Are you a true Photographer
Apr 7, 2020 12:48:09 #
wmurnahan wrote:
I, like you, learned in film. I shot mostly B&... (show quote)
For example of mixed film and digital media, here's an image I made on Tri-X film in October of 1969. I processed it in Lightroom Classic with Negative Lab Pro plug-in in 2019. It looks better than any version of it I ever made in a film darkroom. (It's important to me only because I knew the people in it and the dynamic that was evident there...) View the Download version to really see it.
Apr 7, 2020 12:52:37 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Linda From Maine wrote:
Oh Bill, these kinds of UHH threads are popular for exactly that reason 🙂
.
.
Apr 7, 2020 12:53:56 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Linda From Maine wrote:
Your comment posted to page 11 and the Day 2 folks are just getting started 
Apr 7, 2020 12:55:21 #
The digital version of The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a photographer simply as this: "one who practices photography".
By that definition, if I had no SLR or DSLR, but used only an iPhone to create / make photos, I would still be considered a true photographer. In effect, there are billions and billions of photographers out there right now using whatever device they so choose to practice and/or subsequently produce photographic imagery, regardless of the subject matter, or how it came out.
About time we stopped thinking of photography as exclusively requiring or needing any special talent or skills to engage in, because in my opinion it doesn’t need any of that.
By that definition, if I had no SLR or DSLR, but used only an iPhone to create / make photos, I would still be considered a true photographer. In effect, there are billions and billions of photographers out there right now using whatever device they so choose to practice and/or subsequently produce photographic imagery, regardless of the subject matter, or how it came out.
About time we stopped thinking of photography as exclusively requiring or needing any special talent or skills to engage in, because in my opinion it doesn’t need any of that.
Apr 7, 2020 13:07:52 #
Apr 7, 2020 13:10:32 #
Longshadow wrote:
I believe he was referring to digital cameras.
(Unless you want to change the context.)
(Unless you want to change the context.)
Actually, the answer is that Polaroids are processed just like all the other formats. This includes even the subatomic processes.
Yes, my statement was completely "tongue-in-cheek".
Apr 7, 2020 13:17:23 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
Then is a digital picture in RAW the only true picture as JEG is also processed. Is a photo a true reproduction of the scene and if so a photographer can adjust it to be what he wants. Thus a photographer is a person who take ac picture and adjusts it to what he wants?
Apr 7, 2020 13:22:33 #
Picture Taker wrote:
Then is a digital picture in RAW the only true picture as JEG is also processed. Is a photo a true reproduction of the scene and if so a photographer can adjust it to be what he wants. Thus a photographer is a person who take ac picture and adjusts it to what he wants?
A photographer makes images with any sort of camera. I’m no different when using my Nikon F3, my Lumix GH4, or my iPhone 7 Plus.
Apr 7, 2020 13:25:12 #
Photographer is an all inclusive term - you have beginners, amateurs, novices, hobbyist, semi-professional, professional and other shades and degradations. They use different tools and have different visions, but all are really just trying to capture a moment in time. Most results will never be seen by anybody but the person who took the image and the few people he shares them with. But all of them are worth the effort from prize winning image to the ones you immediately discard as a step to discovery. Don't get too hung up on either the tools or the process - make them work for you.
Apr 7, 2020 13:38:45 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
jwreed50 wrote:
Well, Ansel Adams didn't send his film to the local drugstore for processing.
So, by your definition, unless we do our own processing, we're not "real" photographers?
Apr 7, 2020 13:41:15 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
WillieWisconsin wrote:
The digital version of The Merriam Webster diction... (show quote)
According to Webster, then, even if one uses a shoebox with a pinhole at one end and a sheet of photo paper at the other, they are also a photographer.
Apr 7, 2020 13:48:49 #
Well, back in the day, I used film 35 mm camera. So, I learned on the fly with film. I am a real photographer. Old school, but it is nice to have the apps for post processing. I don't have to take so many snaps to get a good picture. Don't have to mess with chemicals for developing. Don't have to adjust chemicals to get a different print.
With digital, if you don't get a good picture, sure you can get a good print in post processing. The difference between a good photographer and a great one, post processing isn't totally necessary. The difference between a good photo and a dazzling one, start with amazing raw product. Then the dazzle comes with post processing.
The Ansel was an amazing photographer. Can you imagine what his pictures would look like with the kind of post processing we do today digitally? Ansel would probably never have used the apps most of us use today. I believe he probably would have been a purest. There are those out there even today. I'm not one of them. For me, as much as I love taking pictures. The post processing is almost as much fun.
My love for the entire process, has me still using film too. The quality of film is a little different from digital. Using both gives me a sense of mastery. There is no preview with film. It's the one part of photography that allows for happy accidents even when lighting isn't exactly perfect and can be far from it. Like when on a vacation and tours are not timed during magic hours, post processing is a must. Even with film, I can now post process because rather than prints, I use thumb drives or micro cards for storage. From there, if I choose, I can operate as done with digital, because film has been converted to digital.
My main focus however, will be as old school. Use the tools I was given to shoot the best possible photos adjusting light, focus and speed entering the lens of my camera. That is most important. Raw has to be as nearly perfect as I can get it. I want the dazzle. Sometimes I want it all, dazzle and panache. Meaning, add a little extra or take a little something away, as in background or foreground unwanted or fixing blemishes not the fault of the photographer.
Whatever I do, it's very important to me, that my pictures reflect who I am as a photographer first and as an artist second. They go hand in hand most of the time. Being an artist in other mediums, helps me in my photography and visa versa. Much of the time when I shoot, it's for the otherwise of my artistic talent. Still, for good reference, you need superb shots.
At this point, the only difference between a professional and an amateur is whether you get paid or not. I've been both and I must say, each has their advantages.
Old School Shooter,
LMSepelak
With digital, if you don't get a good picture, sure you can get a good print in post processing. The difference between a good photographer and a great one, post processing isn't totally necessary. The difference between a good photo and a dazzling one, start with amazing raw product. Then the dazzle comes with post processing.
The Ansel was an amazing photographer. Can you imagine what his pictures would look like with the kind of post processing we do today digitally? Ansel would probably never have used the apps most of us use today. I believe he probably would have been a purest. There are those out there even today. I'm not one of them. For me, as much as I love taking pictures. The post processing is almost as much fun.
My love for the entire process, has me still using film too. The quality of film is a little different from digital. Using both gives me a sense of mastery. There is no preview with film. It's the one part of photography that allows for happy accidents even when lighting isn't exactly perfect and can be far from it. Like when on a vacation and tours are not timed during magic hours, post processing is a must. Even with film, I can now post process because rather than prints, I use thumb drives or micro cards for storage. From there, if I choose, I can operate as done with digital, because film has been converted to digital.
My main focus however, will be as old school. Use the tools I was given to shoot the best possible photos adjusting light, focus and speed entering the lens of my camera. That is most important. Raw has to be as nearly perfect as I can get it. I want the dazzle. Sometimes I want it all, dazzle and panache. Meaning, add a little extra or take a little something away, as in background or foreground unwanted or fixing blemishes not the fault of the photographer.
Whatever I do, it's very important to me, that my pictures reflect who I am as a photographer first and as an artist second. They go hand in hand most of the time. Being an artist in other mediums, helps me in my photography and visa versa. Much of the time when I shoot, it's for the otherwise of my artistic talent. Still, for good reference, you need superb shots.
At this point, the only difference between a professional and an amateur is whether you get paid or not. I've been both and I must say, each has their advantages.
Old School Shooter,
LMSepelak
Apr 7, 2020 13:49:18 #
With the wrong camera, success is probably 99% luck. But with PhotoShop, it's 100% the photographer.
Apr 7, 2020 14:15:53 #
kb6kgx wrote:
So, by your definition, unless we do our own processing, we're not "real" photographers?
No, by your interpretation.
Apr 7, 2020 14:16:27 #
kb6kgx wrote:
According to Webster, then, even if one uses a shoebox with a pinhole at one end and a sheet of photo paper at the other, they are also a photographer.
Yes.
(They're not elephant trainers.)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.