5D Mark III / 6D from India

[Titanium]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

I'm sure you can but why would you when there's technology that takes guesstimation out of the equation? I'll choose to control my composition versus shooting in the dark any day.

Maybe because I still like to think that there is still some art to photography - which makes some people better at it, an some worse.

It's the same reason I don't really like Photoshop, but at the same time appreciate its features.
The most editing I feel that should be done is CameraRAW (which offers the same options as film).

I see. So by this logic, those who use camera's viewfinder are true photographers and artists and those who compose their shots with LCD screen...are not? Fascinating. Old 8X10 view camera used by Ansel Adams in the previous century didn't have the viewfinder either. Entire back of the camera was an 8x10 screen and picture was reversed. This is how he composed his legendary shots. He must've been a hack too I guess.

As for your comment regarding Photoshop - I think you're completely off the mark.
Greatest photographers in history spent HOURS and sometimes DAYS in the darkroom printing that perfect print from one single negative. Ansel Adams, America's greatest landscape photographer ever, wrote volumes of books on how to selectively adjust the lighting during the printing process in order to bring out the detail in the shadows and in the highlights. See Amazon.com for his incredibly literature.
He used dodging and burning (same tools exist in Photoshop today) to control the exposure levels across the print. He developed an ingenious lighting matrix (a grid of bulbs) with ability to control the intensity of light coming from each bulb during the printing of enlargements and that's how the bright skies in his prints always retained the detail, likewise, in the shadows. Isn't that a precusor or today's HDR? He was always removing intruding elements that peeked inside his composition such as branches of trees branches by carefully rotating negatives and cropping the outer edges of his exposed frames. He died in 1982, way before the advent of digital photography and computer image processing. What do you think he would've thought of today's tools?
He experimented with various chemicals, development times, types of print media, all in order to enhance colours, mood, vibrance or tonal ranges, etc - that's a today's equivalent of brightness/contrast/levels/curves/colour balance in Photoshop. In fact, most of the image adjustment tools in Photoshop today are inspired directly by the chemical/optical processes in the darkroom. Legacy of great masters.
Do yourself a favour. Learn how to use Photoshop -seriously-, don't just appreciate its features and frown upon it. Put it to good use and your photography will benefit from it greatly.

Here are some of Ansel's famous quotes that I find very relevant in this debate:

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways." Ansel Adams


No difference today - take a RAW image with you digital camera. That's your score. Bring it into Photoshop and express your vision fully. That's your performance.

 

[DetlevCM]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

I'm sure you can but why would you when there's technology that takes guesstimation out of the equation? I'll choose to control my composition versus shooting in the dark any day.

Maybe because I still like to think that there is still some art to photography - which makes some people better at it, an some worse.

It's the same reason I don't really like Photoshop, but at the same time appreciate its features.
The most editing I feel that should be done is CameraRAW (which offers the same options as film).

I see. So by this logic, those who use camera's viewfinder are true photographers and artists and those who compose their shots with LCD screen...are not? Fascinating. Old 8X10 view camera used by Ansel Adams in the previous century didn't have the viewfinder either. Entire back of the camera was an 8x10 screen and picture was reversed. This is how he composed his legendary shots. He must've been a hack too I guess.

As for your comment regarding Photoshop - I think you're completely off the mark.
Greatest photographers in history spent HOURS and sometimes DAYS in the darkroom printing that perfect print from one single negative. Ansel Adams, America's greatest landscape photographer ever, wrote volumes of books on how to selectively adjust the lighting during the printing process in order to bring out the detail in the shadows and in the highlights. See Amazon.com for his incredibly literature.
He used dodging and burning (same tools exist in Photoshop today) to control the exposure levels across the print. He developed an ingenious lighting matrix (a grid of bulbs) with ability to control the intensity of light coming from each bulb during the printing of enlargements and that's how the bright skies in his prints always retained the detail, likewise, in the shadows. Isn't that a precusor or today's HDR? He was always removing intruding elements that peeked inside his composition such as branches of trees branches by carefully rotating negatives and cropping the outer edges of his exposed frames. He died in 1982, way before the advent of digital photography and computer image processing. What do you think he would've thought of today's tools?
He experimented with various chemicals, development times, types of print media, all in order to enhance colours, mood, vibrance or tonal ranges, etc - that's a today's equivalent of brightness/contrast/levels/curves/colour balance in Photoshop. In fact, most of the image adjustment tools in Photoshop today are inspired directly by the chemical/optical processes in the darkroom. Legacy of great masters.
Do yourself a favour. Learn how to use Photoshop -seriously-, don't just appreciate its features and frown upon it. Put it to good use and your photography will benefit from it greatly.

That's why I said I believe the most one should edit is CameraRAW. No editing is impossible - but all that Photoshop "stuff". -> if I want a fake image I'll ask for a computer simulation.

And Photoshop - I don't have the patience to spend ages on an image - in CameraRAW I'm normally done with it in less than 1 minute. Yes, I do end up shooting the odd HDR - and that's a deviation from my "normal course" but not that many, and then I try to make them look as normal as possible.
Oh, and I don't have the time to spend on figuring out all the depths of Photoshop.

I still call an image that has taken a lot of editing, especially in Photoshop a fake image.

 

[Canon 14-24]

Likewise, I can still call an image that's been processed through photoshop or rendered in HDR to be photography.

I believe we've all heard this argument so many times, and honestly to each their own, it comes down to if you like what you do that is what matters. Of the countless debates and discussions I've read on the issue these are some quotes I've pulled out from the discussions that put into context my overall opinion of it:

"I do expect that most people call Ansel Adams a photographer, even though his end product HAS been edited. Mathematically stitched panoramic images are also photographs; they just exceed the limitations of a particular lens."

There is a saying Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what is cartoonish, over worked blurred chaff to one person maybe another's idea of perfection.

Keep doing what you like how you like it and wave a proverbial two fingered salute to the whinging wining crew that conform to their own warped sense of right and wrong.

Nope, do as you please. Vote on contests as you please. But don't expect others to follow your very narrow definition of photography. We're not all held to the limits of ethical photojournalism. Art holds a mirror to reality. Art is not reality.

Photography.... There is no right or wrong.

 

[Titanium]

Likewise, I can still call an image that's been processed through photoshop or rendered in HDR to be photography.

I believe we've all heard this argument so many times, and honestly to each their own, it comes down to if you like what you do that is what matters. Of the countless debates and discussions I've read on the issue these are some quotes I've pulled out from the discussions that put into context my overall opinion of it:

"I do expect that most people call Ansel Adams a photographer, even though his end product HAS been edited. Mathematically stitched panoramic images are also photographs; they just exceed the limitations of a particular lens."

There is a saying Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what is cartoonish, over worked blurred chaff to one person maybe another's idea of perfection.

Keep doing what you like how you like it and wave a proverbial two fingered salute to the whinging wining crew that conform to their own warped sense of right and wrong.

Nope, do as you please. Vote on contests as you please. But don't expect others to follow your very narrow definition of photography. We're not all held to the limits of ethical photojournalism. Art holds a mirror to reality. Art is not reality.

Photography.... There is no right or wrong.

Very well put. Art is highly subjective and as such can never be labelled as 'wrong' because of applied techniques. An image can work for you or not.

 

[Flake]

Or you could buy one of these:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Inspire-Live-View-wireless-Remote-Control-Canon-DSLR-/130474093876?pt=UK_Photography_DigitalCamAccess_RL&hash=item1e60dcad34

(I hate the HTML hyperlink!)

Touchscreens are not much use when the camera is 10 Metres up on a pole, or when you have the camera set up looking at wildlife and you want to be out of the way.

There's no way that at the present time any camera maker will give us a detachable fully wireless LCD, but the technology obviously exists for them to do it if they wanted to.

 

[jeremymerriam]

That's why I said I believe the most one should edit is CameraRAW. No editing is impossible - but all that Photoshop "stuff". -> if I want a fake image I'll ask for a computer simulation.

And Photoshop - I don't have the patience to spend ages on an image - in CameraRAW I'm normally done with it in less than 1 minute. Yes, I do end up shooting the odd HDR - and that's a deviation from my "normal course" but not that many, and then I try to make them look as normal as possible.
Oh, and I don't have the time to spend on figuring out all the depths of Photoshop.

I still call an image that has taken a lot of editing, especially in Photoshop a fake image.

So by your standards, the fact that I shoot film makes me a better artist/photographer than you? Do you even realize that how you are defining art, you are essentially contradicting yourself? Arguing whose art form is more "real" in a digital vs digital discussion, lol.

It's pretty ignorant to see any form of art better or worse than the next form. Painting, drawing, sculpting, photography are all just different forms of art with different ways of expressing ourselves. Some might be more difficult, some might need more patience, and a different mind-set, but none of that makes one really better than the other. That all just depends on if the artist has a true vision of what he is after

Digital vs film is like comparing painting vs watercoloring. They both require different techniques to get to the same result: YOUR VISION. Personally, I do not enjoy overly digitally enhance shots and half the time I think the work looks mediocre at best (crappy art), but it is still art!

Someday, you will figure this out and appreciate art as a whole

 

[DetlevCM]

That's why I said I believe the most one should edit is CameraRAW. No editing is impossible - but all that Photoshop "stuff". -> if I want a fake image I'll ask for a computer simulation.

And Photoshop - I don't have the patience to spend ages on an image - in CameraRAW I'm normally done with it in less than 1 minute. Yes, I do end up shooting the odd HDR - and that's a deviation from my "normal course" but not that many, and then I try to make them look as normal as possible.
Oh, and I don't have the time to spend on figuring out all the depths of Photoshop.

I still call an image that has taken a lot of editing, especially in Photoshop a fake image.

So by your standards, the fact that I shoot film makes me a better artist/photographer than you? Do you even realize that how you are defining art, you are essentially contradicting yourself? Arguing whose art form is more "real" in a digital vs digital discussion, lol.

It's pretty ignorant to see any form of art better or worse than the next form. Painting, drawing, sculpting, photography are all just different forms of art with different ways of expressing ourselves. Some might be more difficult, some might need more patience, and a different mind-set, but none of that makes one really better than the other. That all just depends on if the artist has a true vision of what he is after

Digital vs film is like comparing painting vs watercoloring. They both require different techniques to get to the same result: YOUR VISION. Personally, I do not enjoy overly digitally enhance shots and half the time I think the work looks mediocre at best (crappy art), but it is still art!

Someday, you will figure this out and appreciate art as a whole

You do have a point - however, in photography the art should be in the action of taking an image.
-> Right now you can take a rubbish image, if you post process it enough it'll look like "something" - but it's no longer photography.
Film had a natural limit to what most people could do. Yes, people have been removed from images (Soviet times) but normally it wouldn't be done.
Now you shoot a rubbish picture, edit a lot in Photoshop and voila, you have a result.

It is no longer the quality of your photography work that counts, it's the quality of your photoshop work.

If you want to show of your photoshop work, then do it separately and don't claim it's photography.
With respect to film - the issue I'd have with film is cost - but overall I'd say that provided film is able to capture a scene (I don't think you can get usable ISO 6400 film) then that's real photography.
And obviously, not everybody can afford the cost of developing a lot of film - so CameraRAW in a way replaces it, additionally, it does give you some control, but does not allow you to modify an image so that it is no longer photography. In CameraRAW you can only do "so much" - the same is true for film.
With Photoshop you can do anything - and then it's no longer photography.

 

[Etienne]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

I'm sure you can but why would you when there's technology that takes guesstimation out of the equation? I'll choose to control my composition versus shooting in the dark any day.

Maybe because I still like to think that there is still some art to photography - which makes some people better at it, an some worse.

It's the same reason I don't really like Photoshop, but at the same time appreciate its features.
The most editing I feel that should be done is CameraRAW (which offers the same options as film).

I see. So by this logic, those who use camera's viewfinder are true photographers and artists and those who compose their shots with LCD screen...are not? Fascinating. Old 8X10 view camera used by Ansel Adams in the previous century didn't have the viewfinder either. Entire back of the camera was an 8x10 screen and picture was reversed. This is how he composed his legendary shots. He must've been a hack too I guess.

As for your comment regarding Photoshop - I think you're completely off the mark.
Greatest photographers in history spent HOURS and sometimes DAYS in the darkroom printing that perfect print from one single negative. Ansel Adams, America's greatest landscape photographer ever, wrote volumes of books on how to selectively adjust the lighting during the printing process in order to bring out the detail in the shadows and in the highlights. See Amazon.com for his incredibly literature.
He used dodging and burning (same tools exist in Photoshop today) to control the exposure levels across the print. He developed an ingenious lighting matrix (a grid of bulbs) with ability to control the intensity of light coming from each bulb during the printing of enlargements and that's how the bright skies in his prints always retained the detail, likewise, in the shadows. Isn't that a precusor or today's HDR? He was always removing intruding elements that peeked inside his composition such as branches of trees branches by carefully rotating negatives and cropping the outer edges of his exposed frames. He died in 1982, way before the advent of digital photography and computer image processing. What do you think he would've thought of today's tools?
He experimented with various chemicals, development times, types of print media, all in order to enhance colours, mood, vibrance or tonal ranges, etc - that's a today's equivalent of brightness/contrast/levels/curves/colour balance in Photoshop. In fact, most of the image adjustment tools in Photoshop today are inspired directly by the chemical/optical processes in the darkroom. Legacy of great masters.
Do yourself a favour. Learn how to use Photoshop -seriously-, don't just appreciate its features and frown upon it. Put it to good use and your photography will benefit from it greatly.

That's why I said I believe the most one should edit is CameraRAW. No editing is impossible - but all that Photoshop "stuff". -> if I want a fake image I'll ask for a computer simulation.

And Photoshop - I don't have the patience to spend ages on an image - in CameraRAW I'm normally done with it in less than 1 minute. Yes, I do end up shooting the odd HDR - and that's a deviation from my "normal course" but not that many, and then I try to make them look as normal as possible.
Oh, and I don't have the time to spend on figuring out all the depths of Photoshop.

I still call an image that has taken a lot of editing, especially in Photoshop a fake image.

That's a Journalist perspective

 

[kubelik]

I've rarely seen rubbish images that can be "saved" by photoshop.

you can make it look ludicrous and garish, or perhaps briefly interesting to the untrained eye, but rarely can they be made into something great. unless the person is really a talented photoshopper, in which case, that is an art form unto itself. it's actually quite similar to collage art (that forgotten art form), which can actually be deeply immersive if done correctly.

 

[jeremymerriam]

That's why I said I believe the most one should edit is CameraRAW. No editing is impossible - but all that Photoshop "stuff". -> if I want a fake image I'll ask for a computer simulation.

And Photoshop - I don't have the patience to spend ages on an image - in CameraRAW I'm normally done with it in less than 1 minute. Yes, I do end up shooting the odd HDR - and that's a deviation from my "normal course" but not that many, and then I try to make them look as normal as possible.
Oh, and I don't have the time to spend on figuring out all the depths of Photoshop.

I still call an image that has taken a lot of editing, especially in Photoshop a fake image.

So by your standards, the fact that I shoot film makes me a better artist/photographer than you? Do you even realize that how you are defining art, you are essentially contradicting yourself? Arguing whose art form is more "real" in a digital vs digital discussion, lol.

It's pretty ignorant to see any form of art better or worse than the next form. Painting, drawing, sculpting, photography are all just different forms of art with different ways of expressing ourselves. Some might be more difficult, some might need more patience, and a different mind-set, but none of that makes one really better than the other. That all just depends on if the artist has a true vision of what he is after

Digital vs film is like comparing painting vs watercoloring. They both require different techniques to get to the same result: YOUR VISION. Personally, I do not enjoy overly digitally enhance shots and half the time I think the work looks mediocre at best (crappy art), but it is still art!

Someday, you will figure this out and appreciate art as a whole

You do have a point - however, in photography the art should be in the action of taking an image.
-> Right now you can take a rubbish image, if you post process it enough it'll look like "something" - but it's no longer photography.
Film had a natural limit to what most people could do. Yes, people have been removed from images (Soviet times) but normally it wouldn't be done.
Now you shoot a rubbish picture, edit a lot in Photoshop and voila, you have a result.

It is no longer the quality of your photography work that counts, it's the quality of your photoshop work.

If you want to show of your photoshop work, then do it separately and don't claim it's photography.
With respect to film - the issue I'd have with film is cost - but overall I'd say that provided film is able to capture a scene (I don't think you can get usable ISO 6400 film) then that's real photography.
And obviously, not everybody can afford the cost of developing a lot of film - so CameraRAW in a way replaces it, additionally, it does give you some control, but does not allow you to modify an image so that it is no longer photography. In CameraRAW you can only do "so much" - the same is true for film.
With Photoshop you can do anything - and then it's no longer photography.

I am not sure what you are defining a rubbish image. Of course it is getting easier and easier to produce more useable shots thanks to technology. Your definition of what makes something a photo is very narrow, and I am sorry you are putting so many limitations on your own work.

In my definition of photography is where you start not your end result. If by taking a photograph (painting with light), I get an image and then turn around and do some wildly creative enhancements, it still started off as an photo. Mixed media doesn't stop it from losing is definition. You can however, call it an untouched vs retouched photo.

There are some that can argue that photoshop is no different than the darkroom manipulations that some of the master comp photo artist could do back in the day. I forgot his name (lives in Florida) but he made the most amazing photo surrealist pictures all in the dark room. He was still "painting with light", so by definition of what the word photography means, he was creating photographs.

There is nothing wrong with you wanted to stick within the niche of journalistic photography but you are really not going to convince anyone that using photoshop = not photography.

 

[jeremymerriam]

I've rarely seen rubbish images that can be "saved" by photoshop.

you can make it look ludicrous and garish, or perhaps briefly interesting to the untrained eye, but rarely can they be made into something great. unless the person is really a talented photoshopper, in which case, that is an art form unto itself. it's actually quite similar to collage art (that forgotten art form), which can actually be deeply immersive if done correctly.

If you are talking about a bad exposed vs perfect exposed image, I 100% agree. There is a dramatic different to the trained eye when viewing an image with perfect exposure vs one that is a stop underexpose or overexposed. I will die with my light meter in my hand )

 

[aberz]

Oh wait, so Photoshop is FAKE, and not art ? Thats the same reason why editing in video/film is so underrated. There are so many great movie with crappy shooting saved by post ( Easy Rider, for example ), and there are many well shot movie turned into crap by post.
Or what about cooking ? By your definition, it should not be an art form, because the only art is in the process of making bread or sauce. Cooking just simply put those RAW material together, and "edit" them , so it should not be an art.

Shooting from LCD or VF does not matter, as long as you are comfortable enough to get the shot you want. I sometimes run a production for wedding video, and guess what, that one dude who often use Auto Mode ( Focus and Iris), which is labeled "amateur" by the "pro", has the most useable shots. He knows how to use technology to compliment his manual skill and not totally rely on one.

Shooting raw or photoshoping are both art, in their own unique way. They compliment each other to produce the final art work. Therefor, praising one "art" but bashing the other "fake" is just simply ignorant.

As the poster above said, you will rarely see a rubbish image saved by post. But when it does, its gold, because more often than not, reshooting is not an option.

The only constant in this world is change. Live, learn, and adapt. It will make you a better artist when you step out of your comfort zone to accept new challenges and use them to your advantage. Dont be scared, photoshop is just a software, it wont hurt.

 

[Flake]

I've rarely seen rubbish images that can be "saved" by photoshop.

you can make it look ludicrous and garish, or perhaps briefly interesting to the untrained eye, but rarely can they be made into something great. unless the person is really a talented photoshopper, in which case, that is an art form unto itself. it's actually quite similar to collage art (that forgotten art form), which can actually be deeply immersive if done correctly.

If you are talking about a bad exposed vs perfect exposed image, I 100% agree. There is a dramatic different to the trained eye when viewing an image with perfect exposure vs one that is a stop underexpose or overexposed. I will die with my light meter in my hand )

Is there really such a thing as a 'perfectly' exposed image? There's only so many stops in a dynamic range, and once that's exceeded you either clip the highlights or squash the shadows. Some might choose to blow the highlights because they want the shadows where others might want the sky, others might bracket for HDR in which case Exposure hardly matters at all other than on the monitor screen histogram.

Certain scenes just don't expose properly anyway fog mist or soft lighting always appears under exposed, in other conditions light meters get fooled snow - also often for cut outs.

Very little in photography needs to be 'perfect' and those who get hung up on technical perfection often seem to forget the main purpose - that is creating images. Technically imperfect interesting images which draw the viewer in or make contact or say something, appeal to me far more than a bland but perfect snapshot.

 

[jeremymerriam]

I've rarely seen rubbish images that can be "saved" by photoshop.

you can make it look ludicrous and garish, or perhaps briefly interesting to the untrained eye, but rarely can they be made into something great. unless the person is really a talented photoshopper, in which case, that is an art form unto itself. it's actually quite similar to collage art (that forgotten art form), which can actually be deeply immersive if done correctly.

If you are talking about a bad exposed vs perfect exposed image, I 100% agree. There is a dramatic different to the trained eye when viewing an image with perfect exposure vs one that is a stop underexpose or overexposed. I will die with my light meter in my hand )

Is there really such a thing as a 'perfectly' exposed image? There's only so many stops in a dynamic range, and once that's exceeded you either clip the highlights or squash the shadows. Some might choose to blow the highlights because they want the shadows where others might want the sky, others might bracket for HDR in which case Exposure hardly matters at all other than on the monitor screen histogram.

Certain scenes just don't expose properly anyway fog mist or soft lighting always appears under exposed, in other conditions light meters get fooled snow - also often for cut outs.

Very little in photography needs to be 'perfect' and those who get hung up on technical perfection often seem to forget the main purpose - that is creating images. Technically imperfect interesting images which draw the viewer in or make contact or say something, appeal to me far more than a bland but perfect snapshot.

0

If what you meant to show to the viewer (object/subject of attention) is properly exposed, then yes, I believe in perfect exposures. I shots in the fog and snow come out great with a light meter using film. digital does a pretty shitty job at fog vs film

 

[kubelik]

I've rarely seen rubbish images that can be "saved" by photoshop.

you can make it look ludicrous and garish, or perhaps briefly interesting to the untrained eye, but rarely can they be made into something great. unless the person is really a talented photoshopper, in which case, that is an art form unto itself. it's actually quite similar to collage art (that forgotten art form), which can actually be deeply immersive if done correctly.

If you are talking about a bad exposed vs perfect exposed image, I 100% agree. There is a dramatic different to the trained eye when viewing an image with perfect exposure vs one that is a stop underexpose or overexposed. I will die with my light meter in my hand )

I meant more than just getting the technical aspects right. getting the artistic elements right is important as well. if there's no composition, no interesting subject, no visual lines, no dynamism ... photoshop can't give you those things. unless, as stated before, you are approaching it as collage, at which point it can still be art, but it's not photography.

 

[aberz]

Very little in photography needs to be 'perfect' and those who get hung up on technical perfection often seem to forget the main purpose - that is creating images. Technically imperfect interesting images which draw the viewer in or make contact or say something, appeal to me far more than a bland but perfect snapshot.

Well said.
What makes a good "art" is its creativity. If you try to recreate real life through photography aka "perfect", you just simply replicate, not create. Does our human eyes really see that shallow focus with soft bokeh ?
And if you look close enough, nothing in this real world is perfect, because everyone have their own definition of perfection.

 

[Film]

@kubelik

Agree. Just knowing the Photoshop won't make you get a great picture. It look great to most of people that just see a pretty picture and say "WOW"

@DetlevCM

Agree on the spot that too much processing is not a photography any more. But it's still art and some people really amaze, but that's like less than 0,1%.

@Flake
Great Gadget! thnx

@Titanium

Please don't compare what Ansel Adams did to what Photoshop does. What he did in his darkroom was art just by the fact that he was inventing & finding new ways to get the image he wanted. The art is about invention. Invention that takes out what you wanna show. What is your opponent saying is that there are a lot of suckers that don't bother to take a good shot and just use Photoshop to edit it. Which is easy and stupid and I don't think what Ansel Adams did was nor easy neither stupid. Photoshop is a nice tool, but there is just too much of this s**t in the world of "photography" now. And that is sad. Sliding your mouse cursor over the screen does not make you an artist. And I agree with kubelik, that it won't get you to something really good. What I don't like about it is that it floods the internet making you waste your time when you expect to see true art and find a picture that some geek was just making look nice for hours and it's not that good, it looks nice for first 2 seconds or on a preview, but when you look closer - you just get disappointed, that's all.

I admire Photoshop and the possibilities it has to offer. It's just that some people are misusing it and other people like it. And don't tell me that it's their choice and stuff. Just don't. They like it not because it's really good or a true art, but just because people are not looking deep anymore.

Listen to music of Sinatra, or Elvis, or Joe Dassin and then listen to music of Justin Beeber or Paris Hilton. Where would these 2 singers be in 1960s with their music?

and @aberz:

good point

 

[Etienne]

"An object regarded as Art today may not have been perceived as such when it was first made, nor was the person who made it necessarily regarded as an artist. "

Many people think it is ridiculous to consider the idea that any photography is art. Some include photography, but reject HDR, still other purists reject photoshop treatment. The modernist painters were rejected by the "professional artists" in the beginning.

So what? Fretting over "what is art" is a waste of time and energy. A good artist experiments, and the good work will be noticed eventually.

 

[aberz]

Yeah I can live with that. Your art is not my art, and not everyone art. Some believe a "perfect" exposure is art, some think a creative exposure is art.
What is "art" under the eyes of pro for top critics may not appeal to the mass, and vice versa.

For me, art is to create , not to limit creativity. I dont care if its a pro camera work, or fantastic post , as long as the final product looks good. Shooting through VF or LCD, the bride wont give a damn till she get the picture.

And a lot of great artists are known for breaking the rules and defying the perfection. And a lot of "us" spend more time debating "What is art/perfection" online than shooting.

 

[holden602]

KUBELIK said: I've never seen canon deliberately shoot themselves in the foot with product pricing, and I don't see that trend starting in 2011. especially not with lens price hikes coming and all new replacement L glass coming in at a 50% premium





What does this mean? Are you saying that prices are going up on current models but future L lenses will be half the price?