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.
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