Parody
Printable View
I know this software has its reasons and functions, BUT.........What has been happening to photography?!?!?!
Tried and true, One man, One Camera. Not One Man, One Camera, and a Whole bunch of PP techniques.
Honestly, I prefer to keep it simple, with little or no PP at all. I like how our options are expanding, but I think HDR, or multiple exposures is as far as Id like to go.
It's not just about photography JJ.
I do a bit of graphic art and use photography for designing and building webpages. For instance, I designed 4 websites last week alone! These leaps in technology help me in my work.
I don't think it's even about HDR anymore....
It's scary how easy we can minipulate a photo now....... even scarier..how the newbies can do it before me.
MA, I know its not just about photography. I am understanding of the different media applications this software is capable of. Just consider myself a stickler when it comes to photography. I really hope people do not lose sight of what it is. This may be a little on the crazy side, as people will probably always have that feeling. I think sometimes it just needs to be reinforced.
I have nothing against being a purist JJ :) In fact I think it's great and I'm really happy when I take a shot that needed nothing in PP. I think also, as technology moves forward ... the purist approach to photography will be applied by less and less people, which in itself will make it more sort after and appreciated more in time. In the meantime though, the novelty runs full steam ahead ;)
Just remember some people don't think it's art if it's not hand drawn, painted, sculpted etc. They don't think photography is art at all. They also stick their noses higher by classifying stuff as a craft. So we all have levels of what we accept in our definition of good art/photography. I agree that this will allow some people to clean up bad technique, but no matter how good this gets it a photograph that starts off well composed and exposed will always look better.
I am a little surprised to see so many not liking the idea of processing the images. I do realise that in the days of film all processing was out of the hands of the photographer as very few developed their own. But I have in the past walked away without exposing any film as I realised I would be unable to do anything and they just would not come out.
However today I look and think if I use HDR or if I was panorama I can do this or that to the image and the exposures are made with whole idea of using Photoshop.
The problem is of course the failure rate and using the depth of field combining of images has been very poor on failure rate and it would have been so much easier to have used a small aperture and a lot less time consuming. I suppose there are cameras when you can’t select a small aperture. My microscope is like that.
So I can see where one can rely on Photoshop where one could used other safer methods. But when using Black and White I would mask areas to increase the dynamic range so why should I not continue to do same in digital age?
One pet hate was to find after experimenting with POP filters to get some odd effects, that the processors had corrected it, and they were returned as if no filters were used. In fact I have had the first in a group corrected then whole of rest of group done the same so messing up the rest of pictures in the role. Slide did stop this but it was so hard to get any dynamic range with slide so although colours were better exposure suffered as a result.
So having the process tools in my hands instead of the process house has to be a plus.
SO there has been all of this talk about content aware fill. We quite frankly,I think it sucks !!!
I had a person with a hotspot on their head . Content aware fill to the rescue. Guess what..It gave him a THIRD EYE !!!!!
So I wanted to touch up a bridal gown. It added part of a table leg.......GEEZEEEEEE
now those photos I would love to see!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio_e