Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Why is it so important....

fraser 14 631 14 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 6:15PM
...to some that the idea of photography is to get the shot in camera, with minimal manipulation? Isn't that reducing photography to a craft and not an artform? To me, pressing the shutter button is sometimes only around 10% into the creative process and manipulation is needed to fully recreate what I saw and felt at the time or to realise the vision I had for a photograph.

Sure, you've got to learn the craft and understand the process to get the perfect material to start with, but dismissing work beyond pressing the shutter button is like asking an artist to paint only what he sees.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 6:32PM
First obvious thought, practicality, if you're emailing to the picture desk/tech support guys/anybody else who needs them in a hurry, time spent doodling on a computer is time wasted.

Second thought, people tend to get involved in photography because they like taking photos rather than because they like computing Wink
User_Removed 14 17.9k 8 Norway
24 Jan 2010 6:52PM
End of thread really!

Paul Morgan 17 19.1k 6 England
24 Jan 2010 6:55PM
For me it has to be 90% in camera at least. A fair bit of my more serious stuff ends up in print so a camera that produces decent Jpegs helps as well.
JJGEE 13 7.2k 18 England
24 Jan 2010 7:01PM

Quote:...artist to paint only what he sees.

That is exactly what I aim to do as a photographer.
Record as accurately as possible what I see, so minimal manipulation all the way !
cameracat 14 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
24 Jan 2010 7:20PM

Quote:because they like taking photos rather than because they like computing

All very well when you banged of a roll of Kodachrome, Then waited to see what came back from the lab....Smile

If you where unhappy with the processing from the lab, It was tough luck, Especially if you had no darkroom of your own...Sad

Todays digital photographers do have the facilities to process thier own images, Colour, Black & White all from the comfort of thier computer.

There is no more blaming the lab for a horrid green cast, No more blaming the lab because its overexposed.

Quite a revolution in the world of photography....Smile

One that requires the use of a computer & software, Plus the skill to actually do the job properly.....Wink

Take the computer & software out of digital photography and what have you got, Absolutely nothing.....!!!!

Like it or not, If your using a digital camera, You have to use a computer..Smile
Overread 9 4.1k 19 England
24 Jan 2010 7:31PM
Of course it all depends how you use the camera as a tool and for what you wish to create as the end product. For many a camera is a recording tool (or a capturing tool) - people want to capture and preserve something that they have seen.
This could be a look on a face - a landscape - a wild animal - that goal shot.

Swinging all the way to the other end of the scale you have those who I would deem digital artists - those who take an image and then add to that image (with others or with a brush) to create a scene which might either enhance what was there already or which creates something new entirly.

And of course between those two rough extremes you have every possible shade of photographer with many people often changing their use of the tool that is the camera from shot to shot.

The key part is though, no matter at what level or output you want getting things as good as you can in camera is essential for the ease and quality of finish you get out at the end. Yes a very good artist might be able to recreate the missing hand that they cut off in a frame to complete an image (or add to it as part of a larger project) but I bet it takes them a lot longer to make that hand than it would have to pay attention to the frame at the time of shooting and get the hand in then.

Same goes for exposure as well as frame content - a good exposure gives one a lot of lattitude as to what they can create with that exposure - however a poor exposure again limits what is possible before image degradation (through overediting) creeps in. (of course one must remember that a correct exposure is always based on what is correct for the intentions of the output the photographer wants from the image)
discreetphoton 13 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 7:36PM
I didn't feel I had the right to use the title of Photographer until I learned to spot meter properly (and I don't just mean finding one mid-point), and use manual flash in a subtle and untraceable way (when I want to).

Having now mastered the basics, I feel happier that I know what I'm doing. So now I'm just lazy, and if I can do everything with minimal effort, great Smile But I'd never criticise anyone for their choice of route.

What I do take issue with, is when people preach a way of working, without trying the alternatives.
There was a great example of this from David Hobby. He referred to people who have never used flash, decrying it's use under the guise that "I only use available light", as if that made it the better option in every situation. By implication, making them better photographers.
His reply? "Me too. If a light's available, I'll use it."
fraser 14 631 14 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 7:39PM
I'm not disputing that the skill to get the technicalities right is an essential part of the process, as is the initial vision. But I think you're tying your hands if you refuse to countenance the use of manipulation software.
Let me make my own view clear. I like my photographs to look photo-real and I don't tend to add things that are not there, but I'm not against manipulation to recreate what I saw if it's outwith the camera's capabilities to record it in one shot or to realise a vision I had at the time. Isn't that what the darkroom was/is for in "traditional" photography?
ade_mcfade 14 15.2k 216 England
24 Jan 2010 7:46PM

every thing you get right in camera is one thing less to correct in photoshop.

surely that's worth the effort?
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 7:47PM

Quote:Like it or not, If your using a digital camera, You have to use a computer.
Unless you employ someone to do it for you of course. We include a whole range of people, just as always in photography, from those whose interest is really in getting out there, or into the studio, with a camera, to those whose chief interest is in the darkroom or at the computer. Nowadays we blend over into graphic designers and digital artists. I expect most of us fall in the middle ground somewhere.
Overread 9 4.1k 19 England
24 Jan 2010 7:49PM
Ahh I see your point better now - I have to honestly say many people who I have met who have held the strict view that digital images should not be edited are often those who admite in the next heartbeat that they also don't like nor use computer that often. I belive a great part of it is the simple fact that they don't know how to do it and so they discount it.

In addition photoshop is THE tool and it costs a few £100 - again that is a barrier to many and for some they harbour the view that it is in some way giving other photographers a massive advantage over themselves - so again they try to dismiess it (to be defensive to their own unedited work).

Some also - especailly those with a longer history of film photography - feel threatened by the new digital age and also feel that their "lifes work" is suddenly meaningless because its not digitaly edited and produced.

In most cases it only takes a simple program (photoshop elements/paintbox pro) and a few hours of some guided tuition into photography and digital editing to start to get them to relax their views and start to accept editing as well as come to properly undrstand what is and is not possible.

Myself I have no problem with extending beyond the cameras capabilities with photography - I will do HDR (though I have yet to really do any of this) I will stitch panoramas and I will focus stack images (mostly macro). These are cases where the camera fails to capture what I want it to - though for myself I don't go in for background replacing (mostly as it often just looks fake to my eyes unless its done extremly well and with a lot of care for the boarders - something that I am not keen on spending many hours doing)
gary_d 10 576 13 Wales
24 Jan 2010 7:49PM
Record as accurately as possible what I see, so minimal manipulation all the way !

My view exactly.

Lawrence 15 195 1 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 7:50PM
Hi Fraser.I think your photos are over manipulated,eg the sky in your last upload
ade_mcfade 14 15.2k 216 England
24 Jan 2010 7:57PM
....here goes Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.