Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What happened to photography?
Page <<first <prev 5 of 15 next> last>>
Sep 30, 2017 10:02:32   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
I can empathize with the OP. Modern digital cameras offer way more technology than is necessary to get from Point A to Point B but they can't replace the photographer's subjective input. I only use those tools that are necessary to get the pictures that I like, maybe 20% of what's available. But that's just me.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:05:44   #
Dalek Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown
 
I cut my own grass but I am not a gardener
I grow my own orchids but I am not a horticulturalist
I trim my own trees but I am not an arborist
I fixed my toilet but I am not a plumber
I built a rock wall but I am not a mason
I drive a 380 hp sports car but am not a race car driver
I take pictures and print digitally but I am not a photographer
So what am I, a tinkerer to some a master of none

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:08:08   #
ecurb1105
 
swamp shutter wrote:
When i first became interested in photography there was nothing but film, back then you learned quickly to do a better job of taking your shots because after turning in your film to be developed you had to pay for your bad shots as well as your good ones. That made me a lot more careful about how i composed my shots. I remember when digital cameras first came out and the comment that a professional photographer made that digital was kind of like cheating and the more i think about it the more i agree with him. I'm not a professional photographer by any means but i do understand talent. Iv'e shot film most of my life until recently when i bought a digital camera because of the increasing hassle of finding film and getting it developed. I sent my old 35mm rebel xs off to be cleaned just before hurricane Erma and when it looked like it had been lost in the mail i honestly wished it was my new rebel t6 but luckily i got my film camera back. I read a post on here about someone wanting to know how to post photos on uhh and after reading all the things about reducing and cropping and all the other computerized language i wonder if the photos will still be of the same subject that was photographed in the first place. Is anyone a real photographer anymore? I've hesitated about posting any of my photos here because of what i considered to be superior photos being posted but now i wonder how many are just computerized images. Sorry for ranting. Swamp
When i first became interested in photography ther... (show quote)


Back in my film days, we used to say you weren't a real Photographer unless you processed and printed your own images. That was hogwash then as is your ideas on digital photography.

Reply
 
 
Sep 30, 2017 10:19:16   #
tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana
 
kymarto wrote:
The only thing that counts is the image, not how you got there.


Absolutely! Van Gogh had a vision for his art that no one of his time shared - the only painting he ever sold during his life was to his brother Theo so he could make rent. Now, we recognize the genius and vision of this great artist. He could have painted with the best brushes and paints, or the cheapest stuff on the market, but the results speak for themselves and no one remembers if he used a camel hair or horse hair brush.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:21:56   #
wapiti Loc: round rock, texas
 
IMO, most of the bitching about "manipulating" images comes from people who don't want to: [a] spend the money to acquire the software to do so, or [b] spend the time and effort to become proficient at it.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:30:00   #
JeremyVan
 
[quote=wapiti]IMO, most of the bitching about "manipulating" images comes from people who don't want to: [a] spend the money to acquire the software to do so, or [b] spend the time and effort to become proficient at it.[/quote]

Some of the complaining about manipulating has to do with compositions where somone shoots a sky then adds birds and maybe some more clouds then puts it over a photo of a lake then adds a boat and on and on. Basicly building a whole photo. Vs taking a photo and color correcting and adjusting exposure and all that stuff.

I think taking a photo and adjusting it in Lightroom or photoshop is photography when you start adding and removing things In the photo your getting into graphic design. Both are fine but they are not the same.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:39:26   #
karno Loc: Chico ,California
 
swamp shutter wrote:
When i first became interested in photography there was nothing but film, back then you learned quickly to do a better job of taking your shots because after turning in your film to be developed you had to pay for your bad shots as well as your good ones. That made me a lot more careful about how i composed my shots. I remember when digital cameras first came out and the comment that a professional photographer made that digital was kind of like cheating and the more i think about it the more i agree with him. I'm not a professional photographer by any means but i do understand talent. Iv'e shot film most of my life until recently when i bought a digital camera because of the increasing hassle of finding film and getting it developed. I sent my old 35mm rebel xs off to be cleaned just before hurricane Erma and when it looked like it had been lost in the mail i honestly wished it was my new rebel t6 but luckily i got my film camera back. I read a post on here about someone wanting to know how to post photos on uhh and after reading all the things about reducing and cropping and all the other computerized language i wonder if the photos will still be of the same subject that was photographed in the first place. Is anyone a real photographer anymore? I've hesitated about posting any of my photos here because of what i considered to be superior photos being posted but now i wonder how many are just computerized images. Sorry for ranting. Swamp
When i first became interested in photography ther... (show quote)

A so called real photographer using film
Would develope his or her own film!!!
Why do you not develope your own film?
How else are you going to get the images to come out right unless you manipulate your own development and expose for shadows and develop for highlights, in we digital we expose for highlights and develop for shadows.
Loved film in the past love digital now, a real photographer adapts or uses film and does not try to reduce everyone else's ability for their own shortcomings??

Reply
 
 
Sep 30, 2017 10:43:30   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
JeremyVan wrote:
Some of the complaining about manipulating has to do with compositions where somone shoots a sky then adds birds and maybe some more clouds then puts it over a photo of a lake then adds a boat and on and on. Basicly building a whole photo. Vs taking a photo and color correcting and adjusting exposure and all that stuff.

I think taking a photo and adjusting it in Lightroom or photoshop is photography when you start adding and removing things In the photo your getting into graphic design. Both are fine but they are not the same.
Some of the complaining about manipulating has to ... (show quote)


Photographers have been adding or removing things from photographs virtually since photography was invented. It was more difficult to do in the darkroom than it is now on a computer, but it has always been a part of photography.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:48:15   #
JeremyVan
 
So you don't see any difference in a photo that is made from 100 different images vs a photo that's one image and developed or processed?

I do both but see a clear difference.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:50:54   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
BHC wrote:
To whom are you addressing your comments? Please use “Ouote Reply.”


Sorry, I thought I did. One would speculate if quote reply not used, the response it intended for the OP.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:52:20   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
JeremyVan wrote:
So you don't see any difference in a photo that is made from 100 different images vs a photo that's one image and developed or processed?

I do both but see a clear difference.


Without using "quote reply" no one knows what the hell you're responding to.

Reply
 
 
Sep 30, 2017 10:52:29   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
JeremyVan wrote:
So you don't see any difference in a photo that is made from 100 different images vs a photo that's one image and developed or processed?

I do both but see a clear difference.


There are many different types of photography, but they are all still photography.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:57:02   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
rcdovala wrote:
If you've ever seen any of Ansel's darkroom notes for dodging and burning during exposure you would understand that he clearly believed in manipulation.


Very much so!

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 10:59:02   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
leftj wrote:
Without using "quote reply" no one knows what the hell you're responding to.


We all know what the response is to; I believe you meant WHO the response is to.

Reply
Sep 30, 2017 11:04:46   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
We all know what the response is to; I believe you meant WHO the response is to.


No, I meant WHAT. A statement or a post is not a WHO.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 15 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.