Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Do "purists" edit their photos?
Nov 10, 2012 15:02:02 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
One of the greatest photo mags was Life. It employed the greatest photographers of the day. They post processed everything.
In short, IMO the guy who made the statement is full on not only himself but of hooey too!
In short, IMO the guy who made the statement is full on not only himself but of hooey too!
Nov 10, 2012 15:04:21 #
Hogwash. The discussion depends on the word "purist" in relation to the practice of photography. I found a couple of definitions online: (1) One who practices or urges strict correctness; and (2) a person who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition.
Wikipedia says this: A purist is one who desires that an item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences. The term may be used in almost any field, and can be applied either to the self or to others. Use of the term may be either pejorative or complimentary, depending on the context. Because the appellation depends on subjective notions of what is "pure" as opposed to "adulterating" as applied to any particular item, conflict can arise both as to whether a person so labeled is actually a purist and as to whether that is desirable.
Your "outstanding bird photographer" thus likely means he take pictures that successfully meet his criteria for such picture-taking. He has self-defined himself as a "purist."
Your description of his activity further suggests he places himself above other photographers who edit their pictures for improved results. On the contrary, the history of photography informs us that photographers do edit their images. Your friend sets himself outside this tradition.
In reading the autobiography of Ansel Adams, I learned the full practice of photography includes editing-like decisions, contemplation of the image, and technical concerns, along with a consideration of the images intention even before pressing the shutter button. In addition, Ansel Adams sometimes worked on an image over a period of weeks. Then he returned to some images years later to develop them anew.
He did straight photography, meaning he used only photographic techniques to produce his images. Others, who go beyond this sphere employ a variety of editing techniques.
For my part, I take pictures with the object of capturing and reproducing the actuality I perceive. The camera, lens, and software can never know how I saw a given scene. Hence, I must edit my images to match my view.
Wikipedia says this: A purist is one who desires that an item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences. The term may be used in almost any field, and can be applied either to the self or to others. Use of the term may be either pejorative or complimentary, depending on the context. Because the appellation depends on subjective notions of what is "pure" as opposed to "adulterating" as applied to any particular item, conflict can arise both as to whether a person so labeled is actually a purist and as to whether that is desirable.
Your "outstanding bird photographer" thus likely means he take pictures that successfully meet his criteria for such picture-taking. He has self-defined himself as a "purist."
Your description of his activity further suggests he places himself above other photographers who edit their pictures for improved results. On the contrary, the history of photography informs us that photographers do edit their images. Your friend sets himself outside this tradition.
In reading the autobiography of Ansel Adams, I learned the full practice of photography includes editing-like decisions, contemplation of the image, and technical concerns, along with a consideration of the images intention even before pressing the shutter button. In addition, Ansel Adams sometimes worked on an image over a period of weeks. Then he returned to some images years later to develop them anew.
He did straight photography, meaning he used only photographic techniques to produce his images. Others, who go beyond this sphere employ a variety of editing techniques.
For my part, I take pictures with the object of capturing and reproducing the actuality I perceive. The camera, lens, and software can never know how I saw a given scene. Hence, I must edit my images to match my view.
daf40 wrote:
I was talking with a friend yesterday-- an outstanding bird photographer-- and found out that he is a "purist". He doesn't believe in photo editing. His attitude is that "I'm an excellent photographer with excellent equipment, and I know how to use it. If I can't get the photograph right with my camera, I should look for another hobby. I don't believe in computer editing." What do the rest of you excellent photographers think?
Entry Devotion Area, Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico
Nov 10, 2012 15:09:05 #
Every depiction of the real world is an illusion, a chimera, a fake.
Nobody has ever seen a photograph or video or representative painting that bore anything like a passing resemblance to the original scene.
All the picture-taker is attempting to do is to produce a final product which matches his expectations. Talking of truth and purity is pretentious claptrap which is only ballast on a ship that sailed years ago.
Get out there, take pictures, process them as you will and share them around. It's all about enjoyment.
I can get as much criticism and abuse at work as I need to keep me going for a while!!!!
Nobody has ever seen a photograph or video or representative painting that bore anything like a passing resemblance to the original scene.
All the picture-taker is attempting to do is to produce a final product which matches his expectations. Talking of truth and purity is pretentious claptrap which is only ballast on a ship that sailed years ago.
Get out there, take pictures, process them as you will and share them around. It's all about enjoyment.
I can get as much criticism and abuse at work as I need to keep me going for a while!!!!
Nov 10, 2012 15:11:51 #
Whether you don't edit or over edit, what's the difference? Digital cameras do some type of editing/enhancement and the photographer does at least do cropping and other minimal manipulations. If he/she is happy with the results and so are clients, if the photographer has them, that's all that matters. The friend actually sounds like an old chrome/slide shooter that didn't typically print the slide. Again, to each their own.
Nov 10, 2012 15:21:55 #
I haven't read all the comments Re this post so maybe this has been asked before: Is your pal on the board of the Flat Earth Society?
Nov 10, 2012 15:27:53 #
Wow, I got to the Hog late today- eight pages and so many passionate answers so quickly- must be be a record! Why wouldn't someone want to make his photographs better? PP is as much a part of the art of photography as developing the image and making the print was in the days of film. Only a little or a lot of effort may be required to make the final print as perfect as possible in the eyes of the photographer and hopefully others.
Nov 10, 2012 15:36:18 #
Nikonista wrote:
Every depiction of the real world is an illusion, ... (show quote)
I agree and well stated. :thumbup:
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Nov 10, 2012 15:39:06 #
daf40 wrote:
I was talking with a friend yesterday-- an outstanding bird photographer-- and found out that he is a "purist". He doesn't believe in photo editing. His attitude is that "I'm an excellent photographer with excellent equipment, and I know how to use it. If I can't get the photograph right with my camera, I should look for another hobby. I don't believe in computer editing." What do the rest of you excellent photographers think?
what is his success rate ?
ie everyshot or 1 in 500
Nov 10, 2012 15:42:25 #
I agree with Bmac just get out there and Shoot , the finished product is up to you ( your interpretation ) if it pleases you edited or not .. enjoy , there are no hard and fast rules !
Nov 10, 2012 15:45:04 #
Nov 10, 2012 15:57:04 #
'What do the rest of you excellent photographers think?' asked the original poster.
I think this should be the last time we have to deal with this question. Pass it on.
I think this should be the last time we have to deal with this question. Pass it on.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Nov 10, 2012 16:18:38 #
suehutchins wrote:
'What do the rest of you excellent photographers think?' asked the original poster.
I think this should be the last time we have to deal with this question. Pass it on.
I think this should be the last time we have to deal with this question. Pass it on.
:thumbup: :thumbup: It will be for me!
Nov 10, 2012 16:32:02 #
You can 'take' a picture or you 'make' a picture. I just don't like when people 'make' a picture and try and tell people very little has done when it fact lots has been done. Own up to your skills, we are all on different levels and nothing wrong with that . If you like what you see then who cares !
Nov 10, 2012 16:44:57 #
daf40 wrote:
I was talking with a friend yesterday-- an outstanding bird photographer-- and found out that he is a "purist". He doesn't believe in photo editing. His attitude is that "I'm an excellent photographer with excellent equipment, and I know how to use it. If I can't get the photograph right with my camera, I should look for another hobby. I don't believe in computer editing." What do the rest of you excellent photographers think?
I stated much the same, early on, and got beat up rather severely by the PS/PP snobs. Thanks---I am constantly praising those who believe their eye, ability and camera to do 99% of the "work".
Case In Point
Nov 10, 2012 17:00:19 #
washy
Loc: Dorset UK
If he is shooting in "raw" he has to use software to develope his photos and if he is shooting as Jpegs then he is losing lots of detail in his photos
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.