rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

One of our members, Steve R, posited that technique has disappeared. He was referring to the discussions involving technique. It seems that the technique has been replaced with which camera and software will provide one with the satisfaction of creating a notable photograph. I've observed that trend myself but not really given much thought to that occurrence. Most notably, I've been opposed to Luminar's claim to fame of replacing skies, etc.

Up until recently, I was completely opposed to substituting incredible skies into a landscape photograph, etc. I prefer to capture what's there. If what I want isn't there, I'm not disingenuous to 'fake' it. I liken it to say one is going fishing and upon not catching anything, going to a fresh fish store, and purchasing a large fish to return home and announce oneself as a great fisherman to have brought this wonderful dinner home.

Well, I've had a change of heart. I can see where there is a good cause for substituting skies, or any other background, in a photograph. This change was due to viewing a commercial photographer's work. The subject was shot in a studio and then an incredible and related background was placed in the photograph.

In this photographer's case, these are commercial photographs. They are done for pay, a sizable payment to say the least, and done with a time limit. They would be impossible to accomplish with the deadline given, people's schedules, etc. To say nothing of having nature cooperate with the ideal weather for a backdrop. So, in these cases, it is quite acceptable to produce a product photograph as quickly as possible.

Now, to the average person who wants to be a photographer. There is the knowledge that is needed to produce a successful and pleasing photograph. Today's cameras and associated software remove a great deal of the burden of photographic knowledge and simply reduce a good many to being merely camera operators. Ask yourself, if you didn't take that path, or continue to look for that path. It comes down to whether you wish to be a photographer or a mere button pusher. The choice is yours.

You can't purchase talent. You can, anyone can develop talent if they are willing to invest in learning the necessary skills as a foundation and then continuing to build on those skills. The results will be far more satisfying than just mastering which button to push. Kodak used to have an advertising expression, "You push the button. We do the rest". If photography and photographic art were that simple, why didn't the notable photographers resort to letting Kodak do the rest?

So, it comes down to whether you want to be a photographer or just a button pusher? One will produce photographs. The other will be entangled in a constant search for the "next best thing" that will propel them to the heights of photographic accomplishments they couldn't achieve on their own.
--Bob

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Who is the photographer? Would love to view his work.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Those who push the buttons may or may not take their hobby further. Hopefully, those who develop (😁) an interest to explore photography as personal expression and art will find a mentor to guide and inspire them.

Those who would rigidly define "photographer" per their personal, life-long experience may not make the best mentors for younger generations.

Dan5000 Loc: New Hampshire

For me, the fun and challenge of photography is creating the composition, then processing (developing) the
image as I see it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

But that would eliminate 100% of the people here. We live to process!

As far as I'm concerned, anything goes.

Ourspolair

My belief is that photography is an art form, whether or not you make your living doing it. To each his own style. I appreciate good technique in each stage of the production of an image, and generally use tools such as AI sparingly. Two major exceptions for me are used in panoramas (which I tried to stitch manually many years ago), and bracketed exposures leading to HDR compositing. I am grateful for the smarts in Photoshop and ON1 to help me get the best dynamic range that I can to accomplish something closer to what the eye can see. Sure, I go nuts occasionally with textures and goof around with exaggerated saturation, vibrance or false colour, but I try to do the best I can in-camera, which makes me a photographer first and an post-processor second. So I profit, when I feel the need with some layers to improve what may otherwise be a bland shot. This falls under "photographic artistry", I think. So, basically , I agree with what you say, but allow myself the liberty to experiment in order to improve the artistic elements within an image that, like that pro, I could not get in camera. I don't transplant my subjects to a beach in Rio (as the pro may have been forced to do), because that would not be honest representation of what I saw, but it can be done, and as long as you don't "sell" your work as a representation of what you actually saw, then you can, as Linda says, do what you like with your own image. (That includes the self-image in my opinion). Long live the image! Stay well, live long and prosper.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Let me disagree with you.

You are a master of taking good originals and a master of post processing.

You did not have a change of heart, you just opened more possibilities to you and those who follow you.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

One year I vacationed in Transylvania County, North Carolina, the land of waterfalls. The first day out the sky was overcast when I took the picture of my first waterfall. I knew the composition I wanted as well as the aperture setting for good DOF and the shutter speed needed for the way I wanted the water go look. The one thing I could not control in camera was the color of the sky. With Luminar 4 I replaced that sky with a nice blue one with a small white cloud. That is not what I saw the day I was there but that image is surely a realistic representation of how it looks countless other days of the year when I can't be there. I don't believe most photographers are using image editing software to overcome their inadequate photographic knowledge. When vacationing in Sedona to shoot beautiful landscapes I exposed for the beautiful blue sky and then lightened the shadows in post processing. Guess what? The end result represented what I actually saw while there. I wouldn't know how to achieve that straight from camera. My technique as well as most others is to use photographic knowledge as well as post processing knowledge to achieve the best images we are capable of.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

For sure, there’s not much that cannot be faked on a computer.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

That's true but is adding a sky any more fake than removing blemishes or whitening teeth in portraits?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Most GOOD computer artists are, incidentally mediocre photographers.....

Most GOOD photographers are, incidentally mediocre computer artists......

If you are in it for the money, you do what pleases the customer - if you are truly an artist, you do what pleases YOU.
.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It’s a greater alteration.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Apparently, Nikon agrees with my premise.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-photoshop-photo-on-nikons-facebook-page-goes-viral

--Bob

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

Call me old fashioned, out dated or just a cantankerous old fart, but I do not post process. As a young photographer, most of my work was fire, accident and crime scene documentation. The courts do not want art, they want reality. I always want the camera to see what I see, nothing more, nothing less or anything else. When you post process, you remove the reality. SOOC works great for me.