Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?

[brapodam]

Are all of us the same as him? Ansel Adams is famous for his work and he should be called more than just a photographer. In my world, photography means "exactly as recorded". Ansel Adams wanted to be different, so he did what few others did. It did not mean that he was not a good photographer, but more than that, he was also a traditional darkroom artist.
I spent 6 months attached to a photo studio and learnt many things that he did and if you guys think doing those things were like CS5, than you make people like Ansel Adams very small.

You are not making sense here. You say that post-processing makes you not a photographer. Ansel Adams post processed his works, and can be called more than a photographer. But he is not a photographer, because he post-processes his shots. How can he be more than a photographer?

CS5, or other photo editing software, are part of technology. Technology makes our lives easier, as you have illustrated with examples - it takes lesser time to achieve the same effects that you do in the darkroom. That is precisely what technology is supposed to do. Make our lives easier. Now that we have that, we should be happy. Why complain that it makes us less of a photographer? I see photo editing software as a refined, improved darkroom. We don't have to suffer so much now.

Your definition of a photographer seems all over the place...recording things as it is, have to suffer long hours etc. I don't see why we need to suffer long hours now that we have a "better darkroom".

Stop living in the past - times have changed, you have to change too. Don't tell me you don't use a stove, a washing machine, a computer. When there are newer, better tools out there, you can make use of them - not whine about how it makes you less of who you are. Even the film to digital converts agree that digital has opened up so much opportunities in photography, with so much higher ISOs and easier post-processing. Stop trying to pretend that using photo editing software makes you unworthy of the title of the photographer, it seems to me like you are some kind of elitist trying to put yourself higher than others because you still shoot film and suffer.

 

[Doctor Inferno]

In this era, unprocessed digital photos are like incomplete work. Its just like shooting with film without bringing the film into the dark room.

And if people don't post process their photos, why does RAW even exist for?

 

[Anthony Lee]

You are not making sense here. You say that post-processing makes you not a photographer. Ansel Adams post processed his works, and can be called more than a photographer. But he is not a photographer, because he post-processes his shots. How can he be more than a photographer?

CS5, or other photo editing software, are part of technology. Technology makes our lives easier, as you have illustrated with examples - it takes lesser time to achieve the same effects that you do in the darkroom. That is precisely what technology is supposed to do. Make our lives easier. Now that we have that, we should be happy. Why complain that it makes us less of a photographer? I see photo editing software as a refined, improved darkroom. We don't have to suffer so much now.

Your definition of a photographer seems all over the place...recording things as it is, have to suffer long hours etc. I don't see why we need to suffer long hours now that we have a "better darkroom".

Stop living in the past - times have changed, you have to change too. Don't tell me you don't use a stove, a washing machine, a computer. When there are newer, better tools out there, you can make use of them - not whine about how it makes you less of who you are. Even the film to digital converts agree that digital has opened up so much opportunities in photography, with so much higher ISOs and easier post-processing. Stop trying to pretend that using photo editing software makes you unworthy of the title of the photographer, it seems to me like you are some kind of elitist trying to put yourself higher than others because you still shoot film and suffer.

Have you ever seen Ansel Adams' first generation negative? By very high standard, he was an extremely good photographer. But then he would be one of many. So he became a darkroom artist to be different. Many millions of film photographers had zero control over their film negatives when they send them to be processed. One had to calibrate one's camera to the processing standard of the day, and you better be right the first time. Show me your first generation raw and I will decide to call you a photographer or not. Otherwise, you are no different from any point n shoot camera operators who have no right to be called photographers. When I use digital cameras I am no different from anyone else, always trigger happy because I know I can recover my images later. I used to shoot one or 2 rolls of films when I go out, now, I average 300-500 shots on my DSLR and atleast 25% is nonsense. Am I a photographer as I was in the film days, hell no. Post processing is to make good photos better, period. That was what Ansel Adams did.

 

[2100]

I can actually ID with Anthony Lee and his comments, coz in my Hifi hobby there are people who are still playing LPs and low wattage single-ended tubes, high efficiency drivers (and quite a number are vintage). I play tubes and mix with SS, tubes etc.... By crazy hobbyist standard actually 50mm, 35mm.... 8 + 4 is not a lot (of coz if its Hassy/Leica then its not gonna be easy on the wallet!). I know some hifi guys who have 30 over speaker cabs and 20 over amps. (DIYers) Heck headphones I already got nearly 3k worth already not counting the 3 headphone amps 2 of them single ended tubes. LOL!

I earn money from digital photography, and I do need to use PS, but Anthony HAS his points. But modern technology is here to stay of course and much easily adopted by the masses. Look at all the iPhones and digital content (movies and music, downloaded + compressed).

Its never good to mix the two. n86m would have his points, and Anthony would have his points too.

 

[allenleonhart]

"exactly as recorded"

i would expect, that some body, from the film era, to understand what the camera churns out is never what is "exactly as recorded".

perhaps u dun understand the idea of a latent image(not the technical term i'm referring. but the idea). sure u have standardized processings with ur film, but are u sure what ur lenses give u are what u excactly see anyways?:dunno: i would seriously doubt so. the ability to tweak, with the chemicals is what allowed the old sch photographers greater control over their photo. coupled along with the lenses, film used. and many other things.

what we now do, with cs5, is to bring out that latent image. we acknowledge the fact that what the camera does, is never what we intend anyways. i dun see how editing photos means u arent a photographer. that, is the impression i am getting from you now.

 

[hanzohattori]

Being a photographer and/or a digital artist (or manipulator) is not mutually exclusive. Ansel Adam was both photographer, and a darkroom master.
I think thats what "Ansel was more than a photographer" mean. The question should be whether a person is a good photog or not, if he/she relies alot on digital enhancement.
Ansel was clearly a good one, judging from his negatives. Too many people nowadays heavily enhance their photos, and try to pass it as minimally processed pictures.

For me, the fact that this topic has been discussed to death shows that people generally want honesty in what they see. It doesn't mean all pictures shouldn't be post processed at all, but a disclosure of enhancement would help a lot.

 

[night86mare]

I used to have 8 50mms and I used each for different purpose. Now I still have 4 different 35f2 and all of them give me different feel and look. I still shoot film, and getting a good shot out of it gave me a different feel of satisfaction. If you have not done this, and think that CS5 can do all these, then you and I are from different worlds. So we should stop all this and go our own way to shoot what we like.

good for you, i suppose all the 8 50mms got different level of contrast. :bsmilie:

yes, i'm not a person who sits around and points out minute differences in bokeh, etc. i have better things to do. :bsmilie:

 

[Anthony Lee]

Being a photographer and/or a digital artist (or manipulator) is not mutually exclusive. Ansel Adam was both photographer, and a darkroom master.
I think thats what "Ansel was more than a photographer" mean. The question should be whether a person is a good photog or not, if he/she relies alot on digital enhancement.
Ansel was clearly a good one, judging from his negatives. Too many people nowadays heavily enhance their photos, and try to pass it as minimally processed pictures.

For me, the fact that this topic has been discussed to death shows that people generally want honesty in what they see. It doesn't mean all pictures shouldn't be post processed at all, but a disclosure of enhancement would help a lot.

You summed it up for me very well. Thanks.

 

[Anthony Lee]

i would expect, that some body, from the film era, to understand what the camera churns out is never what is "exactly as recorded".

perhaps u dun understand the idea of a latent image(not the technical term i'm referring. but the idea). sure u have standardized processings with ur film, but are u sure what ur lenses give u are what u excactly see anyways?:dunno: i would seriously doubt so. the ability to tweak, with the chemicals is what allowed the old sch photographers greater control over their photo. coupled along with the lenses, film used. and many other things.

what we now do, with cs5, is to bring out that latent image. we acknowledge the fact that what the camera does, is never what we intend anyways. i dun see how editing photos means u arent a photographer. that, is the impression i am getting from you now.

Only a very few had control over the chemicals they used to process their films. Millions had to rely completely on the processing centers they sent to with totally no control. I ran a processing center before, so I understand. Talking about latent images, we can chat about films privately if you want but that will be too boring for most here.

 

[wootsk]

Only a very few had control over the chemicals they used to process their films. Millions had to rely completely on the processing centers they sent to with totally no control. I ran a processing center before, so I understand. Talking about latent images, we can chat about films privately if you want but that will be too boring for most here.

Anyway the problem now is not even the control over the chemicals, it is how to get the chemical with higher concentration and more pure. I asked my secondary chemistry teacher about the concentration of liquid chemical I used, she told me 0.1 mol

Maybe you can join us someday and share share with get together discussion about developing films and stuff about older camera and lens.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759853&page=5

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Being a photographer and/or a digital artist (or manipulator) is not mutually exclusive. Ansel Adam was both photographer, and a darkroom master.
I think thats what "Ansel was more than a photographer" mean. The question should be whether a person is a good photog or not, if he/she relies alot on digital enhancement.
Ansel was clearly a good one, judging from his negatives. Too many people nowadays heavily enhance their photos, and try to pass it as minimally processed pictures.

For me, the fact that this topic has been discussed to death shows that people generally want honesty in what they see. It doesn't mean all pictures shouldn't be post processed at all, but a disclosure of enhancement would help a lot.

You summed it up for me very well. Thanks.

He didn't sum it up for you very well, because the way I'm reading it is different from what you wrote below. There is a disconnect in your logic here.

I never changed the topic. From my second post I said that I am not a photographer when I shoot digital because I do post processing. I also said that when I shoot film and print direct from film, then I am a photographer. It was you who started all these nonsense about traditional darkroom being the same as CS5.

 

[Anthony Lee]

He didn't sum it up for you very well, because the way I'm reading it is different from what you wrote below. There is a disconnect in your logic here.

I have spent enough time on one thread and my intention was never to win an argument. Let it be known that I have failed and you guys are better.

 

[ed9119]

it matters little if the answer is YES or NO....
Do what you're best at....

the barrage of opinions has become meaningless and is diverting from the TS questions



Thread closed...