Digital or Digitized ?

[mattlock]

the lab corrects your exposure and corrects your colour
if you're such a purist you better be using 100 speed slide film only (no velvia, no ektachrome, only true colour rendition slide film allowed!) with a prime lens
You can have your own philosophy about photography but you come and sound all high and mighty about your stance towards photography when you don't even understand how photo editting has been around since the beginning of photography from burning dodging colour correction unsharp masking exposure correction cross processing filters etc etc etc
Before you make such grand proclamations you should do some research first to back up your claims

 

[ParkertR]

i've noticed that a few of the 'lao jiao' here never post reply... probably they feel it's not worth putting their 2 cents in if it's not gonna be appreciated? :dunno:

anyways, i still feel that its the final output that counts.

look at national geographic magazines, fashion magazines, portfolios of famous photographers - all of them no doubt are good photographers and the photographs published in the magazines are do doubt, eye candy to a lot of us; they KNOW their equipment and use it to the fullest of their knowledge and to their technical capabilities (equipment and photographer). When the final images are processed (chemically or digitally), there will always be correction of color, perhaps some cropping and for scanned or digital images, there's the touching up of the final image to make the model look better, add some effects to beautify or perfect the picture. There will always be "processed" pictures in one way or another.

What makes the pictures look so good? it's not only the know-how of lighting, framing, technical knowledge of your camera equipment, but post processing. I believe a good photographer cannot forgo learning and practicing post processing of his images to perfect the art of photography.

 

[dkw]

As another poster had eloquently put it, there is no such thing as an unedited picture. A photo is merely a tiny representation of reality within a certain space and time. The photographer has ultimate control of what goes into his picture by controlling what "space" and "time" is represented. I do feel that pressing the shutter is only part of a continuum in the image-making process, and am not fussed by post-processing to optimise the final image. And no, I don't think someone is less of a photographer even if he uses post-processing extensively. IMO only of course, YMMV.....

Cheers,

 

[sriram]

grin I think you do not do very much darkroom work. If you did you would know there are parrells in what is down in PS and what is done in the darkroom. Getting it right in camera is imporantant but refine it to excellence is a must if excellence is what you are after. Note digital is almost similar to film if you can not get it right in capture you may not be able to do too much to it afters - gross errors are unrecoverable - example blown out high lights remain blown out unless you take another frame - even raw files can only do some much.

Not really. There are parallels, yes, but only to a certain extent. In practice, it is infinitely easier to do in PS. In fact, there were instances where I was so sick and tired of sitting for five hours smelling stop bath fixer trying to get that perfect print, it almost made me give up black and white, and my hands used to stink for the next couple of days. Every time your result is not just what you want, you have to discard a print. And if you want a lab to do all this, forget about it. This forces you to really work on your photography skills.

In PS, you can simply Ctrl-Z and re-do it in 2 mins. Heck, I've been able to do stuff to my photos in PS/GIMP in 5 minutes, which would take me 3 hours in the darkroom. That allows me to be a lazy photographer. In fact, there was this one portrait I took at a small aperture. In GIMP, I blurred the background and got a lovely, shallow DoF pic. It took me all of 5 minutes. If I were to do this in the darkroom, I would have said "forget it".

 

[Red Dawn]

Not really. There are parallels, yes, but only to a certain extent. In practice, it is infinitely easier to do in PS. In fact, there were instances where I was so sick and tired of sitting for five hours smelling stop bath fixer trying to get that perfect print, it almost made me give up black and white, and my hands used to stink for the next couple of days. Every time your result is not just what you want, you have to discard a print. And if you want a lab to do all this, forget about it. This forces you to really work on your photography skills.

In PS, you can simply Ctrl-Z and re-do it in 2 mins. Heck, I've been able to do stuff to my photos in PS/GIMP in 5 minutes, which would take me 3 hours in the darkroom. That allows me to be a lazy photographer. In fact, there was this one portrait I took at a small aperture. In GIMP, I blurred the background and got a lovely, shallow DoF pic. It took me all of 5 minutes. If I were to do this in the darkroom, I would have said "forget it".

but siriam, here u're singing a different song already from the original poster. u say it's not art simply because the same effect that you want is now much more easily achievable. That's a philosophical debate in itself - whether the worth of an artist, and his corresponding work of art, is valued by the amount of effort and ingenuity put into said art, or should the piece of art merely be judged based on its own asthetic merit?

rhythm_traveller, who is the original poster is claiming a different thing - that he doesn't do any editing at all to his film pictures, which, as other more knowledgeable posters have already chimed in, is entirely nonsense.

wat mattlock said was classic and worth repeating:

"anyone who sends his film to a lab and then complains about people editting their work obviously has no idea of how film works and how he gets a nice image from his negatives."

 

[edlye]

I used to do a bit of sound engineering during the 1990s - at the crossroads of analogue and digital. There was a lot of debate then on the artistry and purity of analogue vs. digital, much similar to the debate now on film vs. digital. I find that a really apt analogy expressed then is also applicable here - Garbage in, garbage out. Its the man behind the recording/mixing console, the man behind the microphone, the man behind the lens that counts. Even an over-engineered, over-produced record of William Hung's singing can't change the fact that the poor guy can't sing; regardless of whether its on an analogue or digital medium.

What I'm saying is let's not get too hung up on the medium that you're shooting on, each has its merits and limitations. Just as the digital audio workstation (DAW) has revolutionized the music industry, where any aspiring musician can now set up their own very decent home recording studio, any photographer with decent budget can now dictate the whole 'shutter to print' process.

We should instead concentrate on getting the best out of whatever equipment we have and which ever medium we are shooting on.

 

[rhythm_traveller]

rhythm_traveller, who is the original poster is claiming a different thing - that he doesn't do any editing at all to his film pictures, which, as other more knowledgeable posters have already chimed in, is entirely nonsense.

wat mattlock said was classic and worth repeating:

"anyone who sends his film to a lab and then complains about people editting their work obviously has no idea of how film works and how he gets a nice image from his negatives."

For crying out loud, which part of "I do minimal editing" , you don't understand? Come on man. Its fine that you are confused on your own, but to take the words out of my mouth to reinforce your point is totally uncalled for.

I guess theres always two sides to a story. I should have said it in one sentence in a simple context since like mattlock tends to overlook the simplicity of the statement and turn it into

Before you make such grand proclamations you should do some research first to back up your claims

Guess you overlooked the "don't flame me part" and couldn't resist aye ? :think:

So what sriram has put it, its exactly what I meant. Because of the simplicity of the home computer program, would you profusely edit your photos to make it look good? Its ok Red dawn and Mattlock, guess we'll never know now no harm done, you are voicing your opinion although I would just like to add that I am in no way in any situation to critisize anyone especially regarding personal passion and hobby or even job, so do you.

I'm kinda sad and hurt that you guys took it so badly when I meant otherwise. This actually is a turn off to other users who wishes to put their true feelings down and yet in human nature, others take this chance to flame. :bheart: Thanks everyone (ParkertR, dkw, siriram, mudsoap, fir, cheesecake, etc etc) for your posts. I really enjoyed reading those opinions :kiss: