Photographer
FOTOgraphicART - Heinz
Posts: 1710
Hopkins, Minnesota, US
To the OP:
You make it sound that manipulation of an image is a new thing. Not so. In the film only days, negatives were routinely retouched as were the final prints, and in especially tricky cases, airbrushing was certainly not an unknown tool. Even before taking a photograph we use filters and other, image altering devices. Your's ultimately is an exercise in semantics. We all produce images that start out with light reaching a receptor. Sometimes that is all it takes, other times, additional work is necessary to arrive at the final image and, in the end, we are all photographers with various skills, equipment and approaches to what we produce.
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18647
Louisville, Kentucky, US
Daguerre wrote:
MMDesign wrote:
So, what is one called when they work in a darkroom? 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. There are actually photographers that shoot, process and print their own images (honestly!). His labeling system ignores them and I asked him what his label would be. Neither he nor you answered me.
Photographer
Rick Davis Photography
Posts: 3733
San Antonio, Texas, US
Alexander Image wrote:
The problem here is that photography is about lighting, a darkroom is about lighting, but a computer is not about lightingâ¦
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083 No but exposure is about lighting and exposure is controlled in the camera and the camera records that exposure on a light sensitive material/sensor. This "I'm a photographer but you're not" argument is ignorant and way old!
Photographer
JSVPhotography
Posts: 4897
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Why is this important? Why continue to try to drive the point home?
If ANY image, photo, digital manipulation, pencil sketch, painting or macaroni glued on a paper plate is done in such a way that it is admired, awed, PURCHASED - who cares about the title of the artist. Artist pretty much covers it.
Photographer
Laurence Moan
Posts: 7844
Huntington Beach, California, US
Lotus Photography wrote:
it's about knowing what you are doing enough to say what you are doing without sounding retarded I ate way too much this weekend. I must be a pig. But at least I'm not a retarded pig!
Photographer
commart
Posts: 6078
Hagerstown, Maryland, US
I think we're all graphic artists and illustrators (and many of us work in other art-making modes as well) with products varying in the degree to which they're derived from or involved with recording and what passes for visual fidelity. At the end of the day, from severe black and white portraiture to the latest in film CGI, what all do is, in a large sense, all about illustration all the time.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
GMP Photography - Heinz wrote:
To the OP:
You make it sound that manipulation of an image is a new thing. Not so. In the film only days, negatives were routinely retouched as were the final prints, and in especially tricky cases, airbrushing was certainly not an unknown tool. Even before taking a photograph we use filters and other, image altering devices. Your's ultimately is an exercise in semantics. We all produce images that start out with light reaching a receptor. Sometimes that is all it takes, other times, additional work is necessary to arrive at the final image and, in the end, we are all photographers with various skills, equipment and approaches to what we produce. thank you - gret point.
Art is making choices to present the artist's vision. The rest is just technique.
No different than a painter choosing a differnt brush or a sculptor a different kind of stone or a writer choosing a typewriter or a computer.
Only the end product matters not how or even by whom it was achieved.
The rest is ego, not art.
Photographer
jandj studios
Posts: 3785
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Marc Grant wrote:
No but exposure is about lighting and exposure is controlled in the camera and the camera records that exposure on a light sensitive material/sensor. This "I'm a photographer but you're not" argument is ignorant and way old! LIGHTING IS JUST ONE OF MANY TOOLS USED by an artist. The only thing that matters is the Art.
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
MMDesign wrote:
So, what is one called when they work in a darkroom? Daguerre wrote:
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. MMDesign wrote:
There are actually photographers that shoot, process and print their own images (honestly!). His labeling system ignores them and I asked him what his label would be. Neither he nor you answered me. Since I am one of those, and have been for 20 years, I suppose I won't disagree with you. I don't feel ignored...
Here is the answer to your question: I am a photographer. Simple. And as a photographer, I will tell you, my client, that I can design your job, shoot your job (traditional up to 8x10 or digital in any flavor you chose to pay for), seperate your job on either crosfield or Hell drum scanners, retouch, color correct and illustrate your job in either rgb or cmyk, output to any number of contract proofers and then take your job out to 350 line imagesetter or DTP lithography with a Dmax of 360 and detail that will make you think the job was con-tone. I will bind it, package it and deliver it to you and guarentee world-class A quality from the beginning to the end.
But if all you want is a selenium toned fiber print from 4x5, or a type C Super-Gloss, or a Cibachrome up to 30x40, I can personally do that too.
I am a photographer.
Photographer
Rick Davis Photography
Posts: 3733
San Antonio, Texas, US
jandj studios wrote:
LIGHTING IS JUST ONE OF MANY TOOLS USED by an artist. The only thing that matters is the Art. And you're point in bring this to my attention is........... ?
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18647
Louisville, Kentucky, US
Daguerre wrote:
MMDesign wrote:
So, what is one called when they work in a darkroom? Daguerre wrote:
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. Since I am one of those, and have been for 20 years, I suppose I won't disagree with you. Nor do I feel in the least ignored.
Here is the answer to your question: I am a photographer. Simple, huh? But as a photographer, I will tell you, my client, that I can design your job, shoot your job (traditional up to 8x10 or digital in any flavor you chose to pay for), seperate your job on either crosfield or Hell drum scanners, retouch, color correct and illustrate your job in either rgb or cmyk, output to any number of contract proofers and then take your job out to 350 line imagesetter or DTP lithography with a Dmax of 360 and detail that will make you think the job was con-tone. I will bind it, package it and deliver it to you and guarentee world-class A quality from the beginning to the end.
But if all you want is a selenium toned fiber print from 4x5, or a type C Super-Gloss, or a Cibachrome up to 30x40, I can personally do that too.
I am a photographer. Yet in his labeling system, you'd still just be a graphic artist. I asked my original question so as to show the fruitlessness of labels.
And, sorry, but I'd really have to see you on press to believe that you could do "world class" quality printing. I've printed with many, many printers over the years and very few were capable of "world class" quality regardless of the machine they're running.
Photographer
Mark J. Sebastian
Posts: 1530
San Francisco, California, US
Daguerre wrote:
Here is the answer to your question: I am a photographer. Simple. And as a photographer, I will tell you, my client, that I can design your job, shoot your job (traditional up to 8x10 or digital in any flavor you chose to pay for), seperate your job on either crosfield or Hell drum scanners, retouch, color correct and illustrate your job in either rgb or cmyk, output to any number of contract proofers and then take your job out to 350 line imagesetter or DTP lithography with a Dmax of 360 and detail that will make you think the job was con-tone. I will bind it, package it and deliver it to you and guarentee world-class A quality from the beginning to the end.
But if all you want is a selenium toned fiber print from 4x5, or a type C Super-Gloss, or a Cibachrome up to 30x40, I can personally do that too.
I am a photographer. You had me at "enchilada"!
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
MMDesign wrote:
...And, sorry, but I'd really have to see you on press to believe that you could do "world class" quality printing. I've printed with many, many printers over the years and very few were capable of "world class" quality regardless of the machine they're running. Its all part of the process. If you are hiring me for a world class job, and you want me to handle the job start to finish as many of my clients do, would it matter to you that I know how to run a press personally, or that I know who can print world class, communicate professionally with the pressman, and deliver your job as promised? You would not. You would just be happy that your 175 line process color candy-apple Viper looked as vibrant on paper with its 3 touch plates as it does sitting in the showroom.
Many an experienced litho rep have looked at the samples that I've produced over the years with their own eyes and said they've never seen anything like that. And it was right in front of them. You are not alone in your disbelief. 
But I am still a photographer. And I still say-- who cares?
www.daguerreimaging.com
Photographer
Raf Val
Posts: 3466
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
the end result is digital, the light part just saves a lot of time, thats not saying nothing, a lot of time may be more then one lifetime
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
M Sebastian wrote:
You had me at "enchilada"!
Photographer
RSM-images
Posts: 4226
Jacksonville, Florida, US
. Finally ... an illuminating thread...!  .
Model
Midori Tettigoniidae
Posts: 96
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
right. illuminating as in spiraling into blackness.
Photographer
11th Dimension
Posts: 188
Portland, Oregon, US
PLEASE DON'T READ THIS IF YOU ARE STEEPED IN TRADITION. IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IT'S THE RAMBLINGS OF AN OLD MAN AND AS A CRUSTY OLD CODGER, I'M FULL OF OPINIONS!  I smile reading this thread. The old standards, just like fundamentalist religion, are under attack because they are stuck. It is the nature of some people that they can't let go of something they are comfortable with. They won't allow growth to move them forward. Discussions based on this human trait are not ones that have any conclusions. They just go on and on. Discussions like this only exist because someone is STUCK! I push my cameras to the threshold of their design, where they begin to fail or behave unpredictably. Is this photography? They work with 'light' but react to it in a way not natural to our limited eyes? Many of my images not only embrace the natural color the eye sees, but they also record light energy in adjacent ranges the eye can not see, recording energy (photons) that have no color. I have listened to discussions saying this is 'not' photography. Make-up on a face is designed to ALTER photons away from reality before the camera captures it. A healing brush in photoshop serves a similar purpose to ALTER photons away from reality after the camera captures it. To propose that altering photonic energy before capture is better or worse than altering photonic energy after capture is pointless. 90%+ of my images are done in-camera. 90%+ of my images are probably not reproducible with film or chemical baths in the dark room. I don't care. Taking a photograph is the ACT of capturing energy. It has nothing to do with the concept of digital. It is not a 'thing'. A photograph can never directly be seen! It lies dormant in a chemical emulsion or as an electrical residue in crystalline material. The material used to HOLD the photo is not itself a photo. Only later, when a photo is viewed, one sees that it exists because it is stealing and modifying NEW energy (light) from either a) current photons flying past us and reflecting them, altering them from their native state, OR b) energy from photons that are shaped and emitted from a screen. Perhaps one can say that a photo never exists until the moment it is being viewed. It is nothing more than the ACT of modifying new energy (light) by reflectance or emission to land on the eye. Then, only for a moment, it exists.
Photographer
IMS FotoGrafix
Posts: 1153
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Daguerre wrote:
Its all part of the process. If you are hiring me for a world class job, and you want me to handle the job start to finish as many of my clients do, would it matter to you that I know how to run a press personally, or that I know who can print world class, communicate professionally with the pressman, and deliver your job as promised? You would not. You would just be happy that your 175 line process color candy-apple Viper looked as vibrant on paper with its 3 touch plates as it does sitting in the showroom.
Many an experienced litho rep have looked at the samples that I've produced over the years with their own eyes and said they've never seen anything like that. And it was right in front of them. You are not alone in your disbelief.
But I am still a photographer. And I still say-- who cares?
www.daguerreimaging.com A great photographer at that ! Nice website man !
Photographer
Deacon Blues
Posts: 26638
Belmont, North Carolina, US
i was here.
signed,
jack of all, master of none
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9312
Los Angeles, California, US
You should always try to get the light either on the negative or in the RAW file. It'll make editing that much easier later. PS and other editing programs have made even amateur photographers much better at showing their final vision via prints.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Lotus Photography wrote:
yes, when you are doing stuff on the computer you are doing graphic arts By your definition. Few others* use that approach. (*Others being photographers, retouchers, special-effects artists, graphic artists [most of whom do NOT do retouching or photographic post-production!], word processors, CAD designers, etc.)
If you insist on that usage, you're deliberately making it harder for you to communicate.
Lotus Photography wrote:
i mean post precessing too See above. I've only met one Graphic Artist who could do photographic post-processing, and I know dozens of very good graphic artists.
Do you want to stand on a soapbox, or do you want to communicate?
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
Daguerre wrote:
Its all part of the process. If you are hiring me for a world class job, and you want me to handle the job start to finish as many of my clients do, would it matter to you that I know how to run a press personally, or that I know who can print world class, communicate professionally with the pressman, and deliver your job as promised? You would not. You would just be happy that your 175 line process color candy-apple Viper looked as vibrant on paper with its 3 touch plates as it does sitting in the showroom.
Many an experienced litho rep have looked at the samples that I've produced over the years with their own eyes and said they've never seen anything like that. And it was right in front of them. You are not alone in your disbelief.
But I am still a photographer. And I still say-- who cares?
www.daguerreimaging.com Yes, you are a photographer, and you can do âa world class jobâ. But it is not BECAUSE you can do âa world class jobâ, you are a photographerâ¦
A label is not so important, but sometimes a label could help other people to understand what a person is doing! Apparently the OP uses labels here to help other people to understand the differences, if you insist the OP labeling system is right or not, I think you misunderstood the OP points.
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
Photographer
Jake Garn
Posts: 3958
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Both film and computers take recorded light and allow you to manipulate it. Neither of them store actual light. The OPs original analogy is akin to saying Doctors that started using antibiotics during the last century weren't doctors at all since they weren't treating the disease, they were using medicine to treat it.
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
Jake Garn wrote:
Both film and computers take recorded light and allow you to manipulate it. Neither of them store actual light. The OPs original analogy is akin to saying Doctors that started using antibiotics during the last century weren't doctors at all since they weren't treating the disease, they were using medicine to treat it. You are not totally right.
Both a film camera and a digital camera record the âlightâ, but a film camera needs a darkroom to show the âlightâ record and digital camera doesnât need this step because the pictures are already done. A computer (more specifically a PS) is not equal a darkroom because a darkroom uses the âlightâ and a computer doesnâtâ¦
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
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.. What kind of light do you use to retouch a negative, or a print, or whatever it is you film folks retouch?
Photographer
Kevin Greggain Photography
Posts: 6769
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
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... This has been discussed for years and years.. I remember back when photographers were complaining about photographers who spent time burning in an image or dodging or burning when developing photos.
Now it's whether you take a shot as is or modify it ?
So then we could go the next step and say using Velvia film vs provia is cheating because it enhances greens..
We can run around like roosters and puff out our chests and say our images are untouched, but who really cares, and .. most print work, magazine covers and just about everything I see is modified in some way shape or form.
I say .. shoot what you want, but I'd rather make images than talk about why I shouldn't or how I should differently..
As Popeye said.. I yam what I yam..
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
What kind of light do you use to retouch a negative, or a print, or whatever it is you film folks retouch? If you know the darkroom, you would know...
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
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 But the end result is usually the same. It's about the PRINT. Who cares, other that gearheads, how you got there. Is the print worth looking at?
A capenter and a plumber have entirely different end results.
Photographer
Jason Haven
Posts: 38381
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Film, digital, unmanipulated, manipulated, who cares?
Does it really matter?
Photography? Art? Digital Art?
What does it matter?
Make what you are happy with, enjoy what you do, stop harping on what others do.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Lotus Photography wrote:
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 I have never worked with film. I am 100% digital.
Do you really think I could apply for a graphic artist's position?
Photographer
iHartPhotos
Posts: 1263
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Daguerre wrote:
Is this really an issue to anyone? Or is the final result all that counts? Exactly.
Who gives a rats ass... as long as you (and/or your model) (and/or your client) like the final image.
Maybe we should be called Image-ographers.
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
DigitalArticulation wrote:
This has been discussed for years and years.. I remember back when photographers were complaining about photographers who spent time burning in an image or dodging or burning when developing photos.
Now it's whether you take a shot as is or modify it ?
So then we could go the next step and say using Velvia film vs provia is cheating because it enhances greens..
We can run around like roosters and puff out our chests and say our images are untouched, but who really cares, and .. most print work, magazine covers and just about everything I see is modified in some way shape or form.
I say .. shoot what you want, but I'd rather make images than talk about why I shouldn't or how I should differently..
As Popeye said.. I yam what I yam.. "burning" and "dodging" still use "light", and "light" is how a photography come...
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
iHartPhotos wrote:
Exactly.
Who gives a rats ass... as long as you (and/or your model) (and/or your client) like the final image.
Maybe we should be called Image-ographers. If you are talking about it is a photography or not, Then it is important!
Edit:
If you are talking about it is an art or not, Then it is not important!
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Lotus Photography wrote:
in a recent thread some folks were telling me that working in photoshop is equal to photography I would say that is false. Working in Photoshop is like working in Photoshop. There are apparently things you can do in the darkroom and some things that you can't.
however, the darkroom is PART of photography in that it is a required part if you ever wish to see your photos.
Photoshop, though part of a process, is not a requirement. Hell, you connect some cameras directly to a printer and printer or in the very least, put the memory card into a printer and print.
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
I would say that is false. Working in Photoshop is like working in Photoshop. There are apparently things you can do in the darkroom and some things that you can't.
however, the darkroom is PART of photography in that it is a required part if you ever wish to see your photos.
Photoshop, though part of a process, is not a requirement. Hell, you connect some cameras directly to a printer and printer or in the very least, put the memory card into a printer and print. I agree with you in this.
Probably it is also what the OP wanted to point outâ¦
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
Photographer
Kevin Greggain Photography
Posts: 6769
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Alexander Image wrote:
"burning" and "dodging" still use "light", and "light" is how a photography come...
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083 Straight digital contrast and color adjustments then can be deemed "digital light" adjustments.
Photographer
Alexander Image
Posts: 679
Edison, Georgia, US
DigitalArticulation wrote:
Straight digital contrast and color adjustments then can be deemed "digital light" adjustments. Or call "simulated light" because it is not a real light.
---------------------------
Fight Internet Identity Theft
https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=211083
|
