lotusphoto wrote:

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

the medium is the message

LOL.

I'm enjoying your notes, Lotus, but these days, imho . . . the message is the message, and never so more so than when it appears independent of context and quite disembodied here on the World Wide Web.  Photoshopped painting and painterly photo-realism: ain't no difference between either examined here.  We're working with pure idea, mind-to-mind from one desktop to another.  The latest baited and trolling hook and possibly the only remaining: the notion of artistic sensibility.

ravens laughter wrote:
okay...

I can accept that some of the "art" of traditional photography is it's restriction.

If you have it in your head that you have to get it right the first time; you are more careful.. you do take more time..

I had one of my friends compare it to the french impressionists who felt that for art to truely be art.... you must stay at the canvas until the piece is completely finished.. To distance ones self from the art for any period of time takes away from the original intent and feeling of the piece...

So I can certainly understand the giving yourself wholly and completely to the process... and therefore have no consideration of any post processing. I can understand it from that point of view... I see a few examples of people who might be that way (marko for instance... i love his work).

But generally speaking, for the photographer who is less into the moments....who is not careful to begin with.... why would they glory in the purity of their photography if their work is sloppy?

Is a photo that is sloppy and untouched better than one that is beautiful and photoshopped?



and Pixel.... the term that I and Jeffrey Scott are fond of is "Fauxtoes" or "Photographic Lies" or "Fauxtography"

I know a guy who likes to call me up and brag about how hi-tech he is, what new digital thingie he bought [and how much money it cost him] lately.  The last time he called me, he was telling me about how he took a model's head from one image and stuck it on her body in a different image, thereby making a "perfect" pose.

I thought about it for a second and asked:

"Wouldn't it have been easier to ask her to turn her head?"

That said, I think photoshop is great...I just don't happen to use it for much myself.

commart wrote:

LOL.

I'm enjoying your notes, Lotus, but these days, imho . . . the message is the message, and never so more so than when it appears independent of context and quite disembodied here on the World Wide Web.  Photoshopped painting and painterly photo-realism: ain't no difference between either examined here.  We're working with pure idea, mind-to-mind from one desktop to another.  The latest baited and trolling hook and possibly the only remaining: the notion of artistic sensibility.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
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.

he came along with this circa warhol, i was a 'child of the 60's' as they say, and the first time i read that prase i thought it was the medium is the massage not message , so i pondered it in the same context as


Newton Minow's speech to the National Association of Broadcasters on May 9, 1961:


"But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you--and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience-participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western badmen, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials--many screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you will see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, try it.'


thinking that tv, as a medium, was massaging us into becoming a dull witted society..

that could be why new comers to this country will do better, they haven't become brain adled from tv

btw

if that were true then H. L. Mencken, who  once wrote that eventually

"the White House will be adorned by a downright moron..."

would be true.. hmm

ravens laughter wrote:
okay...

and Pixel.... the term that I and Jeffrey Scott are fond of is "Fauxtoes" or "Photographic Lies" or "Fauxtography"

That's a great name, shame I've been ignorant of it. Now that I've heard it I will use it Thanks!

Dan

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.

Hogwash...

joe duerr wrote:

Hogwash...

Pretty much the same thing I was going to type, Joe, only I wasn't going to be so polite

People that brag about such things are, in my opinion, your basic internet idiots that are only demonstrating their ingorance. 

A "good photographer" (and we can debate what THAT means all day long and have no consensus) is someone who approaches a shot with at least some idea in mind on what he/she is looking for, exercises proper skills to maximize the things neccessary to achieve that shot, and then exercises whatever needs to be done afterwards, so that the shot looks like what he/she had in mind to begin with.  Actually, I think there's much more to it than what I just wrote, but that's the gist of it.  After the finished product comes out,  it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether or not it is "good" or not. 

I could care less about whether or not PS was used, it's the finished product that either catches my attention or leaves me feeling limp.  More often than not, the photos I see that exclaim "LOOK MOM, NO PHOTOSHOP" are sorely in need of at least some minor additional attention, if not major. 

Having grown up in darkrooms, both black and white and then color, I've almost always done at least SOMETHING to a photo before I think I'm finished with it.  If it's the basic crop, or a minor burn/dodge application, or a blemish removal or something more serious, who really cares, if the finished photo is one that the client or the viewer enjoys?

Don't brag to me about not using PS, you're only demontrating your ignorance.  If it's your GOAL to get a photo so perfect that it needs no finishing, that's great, we should all strive to get it as close to right as possible when we shoot it, but it's nothing to brag about!

Regards,

Frank

Mark Heaps wrote:

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.

Agreed!
Edward S. Curtis had his photographs reproduced via Photogravure.  Rotogravure or Sublimation printing to the uninitiated, because it offered far greater flexibility and offered enlargement and reduction, unlike the contact printing of the day. So did his brother Asahel, so did many others. A photographer "Writes with light" the method of capture or reproduction is immaterial. One uses whichever method that affords one the fullest expression of their vision as they see it.
Photogravure Mosa Mojave Girl 1903:

ravens laughter wrote:
I have seen a few images on here that have pimples and red areas and scratches... and the photographer proudly announces "No Photoshop!"

Why is this worn as a badge of honor?

Is it that so many people think that if you use photoshop that you don't know how to shoot? And that if you post pictures with obvious flaws that could be simply corrected that that in and of itself means that you're a better photographer than those who use photoshop to correct those small flaws (or like me actually insert flaws)?

Ive learned that the lighting makes all the differance, great lighting means all the blemishes will show up, photoshop may have its place and there are certainly masters of the art of photo manipulation via photoshop but it still seems that there are way to many shooters that rely on it without actually improving the image

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I know a guy who likes to call me up and brag about how hi-tech he is, what new digital thingie he bought [and how much money it cost him] lately.  The last time he called me, he was telling me about how he took a model's head from one image and stuck it on her body in a different image, thereby making a "perfect" pose.

I thought about it for a second and asked:

"Wouldn't it have been easier to ask her to turn her head?"

That said, I think photoshop is great...I just don't happen to use it for much myself.

Actually I've done that myself, but that is due to working in the medium of self-portraiture sometimes I don't see the perfect way to put it together until after I can see it on the big screen. When you're shooting yourself draped in tinsel and wearing a santa hat and nothing else, trust me, you take what you can get of running back and forth (this was before I had a remote) and work with it to the best of your ability.

And don't forget the fairy images of the girls in the garden. There's a great take down on how the girl had the knowledge to do it quite easily in a few different books. So for a long time people have used film to create things that aren't there, or layer images to make them just right.

RPSphotos wrote:
Good Photographers perfer NOT to use photoshop

I'm not a Photographer...obviously....but every pro photographer in the modeling industry Photoshops..or otherwise edits the photos to bring out the color of the model's skin or make the product look more appealing.  There'd never be a shot for a major designer that went straight from the camera to the advertisement. It's unheard of.

Just my 2 bitty little cents.  Don't suppose it matters much .

Dr Molly Black wrote:

Actually I've done that myself, but that is due to working in the medium of self-portraiture sometimes I don't see the perfect way to put it together until after I can see it on the big screen. When you're shooting yourself draped in tinsel and wearing a santa hat and nothing else, trust me, you take what you can get of running back and forth (this was before I had a remote) and work with it to the best of your ability.

And don't forget the fairy images of the girls in the garden. There's a great take down on how the girl had the knowledge to do it quite easily in a few different books. So for a long time people have used film to create things that aren't there, or layer images to make them just right.

As I said, I have no problem with PS or people who use it a great deal.  I just like the fact that when you look at my work, you see what I saw.  I do my best to get it in the camera and then I add as little as possible.  That's just what works for me.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
As I said, I have no problem with PS or people who use it a great deal.  I just like the fact that when you look at my work, you see what I saw.  I do my best to get it in the camera and then I add as little as possible.  That's just what works for me.

And from Marko: "The accessibility of this new medium has really only served to blind so many of the primacy of the first . . . ."

The sensibility, the value found in "you see what I saw", in the sensibility question ("That's just what works for me") is why that works for anyone.  In the exchange, intimacy, knowing, pleasurable, or stolen or epiphanic moment of making a picture--and of the real for Steichen, the surreal for Cartier-Bresson, the hyper-real for Avedon--lies the powder that burns beneath this argument over editing and, essentially, the emphasis on photography in the field versus "fauxtography" milled into photo-illustration at the desktop.

For practical purposes elsewhere, I've said I'll comment on anything (if wanted, lol) made with a camera, but I too think Photoshop represents either a new medium--digital imagery--or a pumped up illustrator's tool with applications in photography but offering a far more extensive range of visual arts services, especially ones  emulating traditional  media or offering ways of producing experimental or novel concepts.  In fact, editing to a print, virtual or inked, means keeping in mind some notion about what looks photographic, a notion itself borrowed from the legacy of photography--whatever we think a photograph looks like, it's not a look forced by any filter, method, or process made available by Photoshop.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
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.

You mean something like...

Ansel Adams wrote:
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.

Was Ansel Adams a "graphic designer" or a photographer?

Kevin Connery wrote:

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
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.

You mean something like...

Was Ansel Adams a "graphic designer" or a phorographer?

Labeled as a photographer, but he used editing tools to help his images, so he could be called both.
When he was shooting, I don’t think they had the term "Graphic designer”

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
Take One
I think many of us 'older' photographers get pissed off at an image that is taken by someone you KNOW doesnt know jack shit about lighting, and yet still have a picture look good because of their photoshop knowledge. The purist claims 'i dont need that, I do it all in camera with lights' - and thats totally cool, but there is that jealousy angle that most anyone who owns a camera AND has photoshop skills can now accomplish the same thing.

That's not entirely true--it takes a lot of skill to make a retouched image look 'real'.

It's not as bad as, but it's in the same category as saying that most anyone who owns a camera can now take professional-quality images. There's still skill involved, though it's not always the same as skill in lighting.

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
Take Two
Fear. Much like my dad, he has to relearn everything. Its scary for him, and he fights it. Yet, he loves his D70 (a bday prezzie from me a while back), and I dont think he has shot a roll of film since. But try to get him to use photoshop, and hes lost, doesnt have the patience, and in the end, claims to have no time to learn it. I even sent him to courses in the city. He just doesnt want to learn it. I think alot of people are like him. So...in turn, because of that fear, its easier to claim 'real photographers dont need photoshop'. Silly, it is. Of course, this is why we have graphic folk in our lab, so dad can do other things. lol

Becoming less true, but yes. I've had a number of photographer-clients who would have me come in to set up the most basic functions for them, even after I explained--and demonstrated--that it was taking more of their time to have me do it than if they did it themselves. And they did know how; they were just afraid/unconfident.

There's fewer of them these days, which means my truly basic consulting jobs are very rare now. But I still get calls from new converts to digital from time to time.

ravens laughter wrote:
I have seen a few images on here that have pimples and red areas and scratches... and the photographer proudly announces "No Photoshop!"

Why is this worn as a badge of honor?

Is it that so many people think that if you use photoshop that you don't know how to shoot? And that if you post pictures with obvious flaws that could be simply corrected that that in and of itself means that you're a better photographer than those who use photoshop to correct those small flaws (or like me actually insert flaws)?

I don't know but i seriously hate it I LIKE BEING PHOTOSHOPED!
I don't even mind when my tatts ars photoshopped
I think everyone should use it

MichaelNicoletti wrote:
I prefer to be a Photographer and not a digital artist. I do use PS2 sometimes but hardly ever! What you see is what I shot and thats how I think it should be. Photography not digital artistry!

Nic

Good! for you!

Ansel Adams wrote:
We must remember that a photograph can hold just as much as we put into it, and no one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium.

Axlf wrote:
20 to 40 + years if you have been shooting that long and need photoshop ONE WORD RETIREMENT
give it up. You should be god behind the camera shooting that much years and not need anyones help with nothing regaurding photography.

Thank you.

I'm sure my portrait clients would prefer the unretouched images or have to pay a lot more in order to get the same level of retouching. Few of them are willing to bring in a makeup artist, even when I show them the difference in results from other sessions.

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.

Very good. You’ve convinced yourself—based on what evidence??—that I “still can’t get it strait (sic)”.

Here’s a before-and-after sample. The ‘before’ is reasonable; the after removed some minor issues that—in my opinion—improved the image for the 40x60 print it was going to be. “Can’t get it strait”? Perhaps I should give up on working with models, and stick with portraiture.

You seem to believe that someone who chooses to ADD a tool to a toolkit is incapable of operating without it. That may be where the problem in communication comes from: some people take their existing skills, and add to them with new tools. Others take their existing skills and enhance their work with only the older tools. (And, yes, some take their existing skills and ruin them with new tools, and some take their existing skills and stagnate.)

By accepting only one of the above, you appear to have created a false dichotomy: photographer (who apparently only shoots chromes and does nothing in the darkroom), and graphic artist (anyone who uses Photoshop). It excludes anyone doing work in a darkroom from being "a photographer"; it excludes anyone who has retouched their images manually (e.g. Ansel Adams, George Hurrell, W. Eugene Smith, Jerry Uelsmann) or had their work retouched (e.g. Irving Penn, Helmut Newton, Richard Avedon).

"You have nice work but bad sence between the two fields. they are not one in the same hello."
Agreed. Graphic designers work with layout, page structure, document design--none of which fit what you're calling a photographer or retoucher.

Axlf wrote:
Just don't understand why you cannot tell between photographer and graphic designer..........

I understand the difference quite well. You, however, appear to be using a definition that's foreign to all of the photographers I know (many of whom eschew digital entirely), foreign to all of the digital illustrators I know, and foreign to all of the graphic artists I know. Which makes me wonder why you've chosen such a usage.

RPSphotos wrote:
Good Photographers perfer NOT to use photoshop for2 main reasons..

That's a pretty ludicrous statement. There are photogs who output a great product without Photoshop, and if you can do that, fine. Just like any tool, there's appropriate use, and inappropriate use, however. Any photographer high and low who's studied half of the power of Photoshop doesn't share the stated opinion above. Oh, and with regards to the rest of your theory, a dark room output silver halide print is also a "photo of a photo."

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
Take One
I think many of us 'older' photographers get pissed off at an image that is taken by someone you KNOW doesnt know jack shit about lighting, and yet still have a picture look good because of their photoshop knowledge. The purist claims 'i dont need that, I do it all in camera with lights' - and thats totally cool, but there is that jealousy angle that most anyone who owns a camera AND has photoshop skills can now accomplish the same thing.

It's not that simple. I often hear how people think someone with some Photoshop skills can get the same result as a good photograper. Sure, more mistakes can be corrected with PS than traditionally, but a bad photographer will still put out bad results. Furthermore, a hell of a lot of photogs and non-photogs think they can get in with PS and jack around, getting a good result ("Look! You just hit the bevels button! It's so easy!") Photoshop, along with related graphics software are highly complex tools that require mastery to use well. If a photog shot a bad photo, but rivaled your results in his final output via PS, he/she is probably a damn good imaging artist, which is by far another legitimate form of artistry which had been around far before PS. You probably know this, but many don't seem to.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
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.

You mean something like...

Was Ansel Adams a "graphic designer" or a phorographer?

we all know mr adams as a photographer but in realality he merley documented what he loved the same as all the shooters here

Kevin Connery wrote:

You mean something like...

Was Ansel Adams a "graphic designer" or a photographer?

jonathan ledeux wrote:
we all know mr adams as a photographer but in realality he merley documented what he loved the same as all the shooters here

Right! I forgot the "recordist" category.

ravens laughter wrote:
would it be fear? or would it be comfort that keeps a person from changing?

For a long time I used a different photo editing program; and I shunned PS... not because I was afraid of it, but because I was comfortible with what I was using.... and I didn't see what improvement PS could make to my work.

I really don't think it has to do with fear at all.... just a persons level of comfort.

I think you're dead on! It applies to moving from shooting film to digital also. I was the same reluctant, stubborn, hard-headed in regards to giving up film for digital. I REFUSED to give into it. I said the same garbage, spewing out the ole'...'Real photographers shoot film...' blah, blah, blah... I'll admit it. I think in reality I held myself back for a while by not switching to digital before I did.

And hey... My statement is not meant to fume up those still using film (I still use it at times too). I was merely relating my own experience.

Koray wrote:
wow this is still on?

Raven look what you started

every (non-model) shoot i've been on the photographers talk about anything and everything between shots.. this is the same i guess...

ravens laughter wrote:
would it be fear? or would it be comfort that keeps a person from changing?

Why am I required to change methods that work for me?  That's just silly.

ravens laughter wrote:
hey melvin.... my quote "is it fear" was in responce to someone suggesting that people who don't use photoshop because it's fear.... i rather think it has to do with comfort.... some people are comfortible with how they do things.

I was not saying any one needs to change; however suggesting that you'll never change implies that you have no room and no need to improve.

As far as "the greats" not altering their work; like you to name one who did not alter their work after it was shot.... They all did, dodge, burn, airbrush, over lay, paint.... before there was photoshop there was still alteration. Anyone who suggests anything other has no appreciation for darkroom techniques.

Your point about "the greats" not altering their work is solid. A photographer who constantly has to correct his work in PS many need to improve his photographic abilities, but if he's correctly using PS to revise his images, then he might be a good imaging artist. Imaging artists have been around as long as photography has, and it's quite an art when done well - PS or darkroom.

Any reputable photographer out there understands this, which doesn’t mean all photogs HAVE to use PS, it just means they recognize the legitimacy of this medium.

The problem for so many is that - like in the print graphics industry - PS and other programs are often used poorly, which discourages many; we also know the very best out there in both industries use PS.

ravens laughter wrote:
I was not saying any one needs to change; however suggesting that you'll never change implies that you have no room and no need to improve.

When a good enough reason comes along for me to change my methods, I will.  Until that point, I'll just keep doing what I do.  My personal area of "improvement" involves what i photograph, not how.  Hand me a big time DSLR and I can make my images.  Hand me a Kodak Brownie from a rummage sale and I can make my images.  Photoshop is a nice conveniance for some of the things I do, but if it ceased to exist tomorrow I could still make my images.  Flexibility goes in more than one direction for me.