The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer.....

[Brian500au]

I will put it out there – is the difference between a good photographer and a great photographer the time spent sitting in front of the computer after the photograph is taken?

This springs to mind based on a few US photographers I have followed over the past few months. There is a particular photographer in the US who has a huge forum following. If they post a series of shots it is not unusual to get over 5,000 views (I have seen as high as 20,000). These shots are highly edited photographs, sometimes changing the colour of the background, hair and even introducing skylines / objects not in the original shot. The final result is outstanding, but I in some cases I have seen the unprocessed images and the difference is chalk and cheese.

The above is just one example – but if I was in this to make money (which I am not), should time be invested in the art of photography, or the art of post processing?

What are your thoughts on this?

[ricktas]

For me the difference between a good and great photographer is simple. A great photographer can capture something in a unique way. There are plenty of good photographers around, but great photographers are few and far between. They strive to take a different 'angle' on photography. Often they are the ones starting trends, like the guy in Las Vegas who created the 'trash the dress' concept (that the good photographers then copied).

If you look at the AIPP winners in recent years, your comments about adding elements, changing colours etc, seems to be where the current trend in photography is heading. So many of the winning (and top scoring) entries on the AIPP events (http://www.appa.aippblog.com/) are made up of several photographs, and elements. Whilst the end result is very good and pleasing, it also tends to look more digital art than photograph, as you suggest, in my view.

For me, some of these photographs work, and others look all to edited, to be called photographs any more. The debate on where the line is drawn has been going on since digital photography began, and before that, with clever darkroom work. We have even got the SOOC (straight out of camera) brigade who profess that all editing is bad, but then often when questioned further, they use their camera on scene modes and save in JPG, whereby the camera is performing edits from the original captured data anyway.

I think this is a good discussion and will produce many differing and interesting opinions, none being wrong, but until a way is determined (and agreed) on how to define the line between photo and digital art, this robust debate will continue.

[bricat]

As a novice I am appalled that manipulation of a photograph by adding elements from another photograph be allowed in anything other than an art competition. I was not into pre digital manipulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph This explains what I always thought was photography. I like/dislike manipulated photographs depending on whether they appeal to me or not; the same as any photograph.
I would be interested in the opposite opinion as we can all learn by advancement of technology. But with that becomes a greater learning curve just to submit a photograph into any competition. JMHO cheers Brian

[wmphoto]

I don't think time spent editing in front of a computer is the difference as a "photographer" it simply means that someone has a different skill set and view on how to process a photo. But for me the sad part is as Rick said, that the image ends up looking like digital art. At my local camera club I often see entries being awarded gold yet there is clearly very little of the original shot left. Whilst they may be very appealing and stunning images, for me it doesn't mean that they are a better photographer just better on a computer.

But this is all talking as a photographer, someone not into photography doesn't care how the image is produced. If the image appeals to them, why do they care how it was produced? Personally, I would always choose a good photograph over something that looks like digital art.

[geoffsta]

Until recently I was a photoshop fanatic. But lately I find that a simple RAW to JPG (Exposure, Sharpen and check WB.. Maybe tinker with highlights and shadows) is all that is required.

Apart from "focus stacking"," Astro stacking" and "panoramas" which demand that extra time in processing. The end result is still a photograph.

What Brian500au has mentioned above, is graphic art or digital art.... Some of us may remember "Mick" and now outstar79, and how they have created some real fantastic digital art, using an original photo as a canvas.
That's why many competitions now state that an image is not to be manipulated in any way other than the standard conversion to jpg.

Not that long ago a photo journalist lost his job, his livelihood and his reputation for manipulating an image.

So is it a photo, or is it art.

[Mark L]

Reckon the difference between a good and great digital artist is "the time spent sitting in front of the computer after the photograph is taken." Vision in taking the photo(s) and understanding what software can do, no doubt helps.
'spose it also depends on the audience and what they want. Dylan has presented many photos here that some say are over processed. They are all based on reality though. Others don't much care for reality as long as an image looks good to them.

I'm happy to be an occasionally good, not aspiring to be great, photographer.:)
Others can do and think what they like.;)

[Brian500au]

I suppose now we need to define what is a photographer? I read another thread on AP where the discussion centred around who pushed the button on the camera body.

In a lot of these digital artistic photographs it is not necessarily the photographer who does the post processing, nor the make up, nor the studio set up. Sometimes this is dictated by the client. I once did a job where everything was set up for me, I was just required to push the button on the camera body. The photograph is one of the best I have taken - although I had little creativity in the actual photograph itself.

In recent times I have looked hard at a photograph, but more and more I am wondering to myself, am I appreciating the photographers skill or the post processing done on the image. One area I have no doubt is photojournalism - easily some of the bravest and most talented photographers in the world (and probably the most vulnerable in job security in modern times).

[ricktas]

The discussion about who pushed the shutter button is based around our copyright laws. Under Australian copyright, the person who takes the photo (presses the button) owns copyright, no matter who setup the studio, did the make-up, hair, checked lighting, set the camera settings etc, copyright is assigned to the person who pressed the button to take the photo. So where that differs from photo editing, is that their exists an Australian Law that defines who owns the photo. I very much doubt we will see laws related to editing (other than fashion/models, truth in advertising, news) anytime soon. Photography is classified as an Art, and as such it is left open to wide interpretation as to how much we manipulate our photos.

How would we define how much editing is to much?

I could boost the saturation of a photo, thus effectively edit every single pixel, 100% of my photo changed from what it was originally. Someone else might adjust 8.25% of their photo to remove an object and add in another object. Which photo has been edited more? I could see the discussions going on for a damn long time before a set of editing limits was set, and even then it would likely never be agreed upon.

[Grant S]

Were Ansell Adams and Frank Hurley great photographers or great image creators?

If you think of Photoshop as the darkroom, then the process of creating an image that appeals is no different in my mind.

[ricktas]

I suppose it also depends how obvious the editing is. Some can do it such that the result looks natural and could well be a single photo. Who decides what is or is not allowed?

We can all be tricked


http://youtu.be/Xlz4MqTHAlo

[Brian500au]

No I don't think of Photoshop as the dark room.

In film days most of adjustments were done in camera or at the time of shooting (via filters, iso rating, lighting, props, perpective, etc). 99% of us either shot print or slide film, and when we finished the roll we would drop it into the local Kodak shop to have it developed (not post processed). Some camera enthusiasts set up a dark room at home and developed / printed their own black and white, but you always needed a professional lab to process anything in color. We could not tell if the shot was in focus, under / over exposed, colors, etc until we got the results back from our local Kodak shop.

I think there was more appreciation of the photographers skill around when film was the go. If a shot looked as though it was manipulated then we were amazed of how it was done. Now life is different - and I suppose if we accept a raw is processed in camera, then whether it is converted to JPG in camera or via the computer is standard and acceptable for modern era photography. I notice when we still quote great photographers we mostly refer to the era of the film days (although there are some highly skilled photographers around today).

What I mostly refer to is the manipulation of photos - addition of items / objects not in the original scene, changing of clothing and hair colors, body shaping, skylines, buildings etc. This is all done post shot and the final result is not so much the photographers skill, but more the skill of the person on the computer. Is the final result fraudulent?

They say a picture paints a 1000 words, but are we now in a era where half of the words could be lies.

Without doubt the most successful businesses who offer photographic services are very accomplished in the art of post processing. In fact I will go out there and say the post processing skills are what separates the successful from the rest of the crowd.

Just my 2c worth of thoughts.

[wayn0i]

Interesting discussion, in many ways this same conversation could be discussing music. Is current day music real music, its certainly not produced like music in years go by. Has the voice been manipulated to the point you could argue it doesn't reflect the singer. Is it better......maybe.......Is it worse......maybe.... Is it music.....I think so. Its a circular, how long is a piece of string, or whos on second base type of argument.

For me, the question is, do I like the image, the rest is semantics.

[Brian500au]

I not sure I agree with the music analogy. The way of capturing and distributing the music may be different today, but musicians largely still perform live venues so the recording and the live performance cannot vary that much.

I think the question is do I like my own photograph, and what techniques can I employ to make it better. Do I spend the time perfecting my photography skills or my post processing skills.

[Steve Axford]

I am going to make a guess that you are talking about the sort of images that you see on 1x.com? I'm doing this because we almost never see heavily manipulated images on AP, at least not really good ones. Some of the 1x images are very, very good, but they tend to fit into a style that is not for everyone. I think of them as European Coffee Table images. I don't really think that the "older style" of photography has changed. There is still that place for images that are essentially as taken (ie no major image manipulation), it is just that new areas have sprung up that were not possible before. There is possibly a fad for those manipulated images at present, but that does not mean that normal images are "old news" and dead. I don't think journalistic style photography (or the equivalent) will ever die. By journalistic, I mean any photograph that attempts to represent things as they were even if a little dramatised.
You takes your pick now - either an artist who creates what we see, or a journalist who records - or somewhere in between.

[Arg]

Henri Cartier-Bresson spent little time in the darkroom other than straight D&P, sooooo, he can't be a great photographer? He spent even less time on the computer, can't imagine why!

[bobt]

The graduated line which connects graphic art and photography is long and indistinct. An image can be the result of pure photographic skill or a blend of photography and computer processing. It all requires skill of some sort, but in my view it is impossible to find that point at which an image transitions from a traditional photograph to a graphic art work. There are, however, works which are classified as photographs but which I personally would not regard as such, and as others have said perhaps the bottom line lies in what we like as individuals.

At the end of the day skill is what generally counts, but which skills are more important is a very subjective issue. I have produced images which please me, but not all have been photographs. That, to me, illustrates why we all talk about "images" rather than "photographs" these days, because "images" describes all of our work rather than one end or the other of a very wide spectrum.

[Arg]

My Oxford Concise says an image is [1] an artificial imitation of the external form of an object, or [2] the optical appearance or counterpart produced by light or other radiation from an object reflected in a mirror or refracted through a lens.

A traditional photo meets both those definitions, but anything heavily post-processed does not.

So I think 'photo' and 'image' belong in the same box, i.e. the more representative one, and 'digital art' is the right name for the other stuff, i.e. heavily processed.

[bobt]

A traditional photo meets both those definitions, but anything heavily post-processed does not.

So I think 'photo' and 'image' belong in the same box, i.e. the more representative one, and 'digital art' is the right name for the other stuff, i.e. heavily processed.

I'm not so sure. There are many definitions of "image" even within the Oxford framework. Digital Art, Photographs, Paintings .... they are all images in my view and that includes heavily processed images given that the level of processing is irrelevant to the generic class of "image". What we can do is try and categorise the type of images, but all of these forms still fall under the broad umbrella of imagery.

[Arg]

I was looking at the phrases "imitation of the external form", and "optical appearance produced by light".

[Granville]

I think we're getting too granular, and I think Kel's right. It comes down to the definituion of a photographer.

If a photographer is the person who is resposible for the final image, from nuts to bolts, then they may use a lot of PP in some cases, or no PP in some cases. Regardless, it is the final image which would determine whether they were a great photographer or a good photographer. They can, and have been able to for years, use any tool at their disposal to make a great image. And the sophistication of the tools has changed over those years.

A parallel. Cabinet makers originally hand made all their work. Gradually, more sophisticated tools came about which enabled them to make a better product. They used to plane timber flat and square. Now they use a jointer and a thicknesser. They used to use hide glue to hold sophisticated joints together. Now the joints aresimple and held with more modern, an more suitable, glues. They used to carve decorative edges into cabinets, then they used a plane with a shaped blade, then they used spindle moulders.

There are still cabinet makers, mainly hobbyists, who will not use power tools. They are traditionalists. But would they be the only ones who could qualify as great cabinet makers because they don't used power tools. I doubt it.

The "photographer" produces the end image. The "cabinet maker" produces the end cabinet. I personally don't think it comes in to the equation what tools they used to produce their results.

I would judge them on the result.

[ameerat42]

I dunno? I got stuck on "good" and "great":rolleyes:

[Arg]

It is not about the tools, it is about the creative focus. If a digital artist uses a photograph as a base (and just a base) for his or her art, he/she is not really a photographer, creatively speaking.

OTOH, a photographer puts the creativity and artistic communication into the image itself: the subject, the context, the placement of real elements, the use of light and colour and perspective.... IMHO.

[Steve Axford]

I think we're getting too granular, and I think Kel's right. It comes down to the definituion of a photographer.

If a photographer is the person who is resposible for the final image, from nuts to bolts, then they may use a lot of PP in some cases, or no PP in some cases. Regardless, it is the final image which would determine whether they were a great photographer or a good photographer. They can, and have been able to for years, use any tool at their disposal to make a great image. And the sophistication of the tools has changed over those years.

A parallel. Cabinet makers originally hand made all their work. Gradually, more sophisticated tools came about which enabled them to make a better product. They used to plane timber flat and square. Now they use a jointer and a thicknesser. They used to use hide glue to hold sophisticated joints together. Now the joints aresimple and held with more modern, an more suitable, glues. They used to carve decorative edges into cabinets, then they used a plane with a shaped blade, then they used spindle moulders.

There are still cabinet makers, mainly hobbyists, who will not use power tools. They are traditionalists. But would they be the only ones who could qualify as great cabinet makers because they don't used power tools. I doubt it.

The "photographer" produces the end image. The "cabinet maker" produces the end cabinet. I personally don't think it comes in to the equation what tools they used to produce their results.

I would judge them on the result.

But - the cabinet maker produces the same product, irrespective of the tools. Some would even say that the best cabinets of several hundred years ago are more detailed and complex than the best of today. Photography was not around several hundred years ago and the tools of today can produce dramatically different results to that which was possible just 20 years ago.

[Granville]

But - the cabinet maker produces the same product, irrespective of the tools. Some would even say that the best cabinets of several hundred years ago are more detailed and complex than the best of today.

Which means that the cabinet maker from hundreds of years ago may be judged a "greater" cabinet maker than the present day one given how he had to produce his work. But the present day cabiner maker could still be judged a great cabinet maker compared his peers. "Great" is not absolute IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -


It is not about the tools, it is about the creative focus.

Correct. Judging is done not on the effort but the result. All cabinet makers today have the same tools available. All photographers today have the same tools available. It's the result that judges goodness or greatness.

[yummymummy]

Photography is very subjective.. subjective to the photographic content, subjective to the person viewing the photos. What one person likes, another may not like.
Take my photos of the storms for instance, most people love them.. then there are always a handful screaming " fake!!!" and "photoshop" .. my photographs of storms are usually stitched panos... on film that would have not been possible for a home photographer. of course they're photoshopped, I can't stitch them in camera, and these cells are far too huge to fit in even with the widest lens.. so .. what do I do? if stitching them together in photoshop is not considered a "Photograph" then what is it? it's not really a manipulation, because they're a realistic composite of what I've seen in front of me.

[Steve Axford]

Which means that the cabinet maker from hundreds of years ago may be judged a "greater" cabinet maker than the present day one given how he had to produce his work. But the present day cabiner maker could still be judged a great cabinet maker compared his peers. "Great" is not absolute IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -



My point was that cabinet making has essentially stayed the same, photography has not. I made absolutely no comment on greatness, absolute or otherwise. :)

[wayn0i]

I think the question is do I like my own photograph, and what techniques can I employ to make it better. Do I spend the time perfecting my photography skills or my post processing skills.

Brian,

I think your on the money here. I couldn't really careless whether what I have created was later regarded as a photograph, an image, art or even a banana! If I like it I like it. More importantly did I enjoy creating it.

If I like one of your images, I like it, I wouldn't not like it because you may have spent hours on PP. Should I?

Some people are almost 'purists' for want of a better description, they are outraged at the thought of even the slightest PP, that's OK works for them. Others see the raw image as the starting point and go on to spend hours on PP, that's also good. Why do we really care.

If I was you I'd spend time on whatever aspect pleases you the most or contributes most to achieving the pleasing result you seek.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bcys1961]

If Ansel Adams, Bresson and the rest had access to photoshop, lightroom and all the other great tools we use now , would they have used them? I bet they would have.

But they also had great photos to begin with.

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear .

[wmphoto]

So what about this..... http://petapixel.com/2012/12/09/photoshop-in-photography-what-defines-a-photograph/

For me, I like the image but is it still a photograph???? Don't want to start that argument.


(but I say NO)

[ricktas]

The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is the great photographer is out taking photos and the good photographers are on the internet trying to work out what is great and what is good. :D

The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is that a great photographer earns a lot more from photography than a good photographer. :p

It seems to me we are discussing more about what makes a great photograph, compared to a good photograph. These can be completely different to what the difference is between a good photographER and a great photograhER.

[wayn0i]

So what about this..... http://petapixel.com/2012/12/09/photoshop-in-photography-what-defines-a-photograph/

For me, I like the image but is it still a photograph???? Don't want to start that argument.


(but I say NO)

Do you like it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

My only real concern about this preoccupation to create image montage's is the high probability that the creator may not be using images captured of their own accord.

it's easy enough to collate a series of elements into a base photo where the added elements were purchased or otherwise legally obtained in preference to doing the hard work for oneself.

The major issue in all of this is that of the social conscience of this so called photographer.
Do they, or will they be forthright and divulge all their inner secrets.

On the whole, we know what goes into the production of a large unaltered image .. as Rick said contrast, image presets in camera etc ....
With a fair amount of both reputation and financial incentives involved in an industry like this .. my guess is that many of the participants may not be entirely forthright with their creations.

We know where the boundaries are(roughly) when it comes to journalism type events, and have seen many victims now of bogus photographic attempts.

I think either way it really makes no difference, as what now seems like an insurmountable obstacle to achieve(this high level of editing in images) .. will one day be a point and click affair.
That's how software is going .... it's quite obvious to see.

I was(and probably still remain) a bit of a dunce at using PS and couldn't get past much of it's workflow.
But I'm sure if I had a go at it again, I could probably collate a series of elements into an image and people could easily be mislead into thinking I knew what I was doing.


My thoughts have always centred along the lines that .. if a photographer has to use deblur features in software, they aren't one of the greats.
I like many different types of photographers, but if what I'm seeing and hearing about them is to be believed they're generally great because the entire image was great .. both capture and final edit.

Also the simple fact that they've producing awe inspiring images doesn't elevate them to greatness as a photographer.
Greatness is also a product of other aspects of photography .. such as patience and perseverance.
Like the folks that wade through thick gooey gloop for days in oppressive conditions for countless years, just to get a single image of something not yet captured.
The image may not be technically great or visually fantastic ... but that yellow bellied sap sucker captured in that deepest darkest equatorial African rainforest whilst giving birth is as worthy as any of these highly processed collages.

Wow factor images don't wow me any more. I think this is simply due to the prevalence of it all. it seems to be 'easier to achieve' or something. Maybe they're all really using some action, or software add on that we've yet to hear about.

I think the great photographers are the ones that capture images of the Night Parrot(unless it turns out to be a fake) .. or the Giant Crystal Caves(Mexico) or that yellow bellied sap sucker ...

I suppose that where the problem could be is in the use of the term 'great' in a vocational topic like photography because it can be used in such varying methods .. great as in the most highly sought after .. or the one with the largest bank balance .. or the one that works hardest .. or has the most photographs in their collection.

Anyhow, as already said it's such a circular topic(s) (greatness/editing/capture/collages/boundaries) that there couldn't possibly be consensus on the issue.
I'm sure that when all this uber greatness that will be possible in software soon, is then transferred to SOOC status .. only then the arguments will end. We'll all be great photographers! :p

[Nick Cliff]

Brian I feel generally with over use of hdr and a Disney land type effect with many top landscape photos almost too much and have found a preference for more natural colouration now.Having said that my son can have a lot of fun with ant macros transposed into giants wreaking havoc in a city ,and I would like to have his graphic artistic ability ,each to his own ,regards Nick.

[Mark L]

.... but if I was in this to make money (which I am not), should time be invested in the art of photography, or the art of post processing?

Or the art of business?

[ameerat42]

So an artful dodger would be good at PP?:rolleyes:

[Grant S]

Is this a great photo or greatly reduced by being a heavily manipulated image?

World War 1 photo by Frank Hurley - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showfull.php?photo=25513)

Frank Hurley used different tools but I'm sure he would have embraced Photoshop as the means to an end that it is.

[Brian500au]

Appreciate everybodies thoughts.

My beef is really not with the obvious PP enhanced image- the graphic artist wants to show case their PP skills and there is no secret. My beef is the "fraudulent" photographer. The photographer who showcases their photographic skill but really it is a highly skilled montage.

I really brought up this subject in my own pursuit of becoming a better photographer. In order to do so I have studied some of the most popular photographers in this and other forums.

Especially in environmental portrait photography I have wondered "how do they get the face and the background exposed correctly in the same shot without the use of fill light". What are these photographers doing to make their shots jump off the page? I would compare my own shots with those I was looking at, and eventually come to the conclusion - I will never be able to be that good (great) - I am missing the "mojo" factor. You know the feeling when you (or the better half) have cooked up a meal, then you taste it and you know, there is something missing but you just cannot put your finger on it.

I was becoming very frustrated. I had spent a lot of time in the last 30 years learning and practising exposure, shutter speed, ISO, lighting, teaching a model how to pose, using good equipment, taking some pretty harsh criticism on forums blah blah blah. In the end I come to the conclusion I will never improve - I just have not got that artistic ability to have my images appreciated by my fellow photographers (the highest accolade).

The penny finally dropped when i started seeing some before and after shots. I realised the photographer/s in question were not any better than myself - I realised the "mojo" I was missing was not my photographic skills, but my post processing skills. The untouched image was in some cases not as good as I was doing. I also realised of the 1000's of rejected photographs I have on my computer, they are just one step away from becoming good "images" - I just need to improve my post processing skills.

If I really want to fast track this quest for "greatness", I could concentrate on my taking of photographs and outsource the post processing to somebody who specialises in that type of work. But then again I would still have to look at myself in the mirror next day, so this is not going to happen, (until I enter the next AP competition :lol2:).

So the next time you leave a comment on a thread "great shot" what are you really commenting on - the "photograph" or the "image".

[bcys1961]

I think you are judging both . Good PP will enhance a good photo , but it won't fix poor composition , incorrect DOf selection , OOF , so you need the good photo to begin with.

[Brian500au]

I think you are judging both . Good PP will enhance a good photo , but it won't fix poor composition , incorrect DOf selection , OOF , so you need the good photo to begin with.

Actually I have to disagree with you here. PP will fix poor composition (add limbs, turn heads, open eyes, make taller, remove and add people / obtrusive backgrounds, adjust fill light levels, even add motion to stationary objects), and incorrect DOF is just blurring the parts not required in focus (you have around 20 different filters in PS to do that).

Probably the only thing not fully accomplished in PP is to correct OOF - but that is just a matter of time until this is perfected.

PP even removes the need for the photographer to be imaginative and creative - because I can do that later in PP.

Just checked online - I can pay someone between $2.50 and $10 an image to do all the above (and I can still display the image as my own "photograph").

[ameerat42]

(Ultimately they're both just words we tend to ascribe loosely to things that we think impress. If you don't do it consciously yourself,
then there's plenty of popular adulation going around. You almost find yourself being pushed up onto some bandwagon or other.)

[bobt]

Appreciate everybodies thoughts.
So the next time you leave a comment on a thread "great shot" what are you really commenting on - the "photograph" or the "image".

I can understand where you're coming from, and I have had similar thoughts about the gap between my processing capacity and that of others. I am happy enough with my understanding of composition and achieving certain objectives - but that extra "oomph" that some people manage in PP still eludes me.

However, when I comment on an image it always comes down to my own emotional reaction to what is in front of me. Whether it be a heavily manipulated one or not is irrelevant. It is not a matter of how it came into being, but how it impacts upon my perceptions and senses. If it has the "wow" factor, then I am too busy being "wowed" to ponder how it was created. That said, I think that the image which looks as though it came out of a camera rather than a computer will generally impress me the most.

[bcys1961]

Actually I have to disagree with you here. PP will fix poor composition (add limbs, turn heads, open eyes, make taller, remove and add people / obtrusive backgrounds, adjust fill light levels, even add motion to stationary objects), and incorrect DOF is just blurring the parts not required in focus (you have around 20 different filters in PS to do that).

Probably the only thing not fully accomplished in PP is to correct OOF - but that is just a matter of time until this is perfected.

PP even removes the need for the photographer to be imaginative and creative - because I can do that later in PP.

Just checked online - I can pay someone between $2.50 and $10 an image to do all the above (and I can still display the image as my own "photograph").

Fair enough. I would call things like adding limbs or opening eyes as photo manipulation (or photo/digital art) rather than just adjusting exposure or colour balance etc. without altering the actual composition of the image , which is what I was referring to. I guess it is a sliding scale ( or a slippery slope) as to where one ends and the other starts.

[Arg]

Not that long ago a photo journalist lost his job, his livelihood and his reputation for manipulating an image.

IIRC this relates to a photo submitted in a competition (or published in the media) under the Photojournalism category. The rules are much stricter for photojournalism than for other categories. Otherwise you will get photographers photoshopping tears onto the cheeks of the poor, etc.

[arthurking83]

......

Frank Hurley used different tools but I'm sure he would have embraced Photoshop as the means to an end that it is.

While Hurley's images are now looked upon as classics, and he's regarded as a top level photographer ... at the time(as in his time) his methods were controversial and unloved by the establishment.

They may have looked dramatic and liked by the general population, but the army hierarchy had different views.

He had many clashes with the establishment(both during his war photos and Antarctic expedition) with producing real documentary images for archival purposes.
I suppose what we now consider to be photojournalism.

There is a documentary about his photographic life. A good watch for anyone interested in photography, if it can be found.

- - - Updated - - -


......

Frank Hurley used different tools but I'm sure he would have embraced Photoshop as the means to an end that it is.

While Hurley's images are now looked upon as classics, and he's regarded as a top level photographer ... at the time(as in his time) his methods were controversial and unloved by the establishment.

They may have looked dramatic and liked by the general population, but the army hierarchy had different views.

He had many clashes with the establishment(both during his war photos and Antarctic expedition) with producing real documentary images for archival purposes.
I suppose what we now consider to be photojournalism.

There is a documentary about his photographic life. A good watch for anyone interested in photography, if it can be found.

[WhoDo]

If I was you I'd spend time on whatever aspect pleases you the most or contributes most to achieving the pleasing result you seek.

And this is the essence of the question for me. Photography, with all of its attendant creative tools, is an Art IMHO. We make Art for ourselves and if someone else likes it that's great. If not, so what? It's important to distinguish between the pure Art form of photography and the related but dissimilar commercial application of a camera and processing tools to make money from that and be "successful". I don't aspire to the latter but I sure do aspire to the former. What makes a good photographer great? That one image, or two, that rises above the ordinary because the artist who created it was looking to provoke a reaction and got precisely the one they were after. JMHO of course.

[Nick Cliff]

Brian, many top photographic artists appear to use all the technological tools at their disposal to achieve a certain effect of course. It interests me that some great photographers trained as artists originally, however they still had or have remarkable talent, to tell a story in a new way to create their uniqueness.One early French [mainly portrait photographer] said he never felt threatened by a lot of the competition in his business because being an artist he knew how to use light and composition in a way few photographers of the time consistently grasped.Talent isnt luck its generally hard earned ability and every time I take a photo it makes me appreciate this more,like learning a musical instrument makes me appreciate a great musical performance to a greater degree than otherwise,thats my thoughts on this interesting subject ,regards Nick.

[Brian500au]

I agree with Waz and Nick - a great photographer is an artist.

My beef is with the post work to enhance the artistic value of the "photographer".

I have no problems with the obvious post processing work - but I do have problems with manipulation of the "photograph". If we can accept the standard processing of a photograph is no more than what is done in camera (ie the same result no matter if done in camera or on computer afterwards) - should we be giving the photographer credit when maybe credit is not forthcoming.

As I said earlier at the moment it is fully accepted I can enter an AP competition with a "photograph" I captured with my camera, send it off to an online post processor for as little as $2.50 and get back a highly manipulated image. I do not have to declare what I have done to the image except the fact I am the legal copyright owner of the "photograph".

The above does not make me a better photographer - but some only pass judgement on the final image, and not the process to get the image.

[bcys1961]

As I said earlier at the moment it is fully accepted I can enter an AP competition with a "photograph" I captured with my camera, send it off to an online post processor for as little as $2.50 and get back a highly manipulated image. I do not have to declare what I have done to the image except the fact I am the legal copyright owner of the "photograph".

The above does not make me a better photographer - but some only pass judgement on the final image, and not the process to get the image.

So do your own PP and then you will not have any problem. It will all be your own work .

[Nick Cliff]

Brian,an interesting conundrum, perhaps the creaters of photoshop etc should be paid a royalty determined by the percentage use of their products in the final photographic product sold.Helps if you put the cat amongst the pigeons,regards Nick.

[aussieray]

I feel in the context of your case study/example, the question should be about the different between a good image and great image/picture. I feel great photographer would be someone who can handle any lighting situation and achieve a great result a majority of the time. A good photographer only publishes their good stuff!

The debate may never be resolved with a clear winner

[Brian500au]

So do your own PP and then you will not have any problem. It will all be your own work .

And that will make me a better photographer???? I think you are missing the point!!!!

[livio]

Hi All what a great discussion, I believe that the difference between a good photographer and a great one is a combination of all things, the Great photographer has a different perspective than most, knows their equipment and understands the relationships between ISO aperture and DOF they are able to see an image in their minds before they take the shot, or they take several shots and select elements from each of the shots to compose the finished product. A good photographer understands how to compose, knows their equipment but don't always have the image in their heads before they shoot and sometimes they get lucky and get a great shot. In the old days it was about time and effort I think they did much the same things in selecting elements from one shot and imported them to another via selectively exposing the photographic paper. Today we can do things in photoshop and generally it is quicker and cleaner than working a dark room albeit a different set of skills. Todays great photographers are connected, they are skillful in visual arts and operating a computer at the end of the day it what is printed on paper or metal. It is the finished product that people remember, how it is created is where the debate takes place in camera or composite, with manipulation or not. I can see both sides of this debate and I don't feel that strongly either way, for me it is about the result and a consistent result at that. A great photographer can take a great photo on a cheap camera, that is they don't rely on their equipment to have all the bells and whistles in order to take a consistently good photo. A good photographer relies on his equipment to make some of the choices and does not consistently end up with great shots. In summary I thinks a great photographer is one who has a wide range of skills from the graphic arts world, vision, courage to be different, and the ability to imagine their finished product in their heads before they pull the trigger. A good photographer has similar shills not as developed possibly lacks the vision and does not always have the image in their minds before they click the trigger so they sometimes with to see what comes out.

Kind Regards
Livio

[arthurking83]

...... Today we can do things in photoshop and generally it is quicker and cleaner than working a dark room albeit a different set of skills. Todays great photographers are connected, they are skillful in visual arts and operating a computer at the end of the day it what is printed on paper or metal. It is the finished product that people remember, how it is created is where the debate takes place in camera or composite, with manipulation or not. I can see both sides of this debate and I don't feel that strongly either way, for me it is about the result and a consistent result at that. ......


This is all well and good, but as has been posted about many times over the years .. the end result isn't always everything!

A couple of years back, IKEA made the decision no stop using photography for it's products altogether .. or at least minimally.
I don't know what percentage of the images in their catalogs are real or rendered .. but when rendering start looking like photographs .. you have to question this notion about "the final result is what counts"

You probably don't even need photoshop to create 'a photo' any more .. any high quality 3D rendering software will suffice .. as will any high quality CAD software.


IKEA news #1 (http://petapixel.com/2012/08/24/ikea-slowly-shedding-photography-in-favor-of-computer-renders/)

IKEA news #2 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444508504577595414031195148)

The real problem is that renderings are now so hard to distinguish from real photos .. there has to be a decision, at some point, as to how much 'enhancement' is acceptable in a photograph.

A photographer is someone that captures an image with a camera. What type of camera is used is irrelevant.
I'm sure that at some point in the future we will see a photography award given to an artist where the image has been totally computer generated.
If it hasn't already happened! The problem is we just don't know.

[Lance B]

Appreciate everybodies thoughts.

My beef is really not with the obvious PP enhanced image- the graphic artist wants to show case their PP skills and there is no secret. My beef is the "fraudulent" photographer. The photographer who showcases their photographic skill but really it is a highly skilled montage.

I really brought up this subject in my own pursuit of becoming a better photographer. In order to do so I have studied some of the most popular photographers in this and other forums.

Especially in environmental portrait photography I have wondered "how do they get the face and the background exposed correctly in the same shot without the use of fill light". What are these photographers doing to make their shots jump off the page? I would compare my own shots with those I was looking at, and eventually come to the conclusion - I will never be able to be that good (great) - I am missing the "mojo" factor. You know the feeling when you (or the better half) have cooked up a meal, then you taste it and you know, there is something missing but you just cannot put your finger on it.

I was becoming very frustrated. I had spent a lot of time in the last 30 years learning and practising exposure, shutter speed, ISO, lighting, teaching a model how to pose, using good equipment, taking some pretty harsh criticism on forums blah blah blah. In the end I come to the conclusion I will never improve - I just have not got that artistic ability to have my images appreciated by my fellow photographers (the highest accolade).

The penny finally dropped when i started seeing some before and after shots. I realised the photographer/s in question were not any better than myself - I realised the "mojo" I was missing was not my photographic skills, but my post processing skills. The untouched image was in some cases not as good as I was doing. I also realised of the 1000's of rejected photographs I have on my computer, they are just one step away from becoming good "images" - I just need to improve my post processing skills.

If I really want to fast track this quest for "greatness", I could concentrate on my taking of photographs and outsource the post processing to somebody who specialises in that type of work. But then again I would still have to look at myself in the mirror next day, so this is not going to happen, (until I enter the next AP competition :lol2:).

So the next time you leave a comment on a thread "great shot" what are you really commenting on - the "photograph" or the "image".

If you are taking a photo of a scene and you discover your car is in the frame and then you Photoshop it out, is it any different than you realising it was there and moved the car before you took the photo? To a lesser degree, photoshopping out a piece of paper rather than wlking over and picking it up pre photo? The result is basically the same.

Is using a ND grad whilst taking the photo acceptable, yet post processing ND grad into it afterwards not ok? If the result is the same I fail to see the difference.

Is adding red to a sunset really that bad or waiting for a day when it really is a red sunset if the result looks exactly the same? It might be a place you'll never get the opportunity to visit ever again and a bit of post processing is not really altering what may have happened, just the time that it happened.

What about removing a blemish from a model's skin rather than waiting until the pimple goes away? I fail to see the difference.

I think we get a little caught up in thinking that what comes out of the camera is somehow sacrosanct and not to be messed with, yet we manipulate images all the time pre photo and somehow some people think doing it afterwards seems like you are breaking some holy vow. I don't see it that way. I see that if the photo looks natural enough and has that wow factor then it's fair enough. Don't forget, even in the film days, post process work was done by the pro's on just about every photo, by burning in and masking photos to get the result they were after. Now we can do it with a computer with better results and anyone with decent skills and a computer can do it. No difference really.

At the end of the day, it is the public/viewer that makes the end decision and if they like it then it succeeds, if they don't then it has obviously missed the mark for what ever reason, be that too much manipulation or not enough.

Personally, I wouldn't beat yourself up about it, just do what ever it takes to get the result you want. If that means going back when the light is better or doing it post process, then so be it. It is the public/viewer that will make the final judgement as to it's worth.

[WhoDo]

I think we get a little caught up in thinking that what comes out of the camera is somehow sacrosanct and not to be messed with, yet we manipulate images all the time pre photo and somehow some people think doing it afterwards seems like you are breaking some holy vow. I don't see it that way. I see that if the photo looks natural enough and has that wow factor then it's fair enough. Don't forget, even in the film days, post process work was done by the pro's on just about every photo, by burning in and masking photos to get the result they were after. Now we can do it with a computer with better results and anyone with decent skills and a computer can do it. No difference really.

I'm sure it's more a question of degree rather than the black & white to do or not to do (apologies to William S). The other day I used the Liquify filter in PS for the first time, and felt guilty doing so! Why? Because it was a personal admission that I found the model's looks didn't meet MY ideal in some way. Well, that's not strictly true. After talking with the model who has a terrible body image, I hoped it might make her feel better. Same issue, different perspective. Photoshopping elements OUT of an image if they destroy the shot, I'm comfortable with. Photoshopping elements IN to the image that weren't there? Not so much. In one group I frequent the other day a 'tog presented a photo of the ubiquitous SHB during Vivid, with the moon above the city on the southern side! What the? It was low in the sky, so obviously taken from a moon rise at another venue and Photoshopped into the image. Why? Was the naturally different lighting of the Vivid festival not enough Wow factor? I think that's more the issue, Lance. Of course I could be wrong, and often am. :confused013

[arthurking83]

..... The other day I used the Liquify filter in PS for the first time, and felt guilty doing so! .....

LOL! I'm hearing 'ya Waz.

I once felt guilty in removing a small insignificant fence post in an image .. simply because I couldn't be stuffed cropping it.
But at the same time, I had this feeling of finally taming a wild bucking bull at a rodeo too .. if you've ever tried CaptureNX's auto retouch brush .. you'll know why :p

I only remove dust spots in my images.
I once tried to use HDR in camera .. with a high degree of failure. Although I have had very minimal success with HDR via the PC.

Adding further to Lance's reply re removing litter or colour alterations .. I suppose this is what makes a committed photographer.
A photographer will most likely do the changes in post.
A committed photographer will remove the litter(piece of paper) or wait for the right colour and/or go back again and again till it's right.

Whether one is 'greater' than the other(as per the OP's topic) is a moot point(there's never going to be agreement).

I think it comes down to whether you're in the photojournalist camp(stricter rules re editing) or digital artist camp(almost anything goes) .. and to what degree.

wmphoto's reply with the link .. reply #29 page 1 (butterflies in the forest image).
When I first saw that image a while back, my immediate reaction of horror wasn't due the added butterflies .. but the little alien sitting on the fence(I think it's supposed to be a girl).
That artist isn't a photographer .. no matter how many Hasselblad cameras he has! .. he's a butcher!
I have no idea why he'd spend a small fortune on that type of gear, when any old P&S would have given him the same results .. massively distorted pixels(mainly on the alien on the fence).
99% of this picture's pixels are generated in photoshop!


The problem not having defined boundaries as to what is photography and what's not, is that you place images such as the butterfly one alongside images from the great photojournalists in the same genre.
If you can do that, then why not also include those CAD rendered IKEA images into the same stream too. They also look like photographs.
If all that's required to classify an image as a photograph is that a part of it came out of a camera, then why not simply add into the image just one pixel out of the 50 million that a top end Hassy can capture.

[Brian500au]

Kym's post below is a perfect example of what I am referring to:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?132905-Over-cooked-photoshop-of-Mariah-Carey-even-she-hates-it

[Lance B]

Well, there you go. As I said in my post, it will be the public/viewer that ultimately decide if it has gone too far, as they did in this instance above, and you have to make that decision as to what constitutes too far or not enough and I am sure that you are more than capable of making that destinction. As I also said, don't beat yourself up about it, if you think you've gone too far, then you probably have and visa versa.

[WhoDo]

Kym's post below is a perfect example of what I am referring to:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?132905-Over-cooked-photoshop-of-Mariah-Carey-even-she-hates-it

And some more specific examples of what I consider Digital Art and NOT Digital Photography. Enjoy, courtesy of Petapixel.

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/28/digital-artist-gets-super-creative-self-portrait-series-shows-done/#more-138921

[MissionMan]

I'm in the camp where I believe majority of the work should be done in the camera. I think lightening shadows etc is fine but the moment the final production looks nothing like the original image, you have to question whether it's photography or Photoshop as an art form. I can understand the use of Photoshop for customers as ultimately you are paid to produce the best result but that is something different and I don't think it should be confused with photography itself. It's post processing which could be done by a different person.

[wmphoto]

And some more specific examples of what I consider Digital Art and NOT Digital Photography. Enjoy, courtesy of Petapixel.

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/28/digital-artist-gets-super-creative-self-portrait-series-shows-done/#more-138921

So going back to the original question, does this ability with photoshop make him a better photographer? For me it's no. Not questioning his ability or the end results though.

[Granville]

So going back to the original question, does this ability with photoshop make him a better photographer? For me it's no.

For him also I believe. The article continually refers to the "digital art" not "digital photography". As it should be IMHO also.

[dacar]

My two bob's worth...
An interesting debate - it has all been said before but it is always good to revisit this topic and work out for ourselves where we stand.
As others have said, there is a huge grey area from photographer to digital artist and a line will never be drawn conclusively. In many other fields of artistic endeavour there are similar grey areas: Is a collage or a bas-relief 2D or 3D art? Is a painter still a painter if, like Jackson Pollock, he or she includes other substances than paint to realise the artistic vision?
In-camera or in-computer PP? Again, it's an arbitrary dividing line which has been moving and will continue to move as technology continues to develop.
Doing it all yourself, or sending it off to a lab? Again, an arbitrary line. The great Renaissance painters had workshops and apprentices who completed much of their work for them. Many of the "great" photographers we admire now had darkroom assistants to do some or most of their technical work. In both these cases, it was the Artist (with a capital A) who had the final say on what was made public under his or her name. The Artist was responsible for the artistic vision being fully realised. Great artists allowed only great work to be published.

So my stance at the moment is something like this: A GREAT photographer is someone who uses the medium of photography to produce great artwork which is generally recognized as belonging to the medium of photography. That person must have a great artistic vision and have enough control over the tools and techniques and the internal drive and persistence to realize that vision, and the vision is always far more important than the technical skill. That person must also be able to produce great work consistently over a long period of time.

A GOOD photographer can also have an artistic vision and technical skill and drive, but not to the same degree consistently. A GOOD photographer can probably recognize a GREAT shot he or she may have been fortunate to achieve but will probably not be able to consistently produce that quality.

Much of what I have said about the distinction between "great" and "good" applies to many other fields of endeavour. Great photographer will put in huge amounts of time and effort, and of course, talent, to produce their best work, but usually that doesn't count - the final product is judged on its merits alone. I used the word "usually" because when we know the circumstances surrounding the production of an image, or a series or images, or indeed an artist's entire output, that often colours our judgement.
Also, photographers work in different fields and that also affects our judgement. Great war photographers are judged by different standards to portrait photographers.

[bcys1961]

I think that is a good ( no GREAT) succinct summary David. Agree!

I will strive to get to GOOD , then worry about GREAT after that!

[ameerat42]

Well, time to recap: a photographer who takes pictures of fireplaces could aspire to becoming a GRATE photographer:rolleyes:

...and perhaps a better speller.

[arthurking83]

......

...and perhaps a better speller.

That would make a GR8 starting point! :D

[Mark L]

zpelling don't much matter when taking pictures.
Selling might.