when do you consider photography as graphic design?

[Overread]

just by watching tutorials on U-tube and practicing on work time

Is it bad that that is how I've learnt most of my photography (if you add in reading forums from time to time too)? :blushing:

 

[Emmanuel]

just by watching tutorials on U-tube and practicing on work time

Is it bad that that is how I've learnt most of my photography (if you add in reading forums from time to time too)? :blushing:

No Overread, it's not bad if you do it on your free time, but it is if you do it wile you being paid to work and do something else........

 

[c.cloudwalker]

just by watching tutorials on U-tube and practicing on work time

Is it bad that that is how I've learnt most of my photography (if you add in reading forums from time to time too)? :blushing:

No Overread, it's not bad if you do it on your free time, but it is if you do it wile you being paid to work and do something else........

Emmanuel, sorry, but your arguments make not the slightest bit of sense and that is showing in the fact that you have now totally veered off the subject. Although I totally agree that people should work when they are at work (my employees do, lol), that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

You seem to be so stuck in this fantasy of yours that you cannot realize how incredible what you are saying is. By your definition of real/fake photography, photography is fake right from the get go since it had to be treated in the/a darkroom. But that's ok because there was nothing but fake photography until digital came along since we didn't just connect our film cameras to the computer and post our images/photos for the world to see.

What would you have done in the film days? I guess you could not have been a photographer since every film out there had to go through a darkroom. Even transparency films (the closest to your totally skewed vision) had to be processed.

By the way, I had a darkroom when I was 14. I was hardly a pro and I was hardly the only non-pro with a darkroom.

It is fine to want to do as little darkroom/PS work as possible. I agree with that. The better you shoot, the less time you have to spend in the darkroom, digital or analog. the darkroom is not here to fix problems, it is here to enhance the great work you have done in camera.

Do some people abuse the darkroom? No. Because photography is an art and in art everything goes. Who made you god?

Get over yourself. Live by your rules if you will but don't tell others how to live.

 

[Emmanuel]

Emmanuel, sorry, but your arguments make not the slightest bit of sense and that is showing in the fact that you have now totally veered off the subject. Although I totally agree that people should work when they are at work (my employees do, lol), that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

yes I know it's off the topic, was there just to put a laugh in. hope I didn't offend your employees if there are watching u-tube while you are away

as for

Get over yourself. Live by your rules if you will but don't tell others how to live.

I am living with my rules and not telling anyone else how to live, or what to do !!
Aren't forums for saying peoples opinions and ideas ?
as for you having a Dark room, at the age of 14, good for you, that gives me the impression, that you really do know the difference between analog and digital, and also know if you can edit a color photo, in the dark room just as you can on the computer. I never had a dark room, but have been using analog SLR's since 1987 and seen differences.

that is my opinion, anything wrong with that ?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Emmanuel, sorry, but your arguments make not the slightest bit of sense and that is showing in the fact that you have now totally veered off the subject. Although I totally agree that people should work when they are at work (my employees do, lol), that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

yes I know it's off the topic, was there just to put a laugh in.

Sure. Because it is easier to make a joke than to deal with reality.

Name one (1) well known photographer who does not process his/her photos and we'll talk again. In the meantime, keep making jokes.

 

[white]

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.

Cue the artist on his high horse.

Right on time, my good sir.

 

[kkamin]

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.

I think the discussion at hand is important. I think a lot of people feel like Emmanuel, people who haven't really come to terms with the reality of photography. It's all fake and an "unnatural" mechanical or digital process.

Abraxas, for someone with 9,000+ posts, I don't think you should put others down for being engaged in a debate.

High horse indeed? :lmao:

 

[Village Idiot]

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 !!!



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 ?



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 ? ? ?

Some things just can't be done in the camera, but it's still phtoography. If you try and argue otherwise, I'll think you're an imbecile and lose all respect I never had for you.

So, how could you have done this shot totally in 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.

Cue the artist on his high horse.

Right on time, my good sir.

Entertaining, yes?

...

I think the discussion at hand is important. I think a lot of people feel like Emmanuel, people who haven't really come to terms with the reality of photography. It's all fake and an "unnatural" mechanical or digital process.

Abraxas, for someone with 9,000+ posts, I don't think you should put others down for being engaged in a debate.

High horse indeed? :lmao:

Briefly:
Word association.

--
The discussion may be important to those who haven't been though it, but if I can stir things up by making a provocative statement, how cool is that? I didn't think anyone read my posts.

 

[kkamin]

as for you having a Dark room, at the age of 14, good for you, that gives me the impression, that you really do know the difference between analog and digital, and also know if you can edit a color photo, in the dark room just as you can on the computer. I never had a dark room, but have been using analog SLR's since 1987 and seen differences.

that is my opinion, anything wrong with that ?

I think I'm beating a dead horse, but this is evidence of such a flawed argument.

You never had a darkroom but you shoot film. That means SOMEONE ELSE is doing image processing to your photos!!! When you take your film to a lab to make prints, a person or a computer is determining your exposure, contrast, color and CROPPING! Do you think labs print your images full frame..without cropping? Does a 4x6 or 5x7 or 8x10 have the same aspect ratio? NO, THEY ARE CUTTING OFF SOME OF YOUR PICTURE! CROPPING!

Do what you want Emmauel, and believe whatever nonsense you want. But you've constructed a very simplistic fantasy for yourself that holds no bearing to the realities of photography.

My final thoughts is to go find a darkroom class somewhere and take some of your film negatives to print. I guarantee your mind will be blown once you realize how much power is in processing and how subjective of a process it really is.