I have a friend in Japan... we started this "nfybeurwbfd" random keystrokes... just nonsense... it means, "Laughing so hard I cannot type"..
That lesbian pic.... nf8fu8o8hw983hr7ehgf3r8whiu
how do you know what aperture, shutter, ISO, etc..to make the image *exactly* as you see it??...changing a little bit of one of those things produces an entirely different image..and shooting in automatic the camera chooses for you..
Your Human eyes see the world one way. Other creatures do not.
For example: a dog only sees in black and white. Are you saying that black and white is still out?
yes... unless you are a dog... then I say, "roof, rooofff, rouff..."
(loosely translated--- go for it)
So does that include humans that are color blind and those who wear glasses? They don't see the world as um well as you see it, have they been shunned?
ok how about we talk about dynamic range, right now it's impossible for a camera to capture what your eyes can see. So any capture isn't doing nature justice. So what's the point of clicking the shutter then?
Even when shooting with film, especially in black and white, there is much that can be done in post processing (the manner in which the film is developed). Photography is in the eye, and what YOU see when a photo is taken. Its seeing eyond the mundane. Just my opinion.
But my point is... seeing beyond the mundane is graphic art... what the photographer strives to do is see the mundane and capture it in a new or fresh format/angle... and your opinion is great... stick by it. I just think we, as a collective gropu, need to try and make the mundane fresh... without all the post processing manipulation. P.T Selbeit ( a magician) in the 1930's said, "Every ten years every magician should reveal every secret to every trick. This will force the next generation to come up with original ideas." P.T. was a wise man. I think the same should be applied to photography... we need to be forced and pushed to become more original... not just rely on post-processing.
That's just my opinion.
Jim
But my point is... seeing beyond the mundane is graphic art... what the photographer strives to do is see the mundane and capture it in a new or fresh format/angle... and your opinion is great... stick by it. I just think we, as a collective gropu, need to try and make the mundane fresh... without all the post processing manipulation. P.T Selbeit ( a magician) in the 1930's said, "Every ten years every magician should reveal every secret to every trick. This will force the next generation to come up with original ideas." P.T. was a wise man. I think the same should be applied to photography... we need to be forced and pushed to become more original... not just rely on post-processing.
That's just my opinion.
Jim
Good point. Some of us beginners though, use post processing to help learn how to better their photography in the first place. Least, I do. :o) In the post processing, I make note of what I've done to improve my image, and note paralells between what I am doing after the fact, and what I could have done when shooting the image.
But my point is... seeing beyond the mundane is graphic art... what the photographer strives to do is see the mundane and capture it in a new or fresh format/angle... and your opinion is great... stick by it. I just think we, as a collective gropu, need to try and make the mundane fresh... without all the post processing manipulation. P.T Selbeit ( a magician) in the 1930's said, "Every ten years every magician should reveal every secret to every trick. This will force the next generation to come up with original ideas." P.T. was a wise man. I think the same should be applied to photography... we need to be forced and pushed to become more original... not just rely on post-processing.
That's just my opinion.
Jim
but this wasn't your point at the beginning of the thread. your opinion way back then was that all post-processing is evil. different arguments entirely.
Jimmie, I'm not dissing you by any means, to each his own vision. But, I challenge anyone to produce images from any of the great photography masters that recieved absolutely no manipulation (digital or otherwise).
FWIW, don't look into the days of B&W photography... film choices, paper choices, exposure times and processing times and tempatures all produce greatly different results. Ditto for color film...
This whole "purist" movement is more of a digital-age phenom.
We are all beginners. No matter how long we have been at it. Here is the truth as seen by Jimmie: "Shoot what you like. Shoot what you love. Don't try to impress or show off... just shoot what is natural to you. Since we are all individuals and we all have a story to tell... your work will come through. Be true to yourself. Present what you see and what pleases you... The critics be damned..."
Just a thought. And I am not afraid to show some of my work. So here, if ya care to look.
Jimmie, I'm not dissing you by any means, to each his own vision. But, I challenge anyone to produce images from any of the great photography masters that recieved absolutely no manipulation (digital or otherwise).
FWIW, don't look into the days of B&W photography... film choices, paper choices, exposure times and processing times and tempatures all produce greatly different results. Ditto for color film...
This whole "purist" movement is more of a digital-age phenom.
Yes... I agree... The digital thingy takes it beyond the camera. I have a shot I call "The Hand of Jimmie" (I'll send it to ya if ya send me your email) And my point is... I did it by outsmarting the camera... not taking the image and manipulating later. The "purist" movement goes back to out-thinking the camera... not just taking the photo and twisting and turning it. If that makes any sense.
but this wasn't your point at the beginning of the thread. your opinion way back then was that all post-processing is evil. different arguments entirely. [/quote]
It is still my point... changing the photo once it is out of the camera... in camera, out-smarting camera... ok, but once it is out of the camera... and we slash and burn in a way what would make the Myans proud.... that is what I do not cotton to.
but this wasn't your point at the beginning of the thread.
LOL - I knew it was going to turn into something like this when I first read your post, and that is why I hesitated about posting the names here for all to see (not fair to the photographer). Got my PM?
Any filters I use in Photoshop, emulate actual camera filters. If I had the money, I could well take the photos just the way I want. Why should people with the money to spend on all of the accessories have an advantage over anyone else who loves photography just as much?
ok how about we talk about dynamic range, right now it's impossible for a camera to capture what your eyes can see. So any capture isn't doing nature justice. So what's the point of clicking the shutter then?
Any filters I use in Photoshop, emulate actual camera filters. If I had the money, I could well take the photos just the way I want. Why should people with the money to spend on all of the accessories have an advantage over anyone else who loves photography just as much?
YIKES!!!! I don't have anything but what came wiff the camera... maybe, if ya take a thought, and bend a bit and balance the background...
ya don't need all of that stuff... show us what ya can do straight from the source. Give me you view from the camera.
