A Photographer

Lone Rider

What is the currently accepted definition?
Has this definition changed? If so, in what ways?

Is the Photoshop tide so great that it's overtaken the beaches and all other lands? Does a caretaker or someone in the the lighthouse still have their place?

The compass and map has given way to GPS. No need for serious thought.

What is photograhy today?
If the light sucks, you can fix it, no problem, no worries.
If the scene needs something added, just add it with some mouse clicks, and no worries.
If the baby isn't perfect, make him or her perfect...again, with some clicks.

This strong trend towards graphics software becoming more important that the actual photographs makes me want to heave huge chunks of nasty stuff. There wasn't room for an 11th on the tablets Moses brought down, but this should have been one: It's what you've caputured now, real life, not how it can be changed later into a lie.

What makes a photographer?

kdog

Lone Rider wrote:

What makes a photographer?

You are a photographer if you take pictures. If you manipulate the pictures that you take significantly, then you're a graphic artist as well as a photographer.

Hope that helps.
-joel

Art Scott

asking for a definition of 'photographer' is like asking for a definition of sand....because it has to be broken down into all of its types and subs......Photography is the weilding of a camera to capture someting on a media...used to be film or paper (in the case of pinhole cameras).....

Still photoshop can not truly fix all problems....you can't mis-fire and shoot your shoes and just with the help of PS turn it into a beautiful photographic portrait of ......let's say.....the most beloved person in your family ...... not with just PS alone........

You see it still takes the skills and knowledge to know what and how to shoot the subject as well as the proper tools for the job......

Too me, and I presume, many of our esteemed collegues on this forum....PS is just their digital DARKROOM and that is it.....for some it is actually the pant and brushes and pens and pencils to take the photo and sorta use it as a paint by number picture and make it look like a painting....or maybe they justdo that to the portraits that are a truly great pose but maybe the shot was a bit soft and this at least saves the file from the trash bin....

PS is still just a tool to get the end product of your liking and choice......
In many cases now Lightroom is the actual darkroom (at least for me) and photoshop is just an extension......if CS4 is done well enuff, then LR 2 could be the end of the need for it and the next CS (5) could totally incorporate it all perfectly well......but as money hunger as these software companies are and as guilable as the american public is they could drop another version of LR and PS in the next 6 months and we, the public would be all over it like flys to fresh cut fruit.....................................:D

Tim Kamppinen

Lone Rider wrote:

It's what you've caputured now, real life, not how it can be changed later into a lie.

Since when has photography been about capturing real life? This narrow definition only applies to photojournalism in my opinion. I want my photos to look better than real life--more interesting, more focused, having more of a discernable message and meaning. This is nothing new, or particular to the digital age. Even before digital (and today if you still shoot film) photography was always about manipulating the raw materials to present your own individual vision of reality. This was (and is) done with the basic elements of perspective, lens choice, shutter speed, aperture, film type, speed, distance from subject, lighting, where you point (or don't point) the camera, what you include in the composition, etc, not to mention the things that could be done in the developing process... basically every element of good, traditional photography is a way to manipulate physical reality into a two dimensional image that represents not what was there, but what you wanted to show.

Photoshop and other editing programs are just another tool in the box along with all of these, and despite your suggestion that any fool can make a crappy photo into a masterpiece on his computer, this simply isn't true... you might be able to improve a crappy photo, but you'll never make a thoughtless snapshot into a masterpiece. On the other side, if you do have the skills and vision to create an excellent photo without editing, why would you not want to make it even better if you could? Even if you don't want to, that's your perogative, but why would you ever be angry that other people are out there making the most of every tool at their disposal to create the art that they evision?

Personally, I strive to create the best photo I can in-camera, and then work to perfect it in photoshop. Some shots need almost nothing done to them, and others need hours of work, if I'm trying to get some particular "look"... either way, if I'm satisfied with the end result, who cares how I arrived there? Digital editing can augment, but will never replace good photography; this will probably piss some people off, but rants like this seem to betray a sense of insecurity on the part of their authors, as if they are worried that a bunch of punk kids who haven't "paid their dues" are going to make them obsolete. Relax, if you've got the skills and the vision, you've got nothing to worry about. Do you really think someone with no photographic talent pushing a mouse all day is going to make everyone forget about Ansel Adams? Of course not.

jdryan3

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Do you really think someone with no photographic talent pushing a mouse all day is going to make everyone forget about Ansel Adams? Of course not.

I'm trying to find a link to the quote but Ansel Adams tried to produce photographs of his vision for the scene - not a literal representation of what was there. He did a lot preproduction work, pre-visualizing the image he was going to produce.

Lone Rider wrote:

There wasn't room for an 11th on the tablets Moses brought down

Not according to Mel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk

Tim Kamppinen

jdryan3 wrote:

I'm trying to find a link to the quote but Ansel Adams tried to produce photographs of his vision for the scene - not a literal representation of what was there. He did a lot preproduction work, pre-visualizing the image he was going to produce.

I know, and from what I've read he also did a lot of extra work in the darkroom to achieve these results, ie dodging and burning, etc. The point I was trying to make is that he did it all without a computer or digital editing, and his results would not have been possible without his genius at getting the best possible image to begin with. Likewise, if your photos suck out of camera, you are not going to be able to fabricate masterpieces from them in photoshop.

jdryan3

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

... and his results would not have been possible without his genius at getting the best possible image to begin with.

We're on the same page. I was pointing out that even his stuff was not really what it seemed. As he said:

"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."

"In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular... sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice."

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

But I understand where kdog and Lone Rider are coming from. Where do you draw the line? Or better yet, do we NEED to even draw the line?

Let's give Ansel the last word:

"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art."

Lone Rider

jdryan3 wrote:

...
But I understand where kdog and Lone Rider are coming from. Where do you draw the line? Or better yet, do we NEED to even draw the line?
....

Good questions.
We've seen some thoughts and emotions on this subject.

When I see 'photographs' that are created from more than one real photo, my gut clinches, maybe like the onset of severe rabies. I understand that there are people who worship at the PS altar, and have great command of its capabilities.

"Mommy, what is prehistoric?"
"That was before dinosaurs, Honey."
Mommy, what's a photograph?"
"That was before photoshop, Honey."

Finding that line is the task and question. To rein it in and attempt to define, or not?

This a monster that can consume, and one that has already changed definitions - personal ideals included. There is an old saying about anyone who rides on the back of the tiger, and the tiger always coming back alone.

This is not my forum, but I do appreciate its content.
"Danger, Will Robinson" . . .

Tim Kamppinen

Lone Rider wrote:

When I see 'photographs' that are created from more than one real photo, my gut clinches, maybe like the onset of severe rabies.

Such trickery existed before photoshop... Long before personal computers were even dreamt of--hell, before Edison's lightbulb was invented--Abe Lincoln's head was being pasted onto John C. Calhoun's body. Joseph Stalin had political enemies removed from photographs that he was in. Hitler did the same. Check out this link for the details:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

This stuff isn't even close to being new. Even the layperson was able to make dual exposures on one frame of film, in order to achieve a composite image. Do these images also induce a gut-clenching, rabid response, or are you only allergic to ones and zeros?

Lone Rider

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

.... or are you only allergic to ones and zeros?

Eve bit into an apple, not an orange, but with PS it can look like an orange.

As the graphics programs become even more amazing, will a camera really be necessary?

cmason

Lone Rider wrote:

Eve bit into an apple, not an orange, but with PS it can look like an orange.

As the graphics programs become even more amazing, will a camera really be necessary?

well I can't speak to future technologies, but EVEN if we are able to capture an image from our eyes and somehow transport that 'mind image' into someone else's brain (ie no 'camera'), there is a difference between how the person as artist 'saw' the scene, and how it really looked.

As a photographer, capturing a scene is a small part of 'photography' for me. Unfortunately, I think folks who didn't have the chance to spend an afternoon in the darkroom truly understand this. I also think those very same people think that Photoshop has somehow changed photography. Sure it has changed it in the way the modern car has changed travel vs the model T. It is faster, more comfortable, and more efficient...but you still go from point a to point b. Same for airplanes.

Photoshop offers far more capabilities that is for sure, and perhaps what you are saying is Photoshop put power to manipulate in more hands than were capable before.

I think that photography is an art. As such, the end result is art, not evidence. So what if the artist chooses to replace the apple with an orange? That is the artist prerogative. I suspect you expecting an apple and discovering an orange would generate a response that the artist was hoping for.

Now, if you are worried about photo manipulation for evidence, true that is an issue, but it isn't new, only the bar to accessibility has lowered. Thankfully, there is technology for cameras to aid in this.

In the end I don't think things have changed: a photo is captured by a human, who is capable of grand art as well as treacherous manipulation and deceit. The technology hasn't changed or altered this fact.

Art Scott

Lone Rider wrote:

When I see 'photographs' that are created from more than one real photo, my gut clinches,

As was stated above this was going on waaaay before computers were invented.......I have stacked negs and slides to get to my end vision....one of my favs was the producing of litho negs to stack with positive transparencys to get great effects.....it did cause for extremely long exposures in he darkroom but was very well worth it in the end....

Lone Rider wrote:

Eve bit into an apple, not an orange, but with PS it can look like an orange.

Historical theologians have come to the conclusion that may be a misconception actually...the apple refered to may have been the Pomegranate, which is of the apple family and is supposed to help with knowledge based problems....like ginko helps with memory....:D


As the graphics programs become even more amazing, will a camera really be necessary?

actually it is not the version of the graphics program that constitutes the need for the software to do this but the ability of the graphics artists........I have seen photo realisitic paintings in galleries and I have seen photo realistic art online and in commericials.......not all artists have the ability to do this but a good many of them do.........

see above in bold and italics

DJ-S1

A great photographer who set me free from restrictions and labels was Stieglitz. I once asked him if I should retouch a picture and he said, "I don't care what you do with that negative. You want to spit on it, retouch it, grind it underfoot, whatever... the only thing that really matters is the finished picture. If it's honest, it will look honest. If it's dishonest, you and everybody else can tell." - Arnold Newman

There is a place for untouched reality and a place for artistic interpretations of reality - both are photographs created by photographers. IMO

Tim Kamppinen

Art Scott wrote:

Historical theologians have come to the conclusion that may be a misconception actually...the apple refered to may have been the Pomegranate, which is of the apple family and is supposed to help with knowledge based problems....like ginko helps with memory....:D

Actually, the word apple does not appear in the account, and the text mentions only "the fruit of the tree which was in the midst of the garden" without any specification as to what type of fruit it was. Many scholars believe that the fruit became associated with the apple much later, when the bible was being translated into latin, because the latin word "malum" means both "apple" and "evil" depending on what part of speech it's serving as. Therefore some translators translated the hebrew word for "fruit," which was generic, as "malum" and the association stuck. Later, John Milton depicted the fruit as an apple in Paradise Lost. Although all modern english translations of the bible have corrected this error and simply read "fruit", the apple remains maligned in our culture to this day.

So, maybe it was an orange.

(Thank you for indulging me in this wild tangent.)

Tango

same old debate.

just crazy....

either you have a camera in your hands or you dont.....simple.

kdog

AaronNelson wrote:

same old debate.

just crazy....

either you have a camera in your hands or you dont.....simple.

That's what I said in the very first response to this thread.

Lone Rider

While riding my moto eastbound on I-40 yesterday, bucking the side wind, and trying to work the last bits of a dry, overheated, cheap truckstop burrito out from between my teeth, I thought about the Yeller Pages and what changes might be appropriate:

Photographers - see Imagers and Imaging

Our thoughts on this subject probably fall into three categories:
1- PS is digital Satan
2- Some control over the use of PS is smart
3- PS is orgasmic and The Way

Number 2 being the most broad, of course, and where the unsurity lies. I maintain that if this subject isn't soon considered and addressed by the Mods in this forum, the bird could very well fly its coop. I've never tried to catch a bird in flight, but can imagine all the poop that might rain down while trying to do so.

Pretentious, deceptive, creative, compromising, acceptive and true are dice being played, all knocking against each other in the cup. Shooter out . . .

Nikolai

Yawn..
Go out and shoot!

Tango

Nikolai wrote:

Yawn..
Go out and shoot!

cant, not sure what a photographer is yet....

Tim Kamppinen

Lone Rider wrote:

Pretentious, deceptive, creative, compromising, acceptive and true are dice being played, all knocking against each other in the cup.

Finally, we agree! There are plenty of "pretentious dice" being rolled in this thread...

jdryan3

:nono Play nice Tim, Play nice

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Finally, we agree! There are plenty of "pretentious dice" being rolled in this thread...

xris

Nikolai wrote:

Yawn..
Go out and shoot!

xris

And, for those who insist, here's the current....

Wiki def.