Interesting. I consider myself a photographer - period. Although I tend to enjoy nature photography the most. In my own time I try to capture outdoor images in a real, maybe considered "artsy" mode. This has only been true for the last 10 -12 years. While I've had a camera all my life since early teens, I wasn't very good in the artsy area. I was mostly capturing family moments & recording places we visited. . That all changed about 10 years ago when I took my first outdoor workshop. (highly, highly recommended).
About 19 yrs ago my job dictated I record forensic evidence related to automotive product litigation. Since becoming more artsy, I then started to apply some artsy influence in my forensic photography. A few years ago, while preparing for a trial in a hotel meeting room, some passersby happened to look in saw some of my forensic images & inquired if they were for sale! These were highly abstract images of fracture surfaces of some automotive components. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cory Papenfuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow) > Watch out here as an elitist snob... I have been very careful to > qualify any of my potentially denigrating comments WRT "photographer" vs. > "technician." I personally think of it as the difference between a > "technical photographer" and an "artsy photographer." I am very much the > former, but try to learn more of the latter as I go. The majority of > photographers that I know of (including most of this list) lean more > towards the artsy side. Both are necessary to some degree for good > photographs. > > The snap-n-shooter who fires away endlessly and never goes of > automatic idiot mode is neither. The cursed soul like me aspires to have > a creative eye while perfecting the technical aspects. The majority > seem to learn just enough technical aspects as necessary to exercise their > creative eye. > > In the limiting case, I've heard it argued as to whether or not > some of the HEAVILY manipulated digital photographs should be considered > photographs at all. Maybe, maybe not. Should they be considered > art. Certainly... IMO. Everyone chooses how far on either side they wish > to go. > > -Cory > > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> Well, let me then amend my post: I think he's more a technician than a >> photographer concerned with the aesthetics and creativity involved in >> photographing a subject. I believe Mr.Papanfuss has stated that as well, >> at least to some degree. >> >> Further - and this just may be me - I don't recall ever seeing any of his >> photographs posted here, although he does talk a lot of technical stuff. >> > I've posted a few. > >> IMO, one may record a scene and be considered a photographer by some - >> and >> maybe just holding a camera and pushing the button makes one a >> photographer >> - but I think there's more to it than that, that some creativity beyond >> just recording a scene and looking for an accurate color reproduction >> contributes to the making of a photographer. But then, I have often been >> called an elitist snob >> >> Of course, Rob, you're very technically oriented, and might that not >> color >> your opinions just as my limited technical expertise may color mine? >> >> Shel >> >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Digital Image Studio >> >>> On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> And how did you, or do you, deal with B&W? >>>> >>>> Youir comments suggest that you're not a photographer but some kind of >>>> technician. >>> >>> I'm a bit confused and surprised at some of the comments relating to >>> Cory's posts. Whether somebody is making photographs to create art or >>> records surely they are still a photographer if they control how or >>> what is being photographed? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
