What happened to photography?
Sep 30, 2017 13:07:14 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
burkphoto wrote:
I was able to get the sort of images I would NEVER have been able to capture with film. Here is one that I made hand-held, of a character illuminated by just a FLASHLIGHT:
.
I was able to get the sort of images I would NEVER have been able to capture with film. Here is one that I made hand-held, of a character illuminated by just a FLASHLIGHT:
.
Agree completely. I hear this argument every weekend at art shows. Everybody grouses about this one until I tell them that the blue light is me walking the entire labyrinth with a strong flashlight.
Sep 30, 2017 13:10:18 #
charles tabb wrote:
No, Photoshop & etc. got so good that a person can go too far if they want to. and create things that couldn't exist.
I've seen it go that far to many times.
I've seen it go that far to many times.
I can understand your point Charles, but artists have been doing this for as long as there has been art. Take surrealism (say, Salvador Dali) - not much in a Surrealist painting "exists" as we know it. Or Cubism - took me a long time to understand it (I'm not an arts major...), but now I can at least appreciate it. My favorite style is Impressionism, but even there the best created things that didn't exist - take Renoir, who may be one of the most straightforward of the group: if you had taken a picture of what he saw when he actually started painting a scene or subject, it would look completely different than the piece he produced. In science fiction, the writers create things that clearly didn't exist at the time, yet the best of them help us think about the world differently.
Is there junk out there? Of course. Do they sometimes go too far. Yes. Do you have to like it? No. But, as the poet William Blake wrote, "you never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough."
So, I'm happy folks are pushing boundaries - that's the way we progress.
Sep 30, 2017 13:10:48 #
wapiti wrote:
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.
Or do not want to manipulate the image.
Some of us simply want to record reality unchanged; you should be equally free to create whatever
(a) I do have gimp {free}, and I am proficient in using it, despite all the complaints about it.
(b) I am capable of learning any software.
In my working years I wrote software, authored tutorials, and taught "Computer Literacy" to basic students
Today's literacy lesson: using square brackets here is unwise because it may confuse the software displaying your post, and will definitely interfere with any attempt to quote your words
Sep 30, 2017 13:18:02 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
You agree that digital is "cheating". That says it all.
Go quietly back to the Swamp.
Go quietly back to the Swamp.
Agree, we have been cheating in the dark room for years or is it enhancing?
Sep 30, 2017 13:27:16 #
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.
And he was a master of manipulation to achieve what he saw, I loved this video when I first saw it and I still do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxLCCZH6LOs
Sep 30, 2017 13:28:11 #
rehess wrote:
Or do not u want /u to manipulate the image. br ... (show quote)
If you are shooting on a digital camera you are never capturing an image unchanged. The software in the camera choses how to develop your photo for you. If your happy with what it decides then that is great for you. Some people are not happy with how it decided to develop the photo and would rather make those decisions.
Sep 30, 2017 13:32:48 #
After 8 pages I reread the title of the thread. The answer is actually pretty obvious.
It Progressed
--
It Progressed
--
Sep 30, 2017 13:34:43 #
leftj wrote:
No, I meant WHAT. A statement or a post is not a WHO.
A quoted reply is a statement to someone not to something, it is to someone about something. The something in this case was the OP'S rant on his or her feelings on the past and present state of photography and the effects digital has had on, in their opinion, ruining it. My response was directed at the OP and I thought I tapped quote reply but I was posting from a Samsung tablet and sometimes the touch screen isn't as accurate as expected. My point in continuing this branch of the conversation is, some members make a habit of reminding others to use quote reply. I have been a member long enough to know what quote reply is and I really did believe that is the virtual button I tapped. I also have been a member long enough to recognize when a response is meant for the OP, as mine was.
I apologize if I have offended you in any way as that was not my intention and I understand if you feel the necessity to block me. Personally I block no one. Please have a pleasant day.
Sep 30, 2017 13:35:58 #
JeremyVan wrote:
If you are shooting on a digital camera you are never capturing an image unchanged. The software in the camera choses how to develop your photo for you. If your happy with what it decides then that is great for you. Some people are not happy with how it decided to develop the photo and would rather make those decisions.
Now wait! That is not a true statement. All cameras 'change images' depending upon the recording medium and lens used. Digital does not necessarily do any more than that when recording raw data formats. JPEG images may impose camera preset 'developing' styles, but they are not final if using raw format files, raw captures what the camera sees, just as film does, and with film it still depends on the choice of film and development techniques.
The only really correct answer is that "It depends..."
Sep 30, 2017 13:50:08 #
JeremyVan wrote:
If you are shooting on a digital camera you are never capturing an image unchanged. The software in the camera choses how to develop your photo for you. If your happy with what it decides then that is great for you. Some people are not happy with how it decided to develop the photo and would rather make those decisions.
That is great for them, as I indicated with my words "you should be equally free to create whatever", but they should not rain down judgemental words, such as those I was responding to, on those of us who choose to depend on consistent automation, just as I did when I used Kodachrome.
Sep 30, 2017 13:51:45 #
jrh1354
Loc: Dayton, Ohio
KHy wrote:
Years ago, one of the recommendations I gave stude... (show quote)
Well put - couldn't agree more.
Sep 30, 2017 14:05:32 #
As I said, there are photographers and there are photo artists.
Oil, watercolor, sculpture are all art, but they are interpretations of the real.
Photography shoots the real.
To make it look like something that couldn't exist is a different thing.
I agree that to use programs to make something beautiful is great, but to go beyond what looks real is not true photography, but art.
I admit that I use software to enhance a picture to what I actually saw, is what I strive for.
Also I might adjust my camera speed to make water look a little better but, there are limits.
Oil, watercolor, sculpture are all art, but they are interpretations of the real.
Photography shoots the real.
To make it look like something that couldn't exist is a different thing.
I agree that to use programs to make something beautiful is great, but to go beyond what looks real is not true photography, but art.
I admit that I use software to enhance a picture to what I actually saw, is what I strive for.
Also I might adjust my camera speed to make water look a little better but, there are limits.
Sep 30, 2017 14:08:30 #
charles tabb wrote:
As I said, there are photographers and there are p... (show quote)
Photography selects from the real, but the act of selection changes each person's recollection or impression of real. It is more complicated than you imply. The act of selection changes much, regardless of the medium used to express it.
Sep 30, 2017 14:23:19 #
Hello to Everyone who commented. I think the important thing here is to be willing to accept more than one's own point of view. Just as when the question is asked "what's better, Nikon or Canon?" there is really no one correct answer. I don't think "Swamp" is claiming to be a pro, but is looking at the days when we brought our film to a photo processor, and had to accept the outcome. I understand his perspective, and I also understand the "digital" perspective, having switched to digital myself. Best to all. JR
Sep 30, 2017 14:24:38 #
JeremyVan wrote:
If you are shooting on a digital camera you are never capturing an image unchanged. The software in the camera choses how to develop your photo for you. If your happy with what it decides then that is great for you. Some people are not happy with how it decided to develop the photo and would rather make those decisions.
Does your camera not have settings that you can use to determine, to a small degree, how the image will be developed? I don't know of a single digital camera (from cellphones to full frame) that has the power to decide anything. . .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.