The Purist

Burningbird | Purist Photography

Where do you stand in the debate, to PP or not?

Do untouched images require greater skill as a photographer to make, does PP simply enhance what was good work or does PP become a crutch which we sometimes rely on.

God, I hate it when I have to be serious. (I've got a rag between my teeth so I can get through this!)

I know that its hard to tell, but I take a lot of pride in my work. I have Photoshop 7 and Aperture 2 to work with, but I find that if I have to use either one for much more than exposure changes, I just trash the photo and start over.
I don't consider this to be purist. This is nothing more than being able to get the shot in hardware that you had in wetware. Since I wear glasses and I am getting older by the minute, my visual acuity suffers, hence the exposure, contrast and brightness changes.

I have spit the rag out so serious time is OVER!!! HOORAY!!

Pete

Yea, sorry for the serious stuff, just stumbled upon the article and found it interesting. Is it the PP software that makes one of my shots look good or is it still more like the old days when you really didn't know what you got til it got printed. Seems like back with film for economic reasons I took more time with a shot than I do today. Don't know if they were better than now, just I have a lot more to choose from.

I think that photographers are more likely to keep bad shots simply because they think PS can fix just about anything.
I used to keep EVERY shot simply because all I used was a little space on a card. So I would speed shoot any and everything, figuring that I could
mine the gold nuggets out of the rocks.
I FINALLY figured out that kind of thinking will get you far, far more rocks than nuggets.
Digital photography is nothing more than film photography without the celluloid film. The techniques are EXACTLY the same as Mr Matthew Brady used during the Civil War.
Meaning the manipulation of light and shadow on a photo reactive surface to replicate an image.
The equipment may change, but the technique, in the broader sense, remains the same.

Just my 2 cents worth. (Inflation ain't worth it.)

Pete

I agree about techniques (speed, shuuter, aperture) remain the same. I can remember how bad I felt after spending what seemed to be hours perfecting a print only to notice I left something that could have been cropped or dodged. The need for larger neagatives is very similar to the need for higher pixel count.

Crap then = Crap now (or nicer crap).

Yibel said:

Do untouched images require greater skill as a photographer to make,

Click to expand...

Yes; just as manual exposure, non-TTL flash and no Matrix metering require greater skill as a photographer, but how many of us would trade a D700 and an SB-900 for an F2 and a Vivitar 283?

Yibel said:

does PP simply enhance what was good work

Click to expand...

Yes; PP can/is used by even the most skilled shooters to enhance what is already a very good image into an even better one.

Yibel said:

or does PP become a crutch which we sometimes rely on.

Click to expand...

and Yes; many have come to rely too much on PP, and have developed an "I can always fix it later in Photoshop" mentality.

So, I guess the simple answer to your question(s) is , YES!

I'm kinda like Pete, in that I very rarely, if ever, use Photoshop.....mainly because I don't know how to use it all that well, I tend to prefer to "dancin' with the girl I brung", if ya know what I mean. Every shot I post is what I saw through the viewfinder, with the odd exception of cropping and sharpening. Maybe it's my age, but we didn't have these new fangled tools to play with when I started in film, so I don't tend to rely on them. But, I'm all for innovation in photography, so I say whatever you're happy with, that's what ya use. But hey......that's just me, eh.

I'm kinda like Pete, in that I very rarely, if ever, use Photoshop.....mainly because I don't know how to use it all that well, I tend to prefer to "dancin' with the girl I brung",

Click to expand...

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

Yibel said:

http://burningbird.net/life/purist-photography/Do untouched images require greater skill as a photographer to make, does PP simply enhance what was good work or does PP become a crutch which we sometimes rely on.

Click to expand...

The short version: Yes.

The long version:

We've touched on this topic in a couple different threads, and it's one that will continue to come up in the photography industry as a whole, now and forever. The "purist" wants validation for their skill, as does the "post processor". I would argue that there is no such thing as a pure anymore, especially when shooting digital. Even the film gurus are always looking for an edge in the darkroom to produce better quality photos. If something is truly pure, there's no need to try to define it at all, it just "is".

While I admire those who are aperture savvy, who take the time to set up the perfect shot...in my mind, there's a better/faster alternative. But that's just my experience vs. theirs. While I can breeze through Photoshop, some are honestly intimidated by it. While some shooters can make instant f/stop calculations in their heads to set everything up in-camera, I can't.