KotaKrome

I've been a camera fanatic for over forty years.
For a long time I've thought there are those who "take pictures" with their camera and those who "take photographs", snap shooters and photographers.
To me a person had to possess a certain amount of skill level, artistic instinct and desire for me to think of them as a "photographer".
(Don't mean this to sound arrogant. After all, there are craftsmen and there are people who make things with wood, musicians and people who just play the guitar. Not every can sing well or draw well.)
Today's technology is phenomenal but I see a downside. The ability to infinitely CHANGE a photograph through software now makes, in MY OPINION, a third category of camera users the "picture maker".
Now a person with little or no real skill as a PHOTOGRAPHER can take a snap shot and turn it into a beautiful image using software clicks. One one hand this new ability is very cool. But when someone routinely "enhances" his photographs beyond taking out dust spots through software it's hard to think of him as a "photographer" as much as just a picture maker.
At some point the photograph really becomes a digital painting.
When people routinely ENHANCE their photos through software and present it as their "photograph" and present themselves as a "photographer" without revealing the manipulation it just seems a little dishonest.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup:

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

While I understand your frustration and sympathize with you about people's intentions, this subject always seems to lead back to the relative talent of some masters and even gets to the point of judging artists who go back and change a painting. My favorite example is the story of Pablo Picasso was almost arrested because he was caught trying to make a change in a piece worth several hundred thousand dollars hanging in a European art gallery. We have rehashed this subject ad nauseum. Others may want to provide import. I think I'll take a raincheck on this one. But good luck with your topic.

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

Surely it was ever thus. When I developed my own film there were ways of improving the film.I would imagine a painter viewing his finished work would see ways to improve it with some paint here and a dab there.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

things don"t really change, just the titles we give them.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

tell that to Glyn Dewis. :(

I don't think you've thought this through.

A person can be a good photographer yet their preference be to enhance an image beyond what you think is allowable.

It's horses for courses...

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I think you'd be hard pushed to find a professional photographer who doesn't use PP to tweak or enhance their work. In fact I get the impression that most pros see PP skills as being a basic requirement for any serious pro or enthusiast.

I also suspect that most pros and enthusiasts would be guilty of the "dishonesty" that you mention. The fact that most of these manipulations are not declared is not a sign of dishonesty or a lack of professional integrity. I'm sure most would be quite happy to admit to using PP - if they felt the need.

fotographis Loc: Alexandria, VA

All good points, but the "Picture Maker" still needs to have an image of a certain level of quality to tweak into something they perceive as special. A crappy original rarely can be morphed into a gem. So there is a level of expertise need to take the original. Then there is the expertise needed to tweak the photo in Photoshop or some other program, which to do properly may take more time to learn than how to take a good photo in the first place. The more a person fusses with a photo after the fact, the more it looks like they were fussing with the photo after the fact. I personally follow pretty much the same routine in Photoshop that I did in the darkroom, dogging and burning, subtle enhancement of the details and color/contrast corrections. My best images are those that you can't tell I have made any effort to enhance, of course, those are the ones that I probably spent the most time enhancing.

Dave_TX

So the film photographer, in his darkroom, burning and dodging his prints on various papers that have differing tonal qualities is a "picture maker"? PP has been part of photography since printing of negatives was added to the process.

Any photographer who shoots RAW format images uses PP to finish their photos unless they prefer dull, flat images. Is that dishonest? How is that different from selecting a standard Picture Style or setting a custom Picture Style (contrast, saturation, white balance, sharpness, etc) on the camera to control the in camera RAW to JPEG conversion?

Is it dishonest to alter the lighting on a subject via various lights, reflectors, and color gels?

The "picture making" process starts when a photographer sees or imagines something they would like to capture in a photograph. It ends when the viewing conditions for the final product of the process are set and in place, whether it be on a monitor or on paper (or some other material). Of course, oftentimes the photographer has little or no control over the viewing conditions so there is no stable, final version of the image.

Dcn Bob Loc: Hamilton, NJ

Fifty some years ago I worked in the dark room of a commercial photographer. I cropped, burnt-in, manipulated and enhanced his photographs to make them more pleasing to the eye. Is that anything different then what I do today to my photographs with software?

crimesc324 Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

Great points :thumbup: :thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

While I agree with the sentiment of the three categories, the problem is that there is a very continuous range between the "photographer" and the "photo maker". I know what I have decided is that line, in order to stay on the photographer side. But other people would have different ways to differentiate the two.

There is also a continuum between snapshooter and photographer, but I think more people fit closer to one side or the other. With photographer and photo maker, I think a significant percentage is somewhere in the middle.

On the question of honest, I think it comes down to intended perception. If the photo maker wants you to see the picture and believe that it represents what the scene actually looked like, then there is a limit to what editing they should do. But if the image is not intended to be seen as representing reality, then anything is fine.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

A very clear and precise perspective, as usual, Amehta.

To the above comments I would add that the photographer can envisage what a scene could look like in ideal circumstances, and can use PP to push the picture in that direction. I don't see that as the photographer compromising his integrity in any way.

The alternative would be to wait for ideal shooting circumstances - which in most cases would be impractical.

amehta Loc: Boston

I don't know that I agree with this, but I don't strongly disagree. I think my mild disagreement is that the change is rarely to what that particular scene would look like in ideal shooting circumstances, but to what the person ideally thinks it should look like. The simplest example is changing the color of the sky, either to a deeper blue or to a more colorful sunrise/sunset. Those changes are usually based on what the person wants it to look like, rather than what they believe it actually looks like sometimes.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Fair enough. But we all know what a good sky looks like, and who's to say that the sky at a certain location isn't ever going to look the way the photographer would have liked it to look.

The example that I was thinking about was taking a landscape shot that was taken on a gloomy day and PPing it to look like a sunny scene. Provided the difference isn't too extreme, it can be done very convincingly, to the point where you'd have to be obsessively looking for giveaway signs of PP to be able to tell.

And it's not always that difficult to pull off. I'm a long way from being an expert, but I've managed some convincing "instant sunshine" edits in my time.