Just a question

Neil:
If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images I'd
agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".

Davoud:
Not even the professional who snagged a beautiful TIME magazine cover
with an iPhone? Or the videographer who won an Oscar for a iPhone
movie? The notion that "photographers" don't use iPhones is obsolete,
like saying that "travelers" don't use motorized vehicles. Such an
attitude condemns you to be left standing in history's dust.

Neil:
I didn't say, nor even imply that photographers never use their phones
to capture images...the word "primarily" has a definition, after all.

I guess my definition of photographer is a bit loose. I define any
person who makes photographs as a photographer.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
No, but the photographers that prefers to do things manually is
such a small minority that they don't matter statistically.

Really? I haven't seen such statistics... where are they? If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images
I'd agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".

Regardless of what you'd call them, they are still photographers - and in
this context, skills vs. automated functions, they're highly relevant. And,
when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog film to digital?
Not someone that occasionally shoots with analog film, someone that prefers
it? We may move in different kind of circles, but it's been a great while
since I saw a wedding photographer come to the reception with a Nikon F4

Sandman:
Metering was essential in the analog world, in the digital world
of RAW, the cameras automatic metering and the dynamic range of
the sensor renders manual metering unneeded.

Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all that
is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the
subtleties of a difficult scene.

Which means you are referring to skills that:

1. Very fe people have
2. Very very few instances require

Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very very small
margin in the grand scheme of things.

Sandman:
But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing.
Not post- processing, but editing.

Time is wasted if one has to select from 100 shots vs. 1 or 2 shots
of a scene, which is editing, not post-processing.

Yeah, but the examples in the OP was removing a subject/part from a scene,
something you may not be able to avoid on location, and therefore is forced
to deal with in editing.

--
Sandman

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:35:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 12, 2018, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In , Tony Cooper wrote:


Yeah, I'd say there is a "value" to some obsolete skills. Personal
satisfaction counts as a value in my mind.

Sure, but most skills are acquired to be used professionally, and an
employer that sees you using outdated, slow and inefficient methods will not
be pleased. Or rather, an employer that sees a younger less skilled person
getting things done faster and with a better end result - then that personal
satisfaction isn't worth much.

Today’s employer is more than likely going to use robotics on his production
line than skilled artisans. The employees with skills in need of development are
the ones maintaining those robots. Today there are even some types of surgery
which are performed better, and safer with surgical robots than a surgeon who
has years of developed skill behind him/her.

https://www.massdevice.com/11-surgical-robotics-companies-you-need-to-know/2/

For those of us to remember the meaning of the term, the example you
have cited is not a robot. It's a 'Waldo'. (Robert Heinlen).

The man with his head in the games machine is a surgeon carrying out
the operation with octopus in the background. That one seems to be
designed for operating on very small patients.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:02:41 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Neil:
If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images I'd
agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".

Davoud:
Not even the professional who snagged a beautiful TIME magazine cover
with an iPhone? Or the videographer who won an Oscar for a iPhone
movie? The notion that "photographers" don't use iPhones is obsolete,
like saying that "travelers" don't use motorized vehicles. Such an
attitude condemns you to be left standing in history's dust.

Neil:
I didn't say, nor even imply that photographers never use their phones
to capture images...the word "primarily" has a definition, after all.

I guess my definition of photographer is a bit loose. I define any
person who makes photographs as a photographer.

Exactly. In the same way that any one who is running is a runner. They
don't have to be running in an Olympic event.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:57:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 13 Sep 2018 06:32:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post-
processing, but editing.

That depends on what you feel the topic is. That was not the topic of
the original post. It may be the topic of what was added in responses
to the original post.

Saving time is a consideration in employing the new PS features, but
the consideration I was asking about is more along the lines of "You
don't need to hone your skills in doing this because it can now be
done automatically."

Tony, whether you realise it or not, you are making a game of post
processing. Your objective is to ovecome the obstacles to produce an
acceptable image. That places you in a different category from those
whose only ambition is to produce an acceptable image.

There's a similar example in both LR and PS: Auto as opposed to
tweaking the sliders, adjusting the Curve, or using any individual
adjustment.

And sometimes the results are what you are looking for. Sometimes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 9/14/2018 1:51 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
No, but the photographers that prefers to do things manually is
such a small minority that they don't matter statistically.

Really? I haven't seen such statistics... where are they? If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images
I'd agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".

Regardless of what you'd call them, they are still photographers - and in
this context, skills vs. automated functions, they're highly relevant.

We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise. I also wouldn't call someone who uses a word
processor and prints their documents a "lithographer" for the same reasons.

And,
when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog film to digital?

Frequently, but around here, we have about 20 major art shows a year and
three art museums. Some of us just see file as different graphic media
with specific characteristics, just as are painting and lithographic
etchings.

Not someone that occasionally shoots with analog film, someone that prefers
it? We may move in different kind of circles, but it's been a great while
since I saw a wedding photographer come to the reception with a Nikon F4

Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers working for
ad agencies have specific job requirements that make automation a big
plus. It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question.

Sandman:
Metering was essential in the analog world, in the digital world
of RAW, the cameras automatic metering and the dynamic range of
the sensor renders manual metering unneeded.

Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all that
is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the
subtleties of a difficult scene.

Which means you are referring to skills that:

1. Very fe people have
2. Very very few instances require

Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very very small
margin in the grand scheme of things.

It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills.

Sandman:
But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing.
Not post- processing, but editing.

Time is wasted if one has to select from 100 shots vs. 1 or 2 shots
of a scene, which is editing, not post-processing.

Yeah, but the examples in the OP was removing a subject/part from a scene,
something you may not be able to avoid on location, and therefore is forced
to deal with in editing.

What you're describing is post-processing. Editing is selecting the
best-fit image to modify in the way that you've described;
post-processing is removing the unwanted object from the scene. If one
just needs it done quickly, having the skill to do it better may be
superfluous.

--
best regards,

Neil

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 05:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 14 September 2018 10:27:54 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:02:41 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Neil:
If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images I'd
agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".

Davoud:
Not even the professional who snagged a beautiful TIME magazine cover
with an iPhone? Or the videographer who won an Oscar for a iPhone
movie? The notion that "photographers" don't use iPhones is obsolete,
like saying that "travelers" don't use motorized vehicles. Such an
attitude condemns you to be left standing in history's dust.

Neil:
I didn't say, nor even imply that photographers never use their phones
to capture images...the word "primarily" has a definition, after all.

I guess my definition of photographer is a bit loose. I define any
person who makes photographs as a photographer.

Exactly. In the same way that any one who is running is a runner. They
don't have to be running in an Olympic event.

**** that makes me a runner, I ran for the bus this morning, maybe that makes me an athlete too.

Not an athlete, but were you carrying a camera?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:20:42 -0400, Neil
wrote:

--- snip ---
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:31:17 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:57:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 13 Sep 2018 06:32:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post-
processing, but editing.

That depends on what you feel the topic is. That was not the topic of
the original post. It may be the topic of what was added in responses
to the original post.

Saving time is a consideration in employing the new PS features, but
the consideration I was asking about is more along the lines of "You
don't need to hone your skills in doing this because it can now be
done automatically."

Tony, whether you realise it or not, you are making a game of post
processing. Your objective is to ovecome the obstacles to produce an
acceptable image. That places you in a different category from those
whose only ambition is to produce an acceptable image.

I agree. Sometimes I will take a photograph and edit it with changes
PS for no other reason than to practice and develop my skills.

I took this photo just off St George Street in St Augustine FL just a
few weeks ago. I saw the busker, turned and shot, and then noticed in
processing the image that he's sitting just where a curb-like thing on
the wall ends, and that there's a second person in the image. I
didn't notice either when I shot the photo.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...2018-08-30.jpg

The image bothered me. It looks like I edited the image and removed
the curb-like part. The above is cropped but nothing more.

So, just for practice, I "restored" the curb-like extension that never
existed and removed the other person:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...8-08-30-PS.jpg

I still see some places that I'd tweak a bit more.

Just for the record, this was for my own amusement. To me, it's
unethical to add/change this much to a photograph and not make it very
clear that the result is Photoshopped. You can clone out a bit of
trash, and make a few minor deletions of things like electric lines,
but you shouldn't make major changes like this and not reveal that you
have created a scene and not just photographed a scene.

I think that's why I have such an aversion to photographs with
obviously replaced sky and faked bokeh-like or out-of-focus,
background. They are created scenes, not photographs of scenes. The
photograph was just the starting point.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:26:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:20:42 -0400, Neil
wrote:

--- snip ---
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer.

That's a bit too inclusive for me. That would mean that damned near
every middle school and high school kid is a photographer because they
take photographs with their phone cameras. They are the photographer
of the photographs they take, but they are not photographers.

We do use terms restrictively. Jotting down your shopping list does
not make you a writer even though you are writing. Drawing a
smiley-face on a greeting card doesn't make you an artist. Putting
the ball through the windmill doesn't make you a golfer.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida