I've Had a Slight Change of Mind (Page 2): For me, it's merely another tool in my tool box and not much else. How one chooses to use their tools is what really matters in the end.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

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 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

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

For me, it's merely another tool in my tool box and not much else. How one chooses to use their tools is what really matters in the end. Knowledge should be an on-going experience and the Journey is the THING for me and not the destination. Celebrate what you have and make the most of it while You Still CAN.......life is short. Be helpful & kind to all you meet. Thank you Bob and congratulations on your skies-discovery.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

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 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

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

Photography is whatever you choose it to be. To me a SOOC image is a half baked dish not suitable for consumption.

Gatorcoach Loc: New Jersey

It's my picture, my rules!

traderjohn Loc: New York City

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 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

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

Add; you can't purchase manners. To think you you are more than, simply because you take pictures is sad. I don't understand the need to demean someone. Perhaps a frail sense of worth.

armymsg

JRiepe wrote:

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

Agree. There are no degrees of photo manipulation.

ZtaKED Loc: Lakes Region, New Hampshire & NE Florida

Photography is just like golf. You are just competing against yourself. You look at your last shot and try to figure out how to make the next one better. As there are tons of tools and gadgets to improve a golf game, so to with photography - and the best part is that photography, unlike golf, doesn’t ruin a beautiful walk on a nice day.

SonyBug

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 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

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

Yeah, well. I can drive a car from point a to point b. So, I am a car driver, not a formula one race car driver. But, if I am happy with how I drive, who is to say that it is not a good thing. Same with cameras. I can push the buttons, and put the results on the wall, which I do, and I am happy. I am not really trying to make you happy, just me.

ggttc Loc: TN

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?

Bison Bud

Today's "Photography" is really just "Graphic Arts" with a camera as the starting point. However, many will take real offense to that statement.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

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?

I never thought to use a coin as a dodging tool. I just cut all my burning and dodging tools out of cardboard.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

DAN Phillips wrote:

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.

Dan, when I was exposing for the sky in Sedona then lightening the shadows in post processing I was creating reality instead of exposing for the landscape and blowing out the sky. The camera's sensor is not as technically advanced as the human eye and it will many times not produce what I saw. Post processing can be used to bring back reality as well as produce fakery. When you say post processing removes reality that is a general statement that is most times not true.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bison Bud wrote:

Today's "Photography" is really just "Graphic Arts" with a camera as the starting point. However, many will take real offense to that statement.

You'd be surprised by how many of us don't lose sleep over which cubbyhole some want to stuff us. We just appreciate the pleasure of our hobby and happily hang out with our peeps 😇

.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

DAN Phillips wrote:

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.

Cameras do not capture "reality." Our brains are always selecting what we "see."

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

Now, to the

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[/quote]
---------------------------‐------

Very well said Bob.

I fully agree with your philosophy in that it has come to the point where you have individuals who have talent and you have individuals who push a button and wish they had talent.

Many times, I see photographs on Facebook, and on different sites and the presenters of these photographs, and you know they have been created in something like Photoshop or Luminar, and they are posted without explanations.... just to get their.... ooohs and ahs with accolades of how wonderful their photograph is... And what a talented person they are.......

As you indicated, it is a substitution of pushing a button in place of someone having talent but, the individual is willing to accept the accolades as if they did have talent, and that they have true skills in the art of photography... That is just what irks the heck out of me...

In reality, it is not talent as a photographer but, it is actually talent in the ability to use the software and push the right buttons to make people think you captured a unique moment in time, when they, actually in fact, actually created "a fantasy" of something NOT in time....

Yes, the "Preception" of photography has changed....

I do agree, that in the commercial arena, there are times when software and different types of created tivity are necessary to produce financial results.

But, what I dislike is the fact that people are willing to take praise and accolades based upon fake talents and pushing buttons..

Many years ago, I used to be in the diamond jewelry business. And as a merchant, you would never ever sell or present an Altered diamond to a customer without full disclosure. That would have been fraudulent and a complete improper business practice.

In the same light, it would be unthinkable today in the art world to present a fake piece of art as if it was real and expect your client to pay full retail price. Again this is fraudulent and it would be a complete improper business practice. Not to mention the fact app, in the art world you might go to jail...

But in the amateur and uncommercial world of "Photography", it is normal, fair game for anyone to create their fake, false, graphic images and it's OK for somebody to let individuals believe that they are truelly, unique, splendid, moments in time that have been captured by a "Talented Photographer" when that is not the case.

OK,,,, I will get off my soapbox. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if they want to be a button pusher, they have that right to do that.

You but, that is the way I see it.....

Cheers
GeoVz
####

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

To GeoVZ: Amen and Amen!