docjoque Loc: SoCal

JohnSwanda for President!

docjoque Loc: SoCal

Apaflo for Vice President!

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

This is really a, give the customer what he wants for his cash.

These adjustments are like buying an old Model T. They didn't have heaters, automatic wiper, or even a new fangled gas gauge. Hell, those people who did buy back then would say, if it is not necessary for the running of the vehicle, I'm not spending cash for it. Try and find someone today that would buy a 2014 car without any of these new fangled inventions radios, GPS, seat warmers....

Another way to look at it, have one of the Great Master Painters e.g. Renoir see the different paintings styles of today e.g. Impressionist, Pop Art or any of the styles that are available today for auction, would he like or understand the reasoning behind it? Fact is they all fetch millions of dollars from buyers. We are back to receiving cash from the buyer for a finished product that he wants.

It called progress, and those who don't accept progress are left behind. But it is their choice of what to accept, there is no, do it my way committee. Trying to hold back the waters of a dam (Little Dutch Boy)with fingers are limited to ten holes, but even at ten, you are limited to the area you can cover. There are many behind that dam wanting to whiten teeth.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I used Ansel Adams as an example because he is widely considered to be one of the great photographers in the history of photography; he did heavily manipulate his photographs, and they didn't look like "real life." If someone is going to say that photographs that use digital manipulation so they don't look like "real life" aren't photographs any more, they have to say Ansel Adams wasn't a photographer.

MtnMan Loc: ID

We likely share a dislike for stuff by people like Picasso as well.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

If the photographer is actually laying out a price list showing base pic no changes and then a laundry list of ad ons like teethe whitening, zit removal, etc etc. then they are simply greedy so-in-so's. I liken them to ala carte restaurants that charge for each vegetable.

If the photographer is simply listing what he/she does to justify the price then fine.

If the overweight consumer wants a picture that makes them look unrealistically leaner I don't really care. It's not about the photographers values but the consumer. The deception will eventually catch up and they look foolish. Even on match.com they will eventually meet and see the deception.

In a nutshell I don'[t really care.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

As far back as the '50's. No charge.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I'm not sure of your meaning - I cannot see the hyperbole - unless Adams is your hero?

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Most of my photo's take between 1/30th and 1/2000th of a second to take. I did take some "light paintings" once that took 15 seconds, so 20 seconds can be a long, long time :-) .

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

They are most likely quoting a price to attract business, then up-selling once they get something the customer wants to recover the low initial quote. Akin to a sitting fee, then charging exorbitant prices for additional prints. . Once established and have customers seeking them out, , they will include it in the price rather then deal with upset customers. Meanwhile, its just someone trying to make a living in a highly competitive environment.

Kodak spent millions developing the most accurate film in the industry, to this end they kicked butt!- they ran ads titled "Your True Colors" I can sing the tune!... Then Fuji Velvia came out with pumped up colors and unrealistic hues... but the final output was pretty- was anything but "True Colors" and they kicked Kodak's butt almost out of business- (before digital finished them all off). I imagine if a portrait painter, back when that was the only way to records ones image, painted realistic but unflattering images, they would be begging at the poor house. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In the real commercial world, producing a product people will purchase so you can in turn, feed your family, is your first and only obligation, making "purist" amateurs who take photos no one will ever see or ever want to buy, is not.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I guess I don't get the OP. Why would a photographer choose to avoid making the subject(s) as flattering as possible without degrading the image(s)?

ZappaMan Loc: Williamsport, MD

Actually....it doesn't even need a lens to be a photograph since pinhole camera's make photographs too.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

agree; good words;

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Artist's like Picasso take some work to appreciate, not work while standing in front of the painting, but work in understanding in what he/they ware intending to accomplish. Know that Picasso could paint like DaVinci... but that wasn't what he wanted to do.

Modern art is a puzzle of sorts, or a whole play, meant to be seen in person- not in a book. Their effect is designed, sometimes by weight, or size, or colors-as they were created, intended to be seen in person...like seeing Starwars in a theater rather then on a phone... or a Stones concert in person rather then on the tube... or a Broadway play... ON BROADWAY-- anywhere else and you don't get the effect. That being said, a lot of modern art is crap.

Once you understand and know what you are looking at, you can then judge if he was successful or not, You don't have to like it. Sometimes they don't want you to like it. But you get to interact/challenge with the paintings in a gallery, rather then stride through. I like Ansel Adams' work much more when I know the story of how he waited, etc. etc. how he experimented, how he printed.

Below is a movie that may not make you like his work, but will allow you to make the decision based on knowledge. Understanding the story behind and around his painting Guernica was the epiphany for me. It is as big as a billboard, and makes your feel the horror of the story better then any photo ever could. It is a whole play in one frame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNC92dP_RRc
Guernica is at 39:00 or so- but best to watch the whole thing. (Next to the gas chambers, Guernica is arguably one of the worst atrocities the Nazis ever did- and Picasso captured it in perfection)

Between you and I, I don't have any of his prints hanging on my walls, but I appreciate it and thoroughly enjoy looking at them in museums as they are meant to be experienced- after knowing the story.


For what it is worth- ;0)

coyotecall Loc: New Mexico

If, as a photographer, I decide to also consider myself an artist then I will interpret what I shoot in any way I choose. It is not my "job" to render reality in order to please. Ask that of any impressionist painter and he or she will wonder about your sanity. Tell a poet that he or she must only create an absolutely correct version of what "is" and they will cease to write poetry. I was once told that I could only enter my photography in a showing if all of it was framed in "photo frames". I responded that if photography was to also be considered as "fine art" then the framing was a part of that presentation. I had to choose not to participate in that mind set. Each of us can decide to be as rigid about what we do as our personalities demand.....or as free.