The difference between a Real Photographer and me...

stop thinking like film, the power of photoshop is in layer. also garbage in garbage out, photoshop is to enahnce images not save them, photoshop will never make up for poor photography, you can use iso far in excess of what film was capable, think about this, you can set your camera to capture the mid-tones of an image then set the camera to auto-bracket by at least one stop either way in motordrive mode now you have an expsosure for highlight-midtones-shadow detail. Also yeah this maynot work with action images but you can set the background and foreground up and then work on capturing the subjects. Juts think different, drop all three images into photoshop and combine this with the flexibility of raw mode compensation and you can have a digital negative that far excedes anything capable with film. To be a great photographer today, you can't use yesterdays knolldge or experience totally. Think digital. When I first went digital, allot of people said they wanted film I said fine, I brought out 2 albums, one digital and one film, I said tell me which one you like, 95% picked the digital, I said fine if you like the quality of the album you didn't like, then I will shoot film. We can't think about film anymore, the cameras like the new mkIII will smoke it in every capability. Work more on your exposures and not all cameras are the same, use the one that best fits the need, I would never use my 1d mkIIs for low like, that is where the 5d shines, I also love the flesh tones on the 1d mkII way over the 5d when used with flash, to each his own, but we have never had it so good as we do today, embrae the horror and see the light. Digital is here to stay and there is a good reason for it. Good luck, good shooting

he was a master at light/image control. he knew where to place the tonal range based on where he knew the medium could use it best. Same goes for digital. I bet if he were here using digital he would be getting great shots, also do not compare b&w to color, 5 stops versus 7 stops tonal range not fair comparison, also using raw and photoshop layers right makes up for that.

A professional photographer doesn't photoshop every photo.

Sure you see the sport shooters with laptop on the sidelines now days but they do that so as they take photos they are uploaded to the computer and if something big happens they can quickly upload these the servers of their employers to use on the web immediately.

I shoot concerts and some of my clients are websites and some are mags. Sure before sending my shots to a mag I'll touch them up but the website guys want it directly after I get removed after the 3rd song of the set. I don't have time to tweak every shot. The real advantage to digital in my field is I don't need to have multiple bodies pre-loaded with film and I don't need to process them afterwards. If you photoshop every photo you have just taken the time saving advantage away from it.

A photographer who can get it right the first time with film can also get it right the first time digitally. And in the professional world the person who can get it done the best and in the shortest amount of time usually wins out.

Hosko said:

A professional photographer doesn't photoshop every photo.

Sure you see the sport shooters with laptop on the sidelines now
days but they do that so as they take photos they are uploaded to
the computer and if something big happens they can quickly upload
these the servers of their employers to use on the web immediately.

I shoot concerts and some of my clients are websites and some are
mags. Sure before sending my shots to a mag I'll touch them up but
the website guys want it directly after I get removed after the 3rd
song of the set. I don't have time to tweak every shot. The real
advantage to digital in my field is I don't need to have multiple
bodies pre-loaded with film and I don't need to process them
afterwards. If you photoshop every photo you have just taken the
time saving advantage away from it.

A photographer who can get it right the first time with film can
also get it right the first time digitally. And in the professional
world the person who can get it done the best and in the shortest
amount of time usually wins out.

Click to expand...

...it's maybe not you the photographer who does it, but I'm sure it's usually edited by someone in various ways before it's printed.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

film can be fun becuase your doing everything with your hands but digital is just more efficient and theres many formats switching over to digital must be a sign

also as stated before photoshop is a dark room you do everything on there that you would do in a dark room hell it cost as much as some enlargers do
--
http://www.soundlesspictures.smugmug.com

FretNoMore said:

...it's maybe not you the photographer who does it, but I'm sure
it's usually edited by someone in various ways before it's printed.

Click to expand...

I'm a photographer not a graphic designer. The same thing would have happened in the film days

Renaissance or the ancient folks were able to build all those beautiful cathedrals and temples with all their meager resources. But would you say that with our level of technology now we have lost the ability to create similar structures? Of course not. It's just not economical any longer and then ther's fire safety regulations. But if we wanted we could build the same only much faster and stronger.

don't complain I remember when I paid $ 8500.00 for my dcs315, 1.2 mp and barely capable of a half decent 5x7 but it was the hotest thing on the market. It's here to stay gotta love it and it is getting much better, the mkIII with 14 bit pixel depth pushed the colors from 4096 to 16384, that means allot better tonal sepparation and I have had a much better success with putting large great looking prints on the wall than with my Hasselblad, I have made so much more money since I went to digital and my customers love it.

I'm new here but I'm not new with film

before photoshop there was .. the pro lab, making things easier. To tell the whole story now the work is back to the photographer (retouching) while before was a bit easier..

still I agree that film photographers did try to get it right at the moment of the shot. But now we do rely on postprocessing, maybe a little too much because it takes time.. too much time compared to before (with film)

I've spent countless hours over the last 12 years learning photoshop.. fine tuning my ability to remove or add things from scenes without letting non be the wiser.. Learning the fine line between using and abusing the tools given to you..Learning how to punch out the colours you want without effecting the colours you don't want etc etc.. Learning 50 different ways to do the same things, each allowing you a different level of control..Setting up actions to save time. .I can go on and on. .but basically The possibility within photoshop are endless, mastering it is NO less worthy of a task, then mastering the fluilds in years passed.

would get the exposure right, regardless of the medium he/she was using.

I know, I know; don't feed the trolls.

--
Steve

I let my membership in NAPP expire. I did that because I noticed that I was learning more about photoshop than I was about Photography. If you know how to shoot it up front you will spend much less time fixing in photoshop. I want to learn photography, that means use of equipment, light, technique did I say light and light. That does not mean that I have given up on software I have not infact I am working to learn Lightroom. But I now see it as a tool that I need some times. Oh and yes I know that there are scenes that are out of the range of the equiptment just as when we shot slide film.
--
jag1

NorVa.

--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

..............RAW and xxGB cards now - "spray and pray" is the best tool a photographer can have

--
... just another amateur who's much in love with photography...
http://www.tomwidlak.com

..............RAW and xxGB cards now - "spray and pray" is the best tool photographer can have

--
... just another amateur who's much in love with photography...
http://www.tomwidlak.com

you can spray all you want, but a moment in time only happens once.

or you might lower yourself to the board's standard. I must say, based on the SPECTACULAR photography you've shared with us all, it would be a tragedy for the entire art world if "Rhonda" were to lower him/herself to this level. For the sake of all of us and this artform, go!

Fly away little troll.

Love,
scooter

--
I'm Scooter, and I approve of this message.

In those same dark and light environments I was complaining about in the first post (and I am serious about griping about it, no trolling, I don't really know how to troll and am too old to learn how) that the camera results needed a lot of post processing - my eye with it's marvelous nervous system and compensating systems sees in the shadows fine.

It can seduce a person into taking a photo that without processing is doomed to failure.

I wish the 1D's would compensate as nicely.

I still have a lot of admiration for the real photographers, I wouldn't go back for anything and I love the hobby.
--
Ben Lanterman

http://public.fotki.com/benlanterman/
http://webpages.charter.net/benlanterman/Index.html
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=208093