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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Papa48
Papa48 Senior Member • Posts: 3,700
Re: theory vs reality
3

marcio_napoli wrote:

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,

There’s a fundamentalist way of thinking in the way some go about this. Seems rigidity has become a virtue. I had my all-mechanical, all-manual cameras, handheld light meters, film, chemistry and darkroom years. I know what all of that is. But it’s not going to be my prison.

 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: theory vs reality

very good, we are here to talk, understand and try to grow and learn until we die..hahaha

 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..
1

Josemi wrote:

I agree with you in black and white, it is also included when it has been abused,

I don't know that it was abused. How far to go is a choice, not a law, not a rule, not even a guideline.

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,

Yes, the ease of use means more people will use something.

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

Event photography is its own thing. Typically, there are constraints such as time and consistency across the images.

... do not worry about the Spanish, the software He is also good at translations .. just kidding

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: theory vs reality
1

marcio_napoli wrote:

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.

If you mean that photography is only accepted by everyone with those qualifications, then I agree, there are people who will not accept a broader view. But populism and ignorance are not great as standards.

Best regards,

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 6,258
Re: theory vs reality
1

Papa48 wrote:

marcio_napoli wrote:

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,

There’s a fundamentalist way of thinking in the way some go about this. Seems rigidity has become a virtue. I had my all-mechanical, all-manual cameras, handheld light meters, film, chemistry and darkroom years. I know what all of that is. But it’s not going to be my prison.

People like prisons as long as they are the ones they are familiar with.

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

Well, let's extrapolate, let's imagine that I am a classical musician, and I am seeing that electronic music mixes, and in the end electronic music is the one that is predominant. Well, if my habits and my taste is the classic, am I classist? And if my tastes were purely electronics, would I be better off being equally a solo taste? And as a classical musician who plays an instrument, what would you think of reaguetton or hardcore? Are they all modern variants but is it still music or is it just noise? The truth is that I listen to everything ... but everything ... the only thing that in photography I like the natural ones possible but I'm not locked into anything, I just have my tastes and preferences as well as I have them for painting ... well this it can be extrapolated when electronic music entered the world of audio .. they are tastes, not manias ..

 Josemi's gear list:Josemi's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic ZS200 Samsung NX500 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 29,861
Re: Photograph...graphic art....informatic..reflexions..
1

There does seem to be a hard dividing line between those who have learned to draw and those who haven't.

The books of "The Art Of" various games and movies are full of work by people who can draw. See also the excellent magazine Imagine FX.

Don Cox

 D Cox's gear list:D Cox's gear list
Sigma fp
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads