swamp shutter Loc: Tallahassee Florida

When i first became interested in photography there was nothing but film, back then you learned quickly to do a better job of taking your shots because after turning in your film to be developed you had to pay for your bad shots as well as your good ones. That made me a lot more careful about how i composed my shots. I remember when digital cameras first came out and the comment that a professional photographer made that digital was kind of like cheating and the more i think about it the more i agree with him. I'm not a professional photographer by any means but i do understand talent. Iv'e shot film most of my life until recently when i bought a digital camera because of the increasing hassle of finding film and getting it developed. I sent my old 35mm rebel xs off to be cleaned just before hurricane Erma and when it looked like it had been lost in the mail i honestly wished it was my new rebel t6 but luckily i got my film camera back. I read a post on here about someone wanting to know how to post photos on uhh and after reading all the things about reducing and cropping and all the other computerized language i wonder if the photos will still be of the same subject that was photographed in the first place. Is anyone a real photographer anymore? I've hesitated about posting any of my photos here because of what i considered to be superior photos being posted but now i wonder how many are just computerized images. Sorry for ranting. Swamp

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I don't know what you mean by a "real photographer". It sounds as if your objections to any manipulation are similar to those encountered by Adams, the Westons and others by the pictoralists.

swamp shutter Loc: Tallahassee Florida

Whatever that means.

swamp shutter Loc: Tallahassee Florida

Going to bed now.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I am.

rcdovala

If you've ever seen any of Ansel's darkroom notes for dodging and burning during exposure you would understand that he clearly believed in manipulation.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I can understand your perspective, but I believe some of it may come from a lack of awareness about the extent to which film photographers have altered their photos, both intentionally and unintentionally, over the past century or so. Robert Capa’s pictures of D-Day were known for their grittiness and realism, in part because a lab assistant screwed up the drying process. Ansel Adams photographed “Moonrise” in 1941 - and spent over thirty years making prints before he got one that satisfied him. The point is that film photographers, to this day, manipulate their pictures. Just in the case of B&W photographers who process their own film, there is the choice of chemicals (primarily developers), the determination of time and temperature, of stop bath and fixer procedures, not to mention the deletion or addition of wetting agents, etc. Then there is the making of the print - which paper, exposure time, burning and dodging, and then development of the print, with that above-mentioned variables, rotation and agitation, washing and addition of toners. In my case, my most popular photograph was actually a relatively small part of a 4 X 5, which was custom processed, drum scanned and then manipulated and printed on at least three different printers. So you see, all that computer language regarding the manipulation of digital images is just another dialect used by a group of people, most of whom do not understand a film photographers use of microphen, dektol or Photo-flo. We who may have had to opportunity to learn both dialects, even if not fluently, are very fortunate. And it is our responsibility to, at the very least, provide some translation and/or interpretation to both groups of photographers. And we who still practice both disciplines are indeed fortunate in our ability to understand the strength, weaknesses, differences and similarity of both.

Hank Radt

In the darkroom, you can reduce, crop, dodge, burn, adjust exposure contrast and colors and... These terms are not "computerized language," they are photographic language. Conceptually, I don't see a lot of difference between a negative and a RAW image, nor between darkroom processing and software processing. In either case, the photographer composes a shot, captures it, and then processes it to get a desired effect.

What separates great photography from the rest is the skill of the photographer: his or her vision and, of course, experience, be it composition or processing. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a great photographer, but I can appreciate Henry Cartier-Bresson, Matthew Brady, Man Ray (take a look at some of his photos if you want to see some interesting pre-Photoshop compositions), Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange (who caught Albert Einstein sticking his tongue out) - she said "A camera is a device that teaches people to see without a camera," which personally resonates.

When cameras appeared, painters probably looked at photographers as cheating. I suspect that some in the different schools - classicists, romanticists, impressionists, cubists, surrealists, modernists, etc. questioned the capabilities of the others.

Some of the great classical painters manipulated subjects in their work for purely commercial reasons, driven by the fact that their sponsors had very specific views of what they would pay for (a lot of what is recognized as great portraiture is very flattering to the paying subject...). And the truly great artists were almost completely unconstrained by the actual subject: take a look at Picasso's Guernica, then compare it with photos of the bombed town.

Technology advances, and art along with it. Doesn't mean the old is bad - there are still painters. Nor does it mean the new is bad either.

Just different.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

What on earth are you getting at? Photography is still photography and photographers are still photographers. People can still shoot film if the want, just like back in the day. The beauty of digital is it has expanded photography beyond the bounds dictated by film and the creativity of those who truly understand it. The problem with digital photography is, anyone can go and purchase a D3400 and a few lenses and a speedlites, get cards printed and they are calling themselves professional photographers.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

To whom are you addressing your comments? Please use “Ouote Reply.”

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I am a hobbyst photographer who is very happy to have a "darkroom" that sits on my desk.
I also create fully computer generated images (CGI) from ideas that I have in my head.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Swamp, Welcome to the Hog!
BTW, there's a simple test for reality.
Hang your camera around your neck and look in the mirror!
If you see yourself, you're real.
If you don't see yourself, your not a real photographer!!!
SS

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Love it!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Hardly a rant compared to some. Electronics and computers have changed only the tools, not photography. And, yes, the tools were simpler, sometimes easier, and sometimes harder to use than todays tools. But photography still consists of only aperture, shutter speed, and ISO (or ASA in film terms). There are still only those three controls with a bunch of electronics and software to help us control them. Or even shoot manual. To a certain degree, things have gotten less expensive; there are no limits of 24 or 36 pictures and their cost. If one is not happy with the way the "processing" of the image is going, just delete and pull up the original to start again as many times as necessary.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

You agree that digital is "cheating". That says it all.
Go quietly back to the Swamp.