Digital or Digitized ?

[rhythm_traveller]

hi

I noticed almost 90% the pictures posted here has been digitized using either PS or whatever software. I used to have the passion and belief that taking photographs is a hunting sport. It freezes the target in its ultimate moment making it a legend with the colors, motion, lighting true to that moment only.

It seems like these has faded away with new digital technology. Meaning that with digital cameras, photographers not only are able to anyhow shoot, but even worse anyhow edit the photos to their liking.

The point is that 90% of the photos posted here have been edited. Why is that so ? Photos on film are edited by enhancing their color at the film shop, but now digital photos are edited with special effects, fake colors, cropping and other non essential addition to achieve what the photographer wants and not what the photographic moment should be portraying.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I do minimal editing. That maybe my demise, but i strongly believe to freeze the moment at the very best I could without editing. In australia, the photographers actually despises those who edit their photos profusely making a photograph into a picture, a newspaper article into a magazine centre piece.

This might be harsh, but don't flame me I just wanna know if anyone feels the way I do. To see a photo the way it is, depending on the moment, skill, timing away from home, instead of depending on digital technology to gain what you want at home.

So are you a passionate photographer or a passionate photographic editor ? :dunno:

 

[FIR]

Something similar here

 

[~Arcanic~]

FIR - I think the thread is similiar, but doesn seem to be what he's trying to say... hehe

and in any case... rhythm, i agree with you on what u are saying, I've all along been a film user til recently converted to digital, film doesn really allow much editing and I've always didn really a supporter of editing either, I do feel that the moment u press the shutter, is THE moment you want to capture... I myself try not to do much editing too, and in any case, I really sucks at PSing... lolz

 

[theITguy]

To "edit" a picture, not only in digital but also good old film. It is a "what effects you want to achieve" thing. Add a soft filter, you get soft images. In digital world, it is easier, no need to get a physical filter. Use of software.


Lets say this, Velvia and E100VS film, both very vivid. They look unreal to the actual colour, but they look great. Same thing here for digital pictures, but this time round they create the vivid picture after the picture taking process. Yes, mayeb they may not look like the real one, so does Velvia and E100VS pictures.


Photography is about picture making, does not matter to me whether they edit heavily or not, so long as they look great eventually. It is about going against the limit to create a picture. If that moment is available to any person, who have the same camera system as you do, any person with some basic photography skills can do a similar job as you.


Then again, digital photography is a different cup of tea to me. I am plain lazy to go adjust the colour in front of the computer. I rather buy a roll of Velvia and shoot, develop and get my slides ready in 2-3 days, mounted and slot them in a acid free pocket for viewing.

 

[ParkertR]

i hear where you're coming from - but digital photography has opened new doors to expressing your ideas in print or as a jpeg on the internet. there will be purists but there'll also be those who wish to experiment with new ideas and such i believe that the success of photography is in the final output... no matter how much it has been altered or if it has been left 'pure' and untouched, if you like it, you've succesfully captured a moment i despise people who edit and say its untouched though... yep!

 

[whoelse]

Anyone want to demonstrate take 3 pictures to create 1 picture just to see for fun?
Someone did a good job creating a NG mag last nite.

 

[jopel]

hi

I noticed almost 90% the pictures posted here has been digitized using either PS or whatever software. I used to have the passion and belief that taking photographs is a hunting sport. It freezes the target in its ultimate moment making it a legend with the colors, motion, lighting true to that moment only.

It seems like these has faded away with new digital technology. Meaning that with digital cameras, photographers not only are able to anyhow shoot, but even worse anyhow edit the photos to their liking.

The point is that 90% of the photos posted here have been edited. Why is that so ? Photos on film are edited by enhancing their color at the film shop, but now digital photos are edited with special effects, fake colors, cropping and other non essential addition to achieve what the photographer wants and not what the photographic moment should be portraying.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I do minimal editing. That maybe my demise, but i strongly believe to freeze the moment at the very best I could without editing. In australia, the photographers actually despises those who edit their photos profusely making a photograph into a picture, a newspaper article into a magazine centre piece.

This might be harsh, but don't flame me I just wanna know if anyone feels the way I do. To see a photo the way it is, depending on the moment, skill, timing away from home, instead of depending on digital technology to gain what you want at home.

So are you a passionate photographer or a passionate photographic editor ? :dunno:

Brother, time has changed. We need a new paradigm in the world of photography. Those who remain in the old world (I salute them) have much to lose.

BTW you still need a good shot to work with. Digital enhancement is not about just shoot and let the computer handle it.

Actually you can to wonder in the darkroom with film (not those neighbour labs) but it is very expensive and time consuming.

My 2cents worth.

 

[vince123123]

its almost like saying:

"hey we should all revert to manual typewriters - no fake bold/formatting/ tables/etc....and we have to get it right the first time! no cut and paste and everything like in computers"

 

[rhythm_traveller]

its almost like saying:

"hey we should all revert to manual typewriters - no fake bold/formatting/ tables/etc....and we have to get it right the first time! no cut and paste and everything like in computers"

I don't think that's the correct path that we are going down What I'm saying its not even plagarism. Its more of screwing that moment to something that you want without the actual essence that's originally intended for.

I would agree doing editing for studio shots, but from what I see even non studio shots are being modified heavily, in such everyone just seems to have the skill of editing instead of the skill of taking photos.

Example, why are there so much cropping should your framing be perfect? Why create a soft effect when the actual situation is supposed to be harsh ? Why sharpen details when your focus is sharp ?

So I wonder, how many photographers and how many editors do we have here

 

[rhythm_traveller]

Mind you, i'm not biased against anyone who's hobby is to edit their photos. There are many enthusiasts that are happier collecting lens than using them or buying equipment than actually utilizing them. Same like other enthusiast that are very happy to get involved with technology to customize curves for their d70 instead of actually using the curves.

I respect these people who are honest about their skills and not categorizing themselves as photographers just because they have a camera and can show a superb end product with their editing skill.

Just that we have to be honest with everyone though. After all some of us are not doing this for money.

 

[vince123123]

I dont think anyone is more proficient in editing than photo taking has outright proclaimed "I'm a super photographer".

Most of the folks here are normal photographers, and they use their digital imaging skills to enhance their photos.

There are two discreet professsions really, a photographer (one who takes the photos) and a Digital Imaging Artist (one who enhances the photos, creates composites or other digital extras).

Most folks here take the photos and do some DI themselves before posting - does doing DI make them a not a photographer? Unless you have a specific example of someone who has very poor photography skills but excellent DI skills come out and say "I'm an excellent photographer" (as opposed to DI artist), I think your objections may not really have much substantial cause.

I respect these people who are honest about their skills and not categorizing themselves as photographers just because they have a camera and can show a superb end product with their editing skill.

Just that we have to be honest with everyone though. After all some of us are not doing this for money.

 

[rhythm_traveller]

Most folks here take the photos and do some DI themselves before posting - does doing DI make them a not a photographer? Unless you have a specific example of someone who has very poor photography skills but excellent DI skills come out and say "I'm an excellent photographer" (as opposed to DI artist), I think your objections may not really have much substantial cause.

Well I'm not going to give any specific example of someone as this is not personal. But to say that there is no one in the world that can do this may not be true

 

[afbug]

I for one, dun like to photochop my pics. I prefer the beginner feel and look for the photos. I dun like my pics to look to good or nice cos it doesn't reflect what i see and myself. But my camera con me many times thou, i'll just accept it as my camera's limitations.

To me, photography is just a part-time hobby. So maybe this is the reason why i have these views.

 

[rhythm_traveller]

I for one, dun like to photochop my pics. I prefer the beginner feel and look for the photos. I dun like my pics to look to good or nice cos it doesn't reflect what i see and myself. But my camera con me many times thou, i'll just accept it as my camera's limitations.

To me, photography is just a part-time hobby. So maybe this is the reason why i have these views.

Well said and ditto.

Likewise i think the place where i learnt photography has a great impact on my views of editing/modifying photos. I just like the originality to remain in my photos.

 

[afbug]

Well said and ditto.

Likewise i think the place where i learnt photography has a great impact on my views of editing/modifying photos. I just like the originality to remain in my photos.

But i think the pros whom make a living out of photography need to edit and beautify their pics. Its their rice bowl.

 

[obewan]

To edit or not to edit is up to individual... :bsmilie:
Try to capture what you want with your camera, and hopefully it turns out
to be sth you like or have in your mind. So as to minimise editing whenever possible. But if a great idea picture taken badly and still can be salvaged by editing it, why not.

I usually keep editing to the minimal. Just some cropping to straighten the picture or to improve the framing. To brighten a picture, if what I got is slightly underexposed.

Normally, I will keep 2 sets of pictures, the original and the crop version. Just by looking at magazines & newspaper, I can say many of the pictures are cropped and improvised by editing software. We always present to our viewers the best, yet try to retain as much of the original picture as possible. The uncrop version will always remind me, where should I improve.

 

[theITguy]

I would agree doing editing for studio shots, but from what I see even non studio shots are being modified heavily, in such everyone just seems to have the skill of editing instead of the skill of taking photos.

Example, why are there so much cropping should your framing be perfect? Why create a soft effect when the actual situation is supposed to be harsh ? Why sharpen details when your focus is sharp ?

So I wonder, how many photographers and how many editors do we have here

Studio shoot I do not do at all, so I cannot answer your question here.

Cropping, interesting point. Until recently, I thought that mounting my slides is the best way, which eventually turns out to be very bad as the mounted slides are cropped by the mount itself, destroying my "near perfect" framing of some objects. Thats why I started the 50 + 36 outing.

Reality is ugly, I bet my primary school teacher never tells me that. Again I like to point out, photography can be capturing that moment, or simply picture making. You make your own picture, your own way to make them look good to yourself. Why a harsh subject cannot be soft?

If making picture is just to let people see the exact subject, say a building in harsh form instead of a softened form, then I might as well tell them to go down and see themselves, save my film, time and energy. Taking picture is a visual communication (quoted from someone here), you take down what you perceived that is good (modified or not), put it in a picture form (prints, slides online etc) and show it to others what you "see".

What is sharpening? For digital cameras, pictures out are soft in general. The sharpening tools in Photoshop allows many levels of sharpening, to personal preference. The sharpening in films are different too if I am not wrong, as they are for different uses. In digital we do it in computers instead of letting the films do it.

 

[sriram]

In the end it is up to the user, right? The user can take a sh*t portrait with branches sticking out of the subject's head, ears, etc, or maybe it is shot at f/16 so that both the face and the background is sharp. Then he can edit out all this stuff in PS. Or he could take a pic on a dull cloudy day and superimpose a nice blue sky from another day.

To me, it is one simple question : do you want to be a lazy photographer and a photoshop expert, or a good photographer? Earlier in the film days, each frame cost a few cents, and editing was very difficult, so most photographers spent a lot of effort fine tuning their photography skills. It is very different now. To add to this, it is so easy to upload a pic from a digicam on to a website or forum for all to see. Over the past 4-5 years or so, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of cr@p pictures on the net (of course there are excellent ones too).

 

[Xpose]

hmmmm.....now this topic bring a rather interesting thing to me...

can someone tell me, in the eye of the law, which format of photography in recongised. Film or digital? I know film is one format that is accepted but let say if the digital one have not been edited and its the original as in straight from camera, in the eye of the law, would they still view it as a evidence or a proof againest someone or something?

 

[afbug]

hmmmm.....now this topic bring a rather interesting thing to me...

can someone tell me, in the eye of the law, which format of photography in recongised. Film or digital? I know film is one format that is accepted but let say if the digital one have not been edited and its the original as in straight from camera, in the eye of the law, would they still view it as a evidence or a proof againest someone or something?

I think both are accepted. There are imaging experts who are able to tell if a photo had been doctored or not.