b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 10421791 (Thread)

# the difference being it's done, at the time, with a camera
as opposed to done later with photoshop.
not that i'm saying it's a bad thing
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:26, archived)
# Does this make a real difference?
Many people will cite Ansel Adams and his mates as 'real' photographers who didn't arse around with pictures (like the pictorialists who mashed up pictures from loads of negatives), but he spent hours adjusting, burning, dodging, etc. his images in the darkroom.


edit for clarity: this is an example of Pictorialism, it's made up of a shit load of negatives. All this Photoshop shit ain't new
www.codex99.com/photography/images/rejlander_lg.jpg
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:31, archived)
# i don't know what you are saying there, but it sounds like a contradiction
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:35, archived)
# My point is that
photographs have always had 'post-production' done to them to various degrees (ie darkroom stuff, messing with the photo itself) and so the argument that Photoshop stops an image being a 'proper' photograph isn't completely valid. I will agree that the lines between photography and graphic arts are now VERY blurred, but in any form of art being able to fit things into categories is not always the most useful or productive thing
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:38, archived)
# i will forever more refer to myself as a photographer
edited because it sounded pointlessly argumental
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:45, archived)
# No, I think the argument about the
status of photography/art is not useful or productive. I just disagree with where you place your distinction and your reason for it
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:49, archived)
# ah, you replied
non of this makes sense now
however, i never intended to be productive when i expressed my opinion and i'm sure most photographers wouldn't give two hoots what i thought about post production.
my opinion is, for clarification, photography: pics developed as the pic was taken.
pic manipulation is not photography
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:51, archived)
# the keyword there is "developed"....
the darkroom developing process will always affect the final image to some degree (colour, contrast etc) with the developer manipulating these factors in order to produce the developers desired result.

doing it in photoshop is no different in that respect.
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 11:14, archived)
# only to a certain degree though
my point is art is art, whatever it is, including phtography.
photgraphy is a photograph. if it has to be edited with a computer it's simply no longer a photograph
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 11:22, archived)
# i sorta agree with the other dude...
but i really liked this sentence. :D

*cleeeeek*
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 12:46, archived)
# I heard him and his mates,
Used to get high on developer and blaze zoots in the darkrooms.
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:37, archived)
# blazing zoots in front of photoshop is much safer :)
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:41, archived)
# where's your sense of adventure man!
;)
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 11:23, archived)
# those guys were MENTAL
people think F64 was named after the aperture setting but really it was named after their notoriously big 64 skin spliffs
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 10:41, archived)
# balanced it on the dogs head.
(, Sun 15 May 2011, 11:17, archived)