Lotus Photography wrote:
a recent thread comparing b&w to color became a clusterfk of digital vs photographic arguments..


photo graphic, light


digital graphic, a computer


not saying i think either one is better, but when you do things in
photoshop you are a digital graphic artist, when you do things with light
you are a photo graphic artist....

when you change a color picture to black and white in photoshop you aren't changing a single photon to change the picture...

photo, photon, light...

Daguerre wrote:
Is somebody worried about their title?

in some threads people don't seem to know which they are..

i think someone aught to be able to say what they do..

like if you are a carpenter, you say, i'm a carpenter

you don't say

i'm a plumber

Lotus Photography wrote:
and if you don't like me starting a thread, or posting then don't go to a thread i start..

If you don’t like hearing different opinions, you should not start a thread…





---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083

Alexander Image wrote:
If you don’t like hearing different opinions, you should not start a thread…

i meant this guy

NSE Films wrote:

Lotus Photography wrote:
in some threads people don't seem to know which they are..

i think someone aught to be able to say what they do..

like if you are a carpenter, you say, i'm a carpenter

you don't say

i'm a plumber

I am a photgrapher.  I create images with light and computers.  None of the advertising agencies or fortune 500 clients I've worked for have seen the need for a title adjustment.  All they know is that in the end I can produce for them a job that a traditional photographer alone could not.  Who would have an issue with this?  Which photographer's life is so lacking that he would feel the need to point at a digital artist who works with photography and say you are not a photographer?

I must be missing the point.  Are you trying to make the distinction between illustration and photgraphy?

Daguerre wrote:
I am a photgrapher.  I create images with light and computers.  None of the advertising agencies or fortune 500 clients I've worked for have seen the need for a title adjustment.  All they know is that in the end I can produce for them a job that a traditional photographer alone could not.  Who would have an issue with this?  Which photographer's life is so lacking that he would feel the need to point at a digital artist who works with photography and say you are not a photographer?

I must be missing the point.  Are you trying to make the distinction between illustration and photgraphy?

the fact that most people can't tell the difference between digial graphics and photo graphics doesn't mean that i am lacking in some area..

like having basic communication skills

here's an other way..


you go to a movie, there's a directer of photography

there's also special effects..


most people who are doing well in the field can say what they do


i am a graphic artist

vs

i am a photographer


again, i'm not saying one or the other is better, i'm saying that there is a difference, and if you are going to market yourself you aught to be able to say what you do..


if there was an ad for a photographer in the paper, i'd answer it, if there was an ad for a graphic artist, i wouldn't 


knowing which you are is important



as a matter of fact...

Daguerre wrote:
May Photography, a commercial photographic studio.
Daguerre Imaging, a digital photo-illustration/ad production studio.

from your own page, you differentiate between the two types of work

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:
It's the same regardless of film or digital.
I shoot both and  the bottom line is you capture the image on a sensor or film and process it either in a lab or a computer, still photography

it absolutly is, when you are using a camera to take a picture, that is photography

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:
If you develop your photos chemically does that mean you should answer an ad for a chemist? That makes about as much sense as saying if you post-process on a computer then you are a graphic artist, two completely different things. Most graphic artists I know don't have a clue about photography, although some think they do.

yes, when you are doing stuff on the computer you are doing graphic arts

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:
Maybe you are referring to heavily photoshopped photos that are more or less salvage jobs but I'm talking about post-processing only.

i mean post precessing too

thanks

Lotus Photography wrote:
...

i am a graphic artist

vs

i am a photographer...

as a matter of fact...


from your own page, you differentiate between the two types of work

Some people photograph and retouch or just photograph or just retouch or do both and create layouts and seperations.  Some, like myself, print too.  I design and build high end Macs.  And make killer Enchiladas.  I can do other stuff too.

Are you saying that some photographers do not know what they do?  I must have missed an enlightened thread.

This seems all common sense to me.

Daguerre wrote:
And make killer Enchiladas.

Prove it.
Im hungry.

Lotus Photography wrote:
oops, okay, you go out take a picture, it's a photograph (digital or film), when you load it into your computer and manipulate it, that's digital graphic arts..

So, what is one called when they work in a darkroom?

Daguerre wrote:

Some people photograph and retouch or just photograph or just retouch or do both and create layouts and separations.  Some, like myself, print too.  I design and build high end Macs.  And make killer Enchiladas.  I can do other stuff too.

Are you saying that some photographers do not know what they do?  I must have missed an enlightened thread.

This seems all common sense to me.

you'd think it would be common sense

and you'd think that people would have enough self interest to be able to say what they do..

besides, you sound cooler if you say

i'm a photographer and a graphic artist...

or

i'm a photographer who does a little graphic artistry

or

i'm a graphic artist who does a little photography


sounding like you know what you do goes a long way in life..


and when i say you i don't mean you Daguerre, i mean the general 'you'

MMDesign wrote:

So, what is one called when they work in a darkroom?

Apparently, according to this logic, you would then be a chemist.

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:

Apparently, according to this logic, you would then be a chemist.

a>b doesn't mean b>a

it's called a syllogism

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:

Apparently, according to this logic, you would then be a chemist.

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:
If you develop your photos chemically does that mean you should answer an ad for a chemist?

Yeah, But what about if you work in a darkroom?

Do it again, do it again......lol

Koromi Art and Design wrote:
Why are people so concerned about titles? I like shooting film and processing in a darkroom, I also like shooting digital and processing in Photoshop... I enjoy drawing with my Wacom tablet and breaking out my brushed and inks for sumi-e work... then I'll go to work and design booklets and posters from other people's commissioned photo's and illu's.

Titles are all very limiting, it seems to me. The people that worry about them usually are just insecure about their own work. *shrug*

it's about knowing what you are doing enough to say what you are doing without sounding retarded

MMDesign wrote:
So, what is one called when they work in a darkroom?

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:
Apparently, according to this logic, you would then be a chemist.

Actually, those that only develop prints in the wet darkroom are called darkroon technicians, or printers.

Those that create the chimistry used by the darkroom technicians are the chemists.

There really is not an issue as to talent titles, is there?  Y'alls is pulling our legs.

Lotus Photography wrote:
it's about knowing what you are doing enough to say what you are doing without sounding retarded

So I ask again-- who doesn't know what they do?

Caspers Creations wrote:

IMS PHOTOGRAPHIC wrote:
Apparently, according to this logic, you would then be a chemist.

Yeah, But what about if you work in a darkroom?

Do it again, do it again......lol

I was getting  in on the logistic stylings of the OP and his need for labelling, my own darkroom work sure doesn't make me a...you know, lol

Daguerre wrote:

So I ask again-- who doesn't know what they do?

in a recent thread some folks were telling me that working in photoshop is equal to photography

Daguerre wrote:
Is somebody worried about their title?  Is this really an issue to anyone?  Or is the final result all that counts?

Who is so insecure with their work that this becomes an issue?

LOL thank you steven.

Lotus Photography wrote:
a recent thread comparing b&w to color became a clusterfk of digital vs photographic arguments..


photo graphic, light


digital graphic, a computer


not saying i think either one is better, but when you do things in
photoshop you are a digital graphic artist, when you do things with light
you are a photo graphic artist....

when you change a color picture to black and white in photoshop you aren't changing a single photon to change the picture...

photo, photon, light...

PHOTOGRAPH:  An image recorded on light-sensitive material.

A digital sensor is a light sensitive material.

Lotus Photography wrote:
oops, okay, you go out take a picture, it's a photograph (digital or film), when you load it into your computer and manipulate it, that's digital graphic arts..

Lotus Photography wrote:
when you change a color picture to black and white in photoshop you aren't changing a single photon to change the picture...

photo, photon, light...

The photon's coming off my monitor are different. What if you shoot colour film and make black and white prints from it... are you a graphic artist then?

I don't understand the need to make others adhere to your definition of a word. Or why it would bother you. These things tend to only concerns those who need to go to war (literal or figuratively) over something. The real world cares little for definitions.

Lotus Photography wrote:
in a recent thread some folks were telling me that working in photoshop is equal to photography

It's not if you're editing someone else's work in photoshop, like if you were a professional retoucher. But if you take a photo and do the processing yourself (digital or traditional), then yes, you are a photographer.

Saying the opposite would be like saying you're not an oil painter if your using a palette knife instead of a brush.

It's just a matter of what tools you use.

Lotus Photography wrote:

you'd think it would be common sense

and you'd think that people would have enough self interest to be able to say what they do..

besides, you sound cooler if you say

i'm a photographer and a graphic artist...

or

i'm a photographer who does a little graphic artistry

or

i'm a graphic artist who does a little photography


sounding like you know what you do goes a long way in life..


and when i say you i don't mean you Daguerre, i mean the general 'you'

why do you feel a need to be one over the other?

or why do you feel a need to label what you do as an artist with one or two words?

why don't we just all call ourselves artists, then?

i understand we want to be associated with the process maybe?  but that actually stemmed from social issues back in the day when only a certain class could afford to use certain media.  nowadays everything is available to everyone, and mixed media is the norm. 

why must we limit ourselves instead of taking advantage of all our resources to create art?  who dictates why i need to only use a camera vs taking my image through photoshop? 

i would rather have my work show that i know what i am doing rather than just SOUNDING like i know what i do.

Koromi Art and Design wrote:

It's not if you're editing someone else's work in photoshop, like if you were a professional retoucher. But if you take a photo and do the processing yourself (digital or traditional), then yes, you are a photographer.

Saying the opposite would be like saying you're not an oil painter if your using a palette knife instead of a brush.

It's just a matter of what tools you use.

or even better -- what does it matter what tools you use

Caspers Creations wrote:
Yeah, But what about if you work in a darkroom?

Do it again, do it again......lol

If you work in a darkroom, you have to know photography. I don't know if someone worked in a darkroom didn't know photography, besiders if a photographer knows a darkroom, only makes his or her photography better.


---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083

Sean Armenta wrote:
or even better -- what does it matter what tools you use

This is a good point. The only times I ever explain how I do my work, it's more just due to a client's curiosity. If a client ever told me they didn't like my method, I'd tell them to find another artist then.