Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think his point was...
"If you can't make the image look great straight out of the camera - no post processing - YOU are not using your camera to its full potential."
If you only use the simple processing the camera's manufacturer included in the camera, you are not using YOUR full potential.
Quote:
A P&S will be limited by its potential, but there is no harm maximizing the potential of the camera and the photographer on the field. PS should be a fall back option, not a guaranteed one.
Why should competent photographers tie their hands behind their back by not guaranteeing the best possible processing?
Artificially limiting yourself to only using the very limited range of processing available in the camera is a guarantee of lower quality photography and a vastly more limited photographer.
You try to define photography and photographers so as to exclude everyone who is more able that you, which will forever limit your horizons.
That image is not what it looked like at midnight !!
You had to over expose to get that effect. That photo although it is very stunning indeed (no doubt about that) It reeks of post processing & manipulation.
I've been in this business for over 40 years and that is now I have made my living & supporting my family. I don't care what you call it.. the money is all that counts for me - "the same is true with any job".
What part of 8 minute exposure did you not grasp? I have to disagree with your post. It does not reek of post-processing by your definition.
And if all that counts for you is money, well...that says it all right there.
Not to detract from the OP. I think there are some very good insights here. I am of the mind that composition initially is very important, but that photo-shopping done without a heavy hand is just as important.
Of course there are limits. But to assume that PS (photo editing) hasn't made people go bonkers to a level not seen before, combined with convenience, couldn't be further from the reality. Just like all the automation within what is supposed to be a hobby for many of us, the human factor has been taken away and PS is quite a few steps in that direction.
Heck, one doesn't need to learn PS to take advantage of its strengths. Just hand it over to someone who does. Ultimately it comes down to, what exactly is the motivation? If I heavily edit one of my pictures to look better, I don't get the same personal satisfaction as I do from a photograph with minimal to no processing. Sure, I may not get the bragging rights, but if that were my motivation, PS can't be beat.
They have gone bonkers and it hasn't made the quality of their photography better. That was my point.
Could you clarify your position on not having to learn PS to take advantage of it's strengths?
That's because you only take snapshots. Try taking pictures of several seconds exposure with great depth of field in twilight hours and let's see how well your 'toy' holds up. Any camera can take great pictures on a nice sunny day.
Here's an 8 minute exposure taken under a full moon at midnight. Try this with your $100 P&S and post the results.
WOW. Beautiful shot.
There are many, many ways that P&S's just do not work. There is a reason manuals are used by professionals. Even then post processing is needed to tweak an image. It's the nature of the art.
Then you ignored the point on potential, the limitations of a camera. After all, there is no point in comparing what expensive cameras/lenses can do versus what a P&S can't. The argument, as I saw, was primarily based on working with the fundamentals of photography (lighting, framing, angle of view, perspective etc), not comparing features between cameras.
To me, a photography is not just what the camera can do, but how much a photographer can get out of it.
Then Sity Data shouldn't have been so quick to mock those "wanna be's" who invested in professional cameras.
P&S cameras are great. I carry one too. But they work best within well defined limits.
And indeed, some people's abilities fit within the limits of a $100 P&S camera. He can have fun, he can even now and then produce a genuinely good photograph.
But the reality of it is that better equipment, including what is required to do the best processing, is required for the consistently good photography needed to qualify a photographer as something other than a glorified snapshot artist.
I've never seen any accomplished/recognized photographer that was not extremely particular about post processing. I've seen great photographers do single images or even a project with simple equipment; but they never end up owning only a simple camera and/or never doing post processing, or even just temporarily restricting themselves in that way for any period of time.
Fantasies about being a professional, and defining photography and photographers to exclude more competent and more talented people are just ways to massage egos. For some it is essentially a harmless endeavor and may actually have benefits as it at least encourages some effort at higher quality; but for others it's just an exercise in disconnection from reality.
Then Sity Data shouldn't have been so quick to mock those "wanna be's" who invested in professional cameras.
Well, it would be up to those who feel mocked, to take him up on that challenge, but not without considering the limits of a P&S. An argument that rests on... "but a P&S can't take such and such exposure" doesn't address that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
They have gone bonkers and it hasn't made the quality of their photography better. That was my point.
Could you clarify your position on not having to learn PS to take advantage of it's strengths?
One can hire a PS expert (or less than an expert) to do the job. I have Photoshopped someone's vacation pictures, upon request from someone here at C-D. As for quality, why go bonkers with PS if it isn't about improving the quality of presentation?
If you only use the simple processing the camera's manufacturer included in the camera, you are not using YOUR full potential.
And somehow you believe that PS reveals the true potential of a photographer. Well, you’re surely entitled to your opinion that I couldn’t disagree with, more. PS is a tool, should be used as such, not the end. Let us take some pictures you posted yesterday (Native Art). What kind of post processing did you feel was necessary? If you didn't, what do you think could make for a better photograph via post-processing?
Quote:
Why should competent photographers tie their hands behind their back by not guaranteeing the best possible processing?
“Best possible processing” can entail a variety of things. It can be about best possible paper, best possible film, best possible equipment that one puts to work (including the lens), best possible printer and so on. Somehow, the point of “best possible on-field talent” is taking a back seat here. (See the arguments made against the P&S above).
Quote:
Artificially limiting yourself to only using the very limited range of processing available in the camera is a guarantee of lower quality photography and a vastly more limited photographer.
That is why a photographer must choose the best equipment he/she can afford, and the best timing, the best angle of view, the best perspective, the best lighting, and the best effort he/she can put in a shot. Artificial techniques that define post-processing should be minimally relied upon.
Quote:
You try to define photography and photographers so as to exclude everyone who is more able that you, which will forever limit your horizons.
Thanks for the unnecessary wise words. They’re better put to practice than preached.
It is a form of manipulation, used to create an artwork and presented as such. The question then is, would it be necessary in post-processing if the photographer were able to accomplish it on the field? Or, is it okay to not worry so much on the field since it can be accomplished in the lab anyway?
There is always a thin line between use and abuse. But that has nothing to do with cheating (which would imply deception of some kind).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
