Does pre/post techniques make an individual more or less a photographer?

Memory

I'm just getting into photography and I have a burning question and was wondering what others thought.

In the age of digital photography, does the ability to utilize post techniques via computer make an individual any less a photographer or have we just extended the darkroom techniques of the past to the digital age?

I guess from my perspective a photographer is an individual that can capture the true essence and beauty of a particular moment in time no matter if it is done directly through the lens of a camera or utilizing post production methods.

Would appreciate other thoughts?

Blackwood

I believe your statement "we have just extended the darkroom techniques of the past to the digital age" is fairly accurate.

I still develop film and print photos 'the old fashioned' way, and I see a great deal of continuity between that and digital treatments.

If I have dense or thin negatives, I have filters I put in the enlarger. I can dial in contrast. I can burn and dodge. Can I make changes that dramatically alter the image? Not as much. But the basics are the same, and I think it's the basics that most photographers use programs like Photoshop for.

I also agree with your 'perspective.' In my words: it's the end result that matters, not the process of getting there.

J.T.

Blackwood wrote:

I believe your statement "we have just extended the darkroom techniques of the past to the digital age" is fairly accurate.

I still develop film and print photos 'the old fashioned' way, and I see a great deal of continuity between that and digital treatments.

If I have dense or thin negatives, I have filters I put in the enlarger. I can dial in contrast. I can burn and dodge. Can I make changes that dramatically alter the image? Not as much. But the basics are the same, and I think it's the basics that most photographers use programs like Photoshop for.

I also agree with your 'perspective.' In my words: it's the end result that matters, not the process of getting there.

I have to agree also that some of the software that is available now for digital photography IS similar to what you could do for film/negatives in a different format. But I also truly believe though that one should attempt to photograph your subject as you see it and how you want that particular moment remembered by as best you can without having to post-process the heck out of it. If you can shoot and try to make the image as close to perfect as possible the way you want it remembered, then go back later and make minor adjustments as you seem fit. There is so much software out there today that you can practically make any image look any way you want, and in the end, have a totally fake, but possibly an artistic image that was totally photoshopped, etc.

My two cents ...

Scott_Quier

with above. Take, as example, Ansel Adams. How many times did he take a given negative back into the darkroom because he had learned/discovered different techniques to print. That's just another step in the process from photons to paper print. To my mind, the digital darkroom is not different. It's just one more tool used to create that which the artist/photographer first saw.

colourbox

Yeah, digital is just an extension of what has always been done. There is no shame in being digital unless you are trying to make photos that scream "Look, it's digital!" Ansel Adams was an extremely technical guy (read his books, they're full of math and graphs) and some of his contemporaries have said he would have totally immersed himself in digital tools if they had been available.

eL eSs Vee

Memory wrote:

I guess from my perspective a photographer is an individual that can capture the true essence and beauty of a particular moment in time no matter if it is done directly through the lens of a camera or utilizing post production methods.

I agree, and would add:

There is nothing a camera or (virtual) darkroom can do to diminish or enhance a photograph: It's all in how the photographer works with them. The camera and the computer (or darkroom) are merely the tools a photographer uses to pull an image out of his imagination (however actual it may be) and bring it into reality to share with others (or not).

My previous signature line read thus: "The camera never lies; but the photographer, hairstylist and make-up artist can certainly bend the truth."

A photographer can build an image before exposure, capture it within the camera, and then manipulate it in post processing, but he doesn't need all three - he could just capture it and print it. However he creates his image, the ends most certainly justify the means.

NikonsandVstroms

colourbox wrote:

Yeah, digital is just an extension of what has always been done. There is no shame in being digital unless you are trying to make photos that scream "Look, it's digital!" Ansel Adams was an extremely technical guy (read his books, they're full of math and graphs) and some of his contemporaries have said he would have totally immersed himself in digital tools if they had been available.

I'm reliving zone system nightmares reading this post. But I have to say, the healing brush is a lot better than dabbin a print for way too long to fix a scratch in the film or a bit of dust

ziggy53

In the context of "photojournalism" there are indeed limits to how far a photographer can alter the original captured image and most publishers are not vague about where those limits are.

In the world of "fine art" photography, the photographer can be much more free to manipulate and even alter elements within the scene.

Photography used for advertising and marketing regularly push the limits of reality and, it seems, pretty much anything goes.

pathfinder

ziggy53 wrote:

In the context of "photojournalism" there are indeed limits to how far a photographer can alter the original captured image and most publishers are not vague about where those limits are.

In the world of "fine art" photography, the photographer can be much more free to manipulate and even alter elements within the scene.

Photography used for advertising and marketing regularly push the limits of reality and, it seems, pretty much anything goes.

My son, Chris, who shoots for the indiana Daily Student newspaper in Bloomington, says he cannot even do a curve edit on an image because of the requirements of journalism ethics. I am not sure I buy this, even when folks shot film, they could say how long, or short, they kept the film in the soup before hitting the stop bath. How is developing time control of contrast different than a curve in Photoshop??

As for post-processing -- Sometimes, I know, when I press the shutter, that the shot is going to go to B&W for a print. Not always, but I am getting better at anticipating what I plan to do with the shot later at the computer. In other words, my editing is not done after the fact so much as anticipated at the time of exposure. This allows one to shoot better because you know better what you need at the beginning.

I think both skills are needed today for modern photographers - a good eye, good camera technique and skills, and an understanding of post editing, and preparing a photograph for printing.

Moogle Pepper

pathfinder wrote:

My son, Chris, who shoots for the indiana Daily Student newspaper in Bloomington, says he cannot even do a curve edit on an image because of the requirements of journalism ethics. I am not sure I buy this, even when folks shot film, they could say how long, or short, they kept the film in the soup before hitting the stop bath. How is developing time control of contrast different than a curve in Photoshop??

What about if there is dust marks on the print? Is that allowed to be edited for that kinda photo work?

erson83

If you like the final product, or the customer likes the final product and you have created a piece that will bring joy and beauty to the lives of others-who cares how ya got there!

Halliday

pathfinder wrote:

My son, Chris, who shoots for the indiana Daily Student newspaper in Bloomington, says he cannot even do a curve edit on an image because of the requirements of journalism ethics....

I'm calling shenanigans on this. Basic photo correction was never a problem when I worked for the University of Iowa paper.

xendless xurbia

I'm calling BS on that one. If reuters can allow a good portion of post, than most news agencies should..

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Mnemosyne

pathfinder wrote:

My son, Chris, who shoots for the indiana Daily Student newspaper in Bloomington, says he cannot even do a curve edit on an image because of the requirements of journalism ethics.

I NEVER said that

What I said was...

1. As a journalist, where objective integrity in what we print as "truth" is tantamount to the way we as journalists obtain that truth, it is important we don't cross any lines. What we as photojournalists see as improving a photo, may or may not be seen as manipulating the photo by the general populace. Therefore, I as a Pjer, am very careful about what I do.

(Actually, I said that there is a fine line, and correcting color is one of those lines where I'm always catious because I can ruin my career before I even apply for a job, even as a student, aka: Paranoia. But it didn't sound as cool as the first way )

And 2. I ALSO said, I have no freaking idea how to do the curve method, so I choose not to AKA: Blissful ignorance I use RAW editor and Levels all the time, because I'm familiar with them.

I think I also said something about how your techniques had a lot of steps, and I've always tried to limit my editing. The less steps, less chance of me having done something wrong. Although I have since gotten less paranoid and allowed myself to do more editing.

Anyway, my philosophy is simple. An Indy car driver is no more or less a great driver, if his pit crew is great or not. He is still a great driver, just not in a great car. The better the car, the better the opportunity for the driver to demonstrate his skills. Photoshop is to the photographer, what the pit crew is to the Driver. It isn't the end all be all, but it really helps.

Photoshop can't fix bad composition, bad focus, bad depth of field, bad colors, bad photos. But it CAN accentuate the ones that are good and make them sparkle. Like polishing a diamond. It's still a diamond, it's just now people want that diamond for themselves, and even better, they'll pay more $$$ for it .

And on that note, I need a nap. That is way too many analogies in one post.

xendless xurbia wrote:

I'm calling BS on that one. If reuters can allow a good portion of post, than most news agencies should..

Just because they allow it, doesn't mean it's ethical. I just prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than stupidity.