What is Photography? (Page 2): Yet to see a photographer who doesn't want to get it right in the camera. Who ever came up with that claim I wonder? As far as no PP work is "legit", I...

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Yet to see a photographer who doesn't want to get it right in the camera. Who ever came up with that claim I wonder? As far as no PP work is "legit", I have made one suggestion to those who feel that there should be no manipulation of a shot. And that is to shoot RAW and simply turn the pictures into JPEGs. Otherwise their pictures are processed too so why do they justify pre processing but not post processing? I have seen SS make the claim that SOOC shooters simply don't have the skills to use these programs. Based on many of the pictures by these guys, I am agreeing with SS. Although I don't care one bit how anyone shoots. All I am interested in is the end product. Although I wonder if people realize how much and how well all the pictures we see around taken by pro photographers are manipulated.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Darkroom317 wrote:

It was not in response to your post nor was I the one who the one who said "I dislike the "I'll fix it in post" mentality."

I am interested in the overall discussion of photography and what it is, not just the contents of the article posted.

My apologies. I'd thought you were the fella who'd vented after I made my post. That said, if your post wasn't in response to my original post, you should've posted it elsewhere on your own, rather than trying to re-route my thread into an entirely different route.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

JaiGieEse wrote:

My apologies. I'd thought you were the fella who'd vented after I made my post. That said, if your post wasn't in response to my original post, you should've posted it elsewhere on your own, rather than trying to re-route my thread into an entirely different route.

Sorry. It was actually in response to that persons post as a devils advocate arguement to counter part of his post

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

JaiGieEse wrote:

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an apparently endless debate as to what true photography really is. Some belong to GIRITC crowd - i.e., "Get it right in the camera." These folk decry any form of post-processing, saying that an image altered in any way after the fact is not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. True enough, although some GIRITC shooters will engage in PRE-processing, as in, changing the camera's settings (other than exposure, shutter speed, iso and flash) BEFORE capturing the shot. Which is, again, not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. Others insist on shooting only jpegs, saying THAT format yields a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture, because no settings are changed by the shooter prior to capture, AH, but the CAMERA, in capturing a jpeg image, is using its built-in software to decide how the image should appear. So the camera alters the images w/o input from the shooter, SO, one more time, this is not an altogether true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture.

Of course, this argument may be worth pursuing if one is intent on rendering an image as close as possible to the scene being photographed as it existed at the moment of capture. Such shooters are sometimes referred to as "purists" and in other situations as "photo-journalists." Now if that's the way one wishes to approach the craft of photography, well, that's fine. BUT, one person's snapshot is another person's news image is another person's Facebook/Twitter/Instagram shot.

But what if the shooter decides this isn't the way to go? What if the shooter wants to create an image that's not just what the camera sees, but what the shooter sees. Ah. The IPTMFAICI crowd. (I'll process the, um, image after I capture it.) This is when one moves into the area of, um, ART. Which, as an independent photographer, I have every right to do. You don't care for the approach? Fine. You go your way, and I'll go my way ... and I'll get to Loch Lorman aforrrree yeeee... (Sorry. Couldn't resist.). Ah, but I've run across an article which explains this concept quite clearly. And here 'tis, laddie.

http://photographylife.com/what-is-fine-art-photography#more-138580

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an ap... (show quote)

Good article, thank you.

To my thinking, photography is what happens when we use cameras to capture images. Exactly how those images look SOOC and what we do with them next is up to us. In some instances (such as if we are selling them as documentary images or entering them in certain contests), there are some restrictions on the hows and whats, but otherwise, it would seem that they are ours, to do with as we will. Of course if we want to sell them, we'd best pay attention to what sells, but that is another story for another thread.

I carefully plan some shoots, and find serendipity on others. I capture some images that I edit rather lightly, and others that I edit rather creatively, as I see fit. For some images, I want the final product to look as much like what (I thought) I saw as possible. For others, I want the final product to look like what I felt or imagined. I may blend images, change colors/toning, add textures, create composite works, or I may find some new thing to try tomorrow that I haven't thought of trying before. For me half the fun is in the field and the other half is in the software and printer.

Interesting to see another Mississippian on here, we are a rarity .

10MPlayer Loc: California

cjkorb wrote:

Photography is "writing with light" whet... (show quote)

I have to disagree with the bit about not adding or changing a landscape shot. Everyone who does that kind of work will take out an extraneous power pole or a bush or person or an electrical conductor that doesn't add to the shot. We have an image and we have an ideal in our mind that we want it to look like. We take out the stuff that distracts from our ideal.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

10MPlayer wrote:

I have to disagree with the bit about not adding or changing a landscape shot. Everyone who does that kind of work will take out an extraneous power pole or a bush or person or an electrical conductor that doesn't add to the shot. We have an image and we have an ideal in our mind that we want it to look like. We take out the stuff that distracts from our ideal.

You are exactly correct. Not to mention Pro photographers who sell prints. Sounds like some people don't have high enough standards. Photography is art, who is to say what should and shouldn't be done to your shots?

Al Freeedman

The meaning of photography is to "paint with light. Just go out and take the picture, enjoy the hobby and do whatever you want to achieve
the final result you want. I don't understand the micro managing.

Captain Al

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

JaiGieEse wrote:

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an apparently endless debate as to what true photography really is. Some belong to GIRITC crowd - i.e., "Get it right in the camera." These folk decry any form of post-processing, saying that an image altered in any way after the fact is not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. True enough, although some GIRITC shooters will engage in PRE-processing, as in, changing the camera's settings (other than exposure, shutter speed, iso and flash) BEFORE capturing the shot. Which is, again, not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. Others insist on shooting only jpegs, saying THAT format yields a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture, because no settings are changed by the shooter prior to capture, AH, but the CAMERA, in capturing a jpeg image, is using its built-in software to decide how the image should appear. So the camera alters the images w/o input from the shooter, SO, one more time, this is not an altogether true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture.

Of course, this argument may be worth pursuing if one is intent on rendering an image as close as possible to the scene being photographed as it existed at the moment of capture. Such shooters are sometimes referred to as "purists" and in other situations as "photo-journalists." Now if that's the way one wishes to approach the craft of photography, well, that's fine. BUT, one person's snapshot is another person's news image is another person's Facebook/Twitter/Instagram shot.

But what if the shooter decides this isn't the way to go? What if the shooter wants to create an image that's not just what the camera sees, but what the shooter sees. Ah. The IPTMFAICI crowd. (I'll process the, um, image after I capture it.) This is when one moves into the area of, um, ART. Which, as an independent photographer, I have every right to do. You don't care for the approach? Fine. You go your way, and I'll go my way ... and I'll get to Loch Lorman aforrrree yeeee... (Sorry. Couldn't resist.). Ah, but I've run across an article which explains this concept quite clearly. And here 'tis, laddie.

http://photographylife.com/what-is-fine-art-photography#more-138580

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an ap... (show quote)

What is art?

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

JaiGieEse wrote:

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an apparently endless debate as to what true photography really is. Some belong to GIRITC crowd - i.e., "Get it right in the camera." These folk decry any form of post-processing, saying that an image altered in any way after the fact is not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. True enough, although some GIRITC shooters will engage in PRE-processing, as in, changing the camera's settings (other than exposure, shutter speed, iso and flash) BEFORE capturing the shot. Which is, again, not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. Others insist on shooting only jpegs, saying THAT format yields a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture, because no settings are changed by the shooter prior to capture, AH, but the CAMERA, in capturing a jpeg image, is using its built-in software to decide how the image should appear. So the camera alters the images w/o input from the shooter, SO, one more time, this is not an altogether true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture.

Of course, this argument may be worth pursuing if one is intent on rendering an image as close as possible to the scene being photographed as it existed at the moment of capture. Such shooters are sometimes referred to as "purists" and in other situations as "photo-journalists." Now if that's the way one wishes to approach the craft of photography, well, that's fine. BUT, one person's snapshot is another person's news image is another person's Facebook/Twitter/Instagram shot.

But what if the shooter decides this isn't the way to go? What if the shooter wants to create an image that's not just what the camera sees, but what the shooter sees. Ah. The IPTMFAICI crowd. (I'll process the, um, image after I capture it.) This is when one moves into the area of, um, ART. Which, as an independent photographer, I have every right to do. You don't care for the approach? Fine. You go your way, and I'll go my way ... and I'll get to Loch Lorman aforrrree yeeee... (Sorry. Couldn't resist.). Ah, but I've run across an article which explains this concept quite clearly. And here 'tis, laddie.

http://photographylife.com/what-is-fine-art-photography#more-138580

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an ap... (show quote)

I just read the article and I agree the last paragraph sums it up "fine art photograph must go beyond the literal representation of a scene or subject. It must deeply express the feelings and vision of the photographer and clearly reveal that it was created by an artist and not by just the camera. It must be clear that it involved an original, deliberate creation and that every aspect of making the photograph in the field and in the photographer’s post-processing digital studio, including the printing, are an individual expression from within the artist."

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

JaiGieEse wrote:

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an apparently endless debate as to what true photography really is. Some belong to GIRITC crowd - i.e., "Get it right in the camera." These folk decry any form of post-processing, saying that an image altered in any way after the fact is not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. True enough, although some GIRITC shooters will engage in PRE-processing, as in, changing the camera's settings (other than exposure, shutter speed, iso and flash) BEFORE capturing the shot. Which is, again, not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. Others insist on shooting only jpegs, saying THAT format yields a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture, because no settings are changed by the shooter prior to capture, AH, but the CAMERA, in capturing a jpeg image, is using its built-in software to decide how the image should appear. So the camera alters the images w/o input from the shooter, SO, one more time, this is not an altogether true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture.

Of course, this argument may be worth pursuing if one is intent on rendering an image as close as possible to the scene being photographed as it existed at the moment of capture. Such shooters are sometimes referred to as "purists" and in other situations as "photo-journalists." Now if that's the way one wishes to approach the craft of photography, well, that's fine. BUT, one person's snapshot is another person's news image is another person's Facebook/Twitter/Instagram shot.

But what if the shooter decides this isn't the way to go? What if the shooter wants to create an image that's not just what the camera sees, but what the shooter sees. Ah. The IPTMFAICI crowd. (I'll process the, um, image after I capture it.) This is when one moves into the area of, um, ART. Which, as an independent photographer, I have every right to do. You don't care for the approach? Fine. You go your way, and I'll go my way ... and I'll get to Loch Lorman aforrrree yeeee... (Sorry. Couldn't resist.). Ah, but I've run across an article which explains this concept quite clearly. And here 'tis, laddie.

http://photographylife.com/what-is-fine-art-photography#more-138580

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an ap... (show quote)

First of all, it should be an enjoyable hobby - or business. As for in-camera vs processing, who cares? It should be fun. Do what you want.

Jcmarino

Photography is an art form, it is in the eyes of the beholder and the artist.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

Art, as was discussed in my college art appreciation class, was anything created that caused a reaction - good, bad or otherwise. Or something to that affect. And as for PP, my own philosophy is one of, whatever works for or moves you. I don't give a rat's butt, if it suits the individual. There is no "argument". Case closed!

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Photography is whatever you want it to be. It's your camera, your time. It doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Architect1776 wrote:

What is art?

Wrong question. Who is Art. He is a guy just across the street.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

boberic wrote:

Wrong question. Who is Art. He is a guy just across the street.

I sure hope not! At least not the Art I used to work with!