am I not a photographer?

Parisis · Mar 11, 2008

Some great answers from both sides. There are multiple hobbies associated with armature photography. Photography , Digital darkroom and Printing. I love all three. I will take one photo out of a hundred and spend hours on it , printing it maybe 2 or three times until It winds up framed and on my wall. I do it for the joy of it.

I also enjoy restoring old photos for friends , although I am not yet very good at it.

I am an avid fisherman and Photoshoping a photo is like sitting in a boat with a line in the water. I know that is not for everyone. I'm also glad I do not have to do it for a living.
--
Check my Photo Blog
http://parisea.blogspot.com/

joe mama · Mar 11, 2008

samjNC said:
I suppose I am more into photography than someone who hacks away at
for hours at an image in photoshop, totally changing the entire
image, since some of those people are probably more graphic designers
than anything else.

That's like saying someone who takes twice the pictures that another person takes is more of a photographer. Sure, some people use the initial photo as simply the first step in creating digital art. However, for others, such as myself, the camera does not always capture the scene the way you remember it, and editing make the image "more realistic". For example:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/editing

There's no reason to suppose that the camera's default image capture has any special significance in terms of being "closer to reality" than an edited image. In any event, if you want "reality", you're better off with video.

Different people have different goals with photography, and "objective reality" is but one of them. Myself, I try to capture "subjective reality" -- an image that reflects what I was thinking when I saw the scene. For example:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L + 580EX II @ f / 1.2, 1/200, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/88493274

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

samjNC · Mar 11, 2008

good point, Joe. The photo is not my cup of tea, but it is very well done and looks very nice! I can see the family (maybe its your kid) being very happy with the shot.

benvision · Mar 11, 2008

loaded the "clear" picturestyle to the cam and went from there

can be tricky to expose for it though. VERY narrow dynamic range.
--

My fashion and editorial images can be seen at http://www.sabawa.com and http://www.myspace.com/sabawa

joe mama · Mar 11, 2008

samjNC said:
good point, Joe. The photo is not my cup of tea, but it is very well
done and looks very nice!

Exactly. Shots like that are not everyone's pot o' tea, nor "should" they be. But it's an example of a shot that is neither "realistic" nor digital art. It is a different form of photography all together.

So, just as a camera can be used for different effects, so can editing. You can edit a photo out of reality all together, you can enhance the photo to make it more appealing, you can edit a photo to correct mistakes (e.g. exposure, levelling, etc.), you can edit a photo to remove distractions (e.g. pimples, trash, etc.), or you can edit a photo for any other reason or combinations thereof.

But skill and time put into editing does not make a person "less" of a photographer.

samjNC said:
I can see the family (maybe its your kid) being very happy with the shot.

Not my kid (my niece), but yeah, freinds and family seem to enjoy the pic. I have to say, everytime I visit my parents, it's the first thing I notice as I step in the house. Of course, it's hard not to, at 20x30 inches and on the facin wall to the entrance. : )

By the way -- photo, digital art, or somewhere inbetween?

Canon 5D + Sigma 150 / 2.8 macro @ f/ 5.6, 1/200, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/93862777

Is this "more" of a photo?

Canon G1 @ 7mm, f / 4 (35mm, f / 19), 1/320, ISO 50

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/32030012

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

TaoMaas · Mar 11, 2008

joe mama said:
... for others, such as myself, the camera does not always
capture the scene the way you remember it, and editing make the image
"more realistic".

I don't think editing makes the image more realistic, per se, but I do think it can help capture a scene the way we remembered it. My theory is that our memories tend to be selective because we often remember things as being somewhat better than they actually were. And I think we do this because of the emotions associated with the experience. So a photo that truly captures our memories of a scene may do a better job of conjuring up those emotions, as opposed to being a literal or realistic rendition of the scene.

threean2 · Mar 11, 2008

Mikelis said:
samjNC said:

Does anyone here ever do anything with unedited photos? Is there any
technical marvel of using unedited photos?

Click to expand...

Hell, I don't do any PP -other than some in-camera cropping at times.
I even shoot film and take the pics as they come from the processor.
My simple goal is to make/take the best shot I can -right off the
camera- have the processor print it 6x4 and leave it at that.

Amen!

threean2 · Mar 11, 2008

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

good point, Joe. The photo is not my cup of tea, but it is very well
done and looks very nice!

Click to expand...

Exactly. Shots like that are not everyone's pot o' tea, nor "should"
they be. But it's an example of a shot that is neither "realistic"
nor digital art. It is a different form of photography all together.

So, just as a camera can be used for different effects, so can
editing. You can edit a photo out of reality all together, you can
enhance the photo to make it more appealing, you can edit a photo to
correct mistakes (e.g. exposure, levelling, etc.), you can edit a
photo to remove distractions (e.g. pimples, trash, etc.), or you can
edit a photo for any other reason or combinations thereof.

My wife slaved over the stove for hours and even though I wasn't hungry I edit,
Happy Now?

joe mama said:
But skill and time put into editing does not make a person "less" of
a photographer.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

I can see the family (maybe its your kid) being very happy with the shot.

Click to expand...

Not my kid (my niece), but yeah, freinds and family seem to enjoy the
pic. I have to say, everytime I visit my parents, it's the first
thing I notice as I step in the house. Of course, it's hard not to,
at 20x30 inches and on the facin wall to the entrance. : )

By the way -- photo, digital art, or somewhere inbetween?

Canon 5D + Sigma 150 / 2.8 macro @ f/ 5.6, 1/200, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/93862777

Is this "more" of a photo?

Canon G1 @ 7mm, f / 4 (35mm, f / 19), 1/320, ISO 50

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/32030012

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama · Mar 11, 2008

TaoMaas said:
TaoMaas said:

... for others, such as myself, the camera does not always
capture the scene the way you remember it, and editing make the image
"more realistic".

Click to expand...

TaoMaas said:
I don't think editing makes the image more realistic, per se, but I
do think it can help capture a scene the way we remembered it.

Yes to both. While my editing is to often capture a scene the way I remembered it, the camera's capture is often at least as off from "objective reality" than my edit, if not more so.

TaoMaas said:
My theory is that our memories tend to be selective because we often
remember things as being somewhat better than they actually were.
And I think we do this because of the emotions associated with the
experience. So a photo that truly captures our memories of a scene
may do a better job of conjuring up those emotions, as opposed to
being a literal or realistic rendition of the scene.

I agree with all of the above, but I disagree that the camera's capture is close to the mark than our memory. What the eye captures and how the brain processes the image are two very different things. That is, if we could somehow print out a still of an eye capture, I bet we would be shocked at just how "bad" it is.

In other words, the subjective processing of the scene as we see it is the "reality" we often seek to capture with the image. taken to an extreme, the mere fact that the eye captures such a small window of the EM spectrum in a logrithmic scale is already completely "unrealistic". But that is not the "realism" we seek to capture, so that is beside the point.

So, we now have a debate on our hands as to what "realistic" means, and we both know how that will go. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama · Mar 11, 2008

threean2 said:
threean2 said:

So, just as a camera can be used for different effects, so can
editing. You can edit a photo out of reality all together, you can
enhance the photo to make it more appealing, you can edit a photo to
correct mistakes (e.g. exposure, levelling, etc.), you can edit a
photo to remove distractions (e.g. pimples, trash, etc.), or you can
edit a photo for any other reason or combinations thereof.

Click to expand...

threean2 said:
My wife slaved over the stove for hours and even though I wasn't
hungry I edit,

I have no idea whatsoever as to what that meant.

threean2 said:
Happy Now?

Happy about what?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

mike703 · Mar 11, 2008

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

joe mama said:

So, just as a camera can be used for different effects, so can
editing. You can edit a photo out of reality all together, you can
enhance the photo to make it more appealing, you can edit a photo to
correct mistakes (e.g. exposure, levelling, etc.), you can edit a
photo to remove distractions (e.g. pimples, trash, etc.), or you can
edit a photo for any other reason or combinations thereof.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

My wife slaved over the stove for hours and even though I wasn't
hungry I edit,

Click to expand...

I have no idea whatsoever as to what that meant.

It was a joke (I think): 'edit' = 'ate it' if you say it quickly.
Best wishes
--
Mike

threean2 · Mar 11, 2008

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

joe mama said:

So, just as a camera can be used for different effects, so can
editing. You can edit a photo out of reality all together, you can
enhance the photo to make it more appealing, you can edit a photo to
correct mistakes (e.g. exposure, levelling, etc.), you can edit a
photo to remove distractions (e.g. pimples, trash, etc.), or you can
edit a photo for any other reason or combinations thereof.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

My wife slaved over the stove for hours and even though I wasn't
hungry I edit,

Click to expand...

I have no idea whatsoever as to what that meant.

I'm just kidding with ya pal ! You used the word edit a few times in that paragraph so I was showing you the only way I would edit , As in "ate it" ...get it?

I fully understand what you're saying about editing and I believe that you are good at it. I trust that along with the results you get a lot of self satisfaction. But the work, or play if you will, is not for everyone. It certainly isn't for me. Be it a film or digital camera.....the way it comes out of the box is the way it's staying!

I'll experiment with different settings before the shot, and that's a big advantage of digital, but my photography manipulation of the photo ends when I press the shutter release!

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

Happy Now?

Click to expand...

Happy about what?

You convinced me to edit

joe mama said:
--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

JChristian · Mar 11, 2008

A very, very nice shot, IMHO. 2 questions, one artistic or compositional, one technical:

Did you consider cloning out or de-emphasizing that ball on the lower left? I'll freely admit that if I had taken this, I'm not sure I'd mess with it because my Photoshop skills are lacking, but it just popped into my head after looking at this photo for a while. I'm not surprised your niece's parents love this one- I have a baby boy and I'm enjoying photographing him- gonna be harder when he can move around a lot, though!

Secondly, with a lens like the f/1.2 on, do you generally use flash too? I would think it's not necessary, and again I admit I never use flash, so my question is biased since I'm better without it.

greengo · Mar 11, 2008

I don't do alot of editing / manipulation / changing / adjusting / of my shots.

Yes I own Photoshop but to be honest I rarely use it to do anything other than add info to the metafile data or crop a photo.
I use the bridge quite alot to organize my files / folders.

I do not hold anything against the individuals who do more than I do but I have to wonder what Ansel Adams or Robert Capa would have thought about the new digital age we are in and what they would have done to the photos they took if anything...

J
--
If I wake up breathing it's going to be a great day...

J A K · Mar 11, 2008

greengo said:
I have to wonder what Ansel Adams or Robert Capa would have
thought about the new digital age we are in and what they would have
done to the photos they took if anything...

Ansel Adams would be a Photoshop guru, very similar to the guru role he played in the wet process darkroom; there is absolutely no doubt about this in my mind.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

joe mama · Mar 11, 2008

threean2 said:
I'm just kidding with ya pal ! You used the word edit a few times in
that paragraph so I was showing you the only way I would edit , As in
"ate it" ...get it?

I failed another IQ test. : )

threean2 said:
I fully understand what you're saying about editing and I believe
that you are good at it. I trust that along with the results you get
a lot of self satisfaction. But the work, or play if you will, is not
for everyone. It certainly isn't for me. Be it a film or digital
camera.....the way it comes out of the box is the way it's staying!

There's no right or wrong about it -- it's just personal tastes.

threean2 said:
I'll experiment with different settings before the shot, and that's a
big advantage of digital, but my photography manipulation of the
photo ends when I press the shutter release!

Fair enough. What I'm saying is that for those of who do choose to edit, the editing process does not make us less of a photographer and more of a digital artist. We are every bit the photographer, and also something of digital artists.

threean2 said:
threean2 said:

Happy about what?

Click to expand...

threean2 said:
You convinced me to edit

Heh! If you were taking a portrait of me, you'd be convinced of that real fast. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama · Mar 11, 2008

JChristian said:
Did you consider cloning out or de-emphasizing that ball on the lower
left? I'll freely admit that if I had taken this, I'm not sure I'd
mess with it because my Photoshop skills are lacking, but it just
popped into my head after looking at this photo for a while.

When I posted this image in the Canon 5D forum, there was heated debate on that point. Many suggested that I remove the "clutter" whereas others said to do so would be a "crime". Myself, I was undecided (would the pic be too sterile, too artsy, too contrived, if I edited out the toys?), so I left it in. However, it's possible I may make another version of the pic with the "clutter" removed and see how I feel about it.

I'm not adverse to editing it out, but I thought doing so in this case may have changed the pic into something "too pure" and "too artistic". If you'll note, the background is not level. I made a version where I levelled the background, but decided against that as well.

However, there was some dark "shadow-like" blob above the girl's head (it may have been the top of my sister's head if she were sitting directly benind her on the couch) that I did edit out, as it was a bizarre looking distraction.

JChristian said:
Secondly, with a lens like the f/1.2 on, do you generally use flash
too? I would think it's not necessary, and again I admit I never use
flash, so my question is biased since I'm better without it.

It is ridiculously rare for me to use flash. I'd say maybe about 1 in 5000 pics I take, if not less, are with flash. But since I use flash so rarely, I feel it's something I need to practice, and I chose that night to get some practice in.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

RobertCorrell · Mar 12, 2008

One person loves the camera. It's their passion. They work at it, practice, spend time and money, get better, develop their talent. It takes an eye and passion.

One person loves developing (using the software). Retouching, restoring, creating art from photos, cropping, selling, whatever. It takes an eye and passion.

One person loves both. It takes more time and money than I have right now to devote to both

All are artists. They may gravitate towards different aspects of what I would call the subjective representation of reality using cameras and graphic software as a medium, but I think the commonality exceeds the differences.

I would love to be a better, more professional photographer. Really would. Can't right now. Can't afford it. Can't spend the time. Etc. I can, however, take as many digital photos as I want from our very modest digital camera and go to town with them. Or scan older photos. For now, for me, my artistic outlet is on the software side of it.

The short answer is that I think we're more alike than not.

--
http://www.robertcorrell.com
Photo Restoration and Retouching Using Paint Shop Pro Photo - by Robert Correll

ChefZiggy · Mar 12, 2008

PalmsWestPhoto said:
The main reason people seem to think that digital SLR's seem to need
so much more work afterwards is because they where shooting wrong
before as well but with film the lab took care of your mistakes where
now you get the whole truth.

Most people have never actually seen an unprocessed image. At some point, someone did post processing on all their film shots. Even with out of the camera JPG's, some processing has been done. It's just done without their input. (For the most part.) Which is fine for those people who don't want to process their images.

I don't edit every image I shoot, but pretty much every one anyone else ever see's is touched. Most lightly, but occasionally I'll get heavier handed with a few. And I don't spend hours slaving away in front of a PC. Once I have a shoot culled down to the keepers, I may spend 2-5 minutes (average) on each. A really special shot or one that needs honest retouching (blemish removal, skin correction, etc.) may get up to 30 minutes of work. But rarely that much.

I also believe that any out of camera shot can probably be improved, if you're honest in your assesment of a comparison. Post a few (this is to the JPG & non-edit folks) of your favorites and I bet someone can make them better.
--
Chefziggy
http://www.pbase.com/chefziggy/lecream

Mofongo · Mar 12, 2008

1eyedjack said:
1eyedjack wrote:
Take a look at my Non edited photos, only cropped.

http://www.pbase.com/1eyedjack

What do you think???

Hi,

I enjoyed your photos. The content was interesting and compostion was nice on a lot of them but they look soft and flat...(unfinished as in photofinishing)...

A simple levels adjustment and sharpening would do wonders with them...

Thanks for sharing and happy shooting,

Bob

--
Photography is more about depth of feeling than depth of field
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo

am I not a photographer?

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts