Photo technique is just a means to an end. Good technique alone doesnt make a good photograph of course but bad technique can prevent a good photo from even being captured. Good technical knowledge and skills can never hurt... jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom C Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:09 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow) My turn to say "Interesting". Ever since I really got seriously interested in photography, in the late 80's, I've felt it was a great melding of my technical bent with my creative side. As a software developer, I tend to be technical and creative, but the outlet for my creativity is often not very fulfilling. A program or piece of code is not something I can easily display or share with others. In the practice of photography, I definitely fall more into the "artsy" side. I appreciate and strive to understand the technical aspects but it became readily apparent that a technically perfect photograph is not synonomous with a pleasing photograph. In shooting I tend to look at the following three in this order - 1) subject, 2) composition, 3) technical control of the camera and exposure. Tom C. >From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow) >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:16:59 -0500 > >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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
