what process u gonna use ar?:bsmilie: that itself is already pp in its own form:sweat:
Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?
- Thread starter naheuy
- Start date
- Status
what process u gonna use ar?:bsmilie: that itself is already pp in its own form:sweat:
My take:
Post processing is such an added advantage in the digital age and anyone denying this and not able to edit effectively and creatively are deluding themselves and not keeping up with the times. Digital photography has given us a new paradigm from capture to process to output. It's no longer about capturing the "perfect" image. That's rare and you waste a whole lot of time aiming for that elusive goal.
Post processing is such an added advantage in the digital age and anyone denying this and not able to edit effectively and creatively are deluding themselves and not keeping up with the times. Digital photography has given us a new paradigm from capture to process to output. It's no longer about capturing the "perfect" image. That's rare and you waste a whole lot of time aiming for that elusive goal.
So we know you DON'T consider yourself to be a photographer. Then what do you call yourself?
Photoshopper. I spent 5 days on CS5 and came to this conclusion. My wife showed me her family photo taken 63 years ago together with the untouched negative, both exactly the same size, 4.5" x 6.5", and the guy who took that photo was a true photographer.
wa, but when the photo was transposed from negative to print, there weas processing done.
he is a true darkroomer.
Common, with CS5 I can do a few thousand things that no darkroom can do. Have you ever seen a 63 year old negative and print exactly alike, one to one?
name 1 or 2 of the few thousand things.
fyi, photoshop is based on the traditional darkroom - what you can do in there. even cloning was doable in the darkroom.
Blending, dodging, burning, distorting, cropping etc can all be done in a film darkroom. Curious to know what are the "thousands" of things that PS can do that can't be done in the darkroom.
Anyway the entire process starts with the capturing of an image. That, to me, is still photography. I admit that most hobbyists manipulate the images a lot more in the process from capture to final output, but one shouldn't "live in the past".
Is Sebastien Vettel considered a "driver", since his F1 car does a lot of things for him automatically (traction control, pit lane speed limiter etc)....?
did you know these things could be done in the darkroom?
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Bas-relief--advanced-darkroom-technique-4701
http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/photography-techniques-darkroom.html
don't for a second think that photoshop was very much different from the darkroom and this makes the darkroom people much more superior. usually the people who say this don't know much about the darkroom. take a look at all the international salon photography competitions, film categories sometimes have very cool effects that you did not think possible in the darkroom.
what is described in the second link can essentially be seen as hdr of some form, or exposure blending. do you think modern people are so creative to think of something new?
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Bas-relief--advanced-darkroom-technique-4701
http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/photography-techniques-darkroom.html
don't for a second think that photoshop was very much different from the darkroom and this makes the darkroom people much more superior. usually the people who say this don't know much about the darkroom. take a look at all the international salon photography competitions, film categories sometimes have very cool effects that you did not think possible in the darkroom.
what is described in the second link can essentially be seen as hdr of some form, or exposure blending. do you think modern people are so creative to think of something new?
take a look at tan lip seng's photos:
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=87
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=94
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=81
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=58
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=39
please read the descriptions for these photos... i think you will find it hard to sit around and argue that the darkroom is very much more limited than photoshop. time consuming, less accessible, harder - yes. but people like ansel adams spent a load of time in the darkroom - did you think they did it because they hated light?
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=87
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=94
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=81
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=58
http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=39
please read the descriptions for these photos... i think you will find it hard to sit around and argue that the darkroom is very much more limited than photoshop. time consuming, less accessible, harder - yes. but people like ansel adams spent a load of time in the darkroom - did you think they did it because they hated light?
Last edited:
I personally believe 'photo-enhancing software' should be considered only as a tool for photographers. It really doesn't matter how much editing you do to your photos in my opinion. Even after days of editing, your photos will still suck if your composition isn't there.
I guess many people have the misconception that Photoshop is used to rescue badly-taken photos, when in fact it should be thought of as a tool to help the photographer achieve the pre-conceived result.
What the pro-photographers did in the film days were only done by the very few who could afford such dark rooms. I ran a microfilm processing center for 20 years and I knew the ins and outs of national archives, therefore I don't need a lesson on this. With S$ 120 most can get a student's copy of CS5 and if one is savy in this area, I bet his photos are generally better. In the film days, most wedding photographers were extremely good. When my first son got married, I remembered viewing 10 rolls of film negative accompanied with thumbnail prints of these film strips. We were asked to choose what we wanted to print and enlarge. 100% no doctoring. The real test is to shoot in jpec, use all the in-camera processing you want and stop there. Why don't you do that and post a series of photos done this way. If you can maintain the quality of photos you have been posting here, then I will salute you.
so just because more people can do it now, you think they are not deemed to be photographers?
do you deem tan lip seng to be a photographer, in this case?
technology has allowed for greater accessibility to technique, so you are essentially practising double standards here - if you consider film photographers photographers, and digital photographers who use photoshop photoshoppers.
in the past, filmmakers didn't have such powerful tools for making films that they have today. or at least those who did, needed a lot of capital.
are you saying that today's movies are not really movies? today's filmmakers are not filmmakers? am i the only one seeing your loopholes in logic here?
btw, when i shoot a jpg, the camera processes it. when i shoot in raw and run it by photoshop, i process it.
who's the one who cares more about results here, the person who lets a dumb, inanimate machine think for him, or the person who wants some degree of control over what the output is?
you think the latter has less skill? then you have not understood what photography is about, why tan lip seng did all his bais relief, or montages.
so what is the difference between telling the camera to dial it up 3 notches in terms of contrast, or me doing it in photoshop - other than the fact that once again, i retain a greater degree of control? do you really think people spend loads of time photoshopping?
Last edited:
you are digressing from the point. It's about whether it's still considered photography if post processing is involved, and I still firmly believe that it is.
maybe the next time we see a baker use modern technology to make his cakes, we will say that he is actually a machinist.
to be a good baker, you need to be able to grind out the flour by hand, you need to produce the cream from its raw product. when using the oven, you can't use stopwatch, you can't use modern oven, you must use charcoal and look at the cakes get baked without estimating the time with the aid of modern tools. :bsmilie: if you can do it without the cakes getting burnt and with the standard of your product maintained, anthony lee here will salute you. :bsmilie:
what do humans research technology for? for progress.
film and digital are very different media, the digital output of a dslr is tailored towards malleability , while film came in various different forms. essentially when you used a different film you were using a very marked picture style, with a set WB. now today, with digital you have the option of variance without having to finish 36 frames or swapping out the roll. why would you deliberately limit yourself to become a slave of something a canon/nikon/pentax technician decided was correct?
a lot of people here think that shoot jpg = wa, very skilful... actually you are just being dragged by the nose by what someone else thinks is "correct processing"... so much for skill.
to be a good baker, you need to be able to grind out the flour by hand, you need to produce the cream from its raw product. when using the oven, you can't use stopwatch, you can't use modern oven, you must use charcoal and look at the cakes get baked without estimating the time with the aid of modern tools. :bsmilie: if you can do it without the cakes getting burnt and with the standard of your product maintained, anthony lee here will salute you. :bsmilie:
what do humans research technology for? for progress.
film and digital are very different media, the digital output of a dslr is tailored towards malleability , while film came in various different forms. essentially when you used a different film you were using a very marked picture style, with a set WB. now today, with digital you have the option of variance without having to finish 36 frames or swapping out the roll. why would you deliberately limit yourself to become a slave of something a canon/nikon/pentax technician decided was correct?
a lot of people here think that shoot jpg = wa, very skilful... actually you are just being dragged by the nose by what someone else thinks is "correct processing"... so much for skill.
Last edited:
That doesn't change the fact that they still used the dark rooms. According to your logic, they are not photographers. Come on, Photoshop is a tool that is available to photographers now. Using it does not equate to not being a photographer. Being insistent on not using it is just being inflexible.
And anyway, are authors who publish their books by print not authors? Because years ago, there were no printers...they manually wrote their books. Should modern authors do that too?
After 5 days, I know only about 5% of CS5. Give me sometime and I will list out the things I can do with it that a film shooter like me cannot.
Secondly, traditional darkroom facilities were not commonly available even for many pros not to say you and I. Also, doing all those traditional darkroom activities needed qualified people to do sufficiently good work. Try working in those environment like I did for 20 years and then tell me whether you like doing this at home every day. Today, after 15 years of retirement, I am still suffering from such poor environmental exposure and I still have daily lungs problem. And you compare this to CS5.
- Status
