Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
The Purist
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ohkphoto" data-source="post: 9949" data-attributes="member: 1573"><p>Jack, you're even beginning to talk like Pete! LOL</p><p> </p><p>I agree with both of you although I do use photoshop for the Nik filters primarily when I want to add special effects. I also would rather be shooting and not PP and because of that I try to get the shot I see and not alter it too much. If I find myself having to tweak too many of the things that I should have gotten right in the camera, I usually toss the picture because it wasn't right when it should have been, and when I do toss one, I remind myself I was "lazy".</p><p> </p><p>I think it's one thing to not enjoy PP because it's just not your thing, and a totally different thing when you choose to not PP because you're a "purist". For the latter, they need to remember that the digital camera "takes a picture" by translating the light that hits the sensor. It's not like the light hits the film and what you get on film is what you saw if you set up everything right. The digital camera "processes" the photo before it's recorded on the card. We PP it when we get it off the card because we want the photo to represent what we saw when we took the photo. HDR is an excellent example.</p><p> </p><p>I read both articles that Bill cited in his original post. Scott Kelby is an excellent instructor and a master at PP, so he can get it done quite quickly. But he's also an excellent photographer and doesn't need to do excessive PP. Everybody's workflow (Photoshop or Lightroom) is different, and I think what's important is to be able to get it done quickly and efficiently unless you're a graphic artist whose specialty IS PP.</p><p>Some people choose to build a boat with handtools because they like the feel of the wood, the tools and the process. Some build the boat with powertools because they want to get the boat in the water and SAIL. I don't think photographers are much different. Some choose to stay with film because they like the feel of the film, the darkroom environment, etc. I love my digital technology . . . occasionally, I use my film cameras just to remember "where it all started". But I would never give up PP. I just want to get more efficient at it.</p><p> </p><p>"Purists" probably need to go back to the olden days of large format cameras (shooting with explosives!) . . . forget the fancy glass and filters . . . the camera obscura days.</p><p> </p><p>Just my opinion.</p><p> </p><p>Best Regards</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ohkphoto, post: 9949, member: 1573"] Jack, you're even beginning to talk like Pete! LOL I agree with both of you although I do use photoshop for the Nik filters primarily when I want to add special effects. I also would rather be shooting and not PP and because of that I try to get the shot I see and not alter it too much. If I find myself having to tweak too many of the things that I should have gotten right in the camera, I usually toss the picture because it wasn't right when it should have been, and when I do toss one, I remind myself I was "lazy". I think it's one thing to not enjoy PP because it's just not your thing, and a totally different thing when you choose to not PP because you're a "purist". For the latter, they need to remember that the digital camera "takes a picture" by translating the light that hits the sensor. It's not like the light hits the film and what you get on film is what you saw if you set up everything right. The digital camera "processes" the photo before it's recorded on the card. We PP it when we get it off the card because we want the photo to represent what we saw when we took the photo. HDR is an excellent example. I read both articles that Bill cited in his original post. Scott Kelby is an excellent instructor and a master at PP, so he can get it done quite quickly. But he's also an excellent photographer and doesn't need to do excessive PP. Everybody's workflow (Photoshop or Lightroom) is different, and I think what's important is to be able to get it done quickly and efficiently unless you're a graphic artist whose specialty IS PP. Some people choose to build a boat with handtools because they like the feel of the wood, the tools and the process. Some build the boat with powertools because they want to get the boat in the water and SAIL. I don't think photographers are much different. Some choose to stay with film because they like the feel of the film, the darkroom environment, etc. I love my digital technology . . . occasionally, I use my film cameras just to remember "where it all started". But I would never give up PP. I just want to get more efficient at it. "Purists" probably need to go back to the olden days of large format cameras (shooting with explosives!) . . . forget the fancy glass and filters . . . the camera obscura days. Just my opinion. Best Regards [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
The Purist
Top
