Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-10-2007, 12:49 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
the debate isnt about whether or not we should touch up our photographs of course we should..

the debate is about how much we should touch up or manilpulate our photographs and still be able to call them "photographs".. it goes way beyond removing the odd pimple..

by "we" i dont just mean this forums members.. i mean we in its all encompassing form.. just to make sure WMBP knows who i am refering to when i use terms like "folks"..

trog

01-10-2007, 01:59 PM   #47
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
the debate isnt about whether or not we should touch up our photographs of course we should..

the debate is about how much we should touch up or manilpulate our photographs and still be able to call them "photographs".. it goes way beyond removing the odd pimple.
This is helpful.

But it now becomes clearer how uninteresting these questions are. We seem now to be agreed that it is okay to post-process your photos in the normal way, when they need it (sharpening, a little modest tonal correction, etc.). That's a relief. And as for what I called "editing" earlier in this thread - the kinds of manipulations that go way beyond normal post-processing - I assume we are agreed that people are free to do these kinds of things if they want. You don't like them, I think, or at least you don't want to call those products "photographs." I can go along with that, I think. You want to define a photograph as the product largely of the photographer's use of a camera - in particular, the lens, aperture and sensor, as distinct from in-camera filters that do things like make the blue sky orange, etc. Fine, agreed. And when the visual result has been modified in post-processing more by the computer than by the camera that produced the original, you think it's no longer a "photo," at least not in the normal sense. That also seems fairly reasonable.

But it's also pretty uncontroversial. I don't recall ever hearing anybody say anything to the contrary. That is, I've never heard somebody say, "If I start with an image showing my daughter sitting on her pony, and using Photoshop I add a unicorn's horn to my son's pony and put elf ears on my daughter herself, that edited result deserves to be regarded as a normal photograph in the same way as the unedited original." Maybe somebody HAS said that or something like it. There are a lot of silly people in the world. But I've never heard it said.

My sense is that there's a bit more to this thread than a misunderstanding. My sense is that you are a little concerned about the future (hence the title you gave this thread) and I assume that you are worried that image manipulation will become so routine that people will cease to be able to tell the difference between an old-fashioned honest-to-God photo from one that's been "improved." I understand this anxiety completely. I even share it - but only to a small degree.

Every new technology shakes up people's perception of the world around them. Multi-track studio recording techniques (like the Beatles used on Sgt Pepper) worried both purists and professional studio engineers at the time, in part because ordinary folks with a four-track recorder could now start doing interesting things that they could not do before. Two decades later, the Macintosh computer came out and ordinary people could suddenly do things like create newsletters and change fonts. It led to a period of HORRIBLE textual design and traditional font designers and print designers went into a funk that lasted a decade. It seemed like the world had gone mad, and perhaps it had, a little. But we've recovered. Twenty-years later, digital photography is the new thing (or one of the new things) and people are having fun with it. Most people now stick to Times New Roman or Arial (or two or three other traditional text fonts) in most of their printed documents. We've sobered up there and gotten drunk on digital imaging instead. But that, too, will pass.

Seeing unicorns and elves in "photographs" doesn't bother me. If I start seeing unicorns or elves with my own eyes, THEN I'll worry.

Will
01-10-2007, 02:02 PM   #48
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 108
Maybe we should stop calling the results of our work "photographs" altogether simply because the use of the term causes people to try to define what one is or isn't. If the term has to be narrowly defined it may have outlived its usefulness.

Simon
01-10-2007, 02:16 PM   #49
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
i am reasonbaly certain i know where digital photography is going WMBP.. its going from the camera to the computor..

i was curious to feel out how others feel about such things.. your own feelings of not being that bothered as long as the unicorns stay in the "photogrpahs" simply helps to confirm by beliefs.. he he

the thread has run its course and served its purpose.. thanks for your contribution..

trog

ps.. "Maybe we should stop calling the results of our work "photographs".. yes simon and perhaps stop calling ourselves "photographers" along with it..

01-10-2007, 02:37 PM   #50
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 157
And so it goes

Okay Trog,

You're from the Cartier-Bresson school. Why is it bothering you so that others don't necessarily go in that direction.

You seem to be saying that your's is the only pure form and that others are somehow bastardizing it with their, ugh!, computers.

The only thing this meaningless thread has demonstrated is that we all have different ideas about photography (that is, if it's demonstrated anything at all.)
01-10-2007, 02:48 PM   #51
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
Why should we stop calling ourselves photographers, or our efforts photographs? My work is done with a camera that focuses light onto a light sensitive device to create a likeness of what was in front of me. Photography. What is done to the image after that is what defines the style of photography. If there were only one way to do it most of us would not bother.
01-10-2007, 03:00 PM   #52
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
Actually, Trog is right, photography is going to the computer. I have no problem with that. When Kodak first made 35mm film photographers revolted. The medium put photography into the hands of the general public and photographers tried to pass it off by saying that the format was too small for any serious imagery.

Then came color film. This made photography even more accessible to the public, making it more lifelike (theoretically). Photographers screamed that it didn't have the character of "true film" (silver emultion B&W), and said that it would never have practical application.

Now photography has gone digital. Photographers are now trying to defend the old ways by saying that it has become too easy, too pedestrian, too computerized. I say it is evolution. The next step in the progression.

Photography is better than ever. I can't wait to see what's next.
01-10-2007, 03:35 PM   #53
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 108
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
Why should we stop calling ourselves photographers, or our efforts photographs? My work is done with a camera that focuses light onto a light sensitive device to create a likeness of what was in front of me. Photography. What is done to the image after that is what defines the style of photography. If there were only one way to do it most of us would not bother.
I wasn't intending to say anything different, by my comment, simply that if the term "photography" is to be interpreted in too strict or too narrow a way then maybe we should break free from its constraints and call our works "images" or maybe invent a new term that might cover every conceivable eventuality.

Whatever we call it: "photography" or not, it doesn't change what it is, and what it is is in the mind of the creator and of the viewer. Each may have his own opinion based on his own knowledge or lack of it of the techniques and media used.

Simon

01-10-2007, 04:23 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
Original Poster
"I say it is evolution. The next step in the progression"

progression means to move forward.. advance towards a goal.. some kind of plan..

it should not be confused with evolution.. not unless one believes in the "divine" plan.. he he..

but anyways i think what we now know of as photography has a few years left in it before it goes the way of the dinosaurs..

trog
01-10-2007, 05:19 PM   #55
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
I can agree that we don't need to call it photography. It's just a word. In fact on some points I think some of us are arguing the same side with different words, which means symantics has blocked our progress. Maybe calling it something else will end the need to link it's similarities, and more importantly it's differences.

Photography simply means "writing with light", which we all do when we press that shutter button. What follows may be something else entirely, and I'm OK with that. Maybe we are graphic artists. Not that big of a stretch.

What were we talking about again? I forgot. How 'bout that Fiesta Bowl? Go Broncos!
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 05:29 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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