I've Had a Slight Change of Mind (Page 10): ======================= John SWanda... My writings were in 'light' of the 'now-a-days' in modern world and young people, and all the modern...

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

JohnSwanda wrote:

So if photography is only pushing the shutter button, and processing the photo is "digital art", then what is darkroom work? It has always been considered part of the photographic process. And if it is, then so is computer processing.

=======================
John SWanda...

My writings were in 'light' of the 'now-a-days' in modern world and young people, and all the modern digital cameras... As you will notice, I used the term.. light on the 'sensor' and not film.. ha ha

AND, yes, "photography" is the 'act of taking' the picture.. and and yes, there are steps afterwards... wither it be 'file' or 'digital sensor' BUT, please look at the definatition... You have 'making the photography'.. ie, 'click' and then you have the 'processing' which is either 'soup processing' .. or computer processing...... in the latter arena, it is 'Digital Art'

Photographic processing is:
... photographic development is the chemical means by which photographic film or paper is treated after photographic exposure to produce a negative or positive image.

With regards to your question, to be 'all inclusive' ... I should have added lines about 'film' and the 'photographic process'

Cheers
GeoVz
#####

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

Pixels are my paint. The camera sensor is my palette. PP is my canvas where I engage in a creative transformation of the pixels into a pleasing and relevant (to me) image. Sometimes I apply a good deal of processing, sometimes very little... But... Just as a painter manipulates the oils on the canvas until the image satisfies his artistic vision, so do I with my PP. Call that whatever you want, but that's about as complex as I get in the "Are you a photographer or just a hack?" discussion. I'll bet no one ever asked Van Gogh what kind of brush he used...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Beauty is everywhere when you have PhotoShop.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

tommystrat wrote:

Pixels are my paint. The camera sensor is my palette. PP is my canvas where I engage in a creative transformation of the pixels into a pleasing and relevant (to me) image. I control the drama. I control the composition. I control the lighting. Just as a painter manipulates the oils until the image satisfies, so do I with my PP. Call that whatever you want, but that's about as complex as I get in the "Are you a photographer or just a hack?" discussion.

=====================================

ha ha ha........

Tommy, "Are you a photographer or just a hack?"

......... All Depends on ones perception, opinion, and 'all that B.S.' LOL

As the ole saying goes, "Everyone has an opinion; Opinions are like ... U Know What,...; Everyone has one; No two are alike; They all Stink; and you (the presenter) thinks his or her Opinion don't Stink... " LOL

I am Rembrandt, and you are Picasso ............ ha ha

That is my Opinion....... ha ha

Cheers
GeoVz
####

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

CHG_CANON wrote:

Beauty is everywhere when you have PhotoShop.

-------------

AND, a computer which is "Working" LOL

GeoVz

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

goldstar46 wrote:

======================= br John SWanda... br br M... (show quote)

The term "digital art" includes a lot more than just photo processing. I am proud of being a photographer rather than a digital artist. Your definition of photo processing obviously is from the film era. A modern definition would include computer processing. Google defines photography as "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs". If darkroom processing is part of making a photograph, then so is computer processing.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

rmalarz wrote:

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. As for the question you pose, I'm sure they would have liked or not liked the styles.

The point was that these artists did their own work. They didn't rely on AI (sorry to use the term) to produce their work. They did the work.
--Bob

...Bob...part of my point was the ability to mix studio work with a relevant background...like Elena Shumilova does with her photographs...photography doesn’t always have to be realistic (Rembrandt)...and I understand what you are implying about your work versus a preprogrammed sky...but is it ok to remove things that detracts from the photograph...?

Elena Shumilova
Elena Shumilova...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rmalarz wrote:

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 of our members, Steve R, posited that techniqu... (show quote)

In the age of film, I pushed the button and had the Kodachrome processor do the rest. Today I press the button and have my camera do the rest as I directed it to. In both cases, my work comes in selecting the perspective.

F8 Forever Loc: Lng Island, NY

Woo-Hoo! 10 pages already! This is the sort of topic that requires no specific knowledge or experience, so everyone feels free to chime in.

Including me.

FWIW, any art or engineering form is really about the end product. And just the end product. Does anyone really need to know how the scrap rock was blasted off Michelangelo's David? Or how that method differed from Carravagista's? Is it necessary to know what pigments Rafael or Manet used to appreciate their art?

Were power tools used to make Mt. Rushmore?

No. All these things, and many more, are interesting and complete our understanding of the artist and the work, but are absolutely unnecessary for appreciation of the work, and often even get in the way.

Every work of art is simply the artist's interpretation of the moment.

Which of the over 30 Monet paintings of the Rouen cathedral is the "right" one? And were any of them perfect copies of the view at the time?

Quite frankly, when I see an extraordinary photograph I really don't care how it was made. I simply revel in its beauty. I might wonder how it was made, and contemplate making a similar one myself, but I really prefer to simply be swept away by the magic of the moment. Does a magician's trick ever become more magical once you know how it was done?

Nope, spare me "How things should be" silliness about photography. Like most of you, I spent a lot of time accepting what Kodachrome thought my color palette should be. If it was not close enough, I'd filter or pick another film. How is that so different from post processing?

I also spent a lot of time with Marshall's Photo Oil Colors. Adjusting the contrast of the b&w print and then giving it the colors I want it to have. Sold a bunch of those 20x30s I did.

The end product is the point, not how you got there.

And having the ability to add clouds to a grey sky is a gift, not a cheat.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

SkyKing wrote:

...Bob...part of my point was the ability to mix studio work with a relevant background...like Elena Shumilova does with her photographs...photography doesn’t always have to be realistic (Rembrandt)...and I understand what you are implying about your work versus a preprogrammed sky...but is it ok to remove things that detracts from the photograph...?

Who took the picture of the large dog with the child, or is that a famous painting? (I know I'm exposing my ignorance.)

kcooke Loc: Alabama

ggttc wrote:

Is there anyone out there who has worked in a wet darkroom and not taped a quarter to the end of a coat hanger and did some dodging?

Yes. My early work as a metallographer was all technical for scientific publications. This type work did not allow dodging and burning. We could however alter overall exposure and contrast. All of my darkroom work was with black and white 8 x 10 sheet film.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

Shooter41 wrote:

Who took the picture of the large dog with the child, or is that a famous painting? (I know I'm exposing my ignorance.)

...that’s Elena Shumilova’s work...she is on Flickr...her stuff is wonderful...!

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

Inagemeister and DAN Phillips are tight on! The amateur enthusiastic photographer is creating images. They must learn technique and in effect, become a master over their camera. I think that post processing which changes the image from what is seen to is wanted to be seen. It’s computer processing, not pure photography.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

Thank you Eric

Fully agreed. But I photography is the of Framing, composing, and capturing scene or the image that represents the moment in time. That is photography

Sadly, many individuals refer to the entire process from beginning to end, including processing as photography. Although that may be a basic generic reference like "COKE", it is not the true definition of the act of photography itself.

After you capture the image using photography, the balance of the operation becomes "processing"

Cheers
GeoVz
####

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

goldstar46 wrote:

Thank you Eric br br Fully agreed. But I photogra... (show quote)

Photography is about making photographs. Without processing, there is no photograph.