Sorry Tombomb, but I just can't see what you are getting at. Using filters on the lens is no different to doing it digitally( I use both ). The fact is they both affect the way light is absorbed and reflected by the sensor, (film or CCD primarily and secondly the monitor and paper). Digital processing mostly duplicates the adjustments that the chemical brothers have been doing for years during developing and printing, but without getting your hands wet in darkened room.
Many times I have read statements such as "This photo is exactly as I took it and it has not been digitally enhanced". (Then the writer states that he used a ND filter, polarizer and Fuji Velvia film) All perfectly normal analogue techniques, but hardly not changing the image! Especially a film specially designed to oversaturate colour. Even the human eye and its 'software' changes the way the light is recorded, as no two people see the same variation of the scene in front of them.
I would suggest that you try not to get hung up on whether someone who points and shoots is less skilled than someone who chooses his settings. There is room for both and in some situations the photographer has enough to think about without wasting time making the 'moral' decision as to whether he or she should choose settings manually. In fact I would suggest that he is relieved that he can concentrate on capturing the moment. The end result is what the photographer is judged on, not the techniques used. That said it is always interesting to learn what techniques were used in order that we may try them and learn from others. It is a pointless argument.
John
Board index ‹ Photography ‹ Artistic Questions ‹ Editing Photos
Artistic Questions
Editing Photos
38 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
- Posts: 18
Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:55 am
Ok, thanks for all your replies, they all have a valid point. I now think that there are some areas in photography where editing is, possibly essential to achieve the right outcome, and some areas where no editing is better, or legal (news photos etc). If its an artistic photo you want, well then editing whatever is fine, but if its shooting cars/action for magazines/news no editing is either required or allowed.
Thanks for clearing this up, its something I've always wondered.
PS: I'm doing photography this year at school, and we'll be using old style film SRL cameras, any pointers on how to impress the class with cool tricks of any kind?
Thanks for clearing this up, its something I've always wondered.
PS: I'm doing photography this year at school, and we'll be using old style film SRL cameras, any pointers on how to impress the class with cool tricks of any kind?
- Posts: 2276
Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:34 pm
tombomb, I think this was good discussion and your conclusions are pretty good. I'll comment on your statement however.
"if its shooting cars/action for magazines/news no editing is either required or allowed."
You'll probably learn that these editors, primarily those at magazines, want the best possible images with professional-level post processing. Why? because it doesn't misrepresnt the activitity but adds color, contrast, shapness, etc. and the readers go WOW. And wow sells...
"if its shooting cars/action for magazines/news no editing is either required or allowed."
You'll probably learn that these editors, primarily those at magazines, want the best possible images with professional-level post processing. Why? because it doesn't misrepresnt the activitity but adds color, contrast, shapness, etc. and the readers go WOW. And wow sells...
- Posts: 18
Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:21 pm
dougj wrote:tombomb, I think this was good discussion and your conclusions are pretty good. I'll comment on your statement however.
"if its shooting cars/action for magazines/news no editing is either required or allowed."
You'll probably learn that these editors, primarily those at magazines, want the best possible images with professional-level post processing. Why? because it doesn't misrepresnt the activitity but adds color, contrast, shapness, etc. and the readers go WOW. And wow sells...
ok, what I meant was no editing as in cloning, but in maybe a magazine like National Geographic or one that needs great photos editing for colour etc is ok.
- Posts: 5
Re: Editing Photos
Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:20 am
I'm reading the replies and though I understand what some are saying, I can't help but feel many are being defensive as some rely on PS too much. Plus, in the old days the majority were shooting photos WITHOUT filters / dodging / etc. Today, everyone who has a digital camera has some version of Photoshop and they think they know what they are doing. MOSt are going way over the top.
Look at the photos of women at pbase etc . . .my God, can't anyone take a photo of a woman without turning them into a wax candle or blurring her into oblivion?
It's getting out of hand to me. People are 'editing' the soul and emotion out of photos these days. Many are no longer spending time composing the shot but taking MANY photos then composing and fixing them in PS. Say what you want about "the shot has to be there first" . . .but I disagree as there are MANY photos created in PS by many people. I have done it myself. Those photos are missing something important. It's like looking at a stripper . . . can be dazzling at first, but it means nothing once you walk away.
I only shoot digital under duress. Most of my shots on the net are digital and they leave me stone cold. I hardly ever look at them. I don't scan a lot of my MF to covert to 72 dpi because I care about prints, not the net. One thing I love about MF is . . . once scanned for printing (if I print myself) . . I open up the file and do very little to get the print to look the way I want it . . . where it's ready to print. Many times with digital, it takes so long to get shots the way you want it, many don't know when to stop with PS so the editing can go over the top. I have done it myself. PLUS, over the top edited photos are all over the net so people are just following the sheep going over the edge of the cliff. Like disco music days . . . . Just cause everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it's right or good.
YET, if these people who are turning women into wax figures spent time looking in fashion magazines, they would see that people are not doing it to the extent they are in mags. So what is the point? It's the people who are weekend shooters for the most part who are doing this and are effecting MORE weekend shooters to do more of it. Where is originality?
So no, to me it's NOT like the old days in many ways. Yes, to me it's many being defensive who say so.
Look at the photos of women at pbase etc . . .my God, can't anyone take a photo of a woman without turning them into a wax candle or blurring her into oblivion?
It's getting out of hand to me. People are 'editing' the soul and emotion out of photos these days. Many are no longer spending time composing the shot but taking MANY photos then composing and fixing them in PS. Say what you want about "the shot has to be there first" . . .but I disagree as there are MANY photos created in PS by many people. I have done it myself. Those photos are missing something important. It's like looking at a stripper . . . can be dazzling at first, but it means nothing once you walk away.
I only shoot digital under duress. Most of my shots on the net are digital and they leave me stone cold. I hardly ever look at them. I don't scan a lot of my MF to covert to 72 dpi because I care about prints, not the net. One thing I love about MF is . . . once scanned for printing (if I print myself) . . I open up the file and do very little to get the print to look the way I want it . . . where it's ready to print. Many times with digital, it takes so long to get shots the way you want it, many don't know when to stop with PS so the editing can go over the top. I have done it myself. PLUS, over the top edited photos are all over the net so people are just following the sheep going over the edge of the cliff. Like disco music days . . . . Just cause everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it's right or good.
YET, if these people who are turning women into wax figures spent time looking in fashion magazines, they would see that people are not doing it to the extent they are in mags. So what is the point? It's the people who are weekend shooters for the most part who are doing this and are effecting MORE weekend shooters to do more of it. Where is originality?
So no, to me it's NOT like the old days in many ways. Yes, to me it's many being defensive who say so.
- Posts: 192
Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:54 am
I couldn't disagree with you more streetkid. I am sure if I opened a magazine from the transition period between glass plates and the introduction of film l'd be reading statements that "glass plates" are superior in terms of quality (so they should be with a negative that big), that the use of mass market film cameras belittles the skill of the "true professional" and cheapens the the art of the real photographer who takes the time to learn how to use a plate camera, etc etc. Nothing really changes in that respect. There is always resistance to new technology. The new technology does not however make everyone a better photographer, it just makes the process easier in terms of workflow. One of my heros is a guy called Sutcliffe, who photographed the town of Whitby in England 100 years ago. Stunning images, with lots of dodging and burning. Are you telling me that Adams just took his lense cap off and hoped for the best, I think not. Again a master of his craft. How do you think he got those fantastic skies without a red filter!
The percentage of people who do more than point and shoot, ie edit their work will always be small compared to the overall number of people who take pictures, as evidenced by the work on Pbase, but editting work has always been done and always will. I cannot see how it can be considered defensive to state this. I also cannot understand the defensive position of those that claim not to and then spend time belittling those who do. It comes down to opinion and taste. However I confidently predict that film has had its day, so I would stock up on film and developing chemicals, as they are going to get rare or expensive.
At the end of the day these techniques are just tools and how well we use our tools is what it is about. Sometimes the result works and sometimes it doesn't . It s also very subjective.
John
The percentage of people who do more than point and shoot, ie edit their work will always be small compared to the overall number of people who take pictures, as evidenced by the work on Pbase, but editting work has always been done and always will. I cannot see how it can be considered defensive to state this. I also cannot understand the defensive position of those that claim not to and then spend time belittling those who do. It comes down to opinion and taste. However I confidently predict that film has had its day, so I would stock up on film and developing chemicals, as they are going to get rare or expensive.
At the end of the day these techniques are just tools and how well we use our tools is what it is about. Sometimes the result works and sometimes it doesn't . It s also very subjective.
John
- Posts: 664
Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:50 pm
jellophoto wrote:
At the end of the day these techniques are just tools and how well we use our tools is what it is about. Sometimes the result works and sometimes it doesn't . It s also very subjective.
John
Right on! Use the tools available to you, or don't. It is the image and its impact on a viewer that is important. Who cares how you got there!--Rene
- Posts: 5
Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:58 pm
There are different palettes and brushes. Water color has a feel. Oil does . . . . on and on.
Digital has a certian look and feel. Digital that has been over done in PS does as well. You either like it or don't Film has a certain look and feel. And yes, film editing can be overdone as well . . . . but the point is, overall computers (PS) digital cameras have made it much easier for an over abundance of photos that were / are overdone.
It's always strange to see many digital shooters love the fact that "film is on it's way out" as if it brings them joy that a pallette is being taken away from someone to create art. To me it's a sad day when any tool is being taken from an artist to create and touch people.
I own a professional recording studio. It's the same. People who need to correct performances (mostly those who can't play) record digitally so they can correct / auto tune / give the illusion that they can play in time, on and on. People who really play and have a desire to capture a different 'feel' record to analog. Also those who seek the "best sound" record to analog (debatable to some) but sit with me in a studio every day and see. They both have different feels and soul. Most of the time the people who record digitally don't know when to stop editing so the soul has been scrubbed out. So called perfection is replaced and 'feel' has gone. Digital gives us the Britney Spears (and the abundance of crap you hear on the radio) because you don't have to be able to sing (you can fix it in the computer). Sound familiar? It also is cheaper for labels to record their 'acts' with a computer in a home / small studio rather then a real studio / high end tube mics / high end analog gear in a well tuned / acoustically treated, professional recording studio.
Yes, you can say "however you get there" . . . but personally I could do without the Britney Spears of the world. Now . . just because I feel that way, doesn't mean anyone else should. The Beatles edited tape, as did others. So there was editing going on. Not like today with computers. Yea Adams put a filter in front of his lens and even did some 'burning' but for the most part he was about getting the exposure right. Photography. He is not one I care about, though I have read his books on exposure.
"Music', just like today with PS editing being the norm, the ability to do so is so much easier with computers and software. Sinatra stood in front of an orchestra and sang one or two takes. Aretha sang one or two takes. They didn't need to use ProTools (recording) or PhotoShop. They worked on the craft itself not rely o a 'fix'. I shoot digital for many things and I use PhotoShop EVEN on MF shots that have been scanned. I too have over done it.
Lets face it, they have different 'feels' . . . if you can't see / feel and even hear the difference in something that has been overdone, I find it sad for you. Many times I hear about 'ease of use' over quality. Same reason many things have gone down quality-wise in the world.
I can still SEE a shot, but I feel different things. . . . the formats and heavy PS edited shots have different feels. Some people don't shoot for 'feel', they shoot for a image. It's fine.
I appreciate the comments in this thread. Though we disagree and seek different things. I hope you continue to have your "palettes" available reasonably and abundantly to you as I hope mine is. I would not like to see those of you who use digital and even over do (to me) PS, have your medium of choice and software of choice taken away, as some digital shooters seem to find joy that our choice is being taken away or is becoming hard to find and even expensive.
I like to see some artists who use PS to create incredible 'art'. It's the in between (waxy models etc) that I find over done. It's just a preference, neither right or wrong. But, . Call us old school complainers who don't embrace technology if you like John, but maybe it's that we hate to see certain quality taken away for 'ease of use' or appelaing to the masses OR the fact that it's cheaper for a company to build a certain piece of gear so it's crammed down our throats.
It's none of my concern what anyone else shoots . . it's my concern what I shoot. I have eyes, I have a heart, I shoot for feel. What you shoot for is your joy. I consider photography an honor that we all enjoy to express ourselves.
Digital has a certian look and feel. Digital that has been over done in PS does as well. You either like it or don't Film has a certain look and feel. And yes, film editing can be overdone as well . . . . but the point is, overall computers (PS) digital cameras have made it much easier for an over abundance of photos that were / are overdone.
It's always strange to see many digital shooters love the fact that "film is on it's way out" as if it brings them joy that a pallette is being taken away from someone to create art. To me it's a sad day when any tool is being taken from an artist to create and touch people.
I own a professional recording studio. It's the same. People who need to correct performances (mostly those who can't play) record digitally so they can correct / auto tune / give the illusion that they can play in time, on and on. People who really play and have a desire to capture a different 'feel' record to analog. Also those who seek the "best sound" record to analog (debatable to some) but sit with me in a studio every day and see. They both have different feels and soul. Most of the time the people who record digitally don't know when to stop editing so the soul has been scrubbed out. So called perfection is replaced and 'feel' has gone. Digital gives us the Britney Spears (and the abundance of crap you hear on the radio) because you don't have to be able to sing (you can fix it in the computer). Sound familiar? It also is cheaper for labels to record their 'acts' with a computer in a home / small studio rather then a real studio / high end tube mics / high end analog gear in a well tuned / acoustically treated, professional recording studio.
Yes, you can say "however you get there" . . . but personally I could do without the Britney Spears of the world. Now . . just because I feel that way, doesn't mean anyone else should. The Beatles edited tape, as did others. So there was editing going on. Not like today with computers. Yea Adams put a filter in front of his lens and even did some 'burning' but for the most part he was about getting the exposure right. Photography. He is not one I care about, though I have read his books on exposure.
"Music', just like today with PS editing being the norm, the ability to do so is so much easier with computers and software. Sinatra stood in front of an orchestra and sang one or two takes. Aretha sang one or two takes. They didn't need to use ProTools (recording) or PhotoShop. They worked on the craft itself not rely o a 'fix'. I shoot digital for many things and I use PhotoShop EVEN on MF shots that have been scanned. I too have over done it.
Lets face it, they have different 'feels' . . . if you can't see / feel and even hear the difference in something that has been overdone, I find it sad for you. Many times I hear about 'ease of use' over quality. Same reason many things have gone down quality-wise in the world.
I can still SEE a shot, but I feel different things. . . . the formats and heavy PS edited shots have different feels. Some people don't shoot for 'feel', they shoot for a image. It's fine.
I appreciate the comments in this thread. Though we disagree and seek different things. I hope you continue to have your "palettes" available reasonably and abundantly to you as I hope mine is. I would not like to see those of you who use digital and even over do (to me) PS, have your medium of choice and software of choice taken away, as some digital shooters seem to find joy that our choice is being taken away or is becoming hard to find and even expensive.
I like to see some artists who use PS to create incredible 'art'. It's the in between (waxy models etc) that I find over done. It's just a preference, neither right or wrong. But, . Call us old school complainers who don't embrace technology if you like John, but maybe it's that we hate to see certain quality taken away for 'ease of use' or appelaing to the masses OR the fact that it's cheaper for a company to build a certain piece of gear so it's crammed down our throats.
It's none of my concern what anyone else shoots . . it's my concern what I shoot. I have eyes, I have a heart, I shoot for feel. What you shoot for is your joy. I consider photography an honor that we all enjoy to express ourselves.
jellophoto wrote:I couldn't disagree with you more streetkid. I am sure if I opened a magazine from the transition period between glass plates and the introduction of film l'd be reading statements that "glass plates" are superior in terms of quality (so they should be with a negative that big), that the use of mass market film cameras belittles the skill of the "true professional" and cheapens the the art of the real photographer who takes the time to learn how to use a plate camera, etc etc. Nothing really changes in that respect. There is always resistance to new technology. The new technology does not however make everyone a better photographer, it just makes the process easier in terms of workflow. One of my heros is a guy called Sutcliffe, who photographed the town of Whitby in England 100 years ago. Stunning images, with lots of dodging and burning. Are you telling me that Adams just took his lense cap off and hoped for the best, I think not. Again a master of his craft. How do you think he got those fantastic skies without a red filter!
The percentage of people who do more than point and shoot, ie edit their work will always be small compared to the overall number of people who take pictures, as evidenced by the work on Pbase, but editting work has always been done and always will. I cannot see how it can be considered defensive to state this. I also cannot understand the defensive position of those that claim not to and then spend time belittling those who do. It comes down to opinion and taste. However I confidently predict that film has had its day, so I would stock up on film and developing chemicals, as they are going to get rare or expensive.
At the end of the day these techniques are just tools and how well we use our tools is what it is about. Sometimes the result works and sometimes it doesn't . It s also very subjective.
John
- Posts: 192
Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:31 am
I found your comments interesting streetkid , but again I find myself disagreeing with them. I would contend that digital devotees are not glad that film is on the way out, at least not in a malicious sense. I am glad however that technology has given us such wonderful new tools to use. Your are right to a certain extent about the look or feel of a particular medium. I personally love old glass plate photos for their clarity and the tone of the print. I have a number myself. However I am not suggesting that we go back to those days. I do however seek to digitally recreate their effect using duotone printing, I love the way it is possible to experiment and edit to try and get the effect I want. I would be the first to admit that I do not always get what I am after.
With regard to digital versus analogue sound recording I have similar views to photography. Your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. In the past artists had to work with what was available. Yes a lot was done in one or two takes, but often it shows. The work remains good despite that because the artist was tallented and the song well written. Your comments regarding Britany Spears are too much of a generalization. I am not a great fan of Britany spears, but to me she is no different as a manufactured product, to any Motown or Spectre artist of the past. They too were packaged, given good, well written material to sing and recorded with session musicians of great talent and skill (many of whom got very little recognition). The products were turned out on an endless conveyor and some I love and some I am not so keen on. It is no different today. Remember the 60s gave us the Monkees, a band who had all their hits recorded by session men (they couldn't play very well) and written by great song writers and there were many others like them.
With regards passion and soul, I think this can still show through. Whether it is recorded digitally or analogue. The fact that a group of young kids can get together unsupervised and record a record in their garage/ bedroom and then post on the internet is exciting. I wish I was a youngster with that technology at my fingertips. Good luck to them. The result will not be professionally done and will be raw around the edges, but surely that is what you are advocating. I also think the modern music scene is actually very produtive and creative at the moment. There are some first class acts around and I speak as a child of the 60s/70s. It has certainly re-awakened my own interest (dormant during the 80s and 90s).
I am sure that you as an analogue studio owner will be affected by these advances in technology and from a personal point of view I can understand the negative effect this is likely to have, but I can only suggest that you learnt to adapt.
I hope that you too will continue to use and have access to the palletes that you enjoy working with as that is what it is all about.
Regards John
With regard to digital versus analogue sound recording I have similar views to photography. Your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. In the past artists had to work with what was available. Yes a lot was done in one or two takes, but often it shows. The work remains good despite that because the artist was tallented and the song well written. Your comments regarding Britany Spears are too much of a generalization. I am not a great fan of Britany spears, but to me she is no different as a manufactured product, to any Motown or Spectre artist of the past. They too were packaged, given good, well written material to sing and recorded with session musicians of great talent and skill (many of whom got very little recognition). The products were turned out on an endless conveyor and some I love and some I am not so keen on. It is no different today. Remember the 60s gave us the Monkees, a band who had all their hits recorded by session men (they couldn't play very well) and written by great song writers and there were many others like them.
With regards passion and soul, I think this can still show through. Whether it is recorded digitally or analogue. The fact that a group of young kids can get together unsupervised and record a record in their garage/ bedroom and then post on the internet is exciting. I wish I was a youngster with that technology at my fingertips. Good luck to them. The result will not be professionally done and will be raw around the edges, but surely that is what you are advocating. I also think the modern music scene is actually very produtive and creative at the moment. There are some first class acts around and I speak as a child of the 60s/70s. It has certainly re-awakened my own interest (dormant during the 80s and 90s).
I am sure that you as an analogue studio owner will be affected by these advances in technology and from a personal point of view I can understand the negative effect this is likely to have, but I can only suggest that you learnt to adapt.
I hope that you too will continue to use and have access to the palletes that you enjoy working with as that is what it is all about.
Regards John
- Posts: 861
Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:29 pm
I think there are really two separate discussions going on here. The original post was about whether or not photos should be edited on a computer; I think streetkid's points are mainly about the way they are edited. I actually agree with quite a few of those points about "over-editing", but I don't think the existence of badly edited photos (or rather photos edited in a way that doesn't appeal to my taste) says anything about whether or not editing itself is a good or bad idea.
Many people who own cameras take snapshots without any thought about composition - that has alway been the case, in film or digital. The resulting shots may be perfectly satisfactory to the people who take them and their families, but possibly lack interest for anyone else. Does that mean that the invention of a camera was a bad idea, and we should have stuck to sketching or painting? I don't think it does. In the same way, the fact that other people may use editing to create photos that don't appeal to us does not mean that we should avoid digital editing.
That's why I don't really think previous posters are being defensive - they are not trying to defend a particular style of editing photos, but to avoid drawing an arbitary distinction between techniques that are available to a so-called "real" photographer and techniques that aren't.
Many people who own cameras take snapshots without any thought about composition - that has alway been the case, in film or digital. The resulting shots may be perfectly satisfactory to the people who take them and their families, but possibly lack interest for anyone else. Does that mean that the invention of a camera was a bad idea, and we should have stuck to sketching or painting? I don't think it does. In the same way, the fact that other people may use editing to create photos that don't appeal to us does not mean that we should avoid digital editing.
That's why I don't really think previous posters are being defensive - they are not trying to defend a particular style of editing photos, but to avoid drawing an arbitary distinction between techniques that are available to a so-called "real" photographer and techniques that aren't.
Alan
Travel Photos - http://www.pbase.com/alangrant
Balkanology: Explore Southeast Europe - http://www.balkanology.com/
Travel Photos - http://www.pbase.com/alangrant
Balkanology: Explore Southeast Europe - http://www.balkanology.com/
- Posts: 239
Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:03 pm
This has turned into one of those "laments for the decline of the art vs. champion of the new art" discussions. Both perspectives are valid and true, but the emphasis is different.
Streetkid speaks of music, the old way vs. the new. I tend to share his sorrow at the transition the new technology brings to that particular art. When I look for music it is the live performance versions of music that attract my attention because they contain a bit more of the heart of the music. Sure, live performance tracks can and are manipulated but if the engineers don't get carried away they tend to still reflect the act of making music far more than most studio work of late. Variations, improvisation and most importantly an unquantifiable 'energy' that is largely engineered out of studio work. That is not to say the latest music is not good, but it does tend to emphasis a different skill set. Much more processing and less concern about getting it right the first time.
The discussion about photography is much the same. While some darkroom wizards did do a great deal of manipulation in the printing process, for the most part if the photographer did not get the composition and light right before the shutter was opened, the result was something for the trash. The required skill to produce good photos empahsized what happened before the light hit the film.
The emphasis on skill sets in photography seems to be changing. Just tally for yourself the number of serious converstations you run across with regards to "before click" vs. "after click". Processing wins hands down. Now the emphsis seems all about what you do with the digital file with very little serious conversation about how one goes about goes about creating a quality file to begin with. When someone posts a poor image and asks what he/she can do to salvage the image, there ensues a long discussion of techniques and methods for turning the image into digital art of one form or another, but almost no one suggest the photographer evaluate just why the file is poor to begin with and perhaps they should return to the camera/studio and give it another try. The skill most seem to be learning is not capturing quality composition and light, but processing. Hence, gobs and gobs of highly processed low quality images.
That is not to say some have not figured out how to create some incredible work with all this technology and new tools. Some are brilliant at it. I can't speak for streetkid but for many I think the lament is not so much for the move away from film so much as the new techniques seem to be fostering a move away from the skill of capture to the skills of salvage.
When Michaelangelo created David he practiced a particular art form. He needed to be able to visualize the image within the stone, to study the stone and work out his method of releasing his statue from it's confines. He had to study and know intimately the human form. He had to be expert at proportion and how it changes with viewing angle, how the statue would be seen and what physical adjustments he would make to produce a predetermined perspective for the viewer. He had to have some idea of where he was going before he did anything.
Now, with the advent of technology and all it has to offer, it is possible to three dimentionally graph out every nook and crany in a human form, dump it into a computer and use a computer controlled lathe to reproduce, with astonishing accuracy, that form. Valuable? Sure. Art? Not so much. More of an engineering feat. Different skill set. Now when some artist gets their hands on the machinery and begins to empasis creativity with an emphsis on what it will look like to the end viewer it may become a serious art form, but it will be a totally different art form than taking up a hammer and chisel and working one's way through a slab of marble.
That may be the unrest within some parts of the photographic community. We might be transitioning to something other than capturing a moment of reality. In the end, when the processing skills are fully refined, will a "photographer" even need to look at reality? Will images be entirely the product of digital engineers sitting in darkened rooms filled with machinery: perfect in all respects except, they no longer are of this world? If we get there then it's no longer photography. It's something else.
Streetkid speaks of music, the old way vs. the new. I tend to share his sorrow at the transition the new technology brings to that particular art. When I look for music it is the live performance versions of music that attract my attention because they contain a bit more of the heart of the music. Sure, live performance tracks can and are manipulated but if the engineers don't get carried away they tend to still reflect the act of making music far more than most studio work of late. Variations, improvisation and most importantly an unquantifiable 'energy' that is largely engineered out of studio work. That is not to say the latest music is not good, but it does tend to emphasis a different skill set. Much more processing and less concern about getting it right the first time.
The discussion about photography is much the same. While some darkroom wizards did do a great deal of manipulation in the printing process, for the most part if the photographer did not get the composition and light right before the shutter was opened, the result was something for the trash. The required skill to produce good photos empahsized what happened before the light hit the film.
The emphasis on skill sets in photography seems to be changing. Just tally for yourself the number of serious converstations you run across with regards to "before click" vs. "after click". Processing wins hands down. Now the emphsis seems all about what you do with the digital file with very little serious conversation about how one goes about goes about creating a quality file to begin with. When someone posts a poor image and asks what he/she can do to salvage the image, there ensues a long discussion of techniques and methods for turning the image into digital art of one form or another, but almost no one suggest the photographer evaluate just why the file is poor to begin with and perhaps they should return to the camera/studio and give it another try. The skill most seem to be learning is not capturing quality composition and light, but processing. Hence, gobs and gobs of highly processed low quality images.
That is not to say some have not figured out how to create some incredible work with all this technology and new tools. Some are brilliant at it. I can't speak for streetkid but for many I think the lament is not so much for the move away from film so much as the new techniques seem to be fostering a move away from the skill of capture to the skills of salvage.
When Michaelangelo created David he practiced a particular art form. He needed to be able to visualize the image within the stone, to study the stone and work out his method of releasing his statue from it's confines. He had to study and know intimately the human form. He had to be expert at proportion and how it changes with viewing angle, how the statue would be seen and what physical adjustments he would make to produce a predetermined perspective for the viewer. He had to have some idea of where he was going before he did anything.
Now, with the advent of technology and all it has to offer, it is possible to three dimentionally graph out every nook and crany in a human form, dump it into a computer and use a computer controlled lathe to reproduce, with astonishing accuracy, that form. Valuable? Sure. Art? Not so much. More of an engineering feat. Different skill set. Now when some artist gets their hands on the machinery and begins to empasis creativity with an emphsis on what it will look like to the end viewer it may become a serious art form, but it will be a totally different art form than taking up a hammer and chisel and working one's way through a slab of marble.
That may be the unrest within some parts of the photographic community. We might be transitioning to something other than capturing a moment of reality. In the end, when the processing skills are fully refined, will a "photographer" even need to look at reality? Will images be entirely the product of digital engineers sitting in darkened rooms filled with machinery: perfect in all respects except, they no longer are of this world? If we get there then it's no longer photography. It's something else.
- Posts: 664
Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:57 pm
In response primarily to rickl52.
I believe much of what you envision IS happening. There are people who do fractal and 3D art sometimes combined with photographs and sometimes not. I believe it is called Digital Art.
I attended a recent workshop at the Santa Fe Workshops. It was a digital class with Katrin Eismann, considered to be a Photoshop Diva. BUT, she asked us to visualize what we might do with the photo in photoshop BEFORE we clicked the shutter. This seems to to be getting to the previsualization before the shutter click with a whole different set of tools to be used as were used in the film/darkroom process.
Exposure and composition are important before image capture, but now I sometimes shoot textures, backgrounds, elements of images that I know I will use togther to make a montage/collage or composite digital image.
Photography and printing processes have been very broad and it seems the digital element just expands the opportunities for creatively MAKING ART. I think people talk about making a picture NOT just taking a picture and that approch has been around since before the digital revolution.
I am fully ready to embrace a broad range of techniques. I still like to go back and take a Polaroid image and manipulate it. I handcolor images because I like to get my hands in the process now and then.
Embrace the possibilities and let your creative drive take you to new or old places.--Rene
I believe much of what you envision IS happening. There are people who do fractal and 3D art sometimes combined with photographs and sometimes not. I believe it is called Digital Art.
I attended a recent workshop at the Santa Fe Workshops. It was a digital class with Katrin Eismann, considered to be a Photoshop Diva. BUT, she asked us to visualize what we might do with the photo in photoshop BEFORE we clicked the shutter. This seems to to be getting to the previsualization before the shutter click with a whole different set of tools to be used as were used in the film/darkroom process.
Exposure and composition are important before image capture, but now I sometimes shoot textures, backgrounds, elements of images that I know I will use togther to make a montage/collage or composite digital image.
Photography and printing processes have been very broad and it seems the digital element just expands the opportunities for creatively MAKING ART. I think people talk about making a picture NOT just taking a picture and that approch has been around since before the digital revolution.
I am fully ready to embrace a broad range of techniques. I still like to go back and take a Polaroid image and manipulate it. I handcolor images because I like to get my hands in the process now and then.
Embrace the possibilities and let your creative drive take you to new or old places.--Rene
- Posts: 239
Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:41 pm
Hi, Rene.
I don't diagree with anything you said nor am I taking up the standard of tradtitional photography or digital art. Just trying to point out in there purest and probably most skilled forms, they are different animals. Discussions about why one is not the other or which is better can quickly get to an "apples and oranges" thing.
My first post had some poor choice of words. The comment about "skills of capture" vs. "skills of salvage" particularly implies I consider digital art something lesser than photography. The skilled digital artist no doubt pays as much attention to everything that goes into their process as a classic photographer, so that was a poor way to state it. What was in my head was the large group of people in the middle of the transition to the digital form of photography, who are neither particularly skilled in capture nor with their palette of digital tools. The result is confusion about what they are after and an overabundance of mediocre something-in-between: not quite well composed or executed photographs nor well done digital art.
Sometimes the lament of transition from one set of tools to another sits on the premise that something is inherently better about one technique vs. another, i.e., that film is better than digital. Unfortunately the standard of the old is usually the best the art has to offer, forgetting that for every master of photography there are legions of people who produced mediocrity. There are real geniuses in the digital manipulation world but the majority are no better with computers than the majority of film users are with film.
An afterthought: my guess is a large part of the recurring debate has to do with aesthetic. One generation grows up with one set of values and ideals regarding beauty and appeal, and the next generation develops their own. For too many of us curmudgeons "different" is almost always defined as a loss of something. Plastic skin? I prefer skin look like skin but if one looks around there is a cultural value being placed on that "look". It's in all the ads, tv commercials, cd covers, etc. It's the current style. Not my cup of tea, but legitimate nontheless.
I don't diagree with anything you said nor am I taking up the standard of tradtitional photography or digital art. Just trying to point out in there purest and probably most skilled forms, they are different animals. Discussions about why one is not the other or which is better can quickly get to an "apples and oranges" thing.
My first post had some poor choice of words. The comment about "skills of capture" vs. "skills of salvage" particularly implies I consider digital art something lesser than photography. The skilled digital artist no doubt pays as much attention to everything that goes into their process as a classic photographer, so that was a poor way to state it. What was in my head was the large group of people in the middle of the transition to the digital form of photography, who are neither particularly skilled in capture nor with their palette of digital tools. The result is confusion about what they are after and an overabundance of mediocre something-in-between: not quite well composed or executed photographs nor well done digital art.
Sometimes the lament of transition from one set of tools to another sits on the premise that something is inherently better about one technique vs. another, i.e., that film is better than digital. Unfortunately the standard of the old is usually the best the art has to offer, forgetting that for every master of photography there are legions of people who produced mediocrity. There are real geniuses in the digital manipulation world but the majority are no better with computers than the majority of film users are with film.
An afterthought: my guess is a large part of the recurring debate has to do with aesthetic. One generation grows up with one set of values and ideals regarding beauty and appeal, and the next generation develops their own. For too many of us curmudgeons "different" is almost always defined as a loss of something. Plastic skin? I prefer skin look like skin but if one looks around there is a cultural value being placed on that "look". It's in all the ads, tv commercials, cd covers, etc. It's the current style. Not my cup of tea, but legitimate nontheless.
- Posts: 664
Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:14 pm
This article just showed up in one of my list mailboxes and it seems appropriate to the discussion going on here.
Digital ImageMaker World
Sunday January 21, 2007
Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?
http://digitalimagemakerworld.com/2007/01/21/why-do-some-fear-photoshop-and-others-think-digital-photography-is-something-special/
Enjoy!--Rene
Digital ImageMaker World
Sunday January 21, 2007
Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?
http://digitalimagemakerworld.com/2007/01/21/why-do-some-fear-photoshop-and-others-think-digital-photography-is-something-special/
Enjoy!--Rene
Last edited by halesr on Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Posts: 239
Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:12 pm
halesr wrote:Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?
Good read. Thanks.
38 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Board index ‹ Photography ‹ Artistic Questions ‹ Editing Photos
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 1 guest