Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?

[night86mare]

That doesn't change the fact that they still used the dark rooms. According to your logic, they are not photographers. Come on, Photoshop is a tool that is available to photographers now. Using it does not equate to not being a photographer. Being insistent on not using it is just being inflexible.

And anyway, are authors who publish their books by print not authors? Because years ago, there were no printers...they manually wrote their books. Should modern authors do that too?

yes, they should, because if they let the publishers use computers to print their books, they are not being skilful...

the books on the market are actually a farce... when the author made a mistake, you didn't get to see it. :angry::angry:

 

[night86mare]

After 5 days, I know only about 5% of CS5. Give me sometime and I will list out the things I can do with it that a film shooter like me cannot.

Secondly, traditional darkroom facilities were not commonly available even for many pros not to say you and I. Also, doing all those traditional darkroom activities needed qualified people to do sufficiently good work. Try working in those environment like I did for 20 years and then tell me whether you like doing this at home every day. Today, after 15 years of retirement, I am still suffering from such poor environmental exposure and I still have daily lungs problem. And you compare this to CS5.

so you haven't answered any of my questions, here's more:

(1) ansel adams was a photographer? or a darkroomer?

(2) tan lip seng was a photographer, or a darkroomer?

so if photoshop cs5 costs $1 million to buy, and you must waddle through 10 swamps and breathe in sulphur dioxide when doing photoshop, you will consider the people who photoshop in such conditions a TRUE PHOTOGRAPHER? true photographers have to SUFFER, and need MONEY? :bsmilie: that's it, your definition of a true photographer? :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

you are not addressing the point i have brought up, please stick to the issue being discussed and not shift the goal post.

 

[night86mare]

please read this, anthony lee:

http://www.lbecker.com/blog/?p=1600

Some professional photographers who have migrated to digital from film, somehow think that Photoshop modifications are “cheating” or make things “too easy.” These are the same people who really don’t have a big problem with shooters who spent a lot of time in the old chemical darkrooms. For the record, Ansel Adams spent quite a lot of time in the darkroom as a big part of his craft and nobody seems to balk.

Sure, you can add people to an image who weren’t there originally. You can take people out of an image if you want. You can change a boring, cloudless sky to something interesting by combining two exposures. You can enhance colors. You can apply effects. You can blur parts of your image for artistic effects. And everything I’ve just mentioned can be done in a traditional darkroom. It’s just that the new technology of Photoshop makes these things much more available to many more people than traditional darkroom techniques did.

comments from someone else, obviously with same experience as you, but much more objective:

Real darkroom photographers remember the true meaning of dodging, burning, and white balance, not something from a drop down menu. They also have tried to forget the coughing and why their lungs are impaired and their fingers smell and are discolored. We admit that living in front of an lcd screen is much better than the old days of squinting in the dark. Today the tools are better, and the pictures don’t take hours to produce watching a clock.

 

[Anthony Lee]

That doesn't change the fact that they still used the dark rooms. According to your logic, they are not photographers. Come on, Photoshop is a tool that is available to photographers now. Using it does not equate to not being a photographer. Being insistent on not using it is just being inflexible.

And anyway, are authors who publish their books by print not authors? Because years ago, there were no printers...they manually wrote their books. Should modern authors do that too?

Don't jump to conclusion. I never said you don't photoshop. I said I do, therefore, I can be called anything but a photographer.

 

[brapodam]

Don't jump to conclusion. I never said you don't photoshop. I said I do, therefore, I can be called anything but a photographer.

So if someone wants to hire you as a photographer to shoot a wedding, what do you say? Sorry, I'm not a photographer? Or do you insist to shoot JPEG and not edit your photos at all and give it straight to your client so that you can be called a photographer?

Really, it's just that now, Photoshop is so much more accessible than the darkroom. That doesn't make people less of a photographer than they are. It just means more people have the chance to produce better looking images, so they can pursue photography at a higher level.

Or perhaps we should just shut down this forum because nobody here is a photographer, because almost everyone post-processes their photos.

 

[Anthony Lee]

please read this, anthony lee:

http://www.lbecker.com/blog/?p=1600

comments from someone else, obviously with same experience as you, but much more
objective:

You have not been there. You only read about them. I have been there and I guarantee you that traditional darkroom was never the same as CS5. Those people who wrote and did what they did were only the just a few in the millions who shot film and knew nothing of what was done to their film when they sent them for processing and prints. CS5 or any other post processing softwares can be available to anyone who can operate a digital camera. Because of this availability and access, photography today is totally different.

 

[night86mare]

You have not been there. You only read about them. I have been there and I guarantee you that traditional darkroom was never the same as CS5. Those people who wrote and did what they did were only the just a few in the millions who shot film and knew nothing of what was done to their film when they sent them for processing and prints. CS5 or any other post processing softwares can be available to anyone who can operate a digital camera. Because of this availability and access, photography today is totally different.

so because of availability and access, and how people sit in front of computers instead of in darkrooms with chemicals - despite the fact that they DO THE SAME THING, you would view them as different?

ok, i think there is nothing much to talk about anymore. i know a lost case of logic when i see one.

 

[Anthony Lee]

so because of availability and access, and how people sit in front of computers instead of in darkrooms with chemicals - despite the fact that they DO THE SAME THING, you would view them as different?

ok, i think there is nothing much to talk about anymore. i know a lost case of logic when i see one.

They are like night and day, and you called them the same, so where is your logic. You may have to shoot a scene 100 times to get to the final print because it's so easy to make mistake in the dark. With digital photography, you just need one silly image that took 1/200 sec to record and you can spend hours processing it for different effects. You also called a hand rolled "poppiah" the same as those that came out of a factory the same, so you should not eat your mother's cooking.

 

[night86mare]

They are like night and day, and you called them the same, so where is your logic. You may have to shoot a scene 100 times to get to the final print because it's so easy to make mistake in the dark. With digital photography, you just need one silly image that took 1/200 sec to record and you can spend hours processing it for different effects. You also called a hand rolled "poppiah" the same as those that came out of a factory the same, so you should not eat your mother's cooking.

so you're saying that film photographs take a longer time to capture? please... 1/200 second on digital camera, using the same iso + aperture will give you the same 1/200 second on a film camera for equal exposure. your logic seems to be disintegrating into a swamp of confusion.

image manipulation is image manipulation. don't forget that you said you would not consider anything involving image manipulation a photograph, or those who manipulated their images photographers.

i see you have ended up changing the topic now... :bsmilie: like i said, lost cause when it comes to logic. the only reason i can think of is that you want to feel like "you've been there", and then you can feel superior to modern photographers.. and the best part is, you don't even realise you're doing it... or you do, so you deliberately include yourself in the equation hoping that this will give you discounts when it comes to logic since you're willing to call yourself names.

at the end of the day, composition is more important that what image manipulation you can make, and that was the difference between the good film photographers and the bad film photographers, the good digital photographers and the bad digital photographers. sad to say, not everyone can see that.

if a handrolled popiah tastes like crap, and the factory is able to push out something that i can enjoy more than a handrolled popiah, i'll be more than happy to eat the factory popiah anytime. your erroneous assumption here, i fear, is that my mother is a great cook, and that she can handroll popiahs that taste good. that is sadly, not a given. if it were that easy, everyone would just handroll popiahs and we would all be great popiah makers. but then, i don't think you will get the point - that it is not whether the popiah comes from a factory or a handroller... but whether it tastes good - that is what people care about.


have a nice day.

 

[Anthony Lee]

so you're saying that film photographs take a longer time to capture? please... 1/200 second on digital camera, using the same iso + aperture will give you the same 1/200 second on a film camera for equal exposure. your logic seems to be disintegrating into a swamp of confusion.

image manipulation is image manipulation. you said you would not consider anything involving image manipulation a photograph, or those who manipulated their images photographers.

i see you have ended up changing the topic now... :bsmilie: like i said, lost cause when it comes to logic. the only reason i can think of is that you want to feel like "you've been there", and then you can feel superior to modern photographers.. and the best part is, you don't even realise you're doing it... or you do, so you deliberately include yourself in the equation hoping that this will give you discounts when it comes to logic since you're willing to call yourself names.

at the end of the day, composition is more important that what image manipulation you can make, and that was the difference between the good film photographers and the bad film photographers, the good digital photographers and the bad digital photographers. sad to say, not everyone can see that.

have a nice day.

I never changed the topic. From my second post I said that I am not a photographer when I shoot digital because I do post processing. I also said that when I shoot film and print direct from film, then I am a photographer. It was you who started all these nonsense about traditional darkroom being the same as CS5.

 

[night86mare]

I never changed the topic. From my second post I said that I am not a photographer when I shoot digital because I do post processing. I also said that when I shoot film and print direct from film, then I am a photographer. It was you who started all these nonsense about traditional darkroom being the same as CS5.

because you say that:

(1) you are not photographer when you do post processing
(2) you are photographer when you print direct from film

obviously you are unaware of the fact that film has saturation adjusted.

or did you think velvia really gives you REAL LIFE COLORS? :bsmilie:

or are you only a photographer when you use "neutral films"? :bsmilie:

better draw more lines la, you are not fanatical enough... not purist enough. still tainted with the potions that filmmakers have added into film to make your image nicer than it is. :bsmilie: :devil:

 

[Anthony Lee]

so you're saying that film photographs take a longer time to capture? please... 1/200 second on digital camera, using the same iso + aperture will give you the same 1/200 second on a film camera for equal exposure. your logic seems to be disintegrating into a swamp of confusion.

image manipulation is image manipulation. don't forget that you said you would not consider anything involving image manipulation a photograph, or those who manipulated their images photographers.

i see you have ended up changing the topic now... :bsmilie: like i said, lost cause when it comes to logic. the only reason i can think of is that you want to feel like "you've been there", and then you can feel superior to modern photographers.. and the best part is, you don't even realise you're doing it... or you do, so you deliberately include yourself in the equation hoping that this will give you discounts when it comes to logic since you're willing to call yourself names.

at the end of the day, composition is more important that what image manipulation you can make, and that was the difference between the good film photographers and the bad film photographers, the good digital photographers and the bad digital photographers. sad to say, not everyone can see that.

if a handrolled popiah tastes like crap, and the factory is able to push out something that i can enjoy more than a handrolled popiah, i'll be more than happy to eat the factory popiah anytime. your erroneous assumption here, i fear, is that my mother is a great cook, and that she can handroll popiahs that taste good. that is sadly, not a given. if it were that easy, everyone would just handroll popiahs and we would all be great popiah makers. but then, i don't think you will get the point - that it is not whether the popiah comes from a factory or a handroller... but whether it tastes good - that is what people care about.


have a nice day.

By the fact that post and edit your post so quickly, I may have to wait next time before I reply.

I am also a very good cook and that's why I have many friends, so I know the difference bewteen good home cook meal and what you can get at restaurant, no matter how good they are. Also, when I said hand rolled, I also meant home cooked with all the proper and freshest ingredients hand picked by someone who knows about traditional 'poppiah' than those that has been CS5ed.

 

[night86mare]

I am also a very good cook and that's why I have many friends, so I know the difference bewteen good home cook meal and what you can get at restaurant, no matter how good they are. Also, when I said hand rolled, I also meant home cooked with all the proper and freshest ingredients hand picked by someone who knows about traditional 'poppiah' than those that has been CS5ed.

wowowowow,

so when you use film, it is fresh, proper and handpicked..

and also, you can't know very much about cooking if you think that restaurants cannot hand pick proper and fresh ingredients. :bsmilie: :thumbsup: only the great home cooks can do that, i guess. must be some MAGICAL BARRIER that prevents restaurant cooks from buying proper, fresh ingredients to cook.... so sad...

nice analogy (and logic) there! :bsmilie:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I never changed the topic. From my second post I said that I am not a photographer when I shoot digital because I do post processing. I also said that when I shoot film and print direct from film, then I am a photographer. It was you who started all these nonsense about traditional darkroom being the same as CS5.

so bringing us back to the point in bold, now knowing that Ansel Adams spent a great deal of time manipulating his images before producing the final print, do you consider Ansel Adams to be a photographer?

 

[night86mare]

so bringing us back to the point in bold, now knowing that Ansell Adams spent a great deal of time manipulating his images before producing the final print, do you consider Ansell Adams to be a photographer?

i think ansel adams doesn't know how to make fresh popiah or handroll one. :angry:

he has only read about fresh or handrolled popiah. :angry:

 

[Anthony Lee]

because you say that:

(1) you are not photographer when you do post processing
(2) you are photographer when you print direct from film

obviously you are unaware of the fact that film has saturation adjusted.

or did you think velvia really gives you REAL LIFE COLORS? :bsmilie:

or are you only a photographer when you use "neutral films"? :bsmilie:

better draw more lines la, you are not fanatical enough... not purist enough. still tainted with the potions that filmmakers have added into film to make your image nicer than it is. :bsmilie: :devil:

When I ran my microfilm processing centre, I maintained one set of variation and tolerance that all microfilm operators understood, and this controlled processing environment was the same as what most processing centers did. They could not adjust to different films and it was up to the camera operator to do his in-camera setting to get the norm regardless of what film he shot up front. Selecting different film for different effects is not like post processing. I can also use different sensor, like a D700 instead of a 5D2, to get different effect. I can also use different lenses for contrast and saturation.

 

[divinemoment]

I'm from the film era and has done darkroom. To produce a b/w prints with good tonality and good dynamic range would take many tries, from a few hrs. to perhaps a few days of trials and errors.

I've great admiration for Tan Lip Seng works. He truely make Singapore proud and his darkroom technique is extra-ordinary. He must have slept in the darkroom. But I do believed not many people now has that kind of dedication to execute and going thru' that same kind of “hardship” as Mr. Tan has endured. Even himself has mentioned how he wished to have photoshop. Read his commentary.

http://www.elcreations.org/lipsengtan/photoblog/?p=94

One recent oversea competition has announced they will forgo the slide and print section because there wasn't enough submission. The recent local SIPA competition has done away with prints which traditionally they have catered. Times have changed.

My personal view is photoshop would able to replicate and could offer more what darkroom can do in a fraction of time but not vice versa. It will be tremendously difficult, if not at all possible. Take creating lightning or rain as example. You can't do that by burning, dodging or lith technique. I just don't know how. Just look at Creative Digital in competition, no way a darkroom technique
can duplicate that. Post processing software are just too powerful.

However, we are still fortunate there still remain these breed of darkroomer purist, dedicating their time and exhibiting their prints to remind us it is still not a dying art.

Sorry, a little digress from the main topic.

 

[night86mare]

When I ran my microfilm processing centre, I maintained one set of variation and tolerance that all microfilm operators understood, and this controlled processing environment was the same as what most processing centers did. They could not adjust to different films and it was up to the camera operator to do his in-camera setting to get the norm regardless of what film he shot up front. Selecting different film for different effects is not like post processing. I can also use different sensor, like a D700 instead of a 5D2, to get different effect. I can also use different lenses for contrast and saturation.

wowowow what a world it must have been.

i can imagine, people running around with 5 50mm lenses for different contrast and saturation, since selecting different film for different effects is not like post processing, so if i wanted greater control over my images, i needed to switch lenses. :bsmilie:

 

[Anthony Lee]

wowowow what a world it must have been.

i can imagine, people running around with 5 50mm lenses for different contrast and saturation, since selecting different film for different effects is not like post processing, so if i wanted greater control over my images, i needed to switch lenses. :bsmilie:

I used to have 8 50mms and I used each for different purpose. Now I still have 4 different 35f2 and all of them give me different feel and look. I still shoot film, and getting a good shot out of it gave me a different feel of satisfaction. If you have not done this, and think that CS5 can do all these, then you and I are from different worlds. So we should stop all this and go our own way to shoot what we like.

 

[Anthony Lee]

so bringing us back to the point in bold, now knowing that Ansel Adams spent a great deal of time manipulating his images before producing the final print, do you consider Ansel Adams to be a photographer?

Are all of us the same as him? Ansel Adams is famous for his work and he should be called more than just a photographer. In my world, photography means "exactly as recorded". Ansel Adams wanted to be different, so he did what few others did. It did not mean that he was not a good photographer, but more than that, he was also a traditional darkroom artist.
I spent 6 months attached to a photo studio and learnt many things that he did and if you guys think doing those things were like CS5, than you make people like Ansel Adams very small.