Is being a purist old fashioned? Or are there others?
Nov 27, 2011 12:05:50 #
naturalite
Loc: Up state NY
Hello all, I will be the first to admit that in this day and age of technology. Photography and the ability to peak and tweak photo's through software is an art form all of its own. And no doubt the end products are fantastic. But........
What in the world happened to just capturing what one sees with a camera? Taking it for what it is in the natural. Taking the time and effort to compose. Waiting for the light and conditions to be just right. This is what helped me become the artist that I am. Using the confines of what I have to use. Making me the photographer, not the software producer.
Now for the cameras, I do acknowledge that there is a need of automatic settings for the snapshot people. But for me, I'm a purist at heart. I spend hours reading my manuals trying to figure out how to work around all those automatic setting. Perhaps that is why I've been so reluctant to change over to digital.
Before you start pounding me with information that higher end cameras have manual setting, I do know this too.
Anyway, I just needed to vent. I spent all day struggling with trying to make my camera do what I wanted, but to no avail. I guess I really need to just move up to a higher end camera so I can turn off technology. Strange how that sounds, spend more money so I can do what used to be common with low end cameras. Set the f stop, check shutter speed, focus and push the button.
Thanks, for letting me rant.
What in the world happened to just capturing what one sees with a camera? Taking it for what it is in the natural. Taking the time and effort to compose. Waiting for the light and conditions to be just right. This is what helped me become the artist that I am. Using the confines of what I have to use. Making me the photographer, not the software producer.
Now for the cameras, I do acknowledge that there is a need of automatic settings for the snapshot people. But for me, I'm a purist at heart. I spend hours reading my manuals trying to figure out how to work around all those automatic setting. Perhaps that is why I've been so reluctant to change over to digital.
Before you start pounding me with information that higher end cameras have manual setting, I do know this too.
Anyway, I just needed to vent. I spent all day struggling with trying to make my camera do what I wanted, but to no avail. I guess I really need to just move up to a higher end camera so I can turn off technology. Strange how that sounds, spend more money so I can do what used to be common with low end cameras. Set the f stop, check shutter speed, focus and push the button.
Thanks, for letting me rant.
Nov 28, 2011 05:49:32 #
Nov 28, 2011 07:05:36 #
Your camera cannot capture, nor can any output medium, reproduce what your eye can see.
Dynamic Ranges of Common Devices vs. The Human Eye
Device, Stops, Contrast
LCD: 9.5, 700:1 (250:1 - 1750:1)
(on camera or
computer monitor)
DSLR camera: 11, 2048:1
(Canon EOS-1D Mark II)
Print film: 7, 128:1
Human eye: 1014, 1024:1 16384:1
(I apologize for the formatting of the above data but this forum's software kills TABs)
And then there is the gamma of the human eye vs. the gamma of those media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma
On the other hand, with microphotography, macrophotography, infrared photography, astronomical photography, motion-freezing strobes, etc, the camera can show us things we cannot see with the naked eye.
And with post processing, we can produce images that do not exist anywhere but in our imaginations.
So I guess it all comes down to whether you want to take a picture or produce an image. Both strike me as valid choices.
Dynamic Ranges of Common Devices vs. The Human Eye
Device, Stops, Contrast
LCD: 9.5, 700:1 (250:1 - 1750:1)
(on camera or
computer monitor)
DSLR camera: 11, 2048:1
(Canon EOS-1D Mark II)
Print film: 7, 128:1
Human eye: 1014, 1024:1 16384:1
(I apologize for the formatting of the above data but this forum's software kills TABs)
And then there is the gamma of the human eye vs. the gamma of those media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma
On the other hand, with microphotography, macrophotography, infrared photography, astronomical photography, motion-freezing strobes, etc, the camera can show us things we cannot see with the naked eye.
And with post processing, we can produce images that do not exist anywhere but in our imaginations.
So I guess it all comes down to whether you want to take a picture or produce an image. Both strike me as valid choices.
Nov 28, 2011 07:13:30 #
Of course it means you're old fashioned. But I prefer the term old school. In either case, May God Bless You and All Who Sail in You!
Nov 28, 2011 07:14:45 #
There is still lots of room for us "purists," and those who don't think so can go ............! I've always been taught that capturing the exact image "in camera" whenever possible, is the best way to demonstrate one's skill as a photographer. To be fair, sometimes a little PP is necessary. Even Ansel Adams "cheated" in camera, and in the darkroom. To use PP for making ho hum photos "pop," I have mixed feelings about that. I think HDR (although I haven't tried it, yet) is ok, because it's just combining in camera images, somewhat like Adams did. Just do it in a way that looks natural, not like some of the HDR images I've seen on here, which looked like paintings.
I guess the bottom line is this: If you use PP to gussy up a photo, be honest about it.
As for manual over auto, there is at least one very talented individual on this forum who shoots only in auto. Since I was told this in a PM, I won't say who, but his/her exposures are spot on.
I guess the bottom line is this: If you use PP to gussy up a photo, be honest about it.
As for manual over auto, there is at least one very talented individual on this forum who shoots only in auto. Since I was told this in a PM, I won't say who, but his/her exposures are spot on.
Nov 28, 2011 07:17:48 #
There is great satisfaction with taking an amazing picture, and there is also great challenge in mastering the camera for different conditions. While I'm FAR from a purist, I completely appreciate a solid picture and look at it as an achievement.
With that being said, my money is made from composite work, and I consider that to be an equally challenging and rewording art form evolved from the traditional "In Camera" shots.
Both can produce amazing works of art in the right hands.
With that being said, my money is made from composite work, and I consider that to be an equally challenging and rewording art form evolved from the traditional "In Camera" shots.
Both can produce amazing works of art in the right hands.
Nov 28, 2011 07:29:29 #
Your "rant" is valid. I'm half-hearted. I had a DSLR for a while, but never got into composites. I use a simpler program, not photoshop. I'm more of a WYSIWYG kind of photographer. Except for a little stuff here or there.
Digital is money up front for the camera, but then it's just snap away and upload. Film and developing, etc. has caused me to be more calculated with my camera.
I carry my p&s digital, that I can have manual settings too, around with me for the quick family snapshots.
Maybe I'm right in the middle, too young to be an old fogey (sp) and too old to be ultra tech savvy.
Digital is money up front for the camera, but then it's just snap away and upload. Film and developing, etc. has caused me to be more calculated with my camera.
I carry my p&s digital, that I can have manual settings too, around with me for the quick family snapshots.
Maybe I'm right in the middle, too young to be an old fogey (sp) and too old to be ultra tech savvy.
Nov 28, 2011 09:02:09 #
There are two kinds of old school/purists. One is those sticking to the old ways of doing photography and the other sticking to the old ways how photographs looked.
To me, the former is like those who prefer vinyl records to cd's or manual clutches to automatic transmissions in their cars. As far as I am concerned, the winners are digital over film, cd's over vinyl and automatics over clutches. As far as you are concerned, decide for yourself.
As for how photos looked, I am old school. I like vibrant colors, snap (contrast), sharpness, no grain. I like interesting subjects and compositions, well-posed portraits. And I like moody photographs with soft lighting and gentle contrasts. Digital handles a lot of the technical details very well allowing you to concentrate on what is really important: subject and composition. If the camera did not get it right or I change my mind between viewfinder and monitor, why throw away a shot that could be improved by editing? After all, you probably cannot go back and retake it.
Enjoy.
To me, the former is like those who prefer vinyl records to cd's or manual clutches to automatic transmissions in their cars. As far as I am concerned, the winners are digital over film, cd's over vinyl and automatics over clutches. As far as you are concerned, decide for yourself.
As for how photos looked, I am old school. I like vibrant colors, snap (contrast), sharpness, no grain. I like interesting subjects and compositions, well-posed portraits. And I like moody photographs with soft lighting and gentle contrasts. Digital handles a lot of the technical details very well allowing you to concentrate on what is really important: subject and composition. If the camera did not get it right or I change my mind between viewfinder and monitor, why throw away a shot that could be improved by editing? After all, you probably cannot go back and retake it.
Enjoy.
Nov 28, 2011 10:34:56 #
I think there is a time and place for both...I think we should always strive for the best photo possible using whatever means we deem necessary but there's absolutely nothing more satisfying than a good image, properly exposed and composed...bottom line...have fun and enjoy your art form!!
Nov 28, 2011 11:21:52 #
I think the big word here is respect, there is plenty of room here for everyone and diversity is a good thing, I like the pure and the abstract and fantasy....If we all liked pink cadillacs we would all be driving pink cadillacs, the old saying " What ever floats your boat" but have respect for other points of view, and how others enjoy thier art, now I'm going back to my photo shop and putting a sun in on this cloudy day....
Nov 28, 2011 11:32:51 #
I've thought about this a lot considering we're in the age of easy to manipulation of photos via software.
Where does the camera end and the fudging begin?
Is just bumping the contrast up a little out of bounds?
How about getting rid of that errant bird in our nice cloudy sky?
I don't know the answer but I do know that a good photo is enjoyable and elicits a response in me no matter how the person got there.
Where does the camera end and the fudging begin?
Is just bumping the contrast up a little out of bounds?
How about getting rid of that errant bird in our nice cloudy sky?
I don't know the answer but I do know that a good photo is enjoyable and elicits a response in me no matter how the person got there.
Nov 28, 2011 11:47:07 #
One last thought...when I purchased PSE9 I used several really blah, not so good images as practice photos as I read through Scott Kelby's book...I have one in particular that had a washed out mid day sky, some "Downtown" buildings in a photo taken in ol Dodge City,Ks and I now have several versions of the basic photo without the downtown, and a far better sky and some trash eliminated...couldn't have done without PP...like I say, a time and place for everything...
Nov 28, 2011 11:59:55 #
a true "purist" takes photos with coated glass plates just like Matthew Brady. I despise the word purist for its eliteist implications. as if anything other than black and white film is not photography. Or that using photo editing software is somehow morally wrong. The point of t working hard to capture it just right in the viewfinder is of course very valid today both film and digital. but tell me whats the difference of dodge and burn in a darkroom versus a digital darkroom (besides not breathing in potentaly carciogenic fumes from chemicals?) also love the idea of purists bemoaning where photography is going while carrying autofocus, auto exposure, auto rewind programm cameras, a little ironic don't you think. I believe this argument has been going on in the photography world since the late 1890's when George Eastman introduced rolled film and the kodak brownie to the world.
Nov 28, 2011 12:10:56 #
I'm old school, but embrace technology and consider PP to be an integreal part of the photography process. Still, while most shoot in auto and process in manual, I mostly take an opposite approach, keeping PP to a minumum. One of the reasons is that I shoot for publication, where PhotoShop is a bad word. Also, because I shoot for publication, IQ is much more important than something good enough to post on the net.
"Garbage in--garbage out" is an exaggeration, but there is some truth in it.
Despite the advancement in auto features and PP software, the difference between a snapshot and a good photo remains exactly what you put into the frame and exactly when you snap the shutter--and there's still no substitute for good light and knowing how to dance with it--so I still chase good light and try to get it right (or as close as possible) at time of capture.
Besides, I'm more into photography than computer games.
"Garbage in--garbage out" is an exaggeration, but there is some truth in it.
Despite the advancement in auto features and PP software, the difference between a snapshot and a good photo remains exactly what you put into the frame and exactly when you snap the shutter--and there's still no substitute for good light and knowing how to dance with it--so I still chase good light and try to get it right (or as close as possible) at time of capture.
Besides, I'm more into photography than computer games.
Nov 28, 2011 12:19:19 #
see i was agreeing with you right up to the point that you insulted those who use post processing by calling them computer games. that's what drives me crazy about film luddities. they can't help coming across as smug. rember adolf hitler was a purist too.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.