Are you a Photographer? Or a Photoshop Artist?

[Davan]

Are you a photographer? Or a Photoshop Artist?

I've been noticing a trend in photography lately. Just thought I'd get everyone else's thoughts on this.

Lately, mostly on the internet; on message boards and online photogrpahy communities, I've noticed more and more heavily modified photos. By this, I mean, artificially coloured, altered brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, even modified focus/depth of field.

My personal thoughts on this? I think the field of photography is losing something. It seems to me that a person no longer has to be a decent photographer to take stunning shots, as long as he/she is a wizard with Photoshop.

Now, before everyone cries "hypocrit!", I'll admit that yes, I've altered photos of my own. I've cropped. I've rotated. I've added borders. I've desaturated. And I know many on this very forum do the same thing. I'm not trying to discredit anyone's talents, or make remarks that might seem a bit personally insulting to our resident photographers. Just expressing my thoughts. Take them as you will.

What I'm really trying express is how I percieve this trend to be changing the field of photography. In many cases the photos no longer resemble the original as captured by the camera. While these photos can be made to look absolutely fantastic, it disappoints me to think that new photographers are being misled. It disappoints me to think that no longer will emphasis be placed on focus, framing, composition, and lighting, but rather on photoshop skills. I mean, hell, why bother taking the time to capture a beautiful scene, if you can make anything look beautiful after the fact, right?

And to cover all my bases, perhaps this topic is a bit personal. I don't have crazy photoshop skills. My knowledge of the program is very basic at best. And yet, as much as I don't want to, I feel like I need to improve my graphics editing skills in order to not be left behind. I feel almost pressured to edit my photos. After all, how are my un-edited photos going to look compared to highly modified and refined ones?

Thoughts?

:)

[Loose]

All i have to say is that photoshop will never make up for poor photography.

ie.

- A beautiful girl will look good with or out makeup.
- A fat ugly girl will always be fat and ugly

[benyl]

Originally posted by Davan
Lately, mostly on the internet; on message boards and online photogrpahy communities, I've noticed more and more heavily modified photos. By this, I mean, artificially coloured, altered brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, even modified focus/depth of field.

My thoughts are:

This has always happened. They have been airbrushing photos of models for decades. Photoshop just puts this in the real of the consumer rather than just the professional.

I bet your grad photos were airbrushed. I know mine were.

As far as brightness, contrast, etc... I think your lens and your camera do have a factor in this. I know that my 70-200mm L lens has much better contrast than does my kit lens.

Photos, whether on film or digital have always been cropped to focus on the subject of the picture.

Photoshop can only do so much, composition is the key (although you can put things in and erase stuff out).

I feel no need to get better at photoshop except to working with light levels and such. My camera doesn't take photos in Black and white so I don't consider desaturating a photo as hacking.

Just my thoughts.

I think that it is a great thing for people.

[Melinda]

I'm the same way as you Daven. I know photoshop, and I can do quite a bit with it, but I usually dont. Levels are usually the only think I play with on most of my shots and I agree completely with you...seems anyone with a digital camera now is a "photographer" I personally think this is crap! I've spent 2 years in classes paying for school to teach me what I need to know and the rest is made up from trial and error and experience over the 6 years that I've been taking pictures.

My real benefit to digital photography is that it's cheaper and quicker...no processing time or costs. When the need arises, it's nice to have photoshop to help with...like with the tiger picture I took last time I was at the zoo, I didnt touch the picture, I just used photoshop to take out the bars that I couldnt get through with my camera. If I was inside the cage, the picture would have turned out exactly that way.

I'm with you daven, if a person cant pick up a camera and judge what they need to MANUALLY set their camera to and ISO to use in their camera for the perfect picture, then I dont feel that they should get to call themselvews a photographer. It takes alot more then just a 'set to automatic, point, click and look at the picture to make sure it looks okay' to call yourself a photographer IMO.

[403Gemini]

my digi cam is hte fugi finepix 601Zoom, im gunna get a 35 mm (lookin at the canon rebel, any comments on it? )


(im more into photography, i always love havin a camera on me)

[Davan]

Originally posted by Melinda

I'm with you daven, if a person cant pick up a camera and judge what they need to MANUALLY set their camera to and ISO to use in their camera for the perfect picture, then I dont feel that they should get to call themselvews a photographer. It takes alot more then just a 'set to automatic, point, click and look at the picture to make sure it looks okay' to call yourself a photographer IMO.

This is exactly why I'll never retire my old Olympus OM-1. There is nothing automatic on this relic. Manual shutter speed. Manual aperature. Manual focus. The way it was meant to be done!




Yes! I'm glad you understood my mindless rambling, Melinda. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I think it's very unfortunate that anybody can pick up a camera, take a shot, and not worry about how it's going to turn out because "Hey, I can touch it up in Photoshop later". I really think this is a downfall for the field of photography.

However, there is a high-point to this all... It is certainly putting cameras into the hands of more and more people. This means more selection and better quality products. This means more competition in the field of camera hardware. This means better pricing for all of us.

But it is dissapointing that just about anyone with Photoshop skills can come off as a decent photographer, while the rest of us shooting the old fasioned way are being left behind.

A sign of the times? Definetly.

Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. Or conform. I shall continue to display my generally un-molested photography. My work may not impress as many, but at least I'll have the gratification of knowing that my portfolio consists of real, original photography.

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by Melinda
if a person cant pick up a camera and judge what they need to MANUALLY set their camera to and ISO to use in their camera for the perfect picture, then I dont feel that they should get to call themselvews a photographer. It takes alot more then just a 'set to automatic, point, click and look at the picture to make sure it looks okay' to call yourself a photographer IMO.

Thats me... I don't think I am a photographer by ANY shot... but my friends always want me to take the photos of whatever we are doing because they look good... The two pics that I posted in Ekliptix's thread, 1 was slighty altered in Photoshop, and the other wasn't....

But I know that photos have been getting altered for ALONG time... so I think that photoshop is a great tool for all to use to help them... They are only lieing to themselves in the end... IMO.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by benyl


My thoughts are:

This has always happened. They have been airbrushing photos of models for decades. Photoshop just puts this in the real of the consumer rather than just the professional.

I bet your grad photos were airbrushed. I know mine were.

I see your point here hun, but airbrushing a person's acne or blemishes isnt a sign of a bad photographer...cameras capture whats there...and if there is a zit, then the camera sees it...the airbrushing only removes that, but the initial picture is still good, with nice lighting, focus and what not....most airbrushing on film photos is still done by hand. Now, it is easier to do with a computer but no amount of airbrushing will fix a bad picture.

[sputnik]

:werd:

With the introduction of digital photography the number of people calling themselves "photographers" has skyrocketed. Digital cameras now allow people to shoot and shoot and shoot and SHOOT until they get a good shot and if they dont get a good shot they just photoshop it. In the photography industry that is completely impractical. You need to know how to take a good picture before you even take it.

The basics are being lost.

My girlfriend is an ACAD photo major and I have been a hobbyist photogeek since I was 12. We both still shoot old school with Canon AE-1's and handheld spot meters. We both have extensive darkroom experience and like to dabble with pushing and pulling film. Don't get me wrong the digital world is here to stay and my girlfriend and I are looking at getting a Canon 1D MkII for doing commercial work (since it seems to be the standard these days). However even with a digital camera there is quite a bit you still need to know, and for the most part much of the stuff she does with digital is still using the manual settings (since the digital camera EMULATES film). In order to be professional you need to know a fair bit about photography in order to be taken seriously. You also need to know how to adjust quickly to a variety of settings (going from a poorly lit room to a well lit room). You cant just rely on the "auto" setting.

Personally, everyone should learn how to use a $200 Canon AE-1 or Pentax K1000 before buying a digital camera.

[Davan]

Originally posted by sputnik

The basics are being lost.


My entire point summed up neatly in five words. Thank-you!


:thumbsup:

[benyl]

Funny, I replied to sputnik even before I saw his post... lol

I think that you guys are being a little harsh. I by no means consider myself a photographer at all. I am sure others here that show their photos don't either.

Out of 100 shots, I think that maybe 1 turns out good enough to even edit. I have never used the green square on my camera. Every shot I have taken with my DSLR has been in the creative zone (hence all the crap photos).

There are some things that come with practice and sometimes equipement (flashes and light meters). I don't have a flash or a light meter. I find that I do take some shot more than once and play with the exposure.

Real photographers get the shot when the action is happening, people like me will likely miss it altogether. I personally have no aspirtion to sell my stuff. I just want to take photos to share. How else can I justify the cash I am spending on equipment!

As I have said in other threads... I need practice practice practice.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by benyl
I think that you guys are being a little harsh. I by no means consider myself a photographer at all. I am sure others here that show their photos don't either.

Not harsh, just our opinion...we arent busting on other people's skills to see a picture and get an interesting subject, but we think that you need quite a bit of knowledge to be a 'photographer'. Just like you can't call yourself a 'racer' if you can make your super fast car run 12's in a straight line down a track just by pushing the gas pedal...well, you could, but the guys who spend time and money to get really good at what they do would sure not agree


There are some things that come with practice and sometimes equipement (flashes and light meters). I don't have a flash or a light meter. I find that I do take some shot more than once and play with the exposure.

You have a light meter on your camera. I'll show you how to use it on saturday if you dont know.


Real photographers get the shot when the action is happening, people like me will likely miss it altogether.

You will though, you have some great skills and as you get better, you'll get 'the action' :)

[sputnik]

Originally posted by benyl
I by no means consider myself a photographer at all...

... I need practice practice practice.

Then dont worry about it. You seem to be learning and be eager to learn and that is commendable. I'm also happy to hear that the "auto" setting isnt used.

Keep shooting and have fun!

I think the people that we are talking about are more the people that post a nice picture and someone says "WOW you should be a PROFESSIONAL!" and then they let that go to their head.

Heck, even some pros shoot 100 pictures before they get one that they REALLY like. However its usually because the other 99 dont have the "right" composition. Not because they are blurry or incorrectly lit.

This thread isnt against hobbyists who are learning and are just shooting to get better and essentially document their own history. I consider myself a hobbyist myself. I'm just lucky enough to have a girlfriend who will one day go pro with the hobby that I enjoy being a part of.

[ehos]

If the end result is a good looking photo, who cares how it was made?

Technology changes, there will always be purists and early adopters. Doesn't mean ones better just different. Look at modern day magazines with AWESOME pics. Do you think they just shoot them and print them? Hell no.

[fast95pony]

I just bought my first digicam last Christmas.I'm amazed how well the pics turn out.But I think you must have a good subject and know how to frame the subject still to make the picture interesting .I've realised I have a lot to learn to get a good picture,so I take lots (and delete lots.)

On the positive we are seeing a lot more pictures of interest showing up.


This "progess" is happening everywhere though. How many people here have driven a car without power brakes or power steering ?? Manual transmissions are disappearing too.A lot of people call themselves good drivers,but can't find the wheel jack in their own car.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by ehos
Do you think they just shoot them and print them? Hell no.

However, the photoshopping is generally to fix blemishes in the subject not the picture itself. When a magazine picks the picture to go into the magazine the editor generally looks at a contact sheet of unedited pictures and then picks one from that to photoshop and print.

[Davan]

Originally posted by sputnik


However, the photoshopping is generally to fix blemishes in the subject not the picture itself. When a magazine picks the picture to go into the magazine the editor generally looks at a contact sheet of unedited pictures and then picks one from that to photoshop and print.

And I would love for it to stay that way. Unfortunately, as the trend continues, well, I think everyone at least understands my point by now.

[benyl]

:)

I know I have a light meter. It just isn't as good as a handheld one. For the most part it works.

[Ekliptix]

I just saw this thread.

Most of my pictures would look boring if I left them the way they came straight off the camera. They just seem to dry and unlike the scene I remembered in my mind while there.
I have a lot of admiration for film photographers who end up with good results because that's more difficult for them imo.

I tend to agree somewhat with "it's the final product that matters", but to have that final product as the best it can be the person with the camera has to have a vision of what they want their final product to be in the first place. But really, if a picture looks good, it looks good.
99% of obvious PSing turns me off.

To capture this idea of a photograph the person will have to be able to manipulate their camera's abilities.

The most satisfying photos to me, are ones that:
-I don't have to crop because I captured everything I want to in the frame already.
-Photos that require little editing and the scene captured is alike to the one envisioned prior to shooting.

[Ben]

Having been in the digital realm for the past 3 years and the Film realm for the past 14, I was brought up on composition, composition and composition. I learned the ways of the camera burning film in my Dads SLR's as well as many a Point and shoot. With Film you have 24 chances to take 24 good pictures (on a 24 exposure roll)

Some people do not like my style, others do. Have I made money off my photos? yes. Do I edit them? Sometimes. Am I going to change my style? Nope. Up until about a month ago, my photos had never seen the likes of photoshop. Aside from the few car photos I threw in to change the wheels, lower, change color, that sort of stuff, 99.99% of the photos on my website and portfolio are unedited. I didn't even bother color correcting. This is due to my Film background. I was used to just letting it be. After several of this forums members started posting up their modified photos, (borders, color balance, contrast, etc etc) and seeing all these photo forums popping up with people posting absolutly terrible photos (grainy, out of focus, motion blurred), and thinking they're pro, it became clear to me that todays Idea of digital photography doesn't seem to be about the art of snapping a picture in it's entirity, but either a) how damn good you can edit it to save your ass, or b) taking a good or great photo and giving it an extra kick (which I feel is perfectly fine :)). A few of my friends have seen this, where I pick a random photo off the net, that someone thinks is awesome, and that they are pro, and 30 seconds later I've edited it and it looks 100 times better.

The way I look at photography, is to picture in my mind how the photo would look developed, framed, hung on the wall, before even depressing the shutter release. I find a good way to learn this is to dreat digital as if it were film, instead of just taking 200 pictures and picking your best 24.

Photography is In My Opinion, a very Occult environment. You have people that are bent on using 30 year old damaged equipment, shooting B&W film, of some extremely eclectic tastes. These people look as if they'll burn you at the stake if they saw you're using digital. Then you get the older folks (40-50's) that see you're shooting a Digital SLR, and they have a FilmSLR, and they automaticly look down at you because you're not a true photographer using film. Sorry to say it, I've been a film user for many years, but Digital is the way of the future, and film, its not practical when you can have the advantages that Digital holds. These people are most often deep down jealous that they do not have a Digital SLR, but are too stubborn to admit to it because they have a great pride in Film, and are ignorant of technology. That is fine. To each their own.

I will however, only buy digital now, film is...well, too damn high maintenance. Why put up with that when you can shoot digital with todays D-SLR technology, and achieve equivilent quality right off the card, or better quality after editing. :dunno:

You have to start somewhere, hell, I started with a 2.0MP Digital, and went to every event I could find, to gain more and more practice on lighting evaluation, capturing fast paced events, and parties utilizing the flash. My camera never left my side. Sure I was looked down on by people with better equipment, and I dont care, I do it for me, its a passion, it's art, not everyone will like the same thing. At the end of the day, I'll continue to use photoshop for some of my work. You can create some nice wall worthy artwork with some light work in photoshop if you're looking for the non traditional look. I shoot to order so to speak)

[Davan]

Originally posted by Ben
Up until about a month ago, my photos had never seen the likes of photoshop. Aside from the few car photos I threw in to change the wheels, lower, change color, that sort of stuff, 99.99% of the photos on my website and portfolio are unedited. I didn't even bother color correcting. This is due to my Film background. I was used to just letting it be.

Because of this quote right here, you, Sir, will forever have my respect. I sincerely wish that all who try to pass themselves off as photographers had the same mindset as you.

Unfortunately, the trend doesn't seem to be that way. If you have to rely on photo editing to make your shots look good, you shouldn't call yourself a photographer. That, however, is just my opinion. And who am I to state such a bold opinion? I don't consider myself a photographer. Yes, I take tons of photos. Most of which I think are horrible, but that's completely beside the point. My opinion is just that. My opinion.

I am quite impressed with the number and content of replies this thread has recieved! :thumbsup: to all Beyond's Photographers!

[method]

What I find funny is how anyone with an expensive camera is a photographer.

A guy with more equipment than he can fit in his car is a photographer. Someone with a 5000 dollar digital camera isnt.

I have an old 1960s slr that takes great pictures.

I like 'photography' in general, but I also think it's HIGHLY overrated.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by method
What I find funny is how anyone with an expensive camera is a photographer.

A guy with more equipment than he can fit in his car is a photographer. Someone with a 5000 dollar digital camera isnt.
WTF? Some average guy on the street with a lot of money could buy a shitload of camera equipment that barely fits in his car and that makes him a photographer? Hell no.

One of the greatest photographers I know makes his living working at a photography studio and has his own photography company on the side. He uses a 15 year old 900$ film camera for the majority of his stuff and it looks awesome. Not too sure where you got your information from but IMO, it's severely screwed up. Alot of people, once they get better, like to take advantage of better technology to give their clients a better product. That by no means says they are not a photographer just because they have a nice camera.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Melinda

That by no means says they are not a photographer just because they have a nice camera.

No doubt.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you cannot buy skill. :) :thumbsup: For the most part it doesn't matter what equipment you have, its the eye behind the viewfinder lining up the subject :)

You can have a Car load of shit and still suck ass at taking photos, just the same as you can have a extremely expensive camera or a cheap one, and take no better or no worse.

[benyl]

Haha, by his logic, I am buying myself the "photographer" title!

[Melinda]

:rofl: No doubt, eh Bernard?! lol but you have some great skills too so dont cut yourself short. The more practice a person gets, the better they get at what they do...that goes for anything in the world

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Ben
Photography is In My Opinion, a very Occult environment. You have people that are bent on using 30 year old damaged equipment, shooting B&W film, of some extremely eclectic tastes. These people look as if they'll burn you at the stake if they saw you're using digital. Then you get the older folks (40-50's) that see you're shooting a Digital SLR, and they have a FilmSLR, and they automaticly look down at you because you're not a true photographer using film. Sorry to say it, I've been a film user for many years, but Digital is the way of the future, and film, its not practical when you can have the advantages that Digital holds. These people are most often deep down jealous that they do not have a Digital SLR, but are too stubborn to admit to it because they have a great pride in Film, and are ignorant of technology. That is fine. To each their own.


There is a HUGE debate/war going on at ACAD about this. One professor is all about digital (he does TONS of commercial work), one prof could care less ("photography is photography" mindset) and one is anti-digital ("removes the artform" mindset).

So this is definately a debate that could go on FOREVER (and probably will for many years).

Personally the professional world is moving into a digital world. My girlfriend is getting into fashion photography and most are shooting with either a Canon 1Ds or a Hasselblad with a digital back. In the fashion world composition and lighting are essential because when doing a shoot the lighting variables dont change automatically like the settings of your camera in "auto" mode would. So there is more work learning how strobes and model lights work than there is in actually taking the picture. However you have to know where to set it up so that all of your pictures are properly exposed.

I think of it something like this. My dad when he taught me how to drive made me learn on a stick shift. I complained for a while about how much longer it would take to learn before I could get my license and how I should just use the automatic car we had. In the end I got my license with the stick shift car and I am happy about that as I believe I learned more in the process and am more comfortable driving. It gave me a great sense of accomplishment.

This debate isnt so much about digital vs analog... more than it is auto vs manual.

For those that have SLRs and DSLRs I encourage you to leave your camera in Manual mode (except for maybe focus). Learn how changing your f-stop changes your picture and how shutter speeds and film speeds affect your pictures.

Cheers (and happy shooting)

[Ekliptix]

I forgot to mention that I think taking 100 pictures in the hope that one of them will be ok is lazy. Some people need to take more time surveying the scene to get the best angle.

I'm slightly guilty of this

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Ekliptix
I forgot to mention that I think taking 100 pictures in the hope that one of them will be ok is lazy. Some people need to take more time surveying the scene to get the best angle.

I'm slightly guilty of this

I agree. Also, if you are shooting an event in which you are required to take a picture of as many subjects/performers as possible, taking 100 pictures wouldnt be feasible. Especially if you only have a few minutes to shoot.

I was talking to the senior photographer at the Winnipeg Free Press back in the day and he was telling me about shooting for the paper at concerts, and this is what he told me.

You get about 2 songs to shoot and thats it, not only do you have to shoot quickly but the image must be ready for the frontpage to be printed within a couple of hours.

(ie. cant shoot 200 pictures... and no time to photoshop them after)

[1badPT]

I tried to read it all but my break here has been cut short - I think I get the gist of it though. Yeah there are probably more people today who call themselves photographers, but the true test of a photographer is how those pictures are received by other people. If a picture is for no one else but yourself, then you only have yourself to please.

When I look through the photography threads here on beyond, there is no question in my mind who the photographers are and who the "photo enthusiasts" are.

Myself I don't know the first thing about photography(ok I do know some things-but not enough), and I don't pretend that I'm a photographer, but whenever I see something that is pleasing to my eye, I take my POS camera and snap a photo of it. I know I can play with light levels, edit shit out, yadda yadda in photoshop, but then the picture is a fake to me, and that's not why I took the picture in the first place.

Photoshop has its place, and I wish people who did edit their pictures before offering them up for public consumption would mention whether their pics have been altered or not. Maybe there is a way to make a file tag similar to the EXIF tag on digital photos so you can tell not only IF something was altered but how.

[thich]

I've used my dad's Canon A-1 since I was a kid and love it to death...
having bought my first digital camera last year (and not doing ENOUGH research...) i sorta feel confined to the limitations of what it can and cannot do - hence why I'm moving to a DSLR this year. Manual mode is the best way to go like some have already said.

I think something that should be said is this: no amount of photoshop can EVER fix a picture that was taken poorly, ie. not enough lighting, too much noise etc etc.

if you didn't take a good picture in the first place, it will take a damn long time to fix up a picture when you should be out learning to take better ones.

[method]

Originally posted by Melinda

WTF? Some average guy on the street with a lot of money could buy a shitload of camera equipment that barely fits in his car and that makes him a photographer? Hell no.




why would 'some average guy' have tons of professional photography equipment?

he wouldnt. a photographer would have all the right equipment for all different situations.

in contrast, 'some average guy' with tons of money can buy a stupid expensive camera and sit there going "look at me I'm a photographer"


I'll give you another example.

Mr. X is under the impression that he's a race car driver. He wants the fastest, best car there is, because that means he'll win more races. Mr. X goes out and buys a... whatever.. a 360 modena and takes it to the track.

whereas Mr. Y wants to be a better race car driver. He has a 1st gen rx7 that's stripped and caged with a quick change rear end. his garage is filled with two more parts cars, stacks of race slicks, tools and welding equipment.

What does that tell you about the two people?

[Melinda]

Exactly...so either way, your logic has so many friggin holes its unreal. People by the shit to be able to say they fit the bill...some but it cause they actually know what they're doing with it. The equipment someone has does NOT reflect their skill level or how much they know about photography.

[method]

Originally posted by Melinda
The equipment someone has does NOT reflect their skill level or how much they know about photography.


I never said it did. For being so quick to point all the 'holes in my logic', you also pretty quick to jumping to conclusions. I mentioned the fact that my old SLR takes fine pictures. Plenty of photographers use such old equipment. Why does the equipment said individual has their car crammed full of have to be the most new expensive stuff on the market? it doesnt, and I never said it was.

you're far more likely to find a professional photographer (crappy or not) with tons of old junk that he finds works well for him than one with nothing more than some billion dollar camera he bought because he heard it's the best on the market.

[Ben]

Originally posted by method



I never said it did. For being so quick to point all the 'holes in my logic', you also pretty quick to jumping to conclusions. I mentioned the fact that my old SLR takes fine pictures. Plenty of photographers use such old equipment. Why does the equipment said individual has their car crammed full of have to be the most new expensive stuff on the market? it doesnt, and I never said it was.

you're far more likely to find a professional photographer (crappy or not) with tons of old junk that he finds works well for him than one with nothing more than some billion dollar camera he bought because he heard it's the best on the market.

Also the fact that Photography is Like Hockey...LOTS of players out there but very few making the big bucks.

Photography doesn't pay well unless you specialize in Wedding Photography having many years of experience or you're hired FT for a Magazine or Advertising company, which is rare, most are independantly contracted and paid per occasion. So yeah, most photographers dont have the big baller equipment, cause a lot of it is more expensive than buying a new car. They will often have stuff that they have picked up over the years. This is simple deduction. If you took that old equipment and updated it to the new equivilent, it wont change anything, it's just that old stuff is reasonably priced, maintains its value, and is durable, and lasts a long time. That being said, they didn't make Digital SLR's 30 years ago, and nothing half decent untill 2 years ago. Hense why if one wants to shoot pro digital, one has to pay big coin.

[method]

yes, see thats what I mean.. doh I should have stuck with the race car driver example from the beginning :(

my other one came out all wrong :banghead:

[RC-Cola]

Wow, some heated discussion on this thread. I just saw it so I'll put my two cents in.

I think that with digital photography it has opened up the door to people who might have been afraid in the past to experiment with photography. I know that if I went on a trip with my 35mm point and shoot with one maybe two rolls that I had better save those shots for "family portaits" or "here's the front of my hotel/cruise ship/plane" type of pictures. With a digital now I can take MANY more pictures and if something doesn't work for me I can erase it on the spot. Digital has also given me the opportunity to take pictures that I think are a little more creative and interesting than what I was able (or willing) to do in the past. It also give me the opportunity to share more easily than with regular film photography, where I would have top process, scan and then post/e-mail my pictures.

All that being said, I agree that no amount of photoshoping or equipment will make you a good photographer. They are just tools, instruments that will allow you improve what you start with. And yes, it can take photos that average guys like me take and improve upon them. However, like Ben said (I think it was Ben) if you don't capture the image to start with no amount of high quality lens/camera body/flash/photoshop will ever make it a great picture.

To finish, I think we are pretty lucky on this CAR (not photography) forum to have some pretty talented people who are willing to help each other out to improve everybody as a whole. And unless your selling your photos, it is an art form which is subjective to each person's eye. If I think that Ben's (sorry to pick on you again) picture kick's ass it is my right to say so and if someone thinks my photo blows, they have the right to say so...

[Ben]

Originally posted by RC-Cola
Wow, some heated discussion on this thread. I just saw it so I'll put my two cents in.

I think that with digital photography it has opened up the door to people who might have been afraid in the past to experiment with photography. I know that if I went on a trip with my 35mm point and shoot with one maybe two rolls that I had better save those shots for "family portaits" or "here's the front of my hotel/cruise ship/plane" type of pictures. With a digital now I can take MANY more pictures and if something doesn't work for me I can erase it on the spot. Digital has also given me the opportunity to take pictures that I think are a little more creative and interesting than what I was able (or willing) to do in the past. It also give me the opportunity to share more easily than with regular film photography, where I would have top process, scan and then post/e-mail my pictures.

All that being said, I agree that no amount of photoshoping or equipment will make you a good photographer. They are just tools, instruments that will allow you improve what you start with. And yes, it can take photos that average guys like me take and improve upon them. However, like Ben said (I think it was Ben) if you don't capture the image to start with no amount of high quality lens/camera body/flash/photoshop will ever make it a great picture.

To finish, I think we are pretty lucky on this CAR (not photography) forum to have some pretty talented people who are willing to help each other out to improve everybody as a whole. And unless your selling your photos, it is an art form which is subjective to each person's eye. If I think that Ben's (sorry to pick on you again) picture kick's ass it is my right to say so and if someone thinks my photo blows, they have the right to say so...


Your Pictures BLOW!!!!!!

haha. j/k, had to :tongue:

I was going to comment on that "opening up a new world to people that was traditionally left alone" type deal but you covered it perfectly.

I agree!

I outright cannot affordto experiment with film. Digital I can :)

[thich]

this is primarily what i use photoshop for... doing fun stuff:

[1badPT]

you are kicking your own ass? :nut: :D

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by Melinda
Exactly...so either way, your logic has so many friggin holes its unreal. People by the shit to be able to say they fit the bill...some but it cause they actually know what they're doing with it. The equipment someone has does NOT reflect their skill level or how much they know about photography.

This same thing happens in the DJ industry.... :rolleyes: Very pathetic if you ask me...

[thich]

Originally posted by 1badPT
you are kicking your own ass? :nut: :D

lol... it's not me actually - my little brother... i'm way too short to jump that high.

[Moonracer]

Shameless plug time...lol Any of you people wanting a decent film camera I have mine for sale. Canon EOS for sale (http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36894)

As for the topic??? I'm too late, it's all been said. ;)

[benyl]

If you buy this

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031802kodakslrc.asp

it will make you a photographer!

:eek: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

[thich]

holy crap that's a crazy camera

[warden]

Let us not forget that every image needs to be edited, much like how a print is printed in the darkroom, burned/dodged. I think every photo no matter how good you are can always use a bit of sharpening, saturated colour and whatever else.. Personally I edit photo's in photoshop as a career. I work for a newspaper, even though these photographers i work with are great, everything needs to be edited.. Or else I wouldnt have a job heh.. Im not changing the photo, If i did, Id be fired.. I heard of a photo editor that croped out a basketball and lowerd it a bit in a sports pic for better composition, somehow someone found out and he was fired on the spot.. profesionals take photo editing very seriously not to change the image but to enhance it slightly..

[Melinda]

Originally posted by warden
Let us not forget that every image needs to be edited, much like how a print is printed in the darkroom, burned/dodged. I think every photo no matter how good you are can always use a bit of sharpening, saturated colour and whatever else.. Personally I edit photo's in photoshop as a career. I work for a newspaper, even though these photographers i work with are great, everything needs to be edited.. Or else I wouldnt have a job heh.. Im not changing the photo, If i did, Id be fired.. I heard of a photo editor that croped out a basketball and lowerd it a bit in a sports pic for better composition, somehow someone found out and he was fired on the spot.. profesionals take photo editing very seriously not to change the image but to enhance it slightly..
:werd: We're warned heavily against that at school. I've read several articles about photographers that have taken things out of pictures and have been fired on the spot, if not charged...including one of the picutres take of the streaker at the flames game...a photographer at one of the calgary papers lost his job right away...

[warden]

funny, you can crop things off the sides, burn/dodge to things that arnt really there, add colour, take away colour, sharpen and enhance any part of the photograph and thats all good.. but the pixel you clone or take away in the middle *bam* your fired or youv just lost alot of your respect :/

[warden]

Originally posted by benyl
If you buy this

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031802kodakslrc.asp

it will make you a photographer!

:eek: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:


yah thats a sick camera.. other than the obvious its got a 512meg buffer and ISO 6-1600!! wewt!

one thing bad about it, the back screen looks small..

who am i to complain, i have a d100 :/