Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Well, I come from a heritage of photographers, already with my father I learned to develop in the laboratory, perhaps I was before a technician than a photographer, in fact I am a graphic arts technician and a photographer. I have known from glass negatives to photoshop and the retouching of each one of them (carbon, blade, pencil, ..) In the past it was even an offense that you removed a freckle from a woman in a portrait, only temporary grains were touched , the aftermath of an accident or illness, things like that and I assure you that they were not even 15% of the photos that were made. Later in party scenes, landscapes, etc. they began to use types of colored films to highlight things more or make them different but always trying to maintain a naturalness, that always ... And my complaint if it can be called that, is that of 15 or 20% has increased to 80% apparently in the touch-ups. Formerly regardless of the books that are read, a photographer would go to a place, frame, apply values ​​and in one shot he would take out what he wanted to show, currently tell me how many photos you process in raw without altering any parameter, but none ... just like that you have taken it .. well that's it, we delegate so much in the development that we forget to try to be better with the cameras, to try that single shot, master .. that feeling of satisfaction. But as I was telling you, it's my case, maybe not yours. I have been an official military war photographer and I assure you that you did not go with the laboratory or computer in tow, nor did you delegate any faults you may have in the development ... later I was also an official photographer of government presidents, heads of states, monarchs , and a long etc ... and as you took the photos you handed them in on a pen, they reviewed them and told you which ones they wanted and which ones they didn't and they made you erase them in front of them and record them without any modification ... so you better know drive the camera to the limit and be sharp. I'm sorry about the grammar but as I mentioned in a post, while working I had a mishap and I broke the tendons of both arms and I did not gesture well, I also had a stroke and there are things that I do not develop as before and / or I do not remember well how to do them , but what I do remember is what photography is and what it means to me. I am not against reverse progress, but I see that the spirit of pure and hard photography has been lost ... as I tell you, it is like a hunter who always wounds, never kills the first time but it does not matter because then he can finish .. in what if I agree with you is in the improvement with the software for when the limits of the cameras are reached to be able to save the photos ..

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Josemi wrote:

Don't you think there has been a turning point where graphic art (drawing) merged with photography

Nope. But then I am somewhat aware of the history of photography.

and there is currently no dividing line in the artistic world?

Whilst we will probably always be subject to the desire to categorise, why should there be dividing lines in art?

For example, who is a photographer? The one who knows how to take photos, frame them, have a scene view, correct values, etc ... or the one who knows how to squeeze image processing programs and do something incredible from a simple image

You realise those are not inherently separate things? Processing always has been part of the photographic process.

and maybe some of them don't even know how to take a picture?

Processing will rarely make a bad photo great. The image needs good bones onto which to shape the result.

In the past some were photographers and others were laboratory technicians, and many of us knew how to do both, but now, for example, I even know people who only work with the mobile phone and its filters, they even send them the images of celebrations and retouch them on them and They sell them and the incredible thing is that people buy, look for them and are happy with those jobs.

Really? There are some, no doubt, but I'm sceptical that this is a big thing.

Photographers, computer scientists, graphic artists ... what are we becoming ...?
And apart from this, don't you think that the big brands take advantage of these softwares to calmly not advance as they should in hardware and improve noise in isos, approaches, etc. and delegate the work to these processing programs because they are both interested?

No. Because improcing those things are part of the marketing for new products and because hardware and software are not separate things within the camera. They work together and software is not some magic thing that will infinitely improve the result without changes in the hardware

, I do not stop seeing people complaining that they do not update the software to improve the noise, emails sending them that they should do this, the other ... but ... we should not ask those responsible for the camera brand that we have for not offering us what What do we need and not a secondary ...? I don't know ... it's just a reflection ...

OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..
1

I liked it, very deep, I just try not to lose the root spirit of photography, trying to shoot the camera as if there was no possibility of subsequent retouching and trying to make the master photo ... since that is what I feel That is lost with the comfortable support that you can even focus later ... no, no ... get to know the camera, take it to the limit and try to make a symbiosis between the camera and you, a perfect pairing.

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Not necessarily a photographer developed their photos, there were photographic laboratories with technicians who were the ones who developed them, another thing is that you were a photographer and you developed the photos yourself.

It is true that you have to have a base to make a good image, but with today's software and not having to print very large, you would be surprised that it can be done with a photo that seems unusable.

And yes, I personally know several people who use mobile phones for their work ...

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 20,441
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..
2

Photography is big enough to embrace all of us. I wonder if what you're feeling is something along these lines: when you see people getting "wow"s and likes on social media for "lipstick on a pig" (so to speak) - eye candy that's largely the result of some post processing, it makes you feel like an honest photo can't compete. I ran across someone recently selling prints on one of those websites where anyone can create an account and sell - I started following him because he's local to my area. He's actually a good, knowledgeable, competent photographer *and* he's out there, doing the work. But when I see what's selling and the comments he's getting, people are responding to the post processing. The fake glow; the added lighting effects and so on. Part of me wants to scream "but it didn't LOOK like that!"

But that's just me letting my values get in the way. And he is a good photographer, out there hustling (and undoubtedly getting it right in camera to have something to work from).

I actually have quite a few photo books featuring work I like/appreciate that's not like anything I would do myself. That's mostly in subject matter and technique, though. Most of it follows my personal preference for stuff that's not heavily (or obviously) post processed. I can appreciate good post processing skills, but I don't see a lot of that kind of stuff that interests me. Even film manipulations by the likes of the great Jerry Uelsmann - I'm impressed as anything by them and can easily enjoy looking at some small number of his images, but before long, I get bored with the artificiality of it.

In the end, though, I fall back to what I wrote in the previous post about 7+ billion of us and try to remember that all of this is just my perspective; my value system only. I like to shoot the way I like to shoot because of how my brain is wired, not because that's how photography should be.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..
1

Josemi wrote:

Not necessarily a photographer developed their photos, there were photographic laboratories with technicians who were the ones who developed them, another thing is that you were a photographer and you developed the photos yourself.

Processing is still part of the process, even if the photographer hands exposed film to a lab or lets the camera software process it. One is still obviating part of the process.

It is true that you have to have a base to make a good image, but with today's software and not having to print very large, you would be surprised that it can be done with a photo that seems unusable.

I has always been possible to vastly change an image in the darkroom, whether it be a physical one or digital.

And I am very experienced in the digital darkroom and very much understand what can be done in it. I also worked in a physical darkroom and very much appreciate where they are similar and where they are different.

And yes, I personally know several people who use mobile phones for their work ...

I did not say that I doubted there are people who do this, just how large the percentage.

What they are shooting matters as well. Sometimes the subject is more important than the photograph. In those cases, what type of camera the image is shot on is superfluous.

OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Hahaha exactly, this is!! and it tires when you see several already ... they are like fashions ... many in intense hdr, exaggerations that are close to fantasy but I feel that people also look for that and many photographers having good perspective and techniques fall into that fashion ... or many beginners that I see who could have a good future are satisfied with that .. yes, and sell their work .. I feel that they put the taste of others before their own many times for marketing .. but as you say each one their taste and their thought, respect although I do not share what they do hahahha

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

No he dudado de tu profesionalidad ni de tu experiencia, simplemente le pregunto cuántas veces retocó en el cuarto oscuro físico y de qué manera y cuántas veces en el digital y de qué manera, siendo el mismo fotógrafo, el mismo trabajo, etc... pensar en ello no es un ataque..
ahora casi todas las cosas se retocan que apenas antes.. y también hablo como decía el colega, de exageraciones fantasiosas que parece ser lo que llama la atención y vende hoy..

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Josemi wrote:

Well, I come from a heritage of photographers, already with my father I learned to develop in the laboratory, perhaps I was before a technician than a photographer, in fact I am a graphic arts technician and a photographer. I have known from glass negatives to photoshop and the retouching of each one of them (carbon, blade, pencil, ..) In the past it was even an offense that you removed a freckle from a woman in a portrait, only temporary grains were touched , the aftermath of an accident or illness, things like that and I assure you that they were not even 15% of the photos that were made.

What you did in your particular lab is not relevant to what was done en masse. As soon as photography got to the point of recording "flaws", techniques were used to hide them.

Later in party scenes, landscapes, etc. they began to use types of colored films to highlight things more or make them different but always trying to maintain a naturalness, that always ...

No B&W photo is natural. And much work that was done to B&W photos, especially landscapes, was unnatural.

And my complaint if it can be called that, is that of 15 or 20% has increased to 80% apparently in the touch-ups. Formerly regardless of the books that are read, a photographer would go to a place, frame, apply values ​​and in one shot he would take out what he wanted to show, currently tell me how many photos you process in raw without altering any parameter, but none ... just like that you have taken it .. well that's it, we delegate so much in the development that we forget to try to be better with the cameras, to try that single shot, master .. that feeling of satisfaction. But as I was telling you, it's my case, maybe not yours. I have been an official military war photographer and I assure you that you did not go with the laboratory or computer in tow, nor did you delegate any faults you may have in the development ... later I was also an official photographer of government presidents, heads of states, monarchs , and a long etc ... and as you took the photos you handed them in on a pen, they reviewed them and told you which ones they wanted and which ones they didn't and they made you erase them in front of them and record them without any modification ... so you better know drive the camera to the limit and be sharp. I'm sorry about the grammar but as I mentioned in a post, while working I had a mishap and I broke the tendons of both arms and I did not gesture well, I also had a stroke and there are things that I do not develop as before and / or I do not remember well how to do them , but what I do remember is what photography is and what it means to me. I am not against reverse progress, but I see that the spirit of pure and hard photography has been lost ... as I tell you, it is like a hunter who always wounds, never kills the first time but it does not matter because then he can finish .. in what if I agree with you is in the improvement with the software for when the limits of the cameras are reached to be able to save the photos ..

A lot of this seems to be a rant against processing. It amazes me that a person who worked in a lab so poorly represents that part of the photographic process.

With certain documentary type photography, keeping the processing as neutral as possible makes sense. Otherwise, it is as Ansel Adams said: 'The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance.'

Have you ever gone to a Shakespeare play? He left very few performance notes, the various takes on his work is part of the enjoyment. I don't like every interpretation, but that doesn't mean other people shouldn't or that they are wrong.

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

jrtrent wrote:

Josemi wrote:

Don't you think there has been a turning point where graphic art (drawing) merged with photography and there is currently no dividing line in the artistic world?

When it comes to taking pictures, I have zero interest in the artistic world. The hobby of photography has always been, for me and just about everyone I know, simply a means to record visual reminders of people, places, and events.

You know, I don't think this is perfectly true. I shoot primarily artistic landscapes. But most of people who have asked me for advice on how to shoot better are those who mainly record their life. I don't think there is a strong a divide between the recording of life and the desire for artistic expression as often posited on these forums.

Some of us also get a great deal of pleasure reading about, comparing, and finally purchasing the equipment we choose to take pictures with, but we still don't consider taking pictures to be any kind of artistic endeavor.

Not considering ones own work as art is fine. Not considering photography as art is a bit mad.

For example, who is a photographer? The one who knows how to take photos, frame them, have a scene view, correct values, etc ... or the one who knows how to squeeze image processing programs and do something incredible from a simple image and maybe some of them don't even know how to take a picture? In the past some were photographers and others were laboratory technicians, and many of us knew how to do both, but now, for example, I even know people who only work with the mobile phone and its filters, they even send them the images of celebrations and retouch them on them and They sell them and the incredible thing is that people buy, look for them and are happy with those jobs.

I do occasionally buy a book of photographs. I have no idea of the processes taken in making the images, but they've ranged from virtually unidentifiable abstractions to straightforward history or travel photos.

Photographers, computer scientists, graphic artists ... what are we becoming ...?
And apart from this, don't you think that the big brands take advantage of these softwares to calmly not advance as they should in hardware and improve noise in isos, approaches, etc. and delegate the work to these processing programs because they are both interested? , I do not stop seeing people complaining that they do not update the software to improve the noise, emails sending them that they should do this, the other ... but ... we should not ask those responsible for the camera brand that we have for not offering us what What do we need and not a secondary ...? I don't know ... it's just a reflection ...

I think the progress in noise reduction has been phenomenal. My first digital camera was the Leica Digilux 1, which I found unusable at ISO 400, and it still amazes me to see how much better small-sensor cameras have become. DSLR's have improved a lot, too, as a comparison of my 2006 Samsung with a friend's 2018 Nikon (both being budget APS-C models) easily shows.

OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

I don't know why the development issue is taken so personal when I always talk about the exaggeration or abuse of it, not about normal photos ..

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Josemi wrote:

No he dudado de tu profesionalidad ni de tu experiencia, simplemente le pregunto cuántas veces retocó en el cuarto oscuro físico y de qué manera y cuántas veces en el digital y de qué manera, siendo el mismo fotógrafo, el mismo trabajo, etc... pensar en ello no es un ataque..
ahora casi todas las cosas se retocan que apenas antes.. y también hablo como decía el colega, de exageraciones fantasiosas que parece ser lo que llama la atención y vende hoy..

Perdóname, mi español es pobre, así que te responderé en inglés.

My way of writing is sometimes blunt, but is not meant as an attack. I argue with conviction, but not animosity.

I agree that exaggerations catch the attention, but I am not sure that they do more now than before. Much, if not most, of the famous B&W photography is exaggeration. But because most of use see in colour, we do not notice this as much. And B&W photography has been synonymous with art for a long time.

I do not like many exaggerated images, not because they are exaggerated, but because I do not feel they were done well. For me, it is not what people are doing, but how well they are doing it.

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Josemi wrote:

I don't know why the development issue is taken so personal when I always talk about the exaggeration or abuse of it, not about normal photos ..

I argue passionately at times because photography is my passion. Passion does not need to mean negative.

And there is no normal. Photography is an art and, outside of a few particular genres like documentary, there should be few rules.

OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

I agree with you in black and white, it is also included when it has been abused, but why are they including more and more artistic filters in the cameras? Because it is what most people today are looking for ... even get the jpeg with the effect already directly from the camera and to be able to upload it to the network..the reel did not do this, and you took it to a laboratory and they did not stop at anything, they processed them and gave them to you..if you did not like having them done better but it was not the fault of the laboratory, another thing is that you told them to retouch one in particular, the ones that you paid for or that you were their professional wedding and event photographer and they would take care of them directly ... do not worry about the Spanish, the software He is also good at translations .. just kidding

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

lilBuddha wrote:

Josemi wrote:

I don't know why the development issue is taken so personal when I always talk about the exaggeration or abuse of it, not about normal photos ..

I argue passionately at times because photography is my passion. Passion does not need to mean negative.

And there is no normal. Photography is an art and, outside of a few particular genres like documentary, there should be few rules.

yes yes, I understand hahaha we are calm and happy discussing, do not worry

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
Papa48
Papa48 Senior Member • Posts: 3,524
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..
1

Josemi wrote:

Don't you think there has been a turning point where graphic art (drawing) merged with photography and there is currently no dividing line in the artistic world?
For example, who is a photographer? The one who knows how to take photos, frame them, have a scene view, correct values, etc ... or the one who knows how to squeeze image processing programs and do something incredible from a simple image and maybe some of them don't even know how to take a picture? In the past some were photographers and others were laboratory technicians, and many of us knew how to do both, but now, for example, I even know people who only work with the mobile phone and its filters, they even send them the images of celebrations and retouch them on them and They sell them and the incredible thing is that people buy, look for them and are happy with those jobs.
Photographers, computer scientists, graphic artists ... what are we becoming ...?
And apart from this, don't you think that the big brands take advantage of these softwares to calmly not advance as they should in hardware and improve noise in isos, approaches, etc. and delegate the work to these processing programs because they are both interested? , I do not stop seeing people complaining that they do not update the software to improve the noise, emails sending them that they should do this, the other ... but ... we should not ask those responsible for the camera brand that we have for not offering us what What do we need and not a secondary ...? I don't know ... it's just a reflection ...

Following these developments for a half century, I see a continual melding of mechanical and electronic technologies with mechanical dropping off in favor of electronic/digital.  It’s not a problem for me. The images are pleasing.

 Papa48's gear list:Papa48's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Fujifilm X-E2S Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +3 more
OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

Papa48 wrote:

Following these developments for a half century, I see a continual melding of mechanical and electronic technologies with mechanical dropping off in favor of electronic/digital. It’s not a problem for me. The images are pleasing.

Exactly, in one sentence he has said more than me in 80 posts .... Bravo, that's my feeling and thought ..

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
marcio_napoli
marcio_napoli Senior Member • Posts: 1,902
theory vs reality

Apologize in advance if I missunderstood the thread, I'm reading and editing stuff.

The problem I see with such things is that in theory, let's put that again, in theory, people say it's all too fine, tools are tools, if the image is compelling that's what matters bla bla bla.

In theory, we're all holding hands together.

But in reality, nope.

Post one work online that was not entirely done with a camera in the real world, combining too many techniques (digital techniques I mean), green screen, 3d elements etc, and suddenly people start not caring or not qualifying it as photography anymore, even if the end product is photography.

Even if the added elements were all composed under photography rules (lighting, DOF, composition, aesthetics, etc).

We just had one of those, that thread asking if 3d images in games are photography.

I have plenty of my own examples, since long before becoming a photographer I was a visual FX hardcore enthusiast.

People say we're all in this together, right until you show up with something that was not done entirely with a camera, then the speech changes immediately.

Theory is one thing.

In reality, photography is only accepted if done with a camera, and little PP.

Best regards,

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli _ fashion photographer . indie filmmaker
.
NEW video just posted:
https://youtu.be/SZGrVC6J994
.
check it out my You Tube channel:
https://youtu.be/SIO0J3aqLVg
.
Aliens (acclaimed short film_near 700K views on YT):
https://youtu.be/aliscTnlsvg
.
Instagram:
@marcio_user

jrtrent Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..

lilBuddha wrote:

jrtrent wrote:

Josemi wrote:

Don't you think there has been a turning point where graphic art (drawing) merged with photography and there is currently no dividing line in the artistic world?

When it comes to taking pictures, I have zero interest in the artistic world. The hobby of photography has always been, for me and just about everyone I know, simply a means to record visual reminders of people, places, and events.

You know, I don't think this is perfectly true. I shoot primarily artistic landscapes. But most of people who have asked me for advice on how to shoot better are those who mainly record their life. I don't think there is a strong a divide between the recording of life and the desire for artistic expression as often posited on these forums.

When I started out, I wanted to learn "how to shoot better" too, and I have been asked by several people over the years how to improve their photography. Much of it was basic stuff like getting a good exposure, accurate focus, avoiding camera shake or motion blur, understanding and controlling depth of field. It might spill over into simple composition ideas like filling the frame, the rule of thirds, and maybe seeing how the direction of light can impact a photo. I think a person can be interested in the aesthetic satisfaction of their pictures without having an interest in creating art.

Some of us also get a great deal of pleasure reading about, comparing, and finally purchasing the equipment we choose to take pictures with, but we still don't consider taking pictures to be any kind of artistic endeavor.

Not considering ones own work as art is fine. Not considering photography as art is a bit mad.

I think photography can be used for artistic purposes, and I know a couple of people who do that, but most of my friends and I just want to record our own typical family snap type things--birthdays, holidays, family gatherings, day trips, picnics, vacations, and so on. We don't go out for the purpose of taking pictures--we take a camera along because we want visual memories of an interesting place or an event we're attending.  No one's submitting them to be hung in an art gallery, entering art contests, trying to sell them, or even sharing them outside our own small circle of family and friends. We like it when they turn out well, but that doesn't mean we're part of "the artistic world," as the OP put it.

OP Josemi Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: theory vs reality

you're right, it's like what is that a photo with artistic drawing or artistic drawing and have you included a photo? I think it is starting to hybridize but I don't know if it will be the future or a side of photography .. it is like abstract painting .. even today for some it will be art and for others it will be stained and if you get out of the frescoes , portraits or still lifes is not painting .. I don't know, it is such a delicate subject .. hopefully from my heart you are lucky although it may not be my style from what you say (I cannot tell you since I have not seen it) but my greatest blessings .

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads