Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Are today's photographers less of a photo craftsman...

Reply
Thread Tools

Are today's photographers less of a photo craftsman...

 
 
Colin_D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
Dave wrote:
> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
> less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
> pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
> just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
> sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
> example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
> at the ready.
>
>

Another somebody who has no idea of what Photoshop can - and *can't* - do.

You can pick the trolls who have no idea what they are talking about, no
prizes for guessing which category the OP is in.

For his information: Photoshop cannot rescue a badly exposed shot and
render it anywhere near a well-exposed shot. If the shadows are lost,
or the highlights blown, *no* software can rescue it. End of story.

Neither can Photoshop alter lighting, or influence composition, other
than by cropping - which was also done with film. But, IMO if cropping
is needed then the shot wasn't properly set up (apart from aspect ratio
considerations to fit a predefined shape).

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pat O'Connell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
Dave wrote:
> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
> less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
> pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
> just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
> sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
> example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
> at the ready.


Presumably you're aware that most B&W photographers (including myself in
the early 1970s) dodged, burned, and otherwise manipulated their prints
in the darkroom, aren't you? Except for his contact prints, I'll presume
that Ansel did the same at the time.

If he had today's digital cameras available, I'll bet he would use one
with the largest possible CCD array, to get the finest grain in his
prints, and perhaps Photoshop them to get the desired effect.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006

"Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dIr8h.96$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise)
> are less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in
> the pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to
> rescue just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable
> and/or sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea
> Lange for example, would have done with their negatives if they had
> today's software at the ready.
>


Were any of yesterdays "photographers" actually craftsman anyway or do you
only see the good ones.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
I don't know about the pros you know, but the ones I know are just as
concerned with technique because a proper exposure reduces post production
time. Yeah, you can bail yourself out, but it's better not to have dug the
hole in the first place.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006


> Neither can Photoshop alter lighting, or influence composition, other than
> by cropping - which was also done with film. But, IMO if cropping is
> needed then the shot wasn't properly set up (apart from aspect ratio
> considerations to fit a predefined shape).


Oh to be the perfect photographer that can always be in the perfect place
with the perfect range of equipment for every shot, luckilly for the other
99.99999% of us there are tools that can assist us to improve the print
after the original shot was taken, sort of just like the olden days really.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
Dave wrote:
> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
> less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
> pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
> just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
> sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
> example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
> at the ready.
>
>


I don't believe they are less concerned, they just benefit by greater
flexibility in their equipment, and post-processing abilities. Now as
to the quality of the photographs, as always, this depends on the
ability of the photographer. Some are artists, like Adams, and some are
just craftsmen. If the intent is to capture the image, then
craftsmanship is adequate. To produce art, requires either a very lucky
craftsman, or an artist.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Ansel Adams actually fortold the digital revolution, but didn't think
>through how to adequately backup his digital negatives.


Ansel Adams would probably have written a book where he describes how you
should store copies of your digital files on all continents, that you
should should replace them every year, etc. And then there is probably some
high-end system that he uses himself that also checks the files for
corruption.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
In article <456274fb$0$21079$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Colin_D <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>But, IMO if cropping
>is needed then the shot wasn't properly set up (apart from aspect ratio
>considerations to fit a predefined shape).


That implies that you can only use zooms. Strange.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Pat O'Connell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Except for his contact prints, I'll presume
>that Ansel did the same at the time.


Yes, for most of the images in 'The Print', he describes what he had to
do. Just a straight print was nothing more than a starting point.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
bugbear
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
Dave wrote:
> Does it seem to be that photographers today (professional or otherwise) are
> less concerned with proper exposure, lighting and composition than in the
> pre digital era because the "photoshop" safety net is available to rescue
> just about any image from the scrap heap and turn it into a usable and/or
> sellable product? One has to wonder what Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange for
> example, would have done with their negatives if they had today's software
> at the ready.
>


We had this discussion already, a fornight ago.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...5bf0602d4b489a

BugBear

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Arrest more photographers! Arrest more photographers!" RichA Digital Photography 0 09-10-2010 01:56 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! jiajia wu ASP .Net 0 10-01-2009 01:50 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! lllll Ruby 0 06-08-2009 02:10 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! 6668 Ruby 0 05-14-2009 12:33 AM
new photo site Wanted: users, poster, Moderators, Photographers mark Digital Photography 3 09-05-2004 11:10 PM



Advertisments