Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Togs who can't or won't

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

roxpix
roxpix  102236 forum posts Scotland11 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 8:01 AM

With two recent threads I thought Iíd ask opinions to these two hypothetical tog profiles

A digital photographer that canít/wonít edit
A photoshopographer that canít/wonít take pics

Regardless of commercial or domestic status both may require a third party to provide either editing or image support

Do these togs have a place in photography as it stands?
Is there an unwritten expectation that one skillset must be accompanied by the other for credibility in the community?
Is there more tolerance given to one profile over the other?
What advantages do these togs benefit from over the Ďjack of all trades?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
18 Aug 2009 - 8:01 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 8:12 AM


Quote: Do these togs have a place in photography as it stands?

Why not? Photography is not governed by a set of inflexible rules and neither should it be. What matters is the finished article and if that is arrived at by means of some form of partnership then what is wrong with that?

Too much of our lives is subject to rules and prejudice.

Ian

samfurlong
18 Aug 2009 - 8:22 AM

It depends on your area of photography really. There are many skilled photoshop specialists out there who are just that, photoshoppers and never claimed or wanted to be photographers. Also, there are lots of photographers who don't use photoshop.
I don't think it's a credibility thing but more a commercial thing. I wouldn't use a digital photographer that can't / won't use photoshop because although in my area we are not allowed to over manipulate, some use of photoshop is needed for things like file size / cropping / sharpening / colour correction and these days the photographer is expected to do that for himself.

User_Removed
18 Aug 2009 - 8:50 AM

I like having control of the whole process - taking the picture and processing it. That's what gives me the enjoyment of my photography - which is a hobby, not a profession. It is the sense that I have created something.

However, I wouldn't want to devalue the approaches and enjoyment others take in their approach using the skills that they want to develop - whether as a hobby or as a profession.

I certainly admire the skills of many dedicated photoshoppers - graphic artists - whatever their source material, but it's not something I want to emulate.

Brett

SuziBlue
SuziBlue  1116195 forum posts Scotland10 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 9:22 AM

Each to their own, I say. Even for the photographer who sends his work to someone else for the images to be tweaked and post-processed. Although, what does surprise me is that he has his settings on P and doesn't know how to work the camera .. but I guess that's why he pays good money to the studio, to make his pictures look fab. Smile

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 9:26 AM

I thought some of the really big names in fashion/portrait photography have their assistants edit the photos, they themselves only take the photos.

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318430 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 9:43 AM


Quote: I thought some of the really big names in fashion/portrait photography have their assistants edit the photos, they themselves only take the photos.

True.
Also I spent a week watching an assistant in a big advertising photographer's studio in London. The photographer came up with the concept, directed and pressed the shutter, the rest was done by his assistant, arranging lights, organising props, creating the backdrop (hand painted), setting up shot, loading camera, focusing, taking meter readings etc.


Quote: Do these togs have a place in photography as it stands?

Saying someone has to have total control from input to output to have a place in photography would have meant that prior to digital everyone would have had to do the same with film and have their own darkrooms. A minority had darkrooms and for the rest the quality of output was determined by a lab.

I enjoyed taking control, so had a darkroom, digital is far easier and far less messy so that's why it's become a standard thing and you have the whole control. I think those who choose to let someone else take control of the digital element should share copyright if the finished result is far removed from the RAW file and that far removed idea is from the Photoshopper. If they're just getting the best results outputted by a skilled processor it really doesn't matter.

Last Modified By Pete at 18 Aug 2009 - 9:51 AM
JamesBurns
18 Aug 2009 - 9:57 AM

I know of a fair few wedding photographers who outsource some or all of their processing, simply due to the volume of work. I have to say, the idea of sending away a bunch of RAW files and getting them back fully corrected, with only the "creative" processing work to do has appealed to me at times.

SteveCharles
18 Aug 2009 - 9:58 AM

There is a whole industry of retouching specialists, and I wouldn't be surprised if most top fashion & advertising photographers barely touch their images after pressing the button - their skill lies in the lighting, composition etc., not much difference to using film where after taking the shots it's off to the processor to their bit. I also think it's long been thought that good photographers don't necessarily make good printers, and again there was a whole industry of darkroom specialists, of which a few remain. Many of the iconic photographers of the past were not actually getting their hands wet in the darkroom themselves.

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I gleaned from an interview somewhere with Sam Taylor-Wood that she's hopeless with camera technology and pretty much has assistants operating everything.

The era of the photographer being expected to fully edit his own work arrived with digital imaging and Photoshop, and obviously had a massive impact on the whole photographic support industry.

edit - sorry, started typing before Pete's reply, hence essentially repeating the same thing...

Last Modified By SteveCharles at 18 Aug 2009 - 10:02 AM
Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 10:09 AM


Quote: The photographer came up with the concept, directed and pressed the shutter, the rest was done by his assistant, arranging lights, organising props, creating the backdrop (hand painted), setting up shot, loading camera, focusing, taking meter readings etc.

Hmmm....how come the assistant didn't just press the shutter?

riprap007
riprap007  91568 forum posts England37 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 10:15 AM

Prior to the arrival of photoshop one of my jobs involved using inks and bleach to retouch images, photography was most definitely not involved, the job taught me much about different approaches to photographic composition though

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225727 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 10:17 AM

I remember during my student days being taught the rudiments of retouching prints.

Not by the Tog but by his retouching specialist, who he brought along to the sessions for the purpose.

This young lady taught and demonstrated the skills of spotting and the scraping, and lightening of, the too dense areas on the print.

I still have one of the special blades somewhere.

The Tog was too busy out taking pics.

When he wasn't teaching, that is! Wink

bigalguitarpicker
18 Aug 2009 - 10:37 AM

I complimented a photographer on her print at a club competition and asked about what burning/dodging etc was involved printing it. (It was a film job) I was met with a horrified expression and an "Oh I didn't print it!" I thought she was missing out on the most important part of the process, namely getting the best possible results from her efforts in composing and exposing her image.

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225727 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
18 Aug 2009 - 10:46 AM


Quote: .....namely getting the best possible results from her efforts in composing and exposing her image.

Perhaps she had, if you were complimenting her upon it? Wink

Last Modified By Just Jas at 18 Aug 2009 - 10:47 AM
Picture_Newport
18 Aug 2009 - 10:53 AM


Quote: The photographer came up with the concept, directed and pressed the shutter, the rest was done by his assistant, arranging lights, organising props, creating the backdrop (hand painted), setting up shot, loading camera, focusing, taking meter readings etc.


Quote: [Hmmm....how come the assistant didn't just press the shutter?

I think the important part of Petes statement is 'The Photographer came up with the concept'. It's that initial vision and thought process that has led to the image being created.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.