Axlf wrote:
I am so amazed that you still can't get it strait wow gramps photographer = a person who creates art through the use of a camera. A graphic designer = a person who uses a computer to make a web site or wow fix pictures for publication weather it be an editoral calendar or website can we understand the differance between the two or are we just to over the hill for that.

You have nice work but bad sence between the two fields. they are not one in the same hello. Only a small % of people will spend hours on end in front of a computer after spending hours on a photo shoot. And if you do gee you have way too much time on your hands wish i were rich like you. So all i would do is shoot and then spend all day in photoshop. Like i said beautiful work. Just don't understand why you cannot tell between photographer and graphic designer..........

Axlf, man you are starting to argue against your own points.  I've bolded areas of most interest in your quote.  Like I mentioned earlier, I've worked as a graphic designer/production artist/photographer for over the last 15 years.  You can't get straight the depth of graphic design and the definion of what it is.  Here are two definitions from the american heritage dictionary...and these are still a little vague.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
graphic design
n.
    The practice or profession of designing print or electronic forms of visual information, as for an advertisement, publication, or website.

Graphic designers, as I was always taught...are visual problem solvers that speak a message through the relationship of type, space, image and flow.  And you have to realize that graphic designers have been around for much, much, longer than computers and software.  Rand, Schwab, Saatchi and others are infamous for the brands and relationships to the public that they created. And I stress the point on "Created".


pho‧tog‧ra‧pher  /fəˈtɒgrəfər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
–noun
a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally.[i]

As long as I am behind my camera, composing, capturing and more I am a photographer.  No matter what I use later.

[i]pho·to·graph (ft-grf)  Pronunciation Key  Audio pronunciation of "photographer" [P]
n.
    An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

So by this definition of photograph anything printed on a dye sublimation printer or a other such devices technically is no longer a photograph.  Although I'd be willing to bet many people making the argument today have used inkjet printers, process printers, dye sublimation printers and call those images, "photographs" but by definition of they aren't light/photo sensitive papers they are not "photographs" they are prints.

I was always taught, and have practiced, under the theory that there is a key difference between an artist and a designer...an artist only has one person to please...themself!  A designer has a client, an audience, a target and themself.  That presses the need for no less respect in that challenge.

Here is one repetative definition for artist.

Artist:

A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill.

And this isn't specific to computer or non-computer.  I have personally dedicated a large part of my life to mastering many skills in art, design, music and relationships.  You need to grow beyond the black and white area of what you define as art and what things you single out because of a aggressively negative judgement of a tool that requires a skill.  In hawaii, there are many people that make beautiful baskets, furniture and more out of leaves they pick from the trees...as one example...are they artists, craftsmen or farmers?  They harvest, they follow a craft and they create.  Are they artists because they do it by hand?  No, because they've mastered a skill and technique.

If this is truly, the definition of artist...than all of us should be striving to become artists, because very few people should have the position of thinking that they've mastered anything...they are always reaching to become an artist, because once you've mastered one technique it opens up the opportunity to more and different techniques.  This is truly the life of a renaissance artist.

I have no anger against your opinion and I enjoy this discussion with everyone, and if you choose to believe a certain thing, that's your choice, but I hope there is flexibility for you to grow into new techniques and strive to one day "become" an artist rather than knowing you are one.

Maynard Southern wrote:

First off, lovely portfolio, beautiful work.

Now then, this last paragraph is completely lacking in logic. Photoshop is an electronic tool, just as a camera, enlarger, etc. are manual ones. Your second sentence would indicate that you have made the wrong choice if you want to fight against the death of craft...I suggest finding a cave and get busy painting. I respect your commitment to your choice of time period of technological advancement to produce your work. I just can't grasp why you can't offer the same to us that work with more recent technologies. I guarantee you would not be able to sit down and do what I do with PS. I have spent a s#$tload of time working with and learning PS, and I spend hours and hours editing one of my more complex images. It isn't the death of craft, it is the invention of a new method of craft, just like has gone about since man first put his finger in a bit of soot and made that first drawing.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument...I just had to have my say when I saw you insinuating there is no craft to the proficient use of the PS tool.

here here.

KevinCalen wrote:
I think that the people that hate Photoshop often (not always) don't really understand it. Basically Photoshop is to digital photographers what the darkroom was to early photographers; a way to process images. Photoshop can be used to make artistic collages with multiple layes and effects, or it can be simply used to tweak the contrast of an image.

I have heard many people that slight Photoshop users for "airbrushing". I HATE the fake look of poorly edited blemishes and acne as much as anyone, but don't accuse someone of "airbushing" just because their model does not have noticable skin problems.

Honestly, I think that most photographers that would say "No Photoshop" don't want to take the time to edit photos that they give to models. I would guess that if that same photographer were working for a high-paying client and they asked them to remove a zit from a model's face they would do it without hesitation.

I agree. Well put.
Photoshop is a tool, which may be used by those with or without skill.
There are also pictures that are a combination of photograph and painting (w Photoshop), which many people do not wish to call photographs, which is not a problem as far as I am concerned, as long as the intent is not pejorative. Is there a proper name for these photo-paintings? Digital Art?

An example of a photo-painting would be this by the OP (ravenslaughter), which is one of my favorites, in his portfolio:




Dan

Beach Photography wrote:
With film you can end up with the best possible image without ever sitting down at a computer. That's a given. Obviously, it's not just "pressing the button". It requires proficient knowledge of lighting/exposure and a subsequent knowledge of processing and printing.

With digital, you can't end up with your best possible image without sitting down at a computer. That's a given. Obviously, it's not just "pressing the button". It requires proficient knowledge of lighting/eposure and a subsequent knowledge of processing and printing.

Hmmmmm...

one thing that's guaranteed...both sides just push a button.  And you can get just a great image by pushing a button on a digital...that is guaranteed...I often take my card and go straight to print without ever touching a personal computer.  And if you know how to do correct lighting and exposure, that digital sensor is just as capable as film in many contexts...but when everyone's trying to buy film in 20 years...I guess we'll see how bad the images are then.

Mark Heaps wrote:

one thing that's guaranteed...both sides just push a button.  And you can get just a great image by pushing a button on a digital...that is guaranteed...I often take my card and go straight to print without ever touching a personal computer.  And if you know how to do correct lighting and exposure, that digital sensor is just as capable as film in many contexts...but when everyone's trying to buy film in 20 years...I guess we'll see how bad the images are then.

Sure you can print straight from the card, but I promise you that it's not the best possible image from that digital camera.

RPSphotos wrote:
Good Photographers perfer NOT to use photoshop for2 main reasons.. 1) the photograph that they take is not classified as a photograph after it has been altered in photoshop, therefore making it an image of the actual photo. 2) if the photographer new his basics !! he or she would use professional make-up artists and proper lighting to correct or hide any flaws that would make the picture imperfect. "A photograph is just that not and computerized altered image of one's photo.

I can't agree with this.  In the day, we often airbrushed, over exposed, or pushed exposures in dark rooms to achieve what now-a-days would be called "photoshopping" an image.

Photoshop is the digital equivilent of dark room enhancements.

True, I try to do the best I can get with lighting and sets, but I won't throw out an image with a hot spot on the model's nose, for instance, when I can quickly change it with Photoshop.

It's been my opinion - from my old photography colleages (the same ones who five years ago were saying that digital would never rival film) - that few know how to use PS and are actually afraid of it.  So, they keep on shooting 'their' way, while continuing to put down the new technology.  I still shoot film, but mostly now shoot digital because clients want their images quickly and for a younger client, waiting for film to be developed is not going to cut it, it tends to 'date' the photographer.

BTW, I'm one of those photographers who also knows both dark room techniques and photoshop techniques.  One has to stay current in this or any field if they're to remain leading edge

/tim

Tim Baker wrote:
...I still shoot film, but mostly now shoot digital because clients want their images quickly and for a younger client, waiting for film to be developed is not going to cut it, it tends to 'date' the photographer.

BTW, I'm one of those photographers who also knows both dark room techniques and photoshop techniques.  One has to stay current in this or any field if they're to remain leading edge

/tim

What's film? that's the stuff on top of the puddin right?

Beach Photography wrote:

Sure you can print straight from the card, but I promise you that it's not the best possible image from that digital camera.

Same with film.  take your film to Joe's Photo and Smokes Emporium and see the quality you get from it.

photomovement wrote:
It is not about what camera what program and what process is being used ...the out sider don't really gives a shit when the photography work what ever gender it apply to is good concrete and with quality to it....

You either move people with your images or you don't. Photoshop is just a tool. Nobody cares outside the photography circles whether you're using it or not.

Jay Bowman wrote:
Now, Bruce Weber on the other hand...

I'm not a big fan of LaChapelle at all. It's not my cup of tea. I don't like Bruce Weber's work either. It doesn't interest me.

RRCPhoto wrote:

Same with film.  take your film to Joe's Photo and Smokes Emporium and see the quality you get from it.

exactly the point I was making above. With both media there are requisite skills and time dedication to come away with the finest image possible. The skills necessary are different, but no better or worse (or more or less valid) than one another.

KevinCalen wrote:
I think that the people that hate Photoshop often (not always) don't really understand it. Basically Photoshop is to digital photographers what the darkroom was to early photographers; a way to process images. Photoshop can be used to make artistic collages with multiple layes and effects, or it can be simply used to tweak the contrast of an image.

I agree 100% with the above comment.

I believe that minor touchup in PS is just part of being a professional photographer, just like airbrushing was used when film and paper were the primary media. Also I believe that most digital or scanned images need to be sharpened and that the contrast and color may need adjustments as well. If a photographer is not willing to do that, then they are not the professionals I would want to pose for (as if they would want me to pose for them anyway LOL).

Jeff Cohn::X-Pose.net:: wrote:
Photoshop = here from now till the end of photography as a medium

Frankly I think it's closer than you think.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Off the top of my head (and I'll only include those roughly in the fashion field, won't bother to talk documentary photogragraphers, or filmmakers or painters, etc):

Mario Testino
Juergen Teller
Paolo Roversi
Helmut Newton
Deborah Turbeville
Peter Lindbergh
Terry Richardson
Mario Sorrenti
Horst Diekgerdes (maybe)

Meisel, Bailey, Avedon and perhaps Sarah Moon make the B list, as well as about 20 others. I like Watson, in much the same way I like Penn. Neither has much impact on the way I work or see things. Demarchelier has done some beautiful stuff in the past (if a bit "classicist" for my taste), but I'm not wild about him, he's pretty boring and I think he's been bored out of his mind for over a decade.

You think Demarchelier is a bit of a 'classicist' but don't think Lindbergh, Roversi and Newton are? Lindbergh is usually stuck in the 1930s and Roversi hasn't even joined the 20th century. Of course I'm joking, but if Roversi is not a 'classicist' I don't know who is.

Axlf wrote:
then train him and he will and graphic designers use this not a photographer. However if it is all you then Kudos aint easy to do two different jobs. But for the ones who don't well then you have no skill and do not even say otherwise. Digital dose not mean be lazy way too many people depend on the digital world to save them use your mind and create some art not shoot random shit and let someone else fix it for you. What did you learn from it ?

Ok I think I can translate. Man I must be bored and/or a glutton, but here goes.

Then train him and he will learn. However, that would be considered graphic design and not photography. If you're doing it all on your own, then kudos because that's not easy to excel at two different skills. But for the ones who don't, then you lack skill and there's no point disputing that fact. Digital does not mean you should be lazy. Way too many people depend on digital to save themselves from poor work. Be creative and produce art. Don't shoot random feces and then rely on someone else to fix it for you because then you've learned nothing.

How did I do? But I can't keep doing this Axlf because it took me almost an hour and 3 Starbuck's triple shots. So if you could attempt to make the responses remotely intelligible, it would be greatly appreciated. Now I need a nap.

Beach Photography wrote:
exactly the point I was making above. With both media there are requisite skills and time dedication to come away with the finest image possible. The skills necessary are different, but no better or worse (or more or less valid) than one another.

They don't get it.  I hope they do, because everyone's selling off or dumping film divisions faster than Nikon and Canon develop new digital bodies.  What is there now? only one company in entire north america that can handle Ektachrome E6, and only what...about 10 in the planet?

They're also scared because it's not "purist" - it's alot easier via trial and error to learn via Digital than Film - and thus makes this less arcane.

I learnt on film.  I enjoy the ability to experiment on Digital that I didn't have the wealth to do on film.

However, it's a sign of the times, so they should get over it.  Film is nearly dead, and dying a slow and rather painful lingering death.

LiliOPhoto wrote:
You think Demarchelier is a bit of a 'classicist' but don't think Lindbergh, Roversi and Newton are? Lindbergh is usually stuck in the 1930s and Roversi hasn't even joined the 20th century. Of course I'm joking, but if Roversi is not a 'classicist' I don't know who is.

Both have an added layer of romanticism to their love of "ideals." In both cases I get the feeling they're seeing their subjects a bit more like people and a bit less like Greek statues. Demarchelier, on the other hand, is pure Leni Reifenstahl. Except a man. And French. And working for the Bitch instead of Hitler.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
3 Starbuck's triple shots.

I would have said screw the caffeine and just went to the good stuff.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Both have an added layer of romanticism to their love of "ideals." In both cases I get the feeling they're seeing their subjects a bit more like people and a bit less like Greek statues. Demarchelier, on the other hand, is pure Leni Reifenstahl.

I don't see Leni Reifenstahl when I look at Demarchelier. I think someone like Horst better fits that definition.

LiliOPhoto wrote:

I don't see Leni Reifenstahl when I look at Demarchelier. I think someone like Horst better fits that definition.

Agree Horst is much more so than Demarchelier. Doesn't hurt that he was of a similar period though (a lot of what was considered modernism in photography rather looked like that). I do rather think that if Leni were a fashion photographer in the 80s and 90s, though... wouldn't be all that dissimilar.

Patrick Alt wrote:
Well, apparently everyone here is in the Photoshop fan club and has little room for anyone who chooses to think otherwise. The incredibly insulting and patronizing tone against those of us who choose not to use this program hardly bears any response. There are many of us who know Photoshop, are aware if its infinite possibilities, but choose to create images in a more traditional manner. There is also the reality that those who work in a traditional manner have usually mastered the craft of the fine art print to such a degree that no further corrections are required. It is possible to do this, I do it every time I work as do most of my colleagues. For us to sit in front of a computer to "fix" what should have been done with a more careful command of craft is ridiculous. Garbage in, garbage out.

If your definition of photography is the making of images to sell a product, then Photoshop is surely justified and is indeed necessary. But great images have been and will continue to be made with traditional methods without any pixels involved. I find it amusing how, for many years, the photo industry has continued to keep coming out with new products and convincing its client base that if they don't get the newest and latest of this and that, you cannot take good images. And you guys just eat it up. It happened with the last several generations of 35mm cameras and is happening at a much faster rate with digital. Have only 4.1 megapickles, well that is now obsulete. Now you need the new 6.0 megapickles with super extrapolating thingamabobs. It's an endless shell game with the manufacturers, like the house, always winning. Also notice that this is a testoseterone thing. Guys with gadgets. They feed off of this. Notice that there are virtually no women responding to this thread. Guys being guys. You got balls, they got new equipment for you. Hooray.

Lastly, the argument that Photoshop is just a tool. Wrong. Photoshop is a technology. It has been the history of art that each new technology means the further death of craft. I plan to keep my 19th century commitment to craft as long as I live. And I will still put my prints up against anything done with Photoshop. I may be a dinosaur, but at least I'm a T. Rex. :-).

Patrick, I'm sorry to hear that:

".. apparently everyone here is in the Photoshop fan club and has little room for anyone who chooses to think otherwise.

This is not my impression from what I read so far. I can certainly agree with your dismay about the "over gadgeteering" of our culture and specifically that idea that with the latest most amazing new gadget, fools think they will no longer need any practice, understanding, or skill to take great photos.

I suppose purist of some sort could also argue that studio techniques also degrade the "pure" photographic process because they use artificial lighting and so on. Of course, even outdoors one mus choose whether to stand here or there with respect to the subject and also the lightsource (usually the sun).

Pixels are always involved -as soon as you scan a negative or a print, you're dealing with pixels and there had to be choices made with respect to scanning parameters . But yes, I know what you mean, I'm just doing a bit of teasing.

I have every respect for people choosing to do little or no post work at all. It's the image that counts.

Dan

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Frankly I think it's closer than you think.

We could have this same conversation with Vinyl Records, 8tracks, Casette tapes, CDs, and mp3s....

I swear 20 million years ago half of you guys woulda been giving lizards crap for being "new fangled walkin fish" ....

"what's up with that"
"i donno man, fish dont walk"
"he's not even a real fish, he's not using his gills"
"oh man i donno what he's thinking breathing air and having feet...this wont last"

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Have any of you ever considered the idea that the process not only dictates the product but affects the vision behind it?

You're saying it yourself. The process affects the vision. If that's true, then you're holding your vision back by the same process. If the process dictates your vision, then you're not allowing for more freedom.

In the case of fashion, it comes down to personal style. Meisel is Meisel because he knows hair, make-up, styling and knows how to put it all together. Most don't. You will never go as far as you may like to because you may not have a grasp of those things. With fashion you have to consider these things. What differentiates Lindbergh, Roversi, Meisel, Mert and Marcus from Weber, Testino, LaChapelle, and some of the others is that sense of style. It's not necessarily the process or the photo talent.

Jeff Cohn::X-Pose.net:: wrote:

We could have this same conversation with Vinyl Records, 8tracks, Casette tapes, CDs, and mp3s....

I swear 20 million years ago half of you guys woulda been giving lizards crap for being "new fangled walkin fish" ....

"what's up with that"
"i donno man, fish dont walk"
"he's not even a real fish, he's not using his gills"
"oh man i donno what he's thinking breathing air and having feet...this wont last"

Very clear you're not seeing my point. And frankly I have no desire to get into it with you.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Agree Horst is much more so than Demarchelier. Doesn't hurt that he was of a similar period though (a lot of what was considered modernism in photography rather looked like that). I do rather think that if Leni were a fashion photographer in the 80s and 90s, though... wouldn't be all that dissimilar.

I agree. That's personal taste. You can even argue that it's a regional issue. Newton and Lindbergh are German and are heavily influenced by 1920s sensibility. Their work is very in touch with the Berlin of the 1920s. Man Ray could also be in that boat. Roversi has a heavily French influence of around the same period. Mert and Marcus could also be pigeon holed into this group. But this more a stylistic issue than the actual photographic process.

You can also see it on MM. The photographers here who work mainly in Europe have different sensibilities than those working in the states.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Have any of you ever considered the idea that the process not only dictates the product but affects the vision behind it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

the medium is the message

LiliOPhoto wrote:

You're saying it yourself. The process affects the vision. If that's true, then you're holding your vision back by the same process. If the process dictates your vision, then you're not allowing for more freedom.

In the case of fashion, it comes down to personal style. Meisel is Meisel because he knows hair, make-up, styling and knows how to put it all together. Most don't. You will never go as far as you may like to because you may not have a grasp of those things. With fashion you have to consider these things. What differentiates Lindbergh, Roversi, Meisel, Mert and Marcus from Weber, Testino, LaChapelle, and some of the others is that sense of style. It's not necessarily the process or the photo talent.

Ahhhhh.... this is a good subject for private message convo when it's finally up and running again (I have no desire to totally hijack this for the rest). For the moment, let's say I agree with everything you've said, but with some fairly major changes in emphasis.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Ahhhhh.... this is a good subject for private message convo when it's finally up and running again (I have no desire to totally hijack this for the rest). For the moment, let's say I agree with everything you've said, but with some fairly major changes in emphasis.

Sure, message me when it's up and you feel like it. I'm not just another dumb model.

lotusphoto wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

the medium is the message

In a very cynical way, I agree with this guy. I'm of the opinion that this particular medium/art form is headed in a direction that is turning the producer (the photographer) into a mere consumer, that that's more and more his function, and that the importance and impact of his message is being gradually minimized until it's finally just a little bit more background noise. Both commercially and culturally.

LiliOPhoto wrote:

Sure, message me when it's up and you feel like it. I'm not just another dumb model.

Trust me, I figured that much out pretty much from the start.

RPSphotos wrote:
Good Photographers perfer NOT to use photoshop for2 main reasons.. 1) the photograph that they take is not classified as a photograph after it has been altered in photoshop, therefore making it an image of the actual photo. 2) if the photographer new his basics !! he or she would use professional make-up artists and proper lighting to correct or hide any flaws that would make the picture imperfect. "A photograph is just that not and computerized altered image of one's photo.

PS is just another means to "correct or hide any flaws that would make the picture imperfect".  It doesn't degrade the essence of a photograph anymore than other methods to achieve the same end.