If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 The notion that "photographers" don't use iPhones is obsolete, like saying that "travelers" don't use motorized vehicles.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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Rôgêr | Digital Photography | 0 | April 21st 05 03:32 PM |