This could certainly be an interesting discussion. I'm sure we could categorize types of photos and the skills needed for them. Also, we could go so far as to say that the more technical skill you have, the better off you are. However, without some artistic skill, photos can be less interesting.
One way to think about it, is to consider the audience. For example, a portrait of a member of a family - if the audience was the family, they might look at things quite different than if the audience was the PDML. In either case, technical skill can be very useful. So pictures that jog your memory (recording history) don't need to have the artistic skill applied as much to be successful. Pictures that will be seen by a broad audience need to be more artistic to hold the interest of the audience. They still need technical excellence, but they also need artistic skill. As to manipulation, this is a much grayer area. What is the difference between manipulating before the shot vs. after the shot. Before the shot, you can choose aperture (DOF), shutter speed (motion), focal length (perspective), lighting (emphasis), filters, etc. After the shot you can do some of those things - motion is difficult, as is DOF and perspective, but you can adjust brightness and color balance and saturation and filtering. So where is the reality? I think that most shots that are well presented, were good shots prior to post processing (at least for me). If it needs lots of extra work, it usually is not a good shot to begin with. Certainly when shooting, you are trying to record within the limits of the medium and then produce output from it. So for me, the medium is a raw image. I try to expose so that the image is neither blown out or blocked up. From there, I can adjust the brightness to match what I was trying to accomplish when taking the shot. Not much different in concept to underexposing slide film to improve the saturation. I'm probably rambling too much here, but just trying to say that technical skill is important and artistic skill is important. I think most of the photographers here who present high quality artistic images also have the technical skill at the camera and the process. Tools will always help (camera automation, software), but knowledge is very necessary to doing the best job - especially when circumstances aren't simple. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 11:53:19 AM, you wrote: CP> Watch out here as an elitist snob... I have been very careful to CP> qualify any of my potentially denigrating comments WRT "photographer" vs. CP> "technician." I personally think of it as the difference between a CP> "technical photographer" and an "artsy photographer." I am very much the CP> former, but try to learn more of the latter as I go. The majority of CP> photographers that I know of (including most of this list) lean more CP> towards the artsy side. Both are necessary to some degree for good CP> photographs. CP> The snap-n-shooter who fires away endlessly and never goes of CP> automatic idiot mode is neither. The cursed soul like me aspires to have CP> a creative eye while perfecting the technical aspects. The majority CP> seem to learn just enough technical aspects as necessary to exercise their CP> creative eye. CP> In the limiting case, I've heard it argued as to whether or not CP> some of the HEAVILY manipulated digital photographs should be considered CP> photographs at all. Maybe, maybe not. Should they be considered CP> art. Certainly... IMO. Everyone chooses how far on either side they wish CP> to go. CP> -Cory CP> 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. >> CP> 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? >> >> >> >> CP> -- CP> ************************************************************************* CP> * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA CP> * Electrical Engineering CP> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University CP> ************************************************************************* -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
