when do you consider photography as graphic design?

[kkamin]

A believe A good photographer is the person that can take photos and sell, give, show his work right away without having to edit them on the computer.
just to finish, want to make it clear that I don't want to offend anyone, WE ARE in a free world, and can do as we like

What do you mean show 'his work right away'? Again, if you are shooting jpegs, YOUR CAMERA is making color and tonal adjustments and sharpening to your images without you probably knowing it. YOUR CAMERA is doing Photoshop things to your photographs in a way. Your camera captures binary data, a series of '1's' and '0's'. It is not capturing a finished photograph.

If you shoot RAW files, you would know that your camera is capturing garbage until you process e.g., push tones around, color correct, sharpen, etc.

As much as you would like to believe you are capturing 'real life' by not processing, it just isn't true. The human eye and a camera don't see things in the same way. That's why people use lights. That's why people process photographs. That's why people use different lenses.

You are not trying to capture a scientific record of what you see, because it is impossible. Doing something as small as changing the camera height or angle will effect a feeling of a photograph. There is no objective viewpoint. There is no objective moment of capture. Our jobs as photographers is to express what we see, with every artistic tool at our disposal.

 

[Overread]

I get the point of what you mean, but when you see my photo, you can also see what camera & equipment I am using ( here in the forum ) and Imagine how the real eye view was by taking in consideration the advantages and disadvantages of the camera - equipment.
As for the sky color and all the rest, seen people edit there photos, by applying other sky's and other things by using multiple photo layers in photoshop !! Is that fair for me who will have to wait for the exact time to get the, perfect lite I need, and all that I want in THE photo ?
Do people that edit there photos put a tag on there work saying it's edited on photoshop ?

I'm not meaning this as an insult but the vast majority of people I meet who hold this and similar views tend to be those who have never got to grips with even basic use of photoshop or any other editing software. Instead the viewpoint is made up of two things (in general)

1) Fear and missunderstanding of how to use the software editing tool (often boosted by media reports of how easy it is to cheat)

2) Fear/missunderstanding that a previous past of film shooting (often colour) is in some way made invalid because now people can do stuff outside of the camera (This is often boosted because many people didn't process their colour film and instead sent it to labs - not realising that labs were making the choices).


You can do a lot in editing - you can take a photo and use only the smallest part as the component of a collage through editing - and you can take a photo and help bring the best out of it without doing much at all. Furthermore if you start to edit you'll quickly find that its not about "fixing it in editing" but it really is about capturing it perfect in the camera first - if you don't have the data in the photo to work with it takes a long time to build that missing data up in editing. A long time spent slaving away when getting it right in camera would make it a far quicker process.

In addition its already been pointed out that your camera is making key choices for you (white balance, contrast, sharpening, noise) when you shoot in JPEG mode - sometimes it gets it right and sometimes you can make far better result with a tiny bit of personal editing to those settings. Things that are done easily with a RAW shot in editing software outside of the camera body.

Photography is a two part process - shooting and processing - with neither part being more or less important than the other (with the exception that you can't process what you don't shoot). Cutting down on the important of one or trying to exclude it only harms the final overall image. Even if you are shooting a scientific shot and want perfect capture you'll still benefit from the correct processing of such a result.

 

[Emmanuel]

Good morning
seems as you all are getting a bit jumpy over the subject, and that's not good any way .....

A believe A good photographer is the person that can take photos and sell,
give, show his work right away without having to edit them on the computer.
just to finish, want to make it clear that I don't want to offend anyone,
WE ARE in a free world, and can do as we like

What I mean is, If you are a good photographer, you should be able to take photos, and "print" them right away, without the need of spending time on them in order to correct or edit them. for example,
yesterday evening I went out and took a few photos of the castel, near my house. when I got home I uploaded them right way and posted them < 1st in Landscape & Cityscape. the Castel- C&C >, if I was to edit them, I would not be able to upload them right away, would I ?
they might me crappy photos ( no comments yet )
but I accept my work at that time with the equipment I had. and to be honest what came out of those photos is what I actually saw at that time !!

don't worry, your not insulting me although I am having a feeling that mos of you guys have been insulted or offended with my opinion ( didn't do it on purpose ), I have been using photoshop to make post cards, and invitations and things like that, I am not a pro on it but believe I can work my way around it, using CS5 now. as for the film part, yes I did Like it that way, I started off with a Olympus OM 35mm and a
Canon A-1 35mm.
and also managed to make copy rights on 4 photos and sell them. any way, that's not my point now. I will show you why I am against editing, and hope you understand me.
I have quickly edited the photo below on CS 5, could of done better job, but was working all night and I am not in the mood to make it perfect.

what do you think of it, you like it ?
well it might be nice, but I will say it's cheating, and that's because that photo, would need equipment that I DO NOT HAVE !!!! I used a cheap camera & Lens, in order to make a photo which a photographer would of made with expensive equipment. the original photos are :

Is that fair for you ? you are a Photographer, spent time reading and going to classes, in order to know what to use and how to take the right photo.
I have never been to photograph classes , but just because of SC5 "I look like a pro" Is that Fair for you ?
I met a girl this summer, her Job is a graphic designer, She has no Idea on how to use a SLR, she only has a 10Mpix compact camera !!!! Her work though looks like a professional photographer, because of photo shop, and all the other editing programs she uses.
Is that fair for you ? you have spent thousands of $$$ for your equipment in order to get good photos, she has only spent a few buks for her camera, but gets paid and gets credit as a professional photographer.
Do you think that is fair for you, and all the professional photographers ?

that's all for now, need to go get some rest.
hope next time we chat, will not be an argument and will be just fun and joking
better C&C on each-others photos rather then getting upset

 

[kkamin]

Emmanuel, if your friend is an expert at post-processing and is she able to capture great source footage from a point and shoot, then she is a good photographer imo. Why not? Is good photography owning a D-SLR? Does good photography mean fully 'manual' settings? I always thought the photographer's brain was the actual camera...how much credit can you give a brush to a painting, or Microsoft Word to a writer?

I'm not trying to pick on you but your photographs of castles are not straight. Your vertical lines are slanted. This is why tripods with levels exist, and post-processing straightening tools exist. It might not seem like a big deal, but this is a good example of how our eyes are different from a camera.

As an exercise, focus on some straight lines, like the corner of a room, and then tilt your head side to side. If you stay within a reasonable radius, the vertical lines in your field of view will not change. The world remains straight up and down and does not seem to tilt when your head tilts. This is your brain preventing you from throwing up every time you tilt your head. Look UP at tall buildings in a city. If you are at a reasonable distance, they vertical lines will seem to be more or less parallel. Take a photo of the same thing and they will be converging lines. Same principal. Architectural basics is to shoot with a level camera and avoid keystoning or our brains will find something not quite right with the image (I'm only talking about 'straight forward' arch shots).

You could also see more detail in the shadows of the castle with your actual eyes. So I don't think this is what you 'actually saw'. Your camera makes light things lighter and dark things darker than they actually are. It is a creative choice that you left the images so contrasty.

 

[Overread]

Emmanuel I might be missing it but I haven't seen people getting argumentative at you - they are debating your point because several people (myself included) do not agree with your view point and approach.

The thing is you example and your latter wording is showing exactly what I mentioned before - you're "fearing" photoshop - heck no photoshop isn't the only editing software out there you're fearing any form of editing from paintshop pro to GIMP to elements etc... The other thing is that you're picking at the more extreme examples to show you point and processing photos isn't all about that. Using editing software doesn't mean you have to cheat and sometimes its the only way to show a scene that you eyes saw.

Consider the following examples:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

In that example I've managed to use the photo data that I captured from the correct shot taken in camera in order to show more than the in-camera processing on a JPEG could show. I haven't "cheated" and used something from another shot nor have I tried to push things beyond what were there are the time. What I have done however is taken a limitation of the camera (in this case dynamic range in a single shot) and pulled enough data out of that correct first shot in order to better present the final shot.
Could I have lit it better - sure but my subject would not sit still long enough for me to light the shot any better. These are real world limitations imposed on us and I've no problem with using those methods to pull better out.

Here's another shot where I used the very same method:
IMG_1699m | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
In that shot the sky was far to blown in a single shot, yet the camera did capture those details in the sky. In order to show those details however I had to process the shot twice again and then merge the results to show both the details in the sky and the ground. I could have used a filter to try and get it all in one shot but I lack owning a filter - furthermore filters give a gradient change in a straight line - great for a seascape, but a nightmare if you have trees/buildings appearing in the middle of the sky.

Or what about this method: (read further down for the examples)
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/127146-stacked-flower-shot.html
which attempts to again show more truly what my eyes saw, but which the camera is incapable of achieving. Sure there are compositions and angles you can choose to shoot from that would mean that you don't need to use this method, but for the times when I need it I enjoy being able to bring out those details and shape with this method even if it does mean using more than a single shot.




In the end we aren't trying to fight you, but we are tyring to show you that editing isn't the great evil that you are making it out to be. Furthermore there are some outstanding photographers who do just use only a selection of editing methods:
No Cropping Zone
The key thing being that they do at least understand that editing isn't a lie or something to be feared and that things like dustspots on the sensor - noise - sharpening - colour correctness etc... are things they can impose control over the perfect in camera shot.

 

[Village Idiot]

Photography is graphic design after the 433rd thread asking this question is posted.

 

[Emmanuel]

Emmanuel, if your friend is an expert at post-processing and is she able to capture great source footage from a point and shoot, then she is a good photographer imo. Why not? Is good photography owning a D-SLR? Does good photography mean fully 'manual' settings? I always thought the photographer's brain was the actual camera...how much credit can you give a brush to a painting, or Microsoft Word to a writer?

Well to be honest, she admits being a graphic designer, and calls her work as "Images"
not photographs. Leonardo da Vinci Painting of "Mona Lisa" it's her portrait, but called a painting and not a photo.

Leonardo da Vinci is famous about his paintings, he had imagination and a steady hand so that he could make perfect paintings,
I bet if they had photoshop at his time, he would not be famous for his paintings, as everybody would paint (draw) perfect things.

Why didn't anybody make any comments on that, everybody passed by it as thy agree !!!

I'm not trying to pick on you but your photographs of castles are not straight.
Your vertical lines are slanted. This is why tripods with levels exist, and post-processing straightening tools exist.
It might not seem like a big deal, but this is a good example of how our eyes are different from a camera.

thanks for the comment, I am not taking it as an insult or you picking on me, I know the photo is not straight, as I didn't
have my tripod with me and had to use what was around me, wall, bench ......
the reason though I did put the photos up is because I had problems with focus, it was very dark and AF could not work,
and MF was very hard to get a subject to focus on, and was expecting people to comment on it and get some pointers
on what to do on those situations, isn't that one of the reasons the forum exists ? or is it just to show off your best work ?

The thing is you example and your latter wording is showing exactly what I mentioned before - you're "fearing" photoshop - heck no photoshop isn't the only editing software out there you're fearing any form of editing from paintshop pro to GIMP
to elements etc... The other thing is that you're picking at the more extreme examples to show you point and processing photos isn't all about that. Using editing software doesn't mean you have to cheat and sometimes its the only way to show a scene that you eyes saw.

I am aware of all the editing programs, and just referring to photoshop, to avoid typing them all ( hope you understand what I mean) By picking at the more extreme examples, is to show you that once a photo is taken, and put into a editing program, nobody except
the creator knows how it originally looked, and I prefer to call that kind of work an "Image" and not a photograph.
You mentioned a few examples

Consider the following examples:
Tricks to using RAW - don't burn the results!

Here's another shot where I used the very same method:
IMG_1699m | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Or what about this method: (read further down for the examples)
stacked flower shot

you did good work on those images, and what I like - respect the most, is that you admit how you made them !!

Did you not like my image of the moon and the trees ?
the moon is the August full moon, and the trees where taken last month.put together in photo shop and got it nice
and the main point is that once your in the photoshop, there are no "limitations" on what you can do
to a photo.

you are a Photographer, spent time reading and going to classes, in order to know what to use and how to take the right photo.I have never been to photograph classes , but just because of SC5 "I look like a pro"
Is that fair for you ?
I met a girl this summer, her Job is a graphic designer, She has no Idea on how to use a SLR, she only has a 10Mpix compact camera !!!! Her work though looks like a professional photographer, because of photo shop, and all the other editing programs she uses.
Is that fair for you ?
you have spent thousands of $$$ for your equipment in order to get good photos, she has only spent a few buks for her camera, but gets paid and gets credit as a professional photographer.
Do you think that is fair for you, and all the professional photographers ?

I think it's just cheating, cheating is just something that can't stop in our life today, everybody does it and nobody cares !!

but is it fair ? ? ?

 

[Overread]

You forget two key points

1) Photoshop has been out for decades and we still have fantastic artists drawing with pencil, pen, paint and more. Just because one can work in a different medium (ie digital) does not diminish the quality of art produced by other formats.

2) Most of photoshop was possible in the darkroom with film - infact many of the processes are direct ports of darkroom methods. Dodging and blurring even cut and paste work like you did with the moon and the trees could be done under the red haze light of a darkroom. Once in the darkroom there is no limits save how long you can stand the chemical smell

The difference today is that photoshop is cheaper and quicker than the darkroom and uses electronics rather than chemicals.

Your point that one can lie with the editing software is also missing the point that with the right tools I can lie with the camera alone. Modify and control a scene - even the act of framing a shot with the camera can give a very different feel and suggestion to the viewer as to what I am trying to show.
As for your point on "is it fair" is what fair? That someone with different skills produces a decent product and gets paid for it? Remember paid work isn't always the best, but its work that someone does for a fee that is to a standard that the employer wants - heck many of THE best artists were dirt poor in their time or were just hobbysits.

 

[Emmanuel]

You forget two key points

1) Photoshop has been out for decades and we still have fantastic artists drawing with pencil, pen, paint and more. Just because one can work in a different medium (ie digital) does not diminish the quality of art produced by other formats.

2) Most of photoshop was possible in the darkroom with film - infact many of the processes are direct ports of darkroom methods. Dodging and blurring even cut and paste work like you did with the moon and the trees could be done under the red haze light of a darkroom. Once in the darkroom there is no limits save how long you can stand the chemical smell

yes I did not wright many things ( had my son pressing buttons on my key board, and deleteing all I had typed, about 5 times ) anyway ......
you are right about the dark room, but you have to consider that dark rooms only existed in photographers work place, and they were specialized on how to do there work,wich means only He could be titled as a photographer, today there is a "dark room" (editing program ) on every computer, just by playing around with the tools you get to know how to use the program, and make perfect images, Does that make everybody a photographer ? If yes, then the profession of a photographer should stop, and let everybody make there own photos.

this conversation can go on for ages, just like the one with the chicken and the egg ( who came first) I have said my opinion, and hope to managed to make it clear enough to understand , As you did with your opinion.


Following the flow of technology doesn't mean that it's the best thing for human kind.

 

[Overread]

You've confused me now and it seems that your lamenting the death of the professional photographer and saying that its the result of easier access to editing facilities - strange as most take the line that its the commercialisation and massive move by manufacturers to put pro end gear in the commercial sector of the market.

I still don't understand your aversion to considering editing wholey as you seem to be against it (as far as I can tell) because some people could use it to (in your view) cheat with photographs.
However one could say that in the right hands anything can be abused to any lengths yet we still use those tools. I can build a terrible series of torture devises with hammer, nails wood and saw, but I don't and I still use those tools to perform jobs when needed. The same is true of photoshop. Use it for what you want to improve your work as far as needed and don't worry about what anyone else is doing

 

[Emmanuel]

You've confused me now and it seems that your lamenting the death of the professional photographer and saying that its the result of easier access to editing facilities - strange as most take the line that its the commercialisation and massive move by manufacturers to put pro end gear in the commercial sector of the market.

is it not true ?
I have been talking to a friend of mine who owns a photo studio - shop, and he admits that the profession is dieing, the only income he makes is just by things he sells, batteries, cameras, ...... nobody uses Film anymore, many photo studios have closed. and all because everybody is going Digital !!!!
Last summer the company I work for, hosted parties and concerts, my manager asked me to make the photo coverage for it ( for free, during work) so they don't get a photographer. is that not the begging of the professional photographer death ?

I still don't understand your aversion to considering editing wholey as you seem to be against it (as far as I can tell) because some people could use it to (in your view) cheat with photographs.
However one could say that in the right hands anything can be abused to any lengths yet we still use those tools. I can build a terrible series of torture devises with hammer, nails wood and saw, but I don't and I still use those tools to perform jobs when needed. The same is true of photoshop. Use it for what you want to improve your work as far as needed and don't worry about what anyone else is doing

just going to make it Quick :
I believe, it would of been more professional for me to wait in front of the trees and take the photo of the full moon in August, rather than just making a image in photoshop cs5 of what I believe it would of looked like that night.

As for which way all others make there photos, I am really not bothered, it's just that I believe it would be better to try and make it perfect with out the computer.
the end :thumbup:
nice aviator you got there

 

[kkamin]

yes I did not wright many things ( had my son pressing buttons on my key board, and deleteing all I had typed, about 5 times ) anyway ......
you are right about the dark room, but you have to consider that dark rooms only existed in photographers work place, and they were specialized on how to do there work,wich means only He could be titled as a photographer, today there is a "dark room" (editing program ) on every computer, just by playing around with the tools you get to know how to use the program, and make perfect images, Does that make everybody a photographer ? If yes, then the profession of a photographer should stop, and let everybody make there own photos.

I don't think Photoshop is easy. To use Photoshop well is very, very difficult--it takes years of practice and talent. Just because image editing software is easily available doesn't mean people are good with it. Does owning Microsoft Word make people automatic novelists? No.

I've been using Photoshop for eleven years. I have a BFA from art school. I've spent thousands of hours inside Photoshop. I use Photoshop for work. I still only know a fraction of what the program can do.

Having Photoshop doesn't allow people to make perfect images. You need to start with a great image to really get anywhere worth going. Despite what many people think, an expensive camera will not make a good photographer. And despite what you think, Photoshop will not make good photographs. Good photography comes from the vision and talent of the photographer. They could be using a $30,000 Hasselblad or a $7 disposable camera and figure out how to capture an engaging and compelling photograph.

For inspiration take a look at:
Browse the Book :: AtEdge

This is a collection of the United States best, avant garde Advertising photographers. This is amazing photography. A lot of it could be considered fine art.
Everything in print today goes through Photoshop. Everything printed at the above link went through Photoshop. Are they cheating? Are they not making photographs?

 

[davisphotos]

I am a graphic designer as well as a photographer, so I always consider my images as graphic design-I strive for a strong graphic element.
If the post work is strong and adds to this photographer's own vision, there isn't really a problem with that. This is like going back to the era of the f64 group and the debate between the romanticized, soft focus, colorized photos that were popular of the time, and the sharp, 'realistic' photographs of Adams, Weston, etc.

 

[Emmanuel]

Good photography comes from the vision and talent of the photographer. They could be using a $30,000 Hasselblad or a $7 disposable camera and figure out how to capture an engaging and compelling photograph.

very nicely said, must agree with 100%

as for usage of photoShop, don't be so sure about it, I know plenty of people that use photosShop very well more than 50% of it's compatibilities, just by watching tutorials on U-tube and practicing on work time
not me thogh, I just know the basics as I don't need it for anything more than that.

I am a graphic designer as well as a photographer, so I always consider my images as graphic design-I strive for a strong graphic element.
If the post work is strong and adds to this photographer's own vision, there isn't really a problem with that. This is like going back to the era of the f64 group and the debate between the romanticized, soft focus, colorized photos that were popular of the time, and the sharp, 'realistic' photographs of Adams, Weston, etc.

Hi davisphotos
hope you where not offended in any way in all that was written till now. Just want to add that I don't have anything against you "graphic designes" for the simple reason that you state your profesion as graphic designer and don't pretend that all your work was done just by the camera.

 

[abraxas]

It's somewhat entertaining to skim through a thread like this occasionally. It helps me realize that whatever it is I do with a camera and my images isn't being done while I'm reading about splitting hairs, drawing lines in the sand, defining definitions, making rules, spitfighting and other **** that absolutely doesn't matter, I'm not doing what I like to do, which is expressing myself through creative photography.