up) to his end product (a print, slide, or digital image).

Simon
01-10-2007, 06:53 AM   #38
Veteran Member
xfraser's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ohio
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 830
I'm finding out that it is very difficult for me to find the right words to say what I want to say.

I really don't have a problem with post-processing pictures, or shooting raw, but I have noticed in other forums that the major emphasis of the threads is in the PP work and not the original picture, and I guess that's what really bothers me. I don't notice that in this forum, and there are some people, like Clarence, that do wonderful things with their post-processing. I love his snow ponies that look like an oil painting. I like to see how creative people can be with the PP, like the thread that had 5 people take the same picture and do some PP on it. Photoshop can be fun, and is an art form in itself.

My main interest is learning how to take the best picture I can without spending hours in front of a computer. I know I'll never be very good at it, but I enjoy being behind the camera and trying to capture my vision of the world. I just don't want the emphasis in digital photography to end up being Photoshop instead of how to use the camera.

01-10-2007, 07:01 AM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
techno-curmudgeon is partly it WMBT..

assuming i have your meaning correct.. camer/lens which includes the imaging firmware that comes with my particular brand of camera.. plus other photograph paraphernalia..

in simple terms i like to achieve what i achieve useing photographic equipment.. i do not consider my desktop PC part of that photographical equipment..

lets say i choose to wear a mild form of simons "hair shirt".. it limits my end results i know..

i actually ran a similar thread to this one in another photographic forum.. it followed a similar vein to this one..

"art" got more of a mention in the other thread.. it seems those who consider their photographs as "art" think anything goes and nothing should limit the end result..

in essence nothing should get in the way of "art" and all the tools avaliable should be used..

i realize i differ in the sense i have never considered my photographs as "art" simply photographs.. which is why i think i need to carefully define what a photograph is..

as a hobbyist i have this luxury.. as pro i would not have..

if i have a go at "art" i would use my PC without a problem.. when i am playing at "photographs" my PC is pretty much limited to being a simple viewer..

here is what i consider pieces of art.. something worth taking my "hair suit" off for..

purely photography.. studio lights no post processing.. "hair suit" firmly on..



mosly photography.. studio lights with some post processing help.. "hair suit" buttons undone..



well.. its anyones guess what this is.. "hair suit" off..



somewhere between one and three photography stops and graphics imagery takes over..

trog

Last edited by trog100; 01-10-2007 at 07:07 AM.
01-10-2007, 08:13 AM   #40
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteQuote:
While I don't agree with Will that for the amateur the end product is necessarily of little importance (do we not exhibit, enter into competition, show firends, relations, maybe even occasionally sell!), I do agree that the process is also very important. The amateur, at least as much, if not more than, the professional, will experiment with the process of getting from his raw materials (a scene, found or set up) to his end product (a print, slide, or digital image).
I didn't say that the end product is of little importance, necessarily or otherwise, and I do not believe that. I was responding to trog's charge that somebody (not sure whom) thinks that the end product is all that matters. And I was responding by saying that I enjoy photography even when my photos are lousy. But I hasten to say that, when I get a good 'un, I'm thrilled. And yes, I like to publish/share my photos and have sold a few now and then and that's a treat, too.

Will
01-10-2007, 09:19 AM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,613
Couldn't agree more Simon

QuoteOriginally posted by Simon Quote
An observation, aimed at no one in particular...

A club to which I used to belong had an occasional competition which we called the "Nikoff" competition.

One or more Kodak Instamatic cameras - the more basic the better (ideally no focussing, no exposure adjustment) - were loaded with rolls of 126 Kodachrome 64, and were passed around the club members. Each member took a prescribed number of shots - four I think.

The resulting exposed films were sent off to Kodak for processing and the results were judged (without the photographers even getting their hands on them first). It was an interesting experiment in "it's the photogrpher that matters, not the camera". There were usually some interesting shots, and I'm pleased to say I even won the competition one year with a shot I would have been pleased to have taken on my Pentax SLR.

This was an interesting exercise, but there's nothing to say that we have to always take this "hair shirt" approach to photography. While I don't agree with Will that for the amateur the end product is necessarily of little importance (do we not exhibit, enter into competition, show firends, relations, maybe even occasionally sell!), I do agree that the process is also very important. The amateur, at least as much, if not more than, the professional, will experiment with the process of getting from his raw materials (a scene, found or set up) to his end product (a print, slide, or digital image).
To a greater or lesser degree, it's all important to me, starting with the camera. I once saw a similar exhibition (back in the mid '70's before digital) at the University of Rochester Eastman Art center, where they gave instamatics to several well know professional "art" photographers to play with. I didn't like all the images that were exhibited, but some were stunning, and all were "interesting". Some of the most effective images were those that had been greatly enlarged so that the grain of the film was an integral part of the final product.
The showing of my work is important to me too. Knowing that I got a good shot is wonderful, but when I post a photo and someone says "print that at 8X10 and hang it on your wall" I know that what I was trying to communicate, got communicated. I used to be a professional musician, and I know I'm good. Playing for myself does not give me nearly the satisifaction that playing for others does. Some of that same feeling translates into my attempts at photography.
I still think it's all important. My eye, the process of taking the photograph, the camera itself, the process of getting the images and possibly tweaking them (given my poor pp skills that's all I can do) and printing or posting them, are all part and parcel of the photographic process for me.
Personally for me, I think that labels are not too terribly important. I don't really care if something is a "photograph" or "graphic art", I try not to sort things that way. On the other hand, the end result it not the only important part of the process for me, I enjoy (or at least tolerate) the whole of the process.

NaCl(enough from me)H2O
01-10-2007, 09:49 AM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
Dead Horse?

I can't believe how beaten to death this subject is. Even on this very forum, the subject of the legitimacy of post-processing has been covered several times.

Nothing has changed. Nothing. When we shot film there were people for whom taking the picture was the end of their participation. They shot the picture then took the film to the lab. Done. Then there were people who had darkrooms. Some even loaded their own film cartriges. These people would develop their own film, often using differet techniques to get different results, depending on what the images were. Cross-processing, pushing, pulling, etc. Then they would print the images, using different techniques to get the image to look a certain way. Changing contrast, sandwiching multiple negatives, doging, burning, toning, etc.

If you took your film to the lab you may not have done post-processing, but the lab did. They color corrected your images, fixed exposure errors and more. Good labs even spotted your prints when you got enlargements.

Nothing has changed. Some people let the camera do the processing, some like to do it themselves. Neither is wrong. I think it is time to let this subject die.
01-10-2007, 10:31 AM   #43
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
Nothing has changed. Some people let the camera do the processing, some like to do it themselves. Neither is wrong.
Well, you know it's a dead horse and I know it's a dead horse. But trog seems to think that it's only "mostly dead" (Princess Bride) and "getting better" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

And I don't think you're quite right when you say "nothing has changed." Actually, a lot has changed and I think that's what's confusing the issue for trog and perhaps a few others. These days it is possible - not easy, in my opinion, but certainly possible - to do things with images that go WAY beyond normal post-processing and also way beyond anything that it was possible to do in a lab in the 1960s and 1970s, when I was developing my own photos. I gave some examples - changing a subject's hair color, making the subject in the photo look 30 lbs lighter, not to mention really creative things like putting somebody else's lips on the subject's face. My sense is that trog is unsettled by what CAN be done by experts, and that anxiety is being translated into a general anxiety about what IS being done by ordinary photographers like (I suspect) most of us.

Will
01-10-2007, 10:59 AM   #44
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Well, you know it's a dead horse and I know it's a dead horse. But trog seems to think that it's only "mostly dead" (Princess Bride) and "getting better" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

And I don't think you're quite right when you say "nothing has changed." Actually, a lot has changed and I think that's what's confusing the issue for trog and perhaps a few others. These days it is possible - not easy, in my opinion, but certainly possible - to do things with images that go WAY beyond normal post-processing and also way beyond anything that it was possible to do in a lab in the 1960s and 1970s, when I was developing my own photos. I gave some examples - changing a subject's hair color, making the subject in the photo look 30 lbs lighter, not to mention really creative things like putting somebody else's lips on the subject's face. My sense is that trog is unsettled by what CAN be done by experts, and that anxiety is being translated into a general anxiety about what IS being done by ordinary photographers like (I suspect) most of us.

Will

I'll agree with that. I have spent a fair amount of time learning some of those "extra" tricks in Photoshop, but I don't use those tricks on most photos.

Here is an example of using Photoshop to do something that was done in darkrooms before. In this shot I removed blemishes from the model's skin (spotting), softened her skin (airbrush), brightened her eyes (dodging), and darkened her suroundings (burning). I did not reshape her, change her hair color, or anything else that could not have been done before digital. Is this more than most people would do with their photos? Yes, and I don't do this with all my photos either, just the ones that call for it.

01-10-2007, 11:14 AM   #45
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
Here is an example of using Photoshop to do something that was done in darkrooms before. In this shot I removed blemishes from the model's skin (spotting), softened her skin (airbrush), brightened her eyes (dodging), and darkened her suroundings (burning). I did not reshape her, change her hair color, or anything else that could not have been done before digital. Is this more than most people would do with their photos? Yes, and I don't do this with all my photos either, just the ones that call for it.
Nice photo. My guess is that even before you did those little touch-ups, the model didn't look TOO shabby. But your example illustrates the great importance of context. I'm not sure whether your shot was intended as commercial shot or was just a very nice personal portrait, but it's very clearly NOT a candid. We don't expect the same standards of "truth" from commercial photography (models on mag covers, photos of products in ads, etc.) or even from studio portraits that we expect from photojournalism or from candids in amateur home photo collections. Every reasonable adult knows at least vaguely that these photos are doctored or touched-up in ways that "normal" photos and news photos are not, and as long as everybody knows the score, I don't see a problem. US law even recognizes "puffery" as a special class of speech applying to advertisements: when you claim that your product is "Rated #1!" you don't actually have to be telling the truth, so long as you keep your claims sufficiently vague. On the other hand, if you claim that Consumer Reports ranked your product #1 in their December 2006 issue, and they didn't, well, you might be in trouble.

These are not difficult distinctions to make, at least I don't think they are.

Will
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, computer, dslr, film., photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Redefining Digital Photography RioRico Photographic Technique 2 09-27-2011 08:58 AM
Back into photography--digital and film jimmm18 Welcomes and Introductions 9 02-11-2011 12:14 AM
New to Pentax digital photography Shoeboy Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 06-14-2010 03:09 PM
S.Kelby Digital Photography bundle bobmaxja Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 04-22-2010 09:09 PM
Top 10 for Digital Photography Snydly Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 11 02-12-2010 10:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top