Would you consider both these Pics to be photographs?
Feb 23, 2019 00:49:59 #
Kozan wrote:
I think ricardo7 is just being honest.
I get sick of the benign comments on here about peoples' terrible pictures. People say "Great job" "I like it", etc. When they are really talking about a terrible shot. It doesn't do anybody any good to give these good comments on crappy pictures. It just makes them think they are good photographers when they are really pathetic.
I think being honest is really what we need here, instead of stroking everyone's ego.
I get sick of the benign comments on here about peoples' terrible pictures. People say "Great job" "I like it", etc. When they are really talking about a terrible shot. It doesn't do anybody any good to give these good comments on crappy pictures. It just makes them think they are good photographers when they are really pathetic.
I think being honest is really what we need here, instead of stroking everyone's ego.
Please advise what this has to do with the topic
Feb 23, 2019 12:45:10 #
billbarcus
Loc: IPNW
Sir, it was not my intention to offend or discount your photo skills, nor anyone else on UHH. I actually like photo no.1 Please allow me to explain my position regarding PP processing. Also understand that, there many of us here on UHH that came out of the hard film world and graduated into the complex world of digital; many out of necessity for various reasons. You may be one of those folks too?
Pointing back to a time in the film world, where there were no such things as computers, nor even cell phones. A computer during those times (70s & 80's) was that little micro battery-powered gizmo we carried in our shirt pockets or purses to balance our check books. I graduated to digital out of necessity - and after some years of absolute temper tantrums and throwing milk-gravy fits in learning digital, I have grown to absolutely love it!
I do have Photoshop Elements ----- for the explicit purposes of eliminating those pesky Sensor Dust Spots that appear in photos, which are common to DSLR cameras & the common problem of 'dust' that accumulates over time within lenses. I bought PS 7.0 in 2004 when doing aerial photography for high-end land developers and real estate moguls; I could eliminate junk cars and other unsightly 'trash' from the photos before sending them off for payment - those type of clients didn't want that kind of refuse showing up in photos for which they paid big bucks and displayed to their clients. Haven't used 7.0 in years and found Elements does the same job for a lot less money and doesn't require a PS master's degree to figure out.
As for cropping. I will crop on rare occasions if need be - usually in-camera while shooting the scenes. Other than removing dust spots from photos and rare, if any, cropping that's the extent of my PP software usage other than inserting my by-line. As for lens aberrations and correcting white balance. Well, I don't shoot RAW, and don't mess with the white balance settings in the camera. Lens aberrations and corner distortions; some of this comes with the territory of particular UWA lenses. Live with it, or sell the lens and dig deep in the pockets for a better one.
Bottom line - To me, the use of PP software to 'enhance' (as some might think it to be) a photograph is NOT photography in the correct sense of the term, as well as the true sense of all the applications of the ART of photography - done in person, one on one; the actual, in-the-field encounter with the subject.
We are living in a generation of Computer Photographers & Smart Phone Photographers who wouldn't know the True Art of composing a genuine photograph in the field if it bit them in the Ass!!! There are so many "photographers" today that let the camera do all the thinking for them; all they know is Auto Mode. They are not photographers ... they are button pushers. The same goes for the computer photographers; they are computer geeks ... not photographers.
Even here on UHH I continually see what would be, otherwise, absolutely stunning photographs of eagles, other creatures, landscapes, et. al. that are totally disfigured and ruined with PP software. I am repulsed by such images. They might be 'trendy' to hang in somebody's den ... but, not mine.
In closing, some here will call me a curmudgeon - so be it. I will always remember a recent quote by a knowledgeable and talented mentor who inspired me from the very day I picked up a 35mm film camera back 'in the day.' Here is his quote:
"Photoshop doesn't make a bad picture good; it makes a bad picture BIG." --- John Shaw
Pointing back to a time in the film world, where there were no such things as computers, nor even cell phones. A computer during those times (70s & 80's) was that little micro battery-powered gizmo we carried in our shirt pockets or purses to balance our check books. I graduated to digital out of necessity - and after some years of absolute temper tantrums and throwing milk-gravy fits in learning digital, I have grown to absolutely love it!
I do have Photoshop Elements ----- for the explicit purposes of eliminating those pesky Sensor Dust Spots that appear in photos, which are common to DSLR cameras & the common problem of 'dust' that accumulates over time within lenses. I bought PS 7.0 in 2004 when doing aerial photography for high-end land developers and real estate moguls; I could eliminate junk cars and other unsightly 'trash' from the photos before sending them off for payment - those type of clients didn't want that kind of refuse showing up in photos for which they paid big bucks and displayed to their clients. Haven't used 7.0 in years and found Elements does the same job for a lot less money and doesn't require a PS master's degree to figure out.
As for cropping. I will crop on rare occasions if need be - usually in-camera while shooting the scenes. Other than removing dust spots from photos and rare, if any, cropping that's the extent of my PP software usage other than inserting my by-line. As for lens aberrations and correcting white balance. Well, I don't shoot RAW, and don't mess with the white balance settings in the camera. Lens aberrations and corner distortions; some of this comes with the territory of particular UWA lenses. Live with it, or sell the lens and dig deep in the pockets for a better one.
Bottom line - To me, the use of PP software to 'enhance' (as some might think it to be) a photograph is NOT photography in the correct sense of the term, as well as the true sense of all the applications of the ART of photography - done in person, one on one; the actual, in-the-field encounter with the subject.
We are living in a generation of Computer Photographers & Smart Phone Photographers who wouldn't know the True Art of composing a genuine photograph in the field if it bit them in the Ass!!! There are so many "photographers" today that let the camera do all the thinking for them; all they know is Auto Mode. They are not photographers ... they are button pushers. The same goes for the computer photographers; they are computer geeks ... not photographers.
Even here on UHH I continually see what would be, otherwise, absolutely stunning photographs of eagles, other creatures, landscapes, et. al. that are totally disfigured and ruined with PP software. I am repulsed by such images. They might be 'trendy' to hang in somebody's den ... but, not mine.
In closing, some here will call me a curmudgeon - so be it. I will always remember a recent quote by a knowledgeable and talented mentor who inspired me from the very day I picked up a 35mm film camera back 'in the day.' Here is his quote:
"Photoshop doesn't make a bad picture good; it makes a bad picture BIG." --- John Shaw
Feb 23, 2019 16:51:18 #
billbarcus wrote:
No. 1 is definitely a photograph ... as for no.2, I don't consider any image enhanced by Photoshop or other PP software to be photographs. PP is an insult to photography.
So straight our of the camera (SOOC) is the only kind of photograph? You need to define what you call a photograph. And I mean a true definition, not just more condemnation. Photographs have been manipulated from the beginning, just the methods have been changed.
Feb 23, 2019 17:16:26 #
Delderby wrote:
Well, #1 is a photograph - but what about #2?
Yes, both are, 2 just has more special effects.
Feb 25, 2019 21:05:19 #
Feb 26, 2019 16:10:03 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Re-read the title of the topic. This is a subject that comes up often for discussion, but there is no answer 
Of course you're right Linda I was trying lessen the criticism from Ricardo7 when he stated that neither was very good. My response was more to him than the OP.
I suppose anyone can write what ever they want. I just thought it was a little rude, uncalled for and trying to give a little moral support.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.