I understand people want to keep it real. But the dynamic range of a camera is nowhere close to the human eye. To capture what your eye really sees, you will need enough PP to bring all the light levels back into viewable dynamic range.
Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?
- Thread starter naheuy
- Start date
- Status
calvincychin
New Member
I think the question is really your definition. To me as long as someone can produce a good picture I will call him a good picture maker. Photographer is just an name of the role. Good photographer have a lot of meaning. Good photographer can be someone good in earning money by selling picture which he took. Good photographer can be someone can take good picture (pre-arranged or PP) and good picture is very subjective. So what is good photographer?
In the old day, people use backdrop, darkroom technique, touch up on film, set up lighting, use reflector, use color filter, masking etc. to get resulting photo which the person dream of. I will call this person a photographer.
Now, we have photoshop. blending background layer, using adjustment layer, enhancement, modify lighting (a bit only in a flat manner), use digital fill light, use filter layers, masking etc. should we call it a photographer?
Very obvious right. In the western countries, there might be a separation of photographer and printer/touch-up role. In our part of world, I don't see a lot of people are doing it (some relative scaled organization will have this separation). If we call people in the old day a photographer, I don't see any reason not giving the designation to the new age photographer. I think the only reason for me not to call them a photographer is the so call photographer who call other new age photographer as non-qualified photographer because they are resist to change or taking advantage of new technology.
Bottom line is do you know what you want to take, do you know how to take what you want and have you got your shot?
Good luck my friend.
In the old day, people use backdrop, darkroom technique, touch up on film, set up lighting, use reflector, use color filter, masking etc. to get resulting photo which the person dream of. I will call this person a photographer.
Now, we have photoshop. blending background layer, using adjustment layer, enhancement, modify lighting (a bit only in a flat manner), use digital fill light, use filter layers, masking etc. should we call it a photographer?
Very obvious right. In the western countries, there might be a separation of photographer and printer/touch-up role. In our part of world, I don't see a lot of people are doing it (some relative scaled organization will have this separation). If we call people in the old day a photographer, I don't see any reason not giving the designation to the new age photographer. I think the only reason for me not to call them a photographer is the so call photographer who call other new age photographer as non-qualified photographer because they are resist to change or taking advantage of new technology.
Bottom line is do you know what you want to take, do you know how to take what you want and have you got your shot?
Good luck my friend.
Last edited:
in a restaurant, For a person who uses MSG to enhances the taste of food still called a chef?
a chef is a person who cooks for a living. My aunt (who knows nothings abt cooking) rents a stall selling western food because she lost her job. She is a person who cooks for a living, so is she a chef?
You judge
What's a photographer?
A person who takes a photograph
So the question "Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?"
answer is yes
a chef is a person who cooks for a living. My aunt (who knows nothings abt cooking) rents a stall selling western food because she lost her job. She is a person who cooks for a living, so is she a chef?
You judge
What's a photographer?
A person who takes a photograph
So the question "Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?"
answer is yes
What is real? First and most important question. Next could be: does showing the (however perceived, seen, felt) reality serve the purpose of the picture? Technical example: IR pictures. We can't see IR, we can only see a technical mapping, only possible due to photo-enhancing software. SO IR photographers are all lousy ones, cause without their software they'd be lost? Or is it rather technology (hardware, software) that makes a certain style / technique possible?
The purpose of the image defines what is necessary / acceptable / legally possible in the respective context. A photograph taken at a crime scene clearly has to follow different rules than a fashion shooting somewhere in an old rundown building with black / white conversion, obviously.
Can somebody please bury this dead horse, finally? I will gladly join nightmare's project of collecting links to ever repeated questions and unearthed dead horse, cows and whatnot... Some candidates for the Winter 2010/2011 season have just popped up and the ever repeating question: "Will my camera freeze at 10 degrees?"
Last edited:
Too relies on equipment also not a good photographer:dunno:
Ppl spent so much time on PP not a good photographer:dunno:
Ppl spent so much time on setting (lighting, camera etc) up a shoot also not a good photographer??
A good photography must use the oldest and traditional way in term of equipments and methodology to be term as good.:bsmilie::bsmilie:
Ppl spent so much time on PP not a good photographer:dunno:
Ppl spent so much time on setting (lighting, camera etc) up a shoot also not a good photographer??
A good photography must use the oldest and traditional way in term of equipments and methodology to be term as good.:bsmilie::bsmilie:
wildcat
Senior Member
In my opinion, the one who cannot, will ask. The one who can, will not ask.
We're not living in the 70s anymore... camera is digital and most of us don't use film anymore. Got autofocus. Got processor inside the camera to do your WB and calculate exposure.
If a wedding photographer choose the purist way of doing things, you think he can survive? How many customers will say eeee.. why so like that one? Ask you to choose one or the other, the answer is simple; most customers will choose the better looking one. And in this day and time, there are very few Ansel Adams left to make magic with a film camera, simply because most of them have moved to using digital cameras already.
We're not living in the 70s anymore... camera is digital and most of us don't use film anymore. Got autofocus. Got processor inside the camera to do your WB and calculate exposure.
If a wedding photographer choose the purist way of doing things, you think he can survive? How many customers will say eeee.. why so like that one? Ask you to choose one or the other, the answer is simple; most customers will choose the better looking one. And in this day and time, there are very few Ansel Adams left to make magic with a film camera, simply because most of them have moved to using digital cameras already.
nitewalk
Senior Member
Just because you have PP doesnt make u an award winning photographer. Just because i have photoshop, doesnt mean i can produce the same image as some of the pros here (in fact i cant), even if using the same equipment. Thus i feel this question is a non-question.
You can crop, and do whatever u can in pp but without the eye for a good moment for capture, you dont even have a good image to pp on.
You can crop, and do whatever u can in pp but without the eye for a good moment for capture, you dont even have a good image to pp on.
Last edited:
I have received reliable news that Adobe will make their own camera. it will be a 50 mega pixel camera with 68 AF point, all cross type.
It will mount ALL lenses manufactured on this earth... be it L lens, sigma, nikon , CZ .. no problem..
it is about the size of 5dmk2, slightly bigger, because it will contain Photoshop CS5 processor along with the usual image processor.
Adobe promise the end of Post Production for all photographers. Finally all GWCs will becomes photographers!
The name of the camera is Ansel Dream.
It will mount ALL lenses manufactured on this earth... be it L lens, sigma, nikon , CZ .. no problem..
it is about the size of 5dmk2, slightly bigger, because it will contain Photoshop CS5 processor along with the usual image processor.
Adobe promise the end of Post Production for all photographers. Finally all GWCs will becomes photographers!
The name of the camera is Ansel Dream.
kentwong81
Senior Member
Photography is a very subjective thing. As long as you are happy with your photography hobby, no need to care whether you are viewed as a good photographer or not. Just do what you are happy about. You can't satisfy all the people all the time.
as already mentioned above by some CS-ers there is a line that divides those who utilise photoshop to subtly enhance their image (WB, contrast, colour balance, burn/dodge, etc). and those who abuse it to make their work more than what it should be.
Personally, I only apply PP to images which I feel already have an inherent quality but maybe need some subtle cropping/rotating etc because that's pretty much all I will ever need to do. If I didn't get the WB/contrast/focus/composition right on digital in the first place I would blame myself, and if the composition is salvagable then of course PP is the solution.
Let's put it this way: when it comes to journalistic reporting with images, any tampering of the image to distort reality (add/remove prominent objects) will be deemed as a fallacy and can even result in lawsuits or defamation charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy
this is just one example... plenty more can be found with the power of google
When it comes to PERSONAL usage of PP: it's all subjective. YOU have to be the judge of your own work and deem it acceptable. After all, why polish a turd?
Personally, I only apply PP to images which I feel already have an inherent quality but maybe need some subtle cropping/rotating etc because that's pretty much all I will ever need to do. If I didn't get the WB/contrast/focus/composition right on digital in the first place I would blame myself, and if the composition is salvagable then of course PP is the solution.
Let's put it this way: when it comes to journalistic reporting with images, any tampering of the image to distort reality (add/remove prominent objects) will be deemed as a fallacy and can even result in lawsuits or defamation charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy
this is just one example... plenty more can be found with the power of google
When it comes to PERSONAL usage of PP: it's all subjective. YOU have to be the judge of your own work and deem it acceptable. After all, why polish a turd?
he is good lah!!! pro standard.. not some simple pp.
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
arrgghh..this kinda question again..:bsmilie:
my stand is: don't care what you do la...nice photo then I'll think you are a good photographer. Ugly photo then lousy photographer.
*but still a photographer* (many "photographers" nowadays...;p)
view from a hobbyist
my stand is: don't care what you do la...nice photo then I'll think you are a good photographer. Ugly photo then lousy photographer.
*but still a photographer* (many "photographers" nowadays...;p)
view from a hobbyist
OoStarDustoO
New Member
If you photo's composition is not good, even if you use the best photo-enhancing software, it will still be as bad i guess.
Photographer - 40%
Equipment - 30%
Post processing - 30%
So i guess it's just as important. If you and your friend got exactly the same equipment, same lens, mount tripod on the same location, use the same setting, but somehow his is better than urs, that is due to post processing.
Post processing is also part of photography skill i guess.
Last edited:
End of the day, the only thing that holds true:
Garbage in = Garbage out.
If the image you start out from is trash, no matter how you spice it up... it is still trash.
Garbage in = Garbage out.
If the image you start out from is trash, no matter how you spice it up... it is still trash.
- Status
