|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Evolution - Ride the Wave or Drown
Ok, I have seen several threads now about GWC and Photoshop and Digital vs. Film etc.... Like it or not, Digital is the future, Technology is replacing true photographers, and soon GWC will be just as good as PWOE (Photographers with Old Equipment) The new line of Canon EOS cameras make it almost easy to point and shoot a professional image right out of the box. They auto adjust for lighting and contrast. The auto adjust for focus. They even have a stabilizer built in. So, what does a photographer need to do? Point, Shoot, Export to photoshop, and add the filters that PWOE had to manually put on before, with a few mouse clicks. What is worse, is that Models are also becoming obsolete. (Sorry Models, but it is true!!) With the latest Poser program, you can create a near perfect looking female, and pose her in any position you want. They even have adjustable genatalia (How wide, how big the labia etc....) They even have action scripting built in as well, meaning You can be animated. The fact of the matter is that the future is coming like a freight train, and for now, you can get away with the GWC comments, but in a few years, it is the PWOE that will be the odd man out. Either you evolve with your industry, or you drown as the wave of change comes sweeping over. :-) Now that I made everyone's day....... May 24 05 07:44 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: Painters during the 19th Century feared the coming of the Camera Obsura, yet they have worked side by side throughout the ages to this point where we live in this digital age.....traditional film will not die..yet find a place where it's a tool for those who have Master this craft known as photography. It's a wonderful age we live in, but come with me on a photoshoot when I have my 8x10 view camera hold my B/W film holder and understand it's not the click of the shutter that makes the image, but what it is you saw and want others to see. There is no grave marker for film, but a relearning of what matters in our art......remember living is easy with eyes closed...click May 24 05 07:54 am Link Posted by Alex Alexander: Painters are now a rare breed, and their paintings have evolved over time. May 24 05 08:00 am Link well, i guess i disagree..no matter how complex a camera is, it is effectively a box with a hole in it.. cameras do not create images.. photographers/ artists create images.. and i can tell you with 100% confidence that there isn't any amount of photoshop, that could render some of the work i see by the gwcs usable..no matter what camera they're using..the camera doesn't think about the theme or the imagery, it doesn't develope a rapport with the model and it has no vision. some of the best work i have seen, was created with 30 year old equipment worth maybe $200 May 24 05 08:36 am Link You've got to be kidding me. Look, just because you buy a Ferrari F1 car doesn't make you Michael Schumacher. And just because your equipment has the capability of producing very good results doesn't mean you will. A lot of the photographer portfolios here prove that enough. If you can't "see" an image in your head, you can't create it - so the capability of your equipment is a moot point. Ultimately producing good images is just as much about dealing with a group of people to get something done as it is a technical endeavour. If you've got shitty communication skills, you're only going to get so far as a photographer. If you can't foster good rapport with models, make-up artists, managers, etc. - you will still just be a GWC no matter how much you invest in whiz-bang technology. May 24 05 08:39 am Link Doug, Sam, Let me get this straight, The ability to put an image into a print (digital or film) is what makes a Photog over a GWC? If we compare it to paintings, then Michaelangelo was a genious, and Van Gogh was a hack! The only thing seperating a photographer from a GWC used to be equipment and lots of training. You can see that in other threads here - "Learning Photoshop before learning photography" is just one example. My son is a really good example. He took his first photography class (if you want to call it that - was a boyscout merit badge class) not too long ago. He understands the concept of thirds etc... However, before ever taking that class, he was more than able to capture the image he wanted on our camera. Images that said what he wanted them to say. Is he as good a photographer as you? Depends on opinion. Like all art. Before Digital cameras, the images taken by photographers were very unforgiven. If lighting was not right, or if focus was off, the image was truly useless. now, with a 12 MP camera, and an auto focus, and white balancing, and light adjustment, and PHOTOSHOP. All you ahve to do is look through the lens, See the image you want to capture, and click. then, if adjustments are needed, do it in photoshop. That puts a GWC right on par with a PWOE. Now, if we talk ARTISTIC content, then that is something different. Any artist is measured by his ability to portray what it is he sees in his mind. What you call art, I may call junk. I will give a good example. Israel Colon has a photographic style that I personally do not like. I have said as much numerous times, even to him. However, That does not make him a bad photographer. It simply means his taste is not my taste. I personally like Israel (as you can tell by the way I razzed him before) I think he is a great photographer. I just do not personally like his style. Whatever definition you give of a "Photographer" I guarentee can be obtained by a GWC with a new camera, photoshop and an eye. Gone is the college courses needed to make an image perfect (lighting and such) Again, let's go back to painters. Back long ago, a painter was a painter as much for the fact he could make the right pigments as for the fact that he could put them onto the canvas. Now, you can get any pigment you want at K-mart. You can even get a paint by number kit that makes you look like a super painter. For the longest time, My parents had a paint by number image of a topless woman hanging in the house. Invaribly there were comments about how great a painting it was, and what excellent work etc.... It was a paint by numbers! The same is happening here. You simply need to look with a little foresight. May 24 05 09:10 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: Being a photographer is a lot of things - image creation is one of them. Good photographers have a vision of what they want to accomplish - that is the primary creative aspect of it - the rest is just details to execute that vision. The equipment's role in the creation process is a very small role - it can be an important role, depending on the requirements of the image - but it's small nonetheless. Posted by Ty Simone: Van Gogh was a visionary genius. He painted in a way that no else could at that time. Good photography (or painting) isn't about precisely replicating what's in front of you. Posted by Ty Simone: Not really. There are plenty of photographers who've made millions of dollars off of relatively shitty equipment. They're good because they're visionaries and professionals who can be given a job and get something done. And of course, there's a difference between fine art photography and commercial photography. Your thread seems to be based around commercial photography, which is why you're talking about equipment and models. Posted by Ty Simone: I've never seen his work. But comparing him to me is a pretty moot point as well, since I'm not a professional photographer. Posted by Ty Simone: Auto-focus and P&S cameras are nothing new. The biggest difference is that people can take a shitload of photos for very little cost. But what's your point? Just because someone can take a technically "okay" photo does not mean that they can replace a professional photographer. Posted by Ty Simone: But it's the "seeing" that the camera cannot do for you. Posted by Ty Simone: Again, since seasoned pros see and setup shot differently, no, you're wrong... GWC is most likely not going to produce an image that is as good, or more importantly, fullfills the requirements of their client. Posted by Ty Simone: See, it's "the eye" part, mixed with the requirements of being a "professional" - meaning you can take a client's requirements, add your artistic vision, co-ordinate with the other creatives on your team, direct your modeling talent in an appropriate way, then finally combine all these aspects with the technical aspect of taking the photo and finally deliver a product that achieves it's creative goals. If a GWC has all those qualities, then he may not be a GWC. Posted by Ty Simone: Sorry, when did lighting stop mattering? You can "fix" this stuff in Photoshop, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of pros don't have the time to do that kind of thing - it is much easier and more cost-effective to simply light a scene correctly than spend hours on the back end evening out shadows and adding catchlights. Professionals have to work under time and budget constraints - the ability to do so under pressure is part of what makes them professionals. Posted by Ty Simone: ...sorry, who's point are you trying to prove here? This seems to prove that the final product is not what makes you a professional anything. Paint by numbers doesn't make you a professional painter, and a heavily-photoshopped image doesn't make you a professional photographer. By your logic painting would now be worthless because of the paint by numbers paradigm, but this is clearly absurd. May 24 05 09:39 am Link Sam, Without a bunch of counter quoting.... I am still at a loss as to how you can differentiate a GWC with a Photographer. Where is the line drawn? When does a GWC become a photographer? When he gets a commercial job? When he makes money from Models? As far as Commercial versus non-commercial, Again, no different, the question is can a GWC duplicate a PWOE? It matters not where. So, Explain what in your mind seperates a GWC from a Photographer? May 24 05 09:46 am Link Look dude, there's only so much I can do. I type, you read. The understanding part is up to you. May 24 05 09:47 am Link Better yet - Howabout I start differentiating to clarify. A Photographer is a person that can use photographic equipment to produce an image that is pleasing to a group of people. An Artist is a person that can take an image in his or her mind, and translate it to a medium for others to appreciate. Unlike most other Art, Photography is easily duplicated by technology. What used to be a long and arduous process can now be accomplished in mere seconds. (snap the picture to print) So, all that is left in photography once you remove all the gizmo and gadgets that are being replaced by technology, is the ability to capture the image you want. Any GWC can do that with modern technology to the point that it is pleasing to a group of people. If you read the thread here about how many people are actually self taught, it leads to that point.... Let me go down another path. Why I am not a writer... My son asked me that the other day. I have great visions in my head of stories I could write that have never been told. I have the foresight to see how most movies and tv shows will end, because I can see what the writer sees and is trying to protray. BUT when I go to put my thoughts on paper, Although it runs the story, It is not interesting reading. I can not paint the picture into another person's mind as I see it. If Microsoft comes up with a way to do scene and character development in a story simply by putting an image into the program.... "The girl in a green shirt and red pants looked up at her father once again, her eyes longing for relief as they raced through the crowd...." Then writers will be replaced by GWP (Geeks with Pencils) May 24 05 09:56 am Link Posted by Sam Bennett: Why so negative? May 24 05 09:57 am Link I countered your points practically line for line, then you ignored it. What else can I do? You can keep spouting anologies if you want, but you've established that you don't want to engage in debate - opting instead for pontification - so don't be surprised when people decide to play by rules of debate instead of just nodding their heads and agreeing with you. May 24 05 10:05 am Link Sure, technology can and will offer those with less experience/knowldege a pathway to creating technically crisp, sharp and well exposed images but what you are excluding is the critical though perspective and aesthetic training that is complicit to making great images. Regardless of media, this is of utmost importance. May 24 05 10:06 am Link ...sorry, who's point are you trying to prove here? This seems to prove that the final product is not what makes you a professional anything. Paint by numbers doesn't make you a professional painter, and a heavily-photoshopped image doesn't make you a professional photographer. By your logic painting would now be worthless because of the paint by numbers paradigm, but this is clearly absurd. How many painters do you know today that make their money solely off painting? May 24 05 10:07 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: The Muppet Yoda was 1000 times more impressive and realistic. May 24 05 10:07 am Link Posted by Sam Bennett: Where do you define a GWC versus a Pro? May 24 05 10:09 am Link Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: Posted by Ty Simone: The Muppet Yoda was 1000 times more impressive and realistic. Bah! You could see the strings! :-) May 24 05 10:10 am Link More on the painter thing. There is technology now to take a picture of say a landscape, and produce a Paint by number Image out of it, complete with necessary pigments (which you buy seperately) There are lessons that teach you to "Paint like a pro" that are 12 hours in length, and show all the techniques used to day to make seemingly complex images in the matter of mere minutes (such as how to make a tree in 5 easy steps) 100 years ago, that was unheard of (the tree in 5 steps) This is my same point on photography. 25 years ago, not only did you have to visualize everything, but you had to set up lighting and everything else. Get the right lens, the right filter. Make sure you processed the image properly too. Photographers used stands to ensure there was no movement of the camera. As film became much faster, the stands became optional... Now. Point click and shoot. instantly correct lighting, instantly correct focus, instantly correct processing. the only thing you need is the ability to catch the image you want. The Eye. May 24 05 10:18 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: Quite a few, actually. Posted by Ty Simone: I don't know, I'm not an art collector. You're posing this question as if the common man in 16th century actually bought paintings - which is wrong. Furthermore, as an artform paintings are still valued much more than photography - and paint by numbers images are still worthless. Posted by Ty Simone: Sure. But this is not because everyone can do it. Posted by Ty Simone: Should not, or does not? It does matter. One is creative act, the other is an act of reproduction. If you can't see a difference between the two, I'm not really sure what I can say to convince you otherwise. Posted by Ty Simone: It's really pretty meaningless to me. I've seen a lot of photography that has been "published" that is utter crap. Knowledge of lighting doesn't mean that you've created the lighting scheme - it can simply mean you position the model relative to the light in a way that works best for the composition. Posted by Ty Simone: What about it, exactly? You refuse to make a distinction between fine art photography and commercial photography - why? Fine art photography is an art form that exists without creative constraint - it's whatever you want it to be. From there, if someone places value on it - then your work has value. If not, oh well. Commercial photographers have to operate under stricter guidelines - they have a job to do. The ability to do that job successfully is what makes someone a professional photographer. And that has very little to do with equipment. Posted by Ty Simone: A GWC with a vision and all the abilities of a professional photographer is no longer a GWC. What can be more clear than that? I'm not interested in trying to define "photographer" in the general sense - so don't try to argue with me on that premise. Your first assertion is that modern digital equipment and photoshop is replacing professional photographers (and since this is a modeling site, I think most of us would presume you're talking about commercial photography) - that is the point you need to defend. May 24 05 10:20 am Link I totally disagree with you. First off, automatic features on cameras have been around for years so if you compare that to your theory then it becomes a void point. So let's remove that feature. Now we're left with a manual film camera and a manual digital camera (they do exist). That according to you leaves us with photoshop which has also been around for years. I've been using photoshop since version 2.5 which puts us somewhere around 1989. 16 years ago, although it has come along way, photoshop was still able to do any retouching that one may need to do today. The differences are things like 16 bit images, RAW, more filters, etc. Why is it then that we would have to wait for the future to see what you're talking about? After all, we are already in the future. I think what you fail to realize is that digital has actually been around for years. What "we" did before we had digital cameras was scanned the negative. And by the way, digital cameras are yet to catch up to the resolution of film scanners. I can get a 45 meg file @ 300 dpi @ 11x17 after applying digital (hm... there it is again) ice all from a 35mm neg. using my low to med film scanner. Now we have a digital image that can be opened in photoshop. Same type of file, just two different ways to get there. The digital camera just removed the need for film. No where in that process did the photographer learn what to shoot, how to light, how to compose, how to crop, how to control depth of field, how to control the exposure for the desired effect, etc. All he learned was where the shutter and automatic mode is. May 24 05 10:22 am Link when will GWCS become photographers? probably never... a great photograph starts in the imagination of the photographer..it also can be captured by the skill of a seasoned pro in a fraction of a second when it occurs spontaneously ..and also by accident. a typical GWC has very little vision/imagination, very little skill..so if theres a great image created from a gwc, i'll bet it was by accident.. give 12 monkeys, 12 typewriters, then give then infinite time and they could recreate the works of shakespeare... who said it before, even a blind dog finds a bone every now and then. May 24 05 10:23 am Link I truly believe you will never replace models with computer generated "models" in every situation. Remember that human beings have the unique ability to inject their own style and passion into a photoshoot. Yes, the computer can mimic the expressions and even the poses but they originally came from an actual person, even if it was only from a programmer. you just cannot duplicate the human touch. As far as the digital vs. film debate, it has gone on for quite a while and will continue to do so. It my opinion both have a place in the world of photography and I see them as just different "flavors". Cameras are a tool. It takes a person with a vision and inner passion to use the tools to create images that touch and move us. I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities in my work. To not be open is to walk thru a field of broken glass barefooted, eventually you will get hurt... Rich May 24 05 10:25 am Link I gave 12 monkeys 12 cameras and they came back with a calendar of 12 girls with bananas...go figure May 24 05 10:26 am Link Posted by Sam Bennett: Ok, so professional Photographer is one that gets paid to do commercial work on a regular basis. May 24 05 10:29 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: "Ok, I have seen several threads now about GWC and Photoshop and Digital vs. Film etc.... Like it or not, Digital is the future, Technology is replacing true photographers, and soon GWC will be just as good as PWOE (Photographers with Old Equipment)" --- Digital is working alongside with traditional film photography. The advent of digital has been a godsend for news photography and other assignments with a fast deadline. There will always be traditional printers, especially in the fine art world. And this isn't even getting into extremely traditional "alternative" processes like Platinum/Paladium printing and scores of other turn of the century processes. "The new line of Canon EOS cameras make it almost easy to point and shoot a professional image right out of the box." --- It makes it easy for people with the ability to know how to produce professional images. Otherwise, you have a shiny plastic box that takes snapshots - which is what most people do with them. "They auto adjust for lighting and contrast. The auto adjust for focus." --- But not as well as being able to preconceptualize a shot; going into a shot already knowing how you want everthing lit. "They even have a stabilizer built in. So, what does a photographer need to do? Point, Shoot, Export to photoshop, and add the filters that PWOE had to manually put on before, with a few mouse clicks." --- You are completely ignoring the craft aspect of photography. Yes, it is a craft, and yes, it is an artform that can be studied, and practiced. People who are only concerned with snapshots are not concerned with the craft aspect of photography. You are being to general with your statements. "What is worse, is that Models are also becoming obsolete. (Sorry Models, but it is true!!) With the latest Poser program, you can create a near perfect looking female, and pose her in any position you want. They even have adjustable genatalia (How wide, how big the labia etc....) They even have action scripting built in as well, meaning You can be animated." ---- Which will never be able to fill in for the true human machine. No scripted program can ever emulate true life. I'm suprised you'd suggest that (it seems from your statement) you'd be willing to sway away from human subjects. "The fact of the matter is that the future is coming like a freight train, and for now, you can get away with the GWC comments, but in a few years, it is the PWOE that will be the odd man out. Either you evolve with your industry, or you drown as the wave of change comes sweeping over." --- The "future" has been here for years; coexisting fine. It hasn't hit us like a freight train. It has hit the casual consumer; their ability to take endless snapshots without waiting for film-results. I'm amazed at how easily you are dismissing the craft of photography. As someone that produces Platinum/Paladium, Kallitype, Salt, Van Dyke and a myriad of other handmade traditional 19th century prints, there are still plenty of us around, and there are still students that are learning this craft. Perhaps I could say that the anti-reaction to this "digital revolution" is more interest in how photography first began. You can have all the digital technology you want holding your hand and doing everything for you. You still need to be able to know the craft of photography; how film works (after all, digital is trying to emulate film), how cameras work, how light works. You should really know these things first. Digital isn't some train that we all suddenly see heading fo r us. It has been here for some time, and it seems to be existing pretty well for most of us. I shoot both film and digital, and both are utilized in many ways. You discredit film, the craft of photography, and the results that film can produce, much too fast. May 24 05 10:31 am Link Posted by Doug Swinskey: So it now comes back to Vision and the ability to turn that vision into an image.... 1000 times easier than it was 20 years ago. May 24 05 10:31 am Link Sid, You misunderstand me. I am not saying there is no craft to photography, I am saying that all that is left is the craft of photography. What did it take to produce an excellent image 20 years ago? What does it take now? There is a whole list of things from 20 years ago, that is why there were whole college programs associated with it. Today, it is not a whole lot, other than the vision. Can a pro photographer, at this moment in time, take a picture of the same landscape as a GWC with a super camera on auto, and produce a better quality image from the start? Yes. Can the GWC with photoshop transform the image into the equivilant of the pro photogs image? Yes. And that is where the convergence is taking place. May 24 05 10:35 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: Posted by Doug Swinskey: So it now comes back to Vision and the ability to turn that vision into an image.... 1000 times easier than it was 20 years ago. for who?, i have been setting up my lights, measuring and adjusting the lights for the shawdow ratio i want with my light meter, setting my camera to the light meter reading and composing as i have done for almost 25 years.. May 24 05 10:38 am Link When I read this post I almost blew my cheerios out my nose! LOL This is soooooo silly that anyone who believes it would also probably believe that the world will come to an end next week. First and foremost, a lot of folks shooting today have no clue about what lighting, contrast or cropping is. Yes, there are a few talented amatures out there but no where near the level of a working commercial shooter. I have nothing against GWCs or amature models, in fact I'll gladly help out when and where I can. But to say that photography and models will be obsolete in the future has got to be right up there with the most ignorant comment I have ever heard. Digital is here and has been for years and had gone hand in hand with film. Digital acceptance by clients has gotten wider as the technology improves. Along with that, has come an acceptance ot lower quality in some circles of print and web. However, anyone who thinks that a GWC with a point and shoot will out perform a professional system should go take his toyota corrolla and enter into a stock car race. I don't care how good you are at PS, tools do not make a good photo, it's the craftsman that does. always has been, always will. May 24 05 10:39 am Link Posted by rwspangler: Amen.....Power To The People May 24 05 10:41 am Link Posted by Rich Mohr: Rich Buddy, You are a genious!!! May 24 05 10:42 am Link Digital may be the future, but it's not really thee present. I have never seen a digitally generated person that looked even close to real. As EricMB said, the muppet Yoda was more convincing than the CGI yoda. And guess what? Digital still doesn't look quite like film. It's getting closer (especially if you have $20,000 for the latest), but it doesn't replicate film, particularly b&w. Someday. As for your Van Gogh and Michaelangelo references, you could not have picked two worse painters to illustrate your point about the status of painting in modern society versus yesteryear. Neither of them made a living painting. Van Gogh never sold a single painting in his entire life. His brother supported him. Michaelangelo preferred sculting to painting, but did both. He also worked in a quarry to support himself between commissions. Very few painters in hostory have supported themselves solely by painting. There are definitely fewer commission for portrait painting than there used to be because of photography, but it's had less impact on painters otherwise. May 24 05 10:44 am Link Posted by Doug Swinskey: And I am saying with the new line of cameras coming out, I can duplicate all that without the hassle. May 24 05 10:45 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: No, actually... this is what you said (emphasis added): Posted by Ty Simone: Stop trying to change your argument. May 24 05 10:47 am Link Posted by theda: Theda, I have 3 models in my portfolio right now that are Digital Generated 100%. May 24 05 10:48 am Link Posted by Sam Bennett: Posted by Ty Simone: No, actually... this is what you said (emphasis added): Posted by Ty Simone: Stop trying to change your argument. I am not changing my argument. May 24 05 10:54 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: Only 3? It's no problem to take a real model and make her look like a digital image with PS, which you have done. The shots of Heather a real girl. Youir daughter is a real girl. Dolphin Fantasy is a real girl. The blond in your "fine art nude" is a real girl. The rest all lok generated. May 24 05 10:57 am Link Posted by Ty Simone: wow...that is the truly the dumbest thing i have ever read. May 24 05 10:59 am Link Posted by theda: Posted by Ty Simone: Only 3? It's no problem to take a real model and make her look like a digital image with PS, which you have done. The shots of Heather a real girl. Youir daughter is a real girl. Dolphin Fantasy is a real girl. The blond in your "fine art nude" is a real girl. The rest all lok generated. Actually, All are real people. May 24 05 10:59 am Link Posted by steve prue: Posted by Ty Simone: wow...that is the truly the dumbest thing i have ever read. Really Steve? May 24 05 11:02 am Link |
