Dave T

I'm curious if there are any other folks visiting here who share my attitude about PP...that is, I don't do any. This is left over from my 35mm film days I'm sure. I figure if I don't get the picture I need to try again on another day, not manufacture one from the digital bits the camera captured with a computer program. That's more like painting, and painting by numbers at that.

Now before anyone get upset over that last statememt, if you like creating pictures on your computer more power to you. I don't object to others doing that, I just don't choose to do so myself. The farthest I will go is cropping and I used to do that to prints from film too.

As I said at the start of this, anyone else feel that same way? I'm just curious as my wife, who uses PhotoShop all the time, thinks I'm a dinosaur (LOL).

Dave

Adubin Loc: Indialantic, Florida

My believe is if you don't capture a very good photo with your camera there is no way you can make it a great photo using Photoshop. Excuse my language but shit in is shit out. Back several years ago, I spent much time (several hours on one photo to try to recover a photo that didn't capture correctly), and guess what it never worked. :) Don't get me wrong but I use Photoshop but only spend a small percentage of my time using it now. Arnold

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

Yes, you're a dinosaur.............
If you are happy with taking a kodak box camera and just capturing the perfectly focused image....go for it....

But I think photography is really 4 hobbies: 1. Camera Equipment 2. Capturing a perfectly exposed image 3. Post Processing 4. Creating Artistic images from the properly PPed images if you wish

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

Dinosaur.....

As to GD's list of 4 hobbies, I struggle with all 4....

Mickey88 Loc: Central Florida

PP isn't manufacturing, it is fine tuning. and one definition I have often heard for photography=Painting with Light.

I'm curious, when you shot film, did you process and print your own stuff, or let a photo lab do it.?

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

Meet another Dinosaur, I hate PP beyond a little cropping, and as someone said a little fine tuning. And I will dodge away from that, if at all possible.

If you are referring to what I think you are, its making an image from something that was never there, in the first place. I call this photo-art, not photography. Anyone can become good at photo-art, with these modern processors. It only takes the dedication to learn.

It also only takes the dedication to learn, to not have to produce pictures, but to take good ones in the first place. :)

As far as multi phases of photography, mine is making as good of an image as circumstances permit. Not spending more hours at the computer than I already do, correcting all the mistakes. Some mistakes, really are the center of attraction in an image.

Dave T

Mickey, no I did not process my own film. There was a pretty good lab in my town and I took the B&W to them for illustrating magazine articles I was writing. Got contact sheets of the B&W stuff and chose the ones I wanted prints of, cropped as needed but not every image. When mother Kodak got too expensive I started using 35mm color movie film and got slides and prints from that.

Steve you are close to what I was talking about. To me the challenge and fun of photography is to see if I can capture what my mind sees. If I don't then I accept the fact that I didn't do it (mechanics of picture taking) correctly and have to try again...and again and again. (smile)

Dave

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

In my previous life (film days), I processed some B&W. But since I shot mostly Kodachrome slides, there was hardly any such thing as home processing those. I sent my stuff to a lab in Atlanta, that was the closest color lab to my home.

larrycumba

I have a printer that doesn't require a computer to print. It accepts all the cards. I don't care for post production, too much trouble for me. I do crop and that's it.

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

I have one of those Canon Selphy dye transfer printers, it doesn't require a computer, and can even crop. Instant answer to Polaroid.

I also have a Canon ix6520 printer, but that's another story.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

better question is if you shot black and white and developed your own film, did you dodge and burn a print? if you did congrats you photoshopped it just pre computer photoshop. I don't do much photo editing beside the basics, cause i can't get the darn selection tool to work for me. However, I will defend to my las bone the right of people to edit as much as they want. IT IS STILL PHOTOGRAPHY. in fact its more creative and artistic to photoedit then not to. Dave T you didn't say this so my next comment isn't directed at you, but what drives me nuts about many of these who don't photo edit is that they take the high moral ground and imply its not real photography if it's photoedited. If you are going to be a purist then be a purist all the way. shoot view cameras with coated glass plates just like matthew Brady. Purists don't shoot with auto exposure, auto advance, auto focus built in meter cameras. What Im curious about is why this subject keeps coming up every 2 months? weve finally beaten and burieed nikon vs cannon to death, now we seem to keep coming back to this.

Dave T

sinatraman,

Guess I pushed someone's buttons on this. Sorry! I've only been on this forum for a week or so and in looking though topics being discussed I didn't see anything about not using PP. No moral high ground for me, more laziness and just having the same drive that motivated my recreational photography with my Nikon FM back in the 1970s. That drive, as I tried to say above, it to catch that moment, that vision of the subject, with my camera. If I don't then I delete it and keep trying.

Dave

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

like i said Dave the last part was not directed at you. a couple months ago we had a huge at the time thread on whether "real" photographers photoedit. It was decided by consensus, that they do but real men still don't eat quiche. :lol: the non photoshoppers and the film only crowd have a lot in common and on the subject of fanaticism can teach al queda atthing or two. I think if the object was origionaly composed in a camera no matter what kind the end result is still a photograph.

Lupine Loc: SF Bay Area

Ansel Adams was reknown for his skills not only in composing his photographs, but also how he processed them in his darkroom (aka, post-processing). He used all of the tools he had available to make his photographs the best they could possibly be. I have no doubt that he would have used software tools as well, if they have been available to him.

IOW, if PP was good enough for Ansel Adams it's good enough for me. ;)

photosbyhenry Loc: Apple Valley MN

Brontasourus here. I do no PP and I sell my photos at flea markets and craft fairs. Yes, Ansel Adams did do a lot of PP, but he had great photos to start with. I also shoot by b&w in the b&w mode and do not convert color to b&w.