 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / September 2007Are You an In-Camera or Post-Camera Photographer?
Hi All, My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic: http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >Hi All, > >My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic: >http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html It's not clear if all of the effects mentioned for the 'in-camera photographer' (the is nothing 'in' in putting a filter in front of a lens) can be duplicated in post processing. I am a 'post-camera photographer' at heart. But I may go the analog route for an effect if it would prove difficult to get right digitally. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency HI Philip, There are certainly some in-camera filter effects, for example, that are at least difficult to accurately simulate later. I suspect, though I have not tried, that all the optical effects of a Lensbaby, etc are not completely duplicatable. Personally, I do both, and pretty much always have, from my darkroom days to today. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I am a 'post-camera photographer' at heart. But I may go the analog route for > an effect if it would prove difficult to get right digitally. > Hi All, > > My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this > topic: > http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many people forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop drones. Rita On Jun 1, 11:36 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita Well since I shoot only in raw there are only a few things that I can do in camera, and not many of them could be done in Photoshop. If I was shooting jpegs I could adjust the contrast, but if I go for high contrast then I will often lose information in the photos. Whereas it is easy to go from a low contrast image to high going the other way does not work well. The same thing is true of saturation, I can always turn up the saturation but if I shoot with high saturation I will often have colors go out of gamut and I can never get them back. And even if I really knew at the time I took the photos exactly what I wanted there is still the problem that what works in an image on my monitor might not be the best choice for making a print. Scott Hi Scott, I am sure you are missing in your statement all the things that you do do in camera. Even with RAW you are using your lenses, exposure control, framing, perhaps lens filters to get the result that you want? Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >>> Hi All, >>> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Scott > Hi Scott, > > I am sure you are missing in your statement all the things that you do > do in camera. Even with RAW you are using your lenses, exposure control, > framing, perhaps lens filters to get the result that you want? Sure, but those are pretty much things that can't be done in post processing, or can only be done to a very limited extent. Scott True, in my view. But there are people who claim you can do many of these things. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >> Hi Scott, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop > drones. I'm in agreement on approach here. Much like with sound engineering - best to capture the "best" (not necessarily cleanest) "image" (be it audio or visual) at, or of the source. At least then you have much more latitude in post-hoc processing. The term polishing a t*rd springs to mind. If you don't have a good, or at least indicative, base to start with, unless you are very talented, there's not much you can do with a crap image. Ansell is quoted as the bee's knees on how to best learn the basics, but when you get into what he did, there was a HUGE amount of post processing he did with his images. First though, he captured the basic image as best he could given the conditions and equipment at hand... SignatureEric Hocking "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply. On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, "Eric Hocking" <ehocking@REMOVE_THIS_BIT_btinternet.com> wrote: > "Rita ? Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in messagenews:13614gr2qiun4ae@news.supernews.com... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > images. First though, he captured the basic image as best he could given > the conditions and equipment at hand... But consider that the best looking image might be one where the black point is set fairly high, giving a high contrast image but one where some of the shadow detail is loss. In this case I find it far better to capture the scene with the greatest dynamic range I can and then reduce the range later, for either prints or screen viewing. Different outputs, prints monitors etc. have different dynamic ranges, so it very possible that what might look the best on one might not look the best on another. A very simple case of this is when viewing your images on a computer monitor in a bright room vs. viewing them in a dim room. In a dim room I much prefer to have the image fairly dark giving me a lot of range for highlights, in a bright room that image would appear too dark and I would lose some of the highlights. In twenty years who knows how I might want to view them, but I will have my raw images to work with which gives me the most range to work with. Scott > In twenty years who knows how I might want to view them, but I will > have my raw images to work with which gives me the most range to work > with. And in far shorter a time frame, some images may beg to be redone just because RAW converters have been improved. In fact, ACR 4.1 has some nice new stuff just yesterday. SignatureJohn McWilliams On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, "Eric Hocking" <ehocking@REMOVE_THIS_BIT_btinternet.com> wrote: <snip> Well the thread certainly has moved on! But just to be polite. >> I'm in agreement on approach here. Much like with sound engineering - >> best [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to capture the scene with the greatest dynamic range I can and then >reduce the range later, for either prints or screen viewing. Essentially we're in agreement - you talking about capturing the image in the camera as best you can under the shooting conditions. >Different outputs, prints monitors etc. have different dynamic ranges, >so it very possible that what might look the best on one might not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >giving me a lot of range for highlights, in a bright room that image >would appear too dark and I would lose some of the highlights. >In twenty years who knows how I might want to view them, but I will >have my raw images to work with which gives me the most range to work >with. Scott > I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many people > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop > drones. Obviously you never used a darkroom then. I suggest those who let the photolab make all their decisions are probably the real drones. But if criticising others choices makes you feel better about yourself, go for it, just don't expect anyone else to care. MrT. >> I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many >> people forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But if criticising others choices makes you feel better about > yourself, go for it, just don't expect anyone else to care. You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just like there are people that can create amazing images in Photoshop from scratch. My point being, sadly, the line between photography and Photshopping is so blurry that it's almost impossible to distinguish between the two. If you're a Photoshop jockey don't claim to be a photographer because the two aren't interchangeable. Rita Why can't you be both? Why must it be an either/or situation? Perhaps the line between photography and Photoshop is so blurred because it is not really there? Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ > You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics > artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita > Why can't you be both? Why must it be an either/or situation? > > Perhaps the line between photography and Photoshop is so blurred because > it is not really there? There are some who always want to make something black or white. I appreciated your posing the question, as it was useful for me to consider it and I hope for others, too. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Why can't you be both? Why must it be an either/or situation? Because either you're a photographer or you are not. It isn't rocket science. I wouldn't expect an airline pilot to be able to rebuild a jet engine nor would I expect the mechanic to pilot the plane. Just because both might have a shared knowledge and skill level to do each other's jobs doesn't mean they can. Label it for what it is. Anything else is deceptive. > Perhaps the line between photography and Photoshop is so blurred > because it is not really there? Or that the art of photography is totally lost by the people claiming it to be so when they fire up the old Photoshop? Rita > ... either you're a photographer or you are not. It isn't rocket > science. I wouldn't expect an airline pilot to be able to rebuild a > jet engine nor would I expect the mechanic to pilot the plane. Therefore it is even more impossible that two simple bicycle mechanics designed the first heavier-than-air flying machine and flew it at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Revisionist history according to Rita, whose expectations are not great enough :^) Kidding aside, while in art school half a century ago I got infected by photography, and then half that time ago was next infected by computers. I feel no conflict when I post-process my digital camera images in a computer instead of in a darkroom. >> ... either you're a photographer or you are not. It isn't rocket >> science. I wouldn't expect an airline pilot to be able to rebuild a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > designed the first heavier-than-air flying machine and flew it at > Kitty Hawk in 1903. Had there been a pilot's union back then they never would have pulled off this stunt. > Revisionist history according to Rita, whose expectations are not > great enough :^) On the contrary, I have very high expectations and standards. > Kidding aside, while in art school half a century ago I got infected > by photography, and then half that time ago was next infected by > computers. I feel no conflict when I post-process my digital camera > images in a computer instead of in a darkroom. And at what level do you draw the line between photography and digital or graphic manipulation? Post processing is one thing and all out manipulation is another. Rita > >> ... either you're a photographer or you are not. It isn't rocket > >> science. I wouldn't expect an airline pilot to be able to rebuild a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > graphic manipulation? Post processing is one thing and all out manipulation > is another. I think your discussion would be a lot better if you specifically clarified exactly what a manipulation actually was. A few have already been mentioned, but why not specifically call some of them out for further discussion? Rotation/straightening of the photo? Technically, it is a manipulation of the original angle of composition, but then again, no items have been added or removed with respect to the original photo taken. Using the Clone tool to mask out unwanted items such as a light pole or trash can? Yes, that's defintely a manipulation as it's not what the camera originally captured when the photo was composed and taken. Using Unsharp Mask? It's a photo correction for sure, but it doesn't actually add or remove any items from the original image, so I'd suggest no, that's not a manipulation since the film darkroom equivalent would be burning and dodging Panorama stitching? That's both a manipulation (stitching together a set of images to create a larger image) and yet not a manipulation (if none of the photos has been altered prior to panorama stitching). It's still a very useful software feature either way. Photo composites? Merging content from a second photograph into the first photograph... that's definitely a manipulation, and yet it also takes a very skilled and artistic software manipulation to make it look "real". But, it would be not be honest to present that photograph as an original, it should be properly represented as a composite. At the same time, does digitial photography limit the definition of a photograph to only those software features that have a film darkroom equivalent? Or should manipulations such as cloning and composites be accepted as a "photograph", rather than an artistic manipulation? I know that when I take digital photos--and for sure, I am not a professional to any extent--I always try to compose using the camera so that at most, all I have to do is maybe rotate/straighten and maybe crop before printing any photo I have taken. But, others may take digital photos as pieces of a puzzle, so to speak, to be put together later on using the post-processing software (such as Photoshop). But, as long as they represent true photo originals as originals, photo composites as composites, alterations as something like "retouched" or "restored"... basically, as long as they truly admit what was post-camera processed, I don't see a major issue with the post-camera photographer's methods either. On Jun 2, 7:55 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics > artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just > like there are people that can create amazing images in Photoshop from > scratch. I'd love to see some of these amzing in-camera images. Of course, you are excluding film here since decisions must always be made during processing. Perhaps shooting slide film might qualify, but even then there is more work to be done. So I'm guessing you are talking about shooting straight JPG. As Katrin Eismann said in a seminar I attended, "I have yet to see a photograph that could not be improved with post-processing." So why limit yourself? >> You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics >> artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > photograph that could not be improved with post-processing." > So why limit yourself? 'Cause some folk just love ta argey, as we say in the hills. Other folk just don't get it, that being a good photographer and being skilled in PS aren't mutually exclusive. It looks also like some equate PS with "manipulation" which can have an unfavorable connatation. Post processing always occurs; just some would rather be in control of it than leaving it up to the other guy to make the settings. 00 Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics >> artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > made during processing. Perhaps shooting slide film might qualify, > but even then there is more work to be done. Rita is wrong (surprise, surprise). Some people may only have talent with a camera and others only with Photoshop, but there are many that are skilled with both. As an amazingly gifted pianist, isn't it a shame Franz Liszt didn't reach his potential because he wasted so much time composing? Much the same could be said of Frederic Chopin, who could have undoubtedly have produced far better compositions if he didn't waste so much time at the keyboard. Similarly, if Thelonius Monk, Duke Ellington, Billy Joel and Frank Zappa stuck to one thing, they wouldn't have suffered the horrible nightmares, where they woke up in the night sweating, thinking "I coulda been a contenda!" > So I'm guessing you are talking about shooting straight JPG. > As Katrin Eismann said in a seminar I attended, "I have yet to see a > photograph that could not be improved with post-processing." > So why limit yourself? Ah . . . Don't completely agree here. Post processing can sometimes work wonders, but for good photographers, much of the time the improvement will be minimal. For pros though, even minimal improvement may be worth the extra effort, but not for many others. The same could be said for most photographer's equipment. For the cost of PS and some associated software, they could also have gotten a better camera body or a lens that would have lessened some of their equipment's limitations. Didn't you recently make a plea for someone else's old equipment? :) >> I'd love to see some of these amzing in-camera images. >> Of course, you are excluding film here since decisions must always be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > talent with a camera and others only with Photoshop, but there are > many that are skilled with both. True, but the issue is a true photographer know the boundaries of when photography become graphic manipulation and then properly labels the final work as such. There's nothing worse and more deceptive than passing off graphic manipulations as photographs. Rita > True, but the issue is a true photographer know the boundaries of when > photography become graphic manipulation and then properly labels the final > work as such. There's nothing worse and more deceptive than passing off > graphic manipulations as photographs. The graphic manipulations have to be defined. Minor manipulations are of little concern and even you would probably accept many of them even if not specifically mentioned by the photographer. Gross, clandestine manipulations are dishonest, but not even in all cases. If a photographer routinely Photoshops a small, insignificant image of themselves in every picture they produce, it will become not just known, but an expected "trademark" of their work. Photos don't have to always represent reality. Sometimes they're intended to tell a story. This is analogous to being able to accept Hitchcock's minor intrusions into his films (stories). To complete the analogy, it wouldn't be acceptable if Hitchcock did the same with documentaries. So I agree with your assertion that the photographer should know and respect photographic boundaries. But I say that the boundaries are wider than you're admitting. And the boundaries change with time, as the public may become more or less sophisticated. What I guess that you mainly disapprove of is photographic deception. But I hope that you're not trying to limit valid photography to what is recognized by even the most clueless. That's not what I would have expected from the Rita of old, but it could indicate a Rita whose reasoning ability is aging and hardening. This is one instance where I'd rather discover that you were playing the troll. <g> >> True, but the issue is a true photographer know the boundaries of >> when photography become graphic manipulation and then properly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > intrusions into his films (stories). To complete the analogy, it > wouldn't be acceptable if Hitchcock did the same with documentaries. I don't think any reasonable person has problems with "trademarking" or "watermarking" images. Of course photos don't always have to represent reality, it's this point where they no longer are considered photographs. Again, it seems we are in agreement? > So I agree with your assertion that the photographer should know > and respect photographic boundaries. But I say that the boundaries > are wider than you're admitting. And the boundaries change with > time, as the public may become more or less sophisticated. What I > guess that you mainly disapprove of is photographic deception. But We all realize boundaries are always being pushed and expanded, mostly not for the overall good of the craft. Maybe what you're condoning is the "dumbing down" of a craft to make it acceptable and accessible to everyone? We've seen examples of this with profanity on television in the last 15-years. The industry caved because everyone is doing it. > I hope that you're not trying to limit valid photography to what is > recognized by even the most clueless. That's not what I would have > expected from the Rita of old, but it could indicate a Rita whose > reasoning ability is aging and hardening. This is one instance > where I'd rather discover that you were playing the troll. <g> Photography is what it is and is evolving into something totally different. At what point in time will one really need a camera to be a photographer since most images can be created in Photoshop without one? Rita > Photography is what it is and is evolving into something totally > different. > At what point in time will one really need a camera to be a photographer > since most images can be created in Photoshop without one? The question of what is and what is not photography has always existed and will continue to be unresolved. Long ago we made images on photopaper with enlargers and called them photographs and we thought of ourselves as photographers while we did it even though we didn't use cameras at all in the process. Why does the question even matter? Language and technology evolve. There is nothing worth gaining by fighting either process. Complaining that things ain't what they used to be is for curmudgeons. L.C. > Why does the question even matter? Language and technology evolve. There > is nothing worth gaining by fighting either process. Complaining that > things ain't what they used to be is for curmudgeons. Is it really evolution? I'm starting to think it is regression. I'm not complaining about it since I'm just pointing it out. I'm probably just as guilty of being part of the problem when catering to the "targeted audience" that I do. Rita >> Why does the question even matter? Language and technology evolve. There >> is nothing worth gaining by fighting either process. Complaining that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > audience" > that I do. But there's the value judgements again: regression. That's what makes me think you're complaining. "Evolution" is neither positive nor negative. It is often a source of frustration for those who can't or won't evolve with it, but there is no way to stop it. Lots of people wailed and gnashed their teeth about 35mm film being a "dumbing down" regression for photography. Now we see digital and digital editing getting the same rap. I just don't think it needs to be a source of concern. And I really think one can miss out on a lot of learning and development by refusing to encorporate the changes into one's own art. Of course, anyone can choose not to participate for any number of personal reasons, but there is no need to feel badly about anyone moving photography anywhere he feels like taking it. It's all just personal expression anyway, and the forces of evolution will naturally select what is best suited to the modern environment. >> Is it really evolution? I'm starting to think it is regression. I'm not >> complaining about it since I'm just pointing it out. I'm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But there's the value judgements again: regression. That's what > makes me think you're complaining. Everything in life is a value judgment. Life's great and there's no reason for anyone to complain. > "Evolution" is neither positive nor negative. It is often a source of > frustration for those who can't or won't evolve with it, but there is > no way to stop it. Lots of people wailed and gnashed their teeth > about 35mm film being a "dumbing down" regression for photography. Now we > see digital and digital editing getting the same rap. Trust me, I evolve with current trends and try to stay way ahead of the pack. That doesn't mean that I have to like what the current trend is. I also know when one reaches the point of diminishing returns. > I just don't think it needs to be a source of concern. And I really > think one can miss out on a lot of learning and development by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > expression anyway, and the forces of evolution will naturally select > what is best suited to the modern environment. Well said. It's always good to keep an open mind. I just don't understand why there are so many closed minds in this group? Rita >> If a photographer routinely Photoshops a small, insignificant image >> of themselves in every picture they produce, it will become not just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reality, it's this point where they no longer are considered photographs. > Again, it seems we are in agreement? Sorry - When I said "trademarking" I didn't mean it in the way you took it. Repeating the Hitchcock reference, many of his fans don't just take it for granted that he'll appear somewhere onscreen in a very short cameo, some actively look for him from the opening credits, because these appearances are his trademark. Remember when opening credits didn't appear 15 minutes into the film? We're also not in agreement. Applying a transform to the image changes the image so that it doesn't represent reality, at least according to the way it scene is seen by the eyes. Photographers can satisfy their "creative" needs by using double or multiple exposures, IR filters, even the toy-like swapping of colors that some cameras provide as a "feature". These all produce true photographs, even though they don't represent reality as we see it. But I don't see that our differences are extreme even though they vary. You might not accept a photo as "real" if a person was not in the first image of a double exposure but added in the second. (don't mess up this argument by agreeing with my interpretation <g>) I'd say that as long as it was a true double exposure, and the when the person's image was captured he/she was actually standing in the same location captured in the first image, then it's "real". If the person's image was taken months ago in some other distant location, but made to appear that the location was the same, then the image is "fake". But it's not a fake non-photo. It's a fake photograph. As they say, YMMV. :) If you don't consider it to be a photograph, what would you call it? I wouldn't call it "art", a "collage" or a "personal vision" instead of calling it a photograph, because that would remove the camera from the equation, when one only has to glance at the "creative" image to know that the tool that produced it was a camera. > We all realize boundaries are always being pushed and expanded, mostly not > for the overall good of the craft. Maybe what you're condoning is the > "dumbing down" of a craft to make it acceptable and accessible to everyone? > We've seen examples of this with profanity on television in the last > 15-years. The industry caved because everyone is doing it. No. It can also go the other way, producing a complex creation that wouldn't appeal to most "proles" and other happy snappers. How about relating this to music? Most would agree that Gershwin, Ellington, Prokofiev, Goodman and Offenbach produced "music". Some of these would deny that "dumbed down" basic blues, or Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" or Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti" is music. They might also insist that the complex creations on the other extreme, such as the work of Arnold Schoenberg or Alban Berg can't be considered to be "music". The same was said during earlier times of some of Stravinsky's and Beethoven's work. In the long run, rigidity in thinking has a low payoff. > Photography is what it is and is evolving into something totally different. > At what point in time will one really need a camera to be a photographer > since most images can be created in Photoshop without one? If Photoshop's creations are based on importing the output of cameras, it's much more likely to be considered to be photographic that if it imports doodles created with Microsoft Paint. :) And lo, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> emerged from the ether and spake thus: >>> True, but the issue is a true photographer know the boundaries of >>> when photography become graphic manipulation and then properly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > reality, it's this point where they no longer are considered photographs. > Again, it seems we are in agreement? I maintain that the only true photographs are those that do not depict reality in the way we see it. To me, it is the primary purpose of photography to bring us images of the things around us in ways that we have never seen before. Ways that, to your mind, may not be representative of reality. I am speaking of photography as an art form, however, and do not feel the same way about documentary and news photography, the primary purpose of which is recordkeeping. SignatureAaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com >> You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a >> graphics artist? There are people that can produce amazing images [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > photograph that could not be improved with post-processing." > So why limit yourself? The difference here is you are talking about subtle changes in parameters to adjust an image to enhance it or correct mistakes made before pulling the trigger as opposed to total manipulation of the original image for the sake of altering the original theme. Rita > You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics > artist? I'm quite happy to be both. >There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just > like there are people that can create amazing images in Photoshop from > scratch. My point being, sadly, the line between photography and > Photshopping is so blurry that it's almost impossible to distinguish between > the two. Just as it's always been impossible to seperate photo taking and photo processing. >If you're a Photoshop jockey don't claim to be a photographer What bullshit! > because the two aren't interchangeable. No, they are complimentary. MrT. >> You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics >> artist? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > MrT. Rita's position, taken literally, would have limited film photography to Polaroids and slides. Normal film photos would have been useless because they couldn't even be seen without post-processing; even an attempt to look at them would have destroyed any possible chance to look at them. Rita and other "purists" in any field need to wake up. Allen >>> You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics >>> artist? > Rita's position, taken literally, would have limited film photography to > Polaroids and slides. Normal film photos would have been useless because > they couldn't even be seen without post-processing; even an attempt to > look at them would have destroyed any possible chance to look at them. > Rita and other "purists" in any field need to wake up. Er, "Rita" is no purist; "she" will espouse lots of things at the extremes and spout them off. I agree with your pov, though. Some folks could do worse than getting over themselves. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics > artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the two. If you're a Photoshop jockey don't claim to be a photographer > because the two aren't interchangeable. Yeah, don't be like those old darkroom hacks, either -- take Ansel Adams, he spent *hours* post-processing images, because he was such an incompetent photographer that he couldn't get them right in the camera the first time. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html> >> You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a >> graphics artist? There are people that can produce amazing images [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > incompetent photographer that he couldn't get them right in the camera > the first time. Hey, you said it. Rita Hi Rita, I think it is unfair to call people mindless drones. When I am in Photoshop I am neither being mindless, nor do I drone (though I do talk to myself sometimes :) Photoshop is as valid a place to create as the darkroom once was for me. I also do much in camera. Perhaps you should have read my post on right/wrong thinking :) Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita > I think it is unfair to call people mindless drones. When I am in > Photoshop I am neither being mindless, nor do I drone (though I do > talk to myself sometimes :) It wasn't meant to be a slam. You ask a question and you got my opinion. Either way is a valid way of doing things to meet an end goal. It's just that people now have forgotten what photography is all about. We have Dx0 Pro to "correct" lens distortions that would otherwise be used creatively in photography. We have people post images that are so Photshopped they lost any "awe" appeal because they are so sterile and perfect that one questions if they are real. > Photoshop is as valid a place to create as the darkroom once was for > me. I also do much in camera. Perhaps you should have read my post on > right/wrong thinking :) Not true. Darkroom antics will never be on the same level as what can be done with Photoshop. Rita Have you seen Jerry Uelsmann's work? Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ > Not true. Darkroom antics will never be on the same level as what can be > done with Photoshop. > Have you seen Jerry Uelsmann's work? Well but you're comparing a single person, who is in fact famous for his ability in this, to what anybody can do (with a bit of effort to learn something like photoshop). It's not the same, you'd need to compare someone who is as much as expert on digital manipulations as he is with darkroom techniques. In the 19th century (and later) there were "calculators", people who could do long arithmetic operators in their head. What you did is like me replying to a statement "mental arithmetic cannot approach the flexibility of calculators" by saying "have you heard of George Bidder?". Well I may be rubbish in mental calculation, but give him and me a serious problem and a computer and we'll see who finishes first. It's the same. Having said that, I find Uelsmann's work tacky. Probably because it is mostly novelty that made it interesting, and that's gone now (but then again I never liked it). But maybe it's also personal taste. >> Have you seen Jerry Uelsmann's work? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >mostly novelty that made it interesting, and that's gone now (but then >again I never liked it). But maybe it's also personal taste. That's *all* just blue smoke to obscure valid points. The question is if "photography" is limited to the art of camera manipulation, while "graphics" art is separate and includes what is done post camera. Who made such claims before digital? With either a wet darkroom or digital there are individuals who are better at one part than the other, and the masses don't really do much with either. Ansel Adams would have laughed (and mentally plonked you). And if he were here today I can't imagine that his basic method would change significantly, though he almost certainly would be using digital cameras and a computer based darkroom. Here are the dictionary definitions, which clearly show "photography" as an all inclusive art from camera to watching your inkjet printer spit out the prints: photograph n : a picture ... recorded by a camera ... photography n : ... taking and printing photographs ... Claiming that digital manipulation of images is not a part of photograhy is mental gymnastics with smoke and mirrors. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> Have you seen Jerry Uelsmann's work? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Claiming that digital manipulation of images is not a part > of photograhy is mental gymnastics with smoke and mirrors. I think you are either replying to the wrong person or have completely misinterpreted my post. Rita Berkowitz said: "Darkroom antics will never be on the same level as what can be done with Photoshop. " Wayne Cosshall then replied by pointing out the work of Jerry Uelsmann, who is famous for his darkroom work (effects etc), and I pointed out that comparison of his work to the average person's photoshop work is invalid for the simple reason that Uelsmann is a world-renowned expert on doing this in the darkroom; so you'd need to compare his work to that of a great expert on photoshop, or to compare the average printer's work to the average photoshop user's. In short, I am saying that, in general, digital manipulation/ processing is more flexible than darkroom work, in addition to it being much less time consuming to learn. How you understood that I have a problem with post-capture work is a mystery to me (in fact I never understood why people have a problem with postprocessing). >> achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >> >> Have you seen Jerry Uelsmann's work? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >never be on the same level as what can be >done with Photoshop. " I am responding to what you wrote. Obviously you aren't reading enough into what Berkowitz said, as quoted above. In a different article posted 35 minutes after the one you quoted from (and 30 minutes before your's was posted (so you may or may not have seen it) Berkowitz explained what the sentence you cite actually means: "You have to ask yourself if you want to be a photographer or a graphics artist? There are people that can produce amazing images with a camera just like there are people that can create amazing images in Photoshop from scratch. My point being, sadly, the line between photography and Photshopping is so blurry that it's almost impossible to distinguish between the two. If you're a Photoshop jockey don't claim to be a photographer because the two aren't interchangeable." That is the basis of this contention you and Wayne are responding to. It's bullshit. The sentence you responded to is meaningless drivel, and too vague to argue specifics about. But given what Berkowitz actually means, Wayne had a good point though perhaps he didn't use the best example. Ansel Adams is of course an example that puts it into perspective. But seeing it requires clearing the blue smoke first... ;-) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >I think you are either replying to the wrong person or have completely > >misinterpreted my post. Rita Berkowitz said: "Darkroom antics will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Berkowitz explained what the sentence you cite actually > means: > That is the basis of this contention you and Wayne are > responding to. It's bullshit. Well I agree. I had not seen that post by Berkowitz. But I was merely saying that pointing to Uelsmann's work as an example of darkroom work is like pointing to Newton's Principia Mathematica as a typical university textbook (I may be exaggerating a bit here :) ). I think Wayne's answer was serious, and I don't see why we should let RB (who appears to enjoy stirring up people) spoil an interesting discussion. I usually don't answer RB's posts for this reason. So I replied to Wayne. > The sentence you > responded to is meaningless drivel, and too vague to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an example that puts it into perspective. But seeing it > requires clearing the blue smoke first... ;-) Well I took Wayne's answer to be a response to the contention that one cannot reproduce in the darkroom what can be done in photoshop. So I responded to that. As I said, that RB is trying to start flames should not spoil an interesting discussion. Discussing whether postprocessing is "real" photography is a waste of time to me (which is why I did not take part in earlier discussions on this; of course others are perfectly free to discuss it :) ). > I think Wayne's answer was serious, and I don't see why we should let > RB (who appears to enjoy stirring up people) spoil an interesting > discussion. I usually don't answer RB's posts for this reason. So I > replied to Wayne. NONSENSE! Wayne asked a question and I gave him a valid answer. You, or he, might not have liked my answer, but that's really not my problem. If you think you can do in a darkroom all of what you can do in Photoshop you are a fool. >> The sentence you >> responded to is meaningless drivel, and too vague to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > responded to that. As I said, that RB is trying to start flames should > not spoil an interesting discussion. Then we are in partial agreement about the darkroom/Photoshop bit? And again, if you think massive manipulation of an image is photography you are a fool. > Discussing whether postprocessing is "real" photography is a waste of > time to me (which is why I did not take part in earlier discussions on > this; of course others are perfectly free to discuss it :) ). Why would it be a waste of time to you or anyone else? I agree that some post processing is acceptable. When it severely alters the image to the point were it is no longer a representation of reality it is no longer photography. Rita > achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > Well I took Wayne's answer to be a response to the contention that one > > cannot reproduce in the darkroom what can be done in photoshop. So I > > responded to that. As I said, that RB is trying to start flames should > > not spoil an interesting discussion. > > Then we are in partial agreement about the darkroom/Photoshop bit? Yep, it seems so. > And again, if you think massive manipulation of an image is photography you are > a fool. A fool I certainly am, but for other reasons. > That is the basis of this contention you and Wayne are > responding to. It's bullshit. The sentence you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > an example that puts it into perspective. But seeing it > requires clearing the blue smoke first... ;-) Oh, marsupial sh.t, Floyd, and you know it! You might as well call it "special effects" like they do in the movie industry with the green background. This gives you more flexibility for Photshopping, but it still isn't photography. It all boils down to what you want to call it. Good photographers don't make Photoshop creations and call them photographs. Rita On Jun 2, 8:29 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > Good photographers don't make Photoshop creations and call them photographs. Good photographers know their tools and how to best use them. Ansel Adams knew what he could do in the darkroom and what he needed to do during capture to achieve the result he wanted. Digital photographers today know what can be accomplished in Photoshop and so they shoot with "an eye" toward getting the end result. For example, they may make multiple exposures to capture the full dynamic range of an image. Or they may do stitched panoramas that would be impossible to capture in-camera. They simply use the right tools to get the job done. Only a fool would do otherwise. >They simply use the right tools to get the job done. >Only a fool would do otherwise. Pretty much sums up Rita's "attitude problem" to other people appropriately using the available tools to suit THEIR own requirements. MrT. >> Good photographers don't make Photoshop creations and call them >> photographs. > > Good photographers know their tools and how to best use them. I agree. > Ansel Adams knew what he could do in the darkroom and what he needed > to do during capture to achieve the result he wanted. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would be impossible to capture in-camera. They simply use the right > tools to get the job done. Only a fool would do otherwise. Using a good camera can only capture full dynamic range and panorama shots are done the same way as well. <http://www.panoscan.com/> By simply using the right tools to get the job done it is utterly foolish to use Photoshop for anything other than minor level corrections. Only a fool would buy software to correct deficiencies in their equipment and technique. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: > Using a good camera can only capture full dynamic range and > panorama shots are done the same way as well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > level corrections. Only a fool would buy software to correct > deficiencies in their equipment and technique. I don't advocate the creation of fake photos using graphics editing software, but I think "fool" is a bit strong here. Lots of people lack either the equipment or the skill or both, and maybe always will, to produce what they think they want or need. Without competent editors, some people would be unable to produce results they like. That doesn't make them fools in my book. And, depending on the subject and lighting conditions that a photographer cannot fully control or may not be able to control or not, a good graphics editor may be the only way they have to get acceptable results. As has been discussed at length in this thread and others for weeks, traditional film photographers including the world-famous one, changed reality as well, and I don't think we considered them fools. SignatureHP, aka Jerry >> Using a good camera can only capture full dynamic range and >> panorama shots are done the same way as well. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > competent editors, some people would be unable to produce results > they like. And I think that I have clarified this point? I think we are in agreement. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: >>> By simply using the right tools to get the job done it is >>> utterly foolish to use Photoshop for anything other than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And I think that I have clarified this point? I think we are > in agreement. No, "we" are NOT in agreement. I don't call people "fools" because they choose to use a simple, mid-range, or very sophisticated photo editor to enhance their scans or digital camera images. There is a big difference between using these tools to create "manips" that alter reality and using them to do afterwards what couldn't be done at the time the photo was taken, for any number of reasons. It may come as a suprise to some "purists" or "elitists" or "extremists" hereabouts that a WHOLE LOT of amateur digital photographers take pictures of what they like in the way they like, and NOT to fit anyone's concept of what is correct or incorrect technique. That includes me, you, everybody, and it includes the full gamum from the least expensive cell phone camera to the most expensive digital or film camera. Except for pros and those who get their enjoyment from attempting to create the very pinnacle of artistic, creative, and technical excellence, the rest of us do this because it is fun. And, presumeably, we come here because we want to learn, share our expriences, and perhaps help others. That adds to the fun of being a hobbyist photographer. I don't think many people intentionally come here to be insulted with words I've seen recently such as "fool", "moron", "dumb-a.s" and the like, and some others way more disparaging at other times. SignatureHP, aka Jerry >>>> By simply using the right tools to get the job done it is >>>> utterly foolish to use Photoshop for anything other than [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sophisticated photo editor to enhance their scans or digital > camera images. Oh, but we are in agreement. I find nothing wrong with "enhancement" or called anyone a fool for using such programs for that purpose. But, obviously there will be someone wanting to stretch the boundaries of "enhance" to the outer edges of total manipulation of reality. > There is a big difference between using these > tools to create "manips" that alter reality and using them to do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like in the way they like, and NOT to fit anyone's concept of > what is correct or incorrect technique. Ah, yes! We agree! A photo is what it is. > That includes me, you, > everybody, and it includes the full gamum from the least > expensive cell phone camera to the most expensive digital or film > camera. Except for pros and those who get their enjoyment from > attempting to create the very pinnacle of artistic, creative, and > technical excellence, the rest of us do this because it is fun. And there is nothing wrong with the "pros" doing that with intent and purpose just as long as it is not passed off as a photograph or photography. > And, presumeably, we come here because we want to learn, share > our expriences, and perhaps help others. That adds to the fun of > being a hobbyist photographer. I don't think many people > intentionally come here to be insulted with words I've seen > recently such as "fool", "moron", "dumb-a.s" and the like, and > some others way more disparaging at other times. Probably so, but you seem to be forgetting this is Usenet and we have an assortment of all kinds. I'm here to help others and offer quality advice to people that want it. In keeping with the spirit of Usenet, I sometimes am forced to pass around what comes around. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: [snip the back peddling and attempts at rationalization] >> And, presumeably, we come here because we want to learn, >> share our expriences, and perhaps help others. That adds to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with the spirit of Usenet, I sometimes am forced to pass > around what comes around. I have hardly forgotten that this is Usenet. However, whether people want to believe it or not, the First Amendment does not apply to the extent many would like to believe that it does, so people are not allowed to say whatever comes into their heads, especially when their fingers at the keyboard move faster than than ability to think about the wisdom of what they spew forth. I have only read a portion of your style of "helping" people, so I won't pass judgement on what some appear to think is an unusual style of "help" but a clear example of "purist" and what I call "elitist". YOu can sugar coat it any way you like, but there's no place for calling people "fool", "moron", "imbecile", "dumb-a.s", or any number of other words simply because they have a different view than you do. I don't have a monopoly on the truth, and neither do you. Have I ever insulted anyone? Certainly, when I think they deserve it. But, I began debating with you when I saw you make a "foolish" conclusion that it is your way or the highway, that only the very best equipment and consumate skill sufficient to solve at the time of exposure any and all possible issues, and that photo editing software is meant for little more than very minor, very occasional adjustments. Gee, Rita, those folks who pay all that money for editors, from $50 to $850 or more must really be fools like you say, else they'd spend their money taking Photography 101 from you! SignatureHP, aka Jerry >> Probably so, but you seem to be forgetting this is Usenet and >> we have an assortment of all kinds. I'm here to help others [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > especially when their fingers at the keyboard move faster than > than ability to think about the wisdom of what they spew forth. [snip the back peddling and attempts at rationalization] Look, I'm going to say whatever I like to say and if it bothers or offends you, tough. You see, it's really not my problem nor do I care about your lame attempts to make it a problem. Of course, you are more than welcome to killfile, ignore, and skip over my posts if you find no value in them. I'll keep posting for the benefit and entertainment of others that enjoy my benevolent style of helping and goodwill to all. Again, I do find it highly hypocritical of you to complain about my posting style when your asinine antics and efforts to stir sh.t far exceed mine. Trust me, if it weren't urinating outside I'd rather be by the pool working on my tan instead of engaging some fool. Rita I seem to recall it was you who started out by calling people with a differing point of view fools. I find nothing benevolent about your posting style, but rather arrogant and judgmental. Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ > Look, I'm going to say whatever I like to say and if it bothers or offends > you, tough. You see, it's really not my problem nor do I care about your [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rita Let's all lean back for a moment and "define our definitions" so we're on the same wavelength. PHOTOGRAPHY essentially means WRITING (or DRAWING) WITH LIGHT, so a "photograph" had light as its origin. Other images produced by a brush, pencil, or even a computer may be paintings, drawings, or computer graphics but, for example, nobody would call a water-color a "photograph." A pure computer graphic, thanks to today's CGI technology, may RESEMBLE or IMITATE a photograph, but as a whole-cloth new creation should not be called a "photograph" and I doubt anybody here would. Many of us digitally process our photographs to restore the reality we first envisioned before hitting the shutter button... such as correcting perspective to what we "know" is true rather than the way a particular lens reproduced it. If anyone claims a "photograph" must contain only the camera's version of reality and none other... well, consider that converting the 3-D world to a flat 2-D image in your camera is already quite a gross distortion of that reality. How much post-processing of a photo is allowable? A question of taste, which depends on how good an artist you are... good ones know how little or how much is just right. Merely knowing Photoshop does not make one a photographer. I could easily agree with Rita if her argument was that the execrable "photo effects" plugins designed by computer jockeys with poor taste and so enthusiastically adopted by inexperienced photographers with equally poor taste usually do little but turn innocent photographs into monstrosities. Hi Charles, Well put. I'd add that doing it all in camera or only doing 'manipulations' up to a certain point also does not make you a photographer. The photography world is so big it can accommodate a huge range of approaches, as it does. Throwing a PS filter at an image doesn't necessarily make it great, just as throwing a filter on a lens doesn't necessarily either. It all comes down to the vision of the photographer and their skill in translating that into the medium they have chosen to work in. Then there is the separate issue of how a viewer will respond to a photograph, something you as the photographer has no real control over. People respond to photography in so many ways, and their own personal interests, ideas of aesthetics and thinking will control whether they resonate to a particular image or style of image, or not. This is all good and I am one who believes that diversity is great. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ > Let's all lean back for a moment and "define our definitions" so we're on > the same wavelength. PHOTOGRAPHY essentially means WRITING (or DRAWING) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > poor taste usually do little but turn innocent photographs into > monstrosities. On 6/3/07 7:42 AM, in article 1365e0vnd1h3ufb@news.supernews.com, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> Good photographers don't make Photoshop creations and call them >>> photographs. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Only a fool would buy software to correct deficiencies in their equipment and > technique. Only a fool would make such a statement. George Kerby offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the matter at hand: >> Only a fool would buy software to correct deficiencies in >> their equipment and technique. >> > Only a fool would make such a statement. George, I have learned through a relatively long educational life, professional life, personal life, and even a short military life, that there will always be controversial issues with at least two poles or extremes of opinion, sometimes more than 2. I like to describe the area between the poles of extreme views to be a continuum, and my life's experience strongly suggests that the truth - if the particular controversy has a "truth" - always lies someplace along the continuum, but never close to either pole. I could cite many examples including religion, politics, use of the military as a tool of foreign policy, domestic policy, health care, employment, tolerance and diversity, even global warming. So, surely, photography could have multiple poles of extreme views depending on what one wants to discuss, such as type of camera, how many mega pixels is enough, and yes, whether altering reality in a photo editor is or is not acceptable. So, when people at opposite poles of a continuum of some controversy feel strongly enough, the insults start, as if one side could convince the other side of anything. If the subject being discussed is one where facts can be stated, people with an open mind can and do change their views, but on highly subjective issues such as the one being discussed here, there is no right and wrong, just opinions. And, I tend to agree with your statement, even though I don't like labels - only fools make extreme statements, on ANY subject. SignatureHP, aka Jerry > So, when people at opposite poles of a continuum of some > controversy feel strongly enough, the insults start, as if one side > could convince the other side of anything. LOL! After reading a few of your heated debates you really make me laugh when you say such "foolishness" that it's beyond hypocritical. You remind me of one of my old time pals, "The Engineer" who was a real piece of work. Keep me laughing. Rita > By simply using the right tools to get the job done it is utterly foolish > to > use Photoshop for anything other than minor level corrections. Only a > fool > would buy software to correct deficiencies in their equipment and > technique. I'd love to see what any astrophotography said about being called a fool. I would like to see you take deep sky images without using software to correct the hardware deficiencies. Even Hubble pictures have to be fixed. >> By simply using the right tools to get the job done it is utterly >> foolish to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > software to correct the hardware deficiencies. > Even Hubble pictures have to be fixed. Well, you seem to be comparing apples to oranges here. It seems that the only way you are going to get the types of results in astrophotography is by using software to correct hardware deficiencies. Plus, these guys have the goal of making accurate and scientific results without enhancements of reality. The average "photographer" or should I say Photoshop jockey has different ideas of what a photograph is. Rita Actually Astrophotography is as much an artform as a science. Post Processing is a very necessary part of it since a lot of images are taken through varous filters to give color (LRGB) Post Processing is not done to overcome hardware deficiencies. Your statement that we have the goal of making accurate scietific results is alo off base. yes some do, but a great many are just trying to create a pretty picture. SignatureRemove My_Skin to E-mail me. > > > By simply using the right tools to get the job done it is utterly > > > foolish to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Rita > Actually Astrophotography is as much an artform as a science. Post > Processing is a very necessary part of it since a lot of images are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > alo off base. yes some do, but a great many are just trying to create a > pretty picture. Most of my post-processing is done to overcome the contrast & dynamic range limitations of cameras. And I do a *lot* of post processing some days when the lighting is bad. Here's one where I'll admit to going overboard but the image out of camera was almost pure flat white: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Southwest/2007-06-03-az/full-set&PG=11& PIC=63> The following blue ones, I just increased contrast but the blue came out and could not be turned down or white balanced without losing definition... odd. Yes, I could have done a luminosity layer from there & maybe got a color more like reality... my eyes didn't see anything like that kind of blue but I left it because it's pretty. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > Actually Astrophotography is as much an artform as a science. Post > Processing is a very necessary part of it since a lot of images are > taken through varous filters to give color (LRGB) > > Post Processing is not done to overcome hardware deficiencies. What crap, for example before Hubble was repaired all it's photo's had to be heavily post processed simply to overcome the deficiencies in the mirror. Post processing is always done for a large number of VALID reasons. Perhaps you meant to say it's not ONLY done to correct hardware deficiencies? The end result and suitability for the purpose intended, is the only important factor for most intelligent people. MrT. > Here are the dictionary definitions, which clearly show > "photography" as an all inclusive art from camera to > watching your inkjet printer spit out the prints: And where exactly in these definitions does it say anything about "altering" or "digital manipulation" of a photograph? > photograph > n : a picture ... recorded by a camera ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Claiming that digital manipulation of images is not a part > of photograhy is mental gymnastics with smoke and mirrors. The only "smoke and mirrors" seen here are by people claiming to be photographers instead of Photoshop jockeys. Rita On Jun 2, 8:26 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > The only "smoke and mirrors" seen here are by people claiming to be > photographers instead of Photoshop jockeys. Even Marilyn Monroe wore makeup. I smell a religious zealot, as only one of those is so quick to condemn anyone else who does not see the world in exactly the same way as they do. Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >> Here are the dictionary definitions, which clearly show >> "photography" as an all inclusive art from camera to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Rita > The only "smoke and mirrors" seen here are by people claiming to be > photographers instead of Photoshop jockeys. Whether someone is a fundamentalist Muslim, or a fundamentalist Christian, or a fundamentalist Photographer, all fundamentalists know how to do is draw lines to fight about. BB:) Agreed. And ultimately all it achieves is division, they need to feel special, chosen or whatever by invalidating other people's rights to follow a different path. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >> The only "smoke and mirrors" seen here are by people claiming to be >> photographers instead of Photoshop jockeys. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > BB:) |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message