Are you a Photographer, or a Digital Artist?:)

-How many hours would you spend retouching your images with any available software?...because some says if you spend an hour working on 1 photo, you are a digital artist, and not a photographer. Could anyone clarrify this?
:Thinking:
-While shooting, do you treat your every frame as FINAL, or still thinking that you will PS it later?:Sick:
- What is important to you, the process of digital darkroom, or the set-up and preparation during the shoot just like the old times?:)

i live in both worlds. as possible as it could be, i don't want to alter the image.. just little tweaks (resize, crop, etc.). the time consumed in altering photo is not the basis, i think it's the transformation from original to final work.

as for shooting, i treat every frame as final and hopefully not to do the post-processing (which is i am lazy to spend time with it.. :))

and finally for processing, i prefer both because it really depends on the situation.

I don't like using image editing software, partly because of laziness and partly because I feel any editing (aside from cropping and resizing) is like cheating. Just my personal opinion, though.

since im mainly a digital photographer id like to conisder myself both photographer and digital artist.. :)
some people would argue about things like 'i dont retouch my pictures, im a photographer and not a photoshop artist' but editing an image is no different from ansel adams dodging and burning a black and white print. at the same time its no different from the lab technician adjusting the density of your prints to come up with a print that makes it look perfectly exposed.. once you use the computer or even your digital camera in fact , you can technically call yourself a digital artist.. :) using digital means to create art.. hehe..
now using the computer to come up with digital art from scratch.. now that id like to get into.. too bad my drawing hand doesnt work too well.. :)

i could be both a photographer & a digital artist.

i agree with Mr. Jeff Vergara, the time spent in altering/manipulating a photograph is not enough basis to conclude that it is digital art.. or you are a digital artist, and not an "image-maker". the judgement will be based on the final output of your work.

as much as i wanted to treat every frame as "final", i still end up (most of the time) altering them in PS. majority of my photographs undergo post-processing.. from minor tweaks to photo layering.

if you could make the best out of the set-up & preparation during the shoot, then why not go for it. and if the output still doesnt satisfy you, then the digital darkroom is always available for photo enhancement & final retouch. :)

...just an opinion from a hobbyist. :)

IMHO, an artist whether a painter or a photographer, shouldn't feel confined working with their traditional tools to express their craft. If Salvador Dali were alive today, it wouldn't make him less of a surealist painter by exploring Photoshop, in the same way Ansel Adams wouldn't be less of a landscape photographer if he processed his photos digitally. Loretta Lux is one living example of this.

I guess I consider myself more of a photographer than digital artist. Since I do the thinking and all the stuffs before pressing the shutter than looking the pics in my pc. Though there are some shots that I won't be satisfied if it has only one look.

With the advent of digital photography, i would be surprise if you can't get at least one decent shot off the multiple possibilities of "bracketing" the moment. Even if you do not understand the details and relation of light and film (sensor as it may be), with new technology, one's learning curve should be very short.....as in....VERY SHORT, as in if the shot is bad, move your dial from P, Tv, Av, AEB, M , read the result and learn.

You do not have a reason to have bad output.......having the "eye", catching the moment, keen sense of opportunity is another story.

As for me, i'm a photographer. I'm a hobbyist, i still shoot film, I have the time.:) :) PP is limited to basics. Please remember, photography is about capturing the moment, and not recreating what you missed, or what you want to see. There's some nostalgia in taking your time, enjoying the moment. Believe me, you will see more if you do less.:Thinking: just a personal opinion.

As a man thinketh, so he is.

as a photographer? - newbie.... still learning:)

as a digital artist? - i wish!! dont know anything about PS:Grin:

in short, im still a student of my chosen discipline:)

i dont do a lot of image enhancements on a picture.
when i found the pitures good to my taste.
If not , all i do click the "auto" button in an image editing software , then whoallllaaa !!! ok na ! =)
so I guess im a photographer after all , and not a digital artist =)

I also agree with Jeff Vergara's post, time is not the proper basis for being classified as a digital artist or not. People have different skill levels and it may take one longer than the other to do PP work. Furthermore, there are also those who are really OC and take longer to tweak their PP settings to perfection...

Also, do we really have to classify digital artists from digital photographers? Both use computers and both create art...

To answer my own question, I guess digital artists have more freedom since they can freely manipulate a given image while digital photographers usually try to stick to the original in some way... (photo contests usually restrict PP too)

Just my opinions. And I guess I'm a newbie digital photographer since I don't PP to totally change the photo anyway...

For me, enjoy both world's resources, though I would prefer my shots to be in its original capture but I do post processing on some pics that have lost their details due to unavoidable circumstances and to my lack of experience in doing photography.

If a picture had been taken and your settings are not that really worse and it resulted to a poor image then a post process would saved that special moment and it would be priceless, so it is much better to practice in both art, any way you wouldn't buy any thing you wouldn't use unless you got plenty of dough. Just my two cents.


Sau

I used to have a traditional wet darkroom at the house where I grew up. I spent a lot of time there developing film and printing images. I woud push or pull process, dodge, burn, mask, etc. if needed.

The time I spent in the darkroom didn't make me a darkroom technician. I considered it an integral part of the photography process to follow through. What's the point of trying to create the perfect shot if it gets ruined in the darkroom?

I am using that same discipline with my digital photography. Yes, I do a lot of Photoshop work. There are evening wherein I do nothing all evening long but Photoshop.

But, I am also a digital artist when the images I capture become source files for certain digital artworks.

I've also been using Corel Painter IX.5 for the past few months. At least I get to take a break from Photoshop :D

Cheers!

Jo Avila

I am more of a photographer than a digital artist.

Photography for me is seeing things, naturally... and capturing the moment as it passes by. While being a digital artist is more of using photography as a resource for the mind's creative desires - the digital output layout - placing accents that were not there when the shutter was pressed - that is digital artistry for me. If a photographer shoots wedding, or for billboards, and then creates digital layout containing several images, then he can be considered as both.

I remember what Mr. Tilak Hettige said – a photographer should have an "Inner Sight" – compose, think of the content, characters of the subject and possible viewers’ perception of the whole image – before taking the shot.

Digital dodging, blurring, cropping, color enhancement and the like, can be considered as part of being a photographer, and not only for being a digital artist. You do these things when you were using film. Digital artistry for me, also, is doing things that take time to be done when using film - like placing a rabbit in the middle of the desert. Imagine that when you’re using film – there are at least two choices, bring the rabbit in the desert, or use multiple exposures – take a picture of the desert, and then the rabbit later. That’s one factor on how digital artists gained respect.

I believe that most of (former) film photographers, before turning digital - were proud, and still proud of being an on-the-spot-photographer. They treat the CCD as film. If only a digital camera has multiple exposure feature, they would love to try it.

Just an opinion from a photographer – dreaming to be a digital artist as well.

photography? well yeah! with my cellphone camera, hahaha..

retouching? alot, every possible photo i can get my hands on..

photographer/digital artist? i wish!

if i may so so stan that's awesome work!

as for me, i'm learning both as much and as fast as i can =)

i believe the future of this craft lies in both. the teeners and very young adults is beginning to dictate what a good image is suppose to look and we can be sure that it will be a combination of very fresh photography and even fresher and interesting post processing work! just browse through flickr enough and you'll know what i mean..

I've been a digital artist for almost 7 years, but just into photograpy for about a year. For me, some photo enhancement on a PC doesnt mean a person is a digital artist.. using auto levels, sharpness and alike in photoshop or whatever software, if i may say is just an extension of a camera. It is not like cheating, its as if your just making the best out of your photos.. cheating is when you really alter it, deleting or adding some parts to it to make it look better.

When taking photos, as much as possible I want it to be the final image.. but at times, enhancement would make it much more better. :)

I intend to be both. In my humble opinion, there's no sense choosing between one or the other. If i'm able to achieve what i envision as beautiful using all tools available to me, then so be it :)

Got to get it right the first time. I'm a photographer.

But you can be an artist, too. I am a photographer but i can also be an artist. The limitations of technology(film or chips cannot record what we see) makes it impossible for us to really take or capture in film or chips what we see. That is why we apply some photoshop techniques (now). Who would have expected that in the 1850s they were using the same techniques but only manually.

cheating is when you really alter it, deleting or adding some parts to it to make it look better.

What is the difference between altering a shot in PP and REALLY altering a shot in PP? Is it cheating when I crop a shot?(deleting) Is it cheating if I increase sharpness and contrast?(adding) Just asking :)

Way back when we were shooting transparencies (velvia 50), we also delete or add parts to the image. We do this by moving. If we see a branch of a tree or a leaf that is unecessarily sticking out in our composition, we either climb up or lay down so as to get a better composition. Now? Let photoshop take care of it!

Do you call it cheating when you remove those skin blemises of a model or add to the softness of their skin with photoshop?

i think most of us (hobbyist or pro) is first and foremost a photographer,, photoshop comes sometimes as a necessary step to enhance the pics

hi guys . first post.!

ross , francis here. (nud 7/20-22)

anyways. i started out calling myself a digital artist since all i ever cared for was making 'digital art' in photoshop. working hours and hours on a single image.

then 2 years ago made that jump to digital photography and photography in general.. thinking it would just help my craft. turns out... it became a new hobby in itself.

i try shooting thinking its gonna be the final frame. just to get myself used to it and not get dependent on pp. tamad na ako mag pp hehe. so its always JPG and hardly use raw. pp comes in only when i see an image with good composition. but has really bad exposure and detail. sayang naman.

anyways.. in the end. id like to believe im a hybrid haha.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inversefk

the lines are really blurred but i consider myself a photographer first, then maybe a digital artist second. i'm not even sure if i can self-proclaim to be an artist. i try and i like to be creative when i can but 'm still working on it. ;)

a little of both i guess... if my picture comes out well, i don't PS it except to frame it... and if it comes out blah, time to hit the tablet :D

:) Both of course. While nailing a shot perfect in every discipline or manner is both important and fundamental... I still consider it as material which has potential of becoming more or staying the way as it is, if that is what's required of the image.
IMO, digital manipulation presents a new dimension which obviously is an immense upgrade from what we're used to, in the film days... However, if they can come up with mindblowing compositions way back then... Now, only your imagination... well of course your wallet will be the limit.

Cheers. Happy Shooting. :Grin:

The digital age has blurred the lines of what used to be an analog process into that of a 'machine-based' binary process. I used a film SLR before and was intensely challenged both with the technical considerations one must know and how to capture a subject the best possible way. Ofcourse, there were lots of mistakes along the way, and learning one's f-stop settings, shutter speeds, focal lengths, etc. mattered. Nowadays? With Photoshop's 'instant' and clever manipulation techniques... pixels can be fixed and transformed without too much effort. It's the digital age, and unlearning the analog process is a necessary evil... so as to go with the flow and take advantage of whatever technology is providing us.

Manipulating a photo digitally is kinda 'sneaky' if you insist that you got the photo 'as is' when you pressed the shutter. Maybe we photographers simply ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT that digital editing is used to enhance the images taken. There's NO POINT in making everyone believe that you got the perfect shot without digital manipulation. Why then should one get a digital camera in the first place if you won't pass it through software? Better use film if you're a purist... or get a digital SLR if you would like to take advantage of the variety of tools availabe for digital photography.

the shoot and the post processing. two different worlds. when i'm shooting, i shoot to get the photograph which i feel best represents what i'm looking at, whether its being enveloped in a golden Boracay sunset (you actually participate in a sunset and not just look at it) or a hurried street shot to catch kids playing in the rain. getting back to your PC or MAC with all those images is another story. You are in another environment with another mindset where you may or may not feel the same way about the photos you took. Then again in this second world of PP you still have two roads before you. you can take one or both. to leave the images as is or to tweak/transform them towards a goal. that's what happens with me at least. its like living and dreaming. where does one stop and the other begin?

In addition to my previous post as a side note... Photography and PP, yes are two different worlds. However you simply cannot separate these 2 disciplines. Because they work hand in hand and they are both processes required to generate a particular output~In this case the final frame or photograph. What we need to inculcate in the mind of every photographer/digital artist out there is RESPONSIBLE PHOTOGRAPHY. To deliver what is necessary based on the given requirement. Nothing less but probably more... It's also an ethical thing...

Pictures are a powerful media. The cliche holds true... It can tell more than a thousand words. Let's just all be aware that the messages (subliminal/direct) people get from the photos we take or alter or enhance differ in a plethora of ways--both possitive and negative...

Photographer or Digital Artist? I guess both, since a photographer, by virtue of aesthetics, is a visual artist utilizing a digital media. And yes, you will be involved in digital post-processing, whatever degree and level of processing that may be.

Am I a good photographer... that is, do I need to do a lot of post-processing for my digital photos? With substantial amount of confidence, I can say that I am a good photographer. I shoot JPEGS, not so much with RAW anymore, since most of the photos I capture are already representative of how I wanted the scenes/subjects to appear (exposure, color handling, sharpness-bokkeh control, and perspective manipulation are all done in camera and lens variations).

Am I a digital artist... that is, do I use a lot of my captured images for various media designs (prints or online)? Yes, I use my photos a lot for multimedia designs, and I implement extensive post-processing techniques to be able to comeup with a particular design that would suit the taste of customers.

In summary, I am a DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHER... a photographer and visual artist creatively fusing my skills and ideas with contemporary digital art forms.

i am working with both side of the field... since its "digital"+"photographer".

I am a digital photographer more than being a digital artist based on the difinition by ross, let say 80/20. Spending 1hr for a photo occasionally.

Nowadays digital photographers are becoming digital artist and Digital Artist becoming digital photographers and end-up with both. It depends how much the ratio of both interests. And based on their own orientations, digital photographers like to explore the work of digital artist and vice-versa. The experience of both disciplines affects the end result of their images.

IMHO :BlackEye:

just a newbie into photography - how i wish that every shot i take woudl be good enough to be the final product, but i've realized the photoshop is just part of the entire process of making good pictures even better...so i bought a tutorial book hoping i could go beyond cropping and rotating :-)

Now that photography has gone digital, I guess that PP is now part of the art. The drawing line would be on how extent are you willing to PP your image. In that part, I guess the photogrpaher and the digital artist takes different path.

In my own words, a photographer is the one who shoots with considerations in his head that after hitting the shutter, the outcome would be 90% finish product. He does his effects using his gear and gets what he wants by manipulating his camera settings.

For the digital artist (who uses a camera as his medium of expression), a person who also keeps in mind the basics of photography but, has the desire of going beyond what his viewfinder sees. The final product is not the output of the camera but something more artistic given the right editing tools.

I want to be more of a photographer rather than a digital artist.

just a newbie into photography - how i wish that every shot i take woudl be good enough to be the final product, but i've realized the photoshop is just part of the entire process of making good pictures even better...so i bought a tutorial book hoping i could go beyond cropping and rotating :-)
:) Hochi, it's not that bad... Eventually, you'll get the hang of it. The possibilities are limitless in Photoshop. But that is just Photoshop alone, imagine there are other specialty programs which are respectfully better than Photoshop in some ways which you can use to post process your images... The key is, stick with the basics first... Kaya yan.

I have been using Photoshop for Almost 16 years since it's first release way back 1990... That's half of my lifetime already...But I'm still learning...:Thinking: The knowledge and techniques/trouble shooting comes with experience... You'll see... Practice lang yan.

:) I have been using Photoshop for Almost 16 years since it's first release way back 1990...

OT: 16 years?!? :Shock: man that's long!!! you must be some photoshop god! hehe. maybe you can post some of your techniques in the other thread. :)

OT: 16 years?!? :Shock: man that's long!!! you must be some photoshop god! hehe. maybe you can post some of your techniques in the other thread. :)
Actually, I just realized it hard when I posted... But it's true... I guess when it was already out while I was still studying; my best friend's brother who was a bit of a software geek had a copy... I was playing with it coz I didn't like what was available with Microsoft's OS. It was still primitive way back then but with alot of potential... We were wondering if there might be the possibility to edit my friend's brother's photos there (he was a mountaineer/photo hobbyist)... Didn't expect it will be realized someday.

About being a photoshop god... he he he... not yet but I do hope I'd get there... competition is tough in the field of graphic design too... I'll need all the good rep. I can get. :Grin:

Techniques... Maybe I'll try to "contribute-post" later. I specialize kasi in 3D, grunge style and collages... I don't know if that will fit here, but if someone wants tips... I can help, why not.:)

Actually, I just realized it hard when I posted... But it's true... I guess when it was already out while I was still studying; my best friend's brother who was a bit of a software geek had a copy... I was playing with it coz I didn't like what was available with Microsoft's OS. It was still primitive way back then but with alot of potential... We were wondering if there might be the possibility to edit my friend's brother's photos there (he was a mountaineer/photo hobbyist)... Didn't expect it will be realized someday.



Really? I didn't realize that the earlier photoshop can't edit pictures then. haha.:Grin:

Funny, before i got invloved in photography, my main use of photoshop is in creating posters way back as a student assistant of a young IT school. Someone told me that instead of PS, i should be doing it on Corel draw.

But now, i really really appreciate PS as it is intended for.

I think i'll try to edit some pics to fit into the digital art classification using photoshop.

Really? I didn't realize that the earlier photoshop can't edit pictures then. haha.:Grin:

Funny, before i got invloved in photography, my main use of photoshop is in creating posters way back as a student assistant of a young IT school. Someone told me that instead of PS, i should be doing it on Corel draw.

But now, i really really appreciate PS as it is intended for.

I think i'll try to edit some pics to fit into the digital art classification using photoshop.
Oh don't get me wrong... Of course it can, however the biggest challenge way back then is how you can import your film based pics to PC (at a consumer level). Kaya nga thanks to digital photography now :)

Yup, I witnessed that one Rhyan. The Corel-Photoshop wars... It's almost synonymous to Canon vs Nikon IMO. :)

learning on both....hehehe...but really time consuming...

I'm 50-50. I'm a graphic artist and a photographer. Photoshop is my partner and photography is now my new girlfriend. It's a kind of creative threesome for me. I'm not really that good in photography yet so photoshop will always be there to make my shots better. It's digital photography after all. I do photography for my clients and they want clean shots, sometimes perfectly clean, that's why in my line of work photoshop is a must.

For me...all I can say is....Im an artist....." I don't take photographs......I make them":)

Are you a Photographer, or a Digital Artist?:)

-How many hours would you spend retouching your images with any available software?...because some says if you spend an hour working on 1 photo, you are a digital artist, and not a photographer. Could anyone clarrify this?
:Thinking:
-While shooting, do you treat your every frame as FINAL, or still thinking that you will PS it later?
- What is important to you, the process of digital darkroom, or the set-up and preparation during the shoot just like the old times?

Hi Ross,

You asked what you knew to be a controversial question. :D The responses on this thread suggests an interesting insight: it depends.

If you were a film photographer well before digital showed up, you can readily see the difference between a photographer (film) and someone using a digital camera +/- PS. They are two different worlds even if they result in the same things: the interpretation of our world. You may or may not think one is better than the other. They are just tools anyway.

On the other hand, if you were born into this digital revolution, or at least started with a digital camera, you can't imagine photography to be any other way. Of course I need some PS work on my computer! But more or less PS doesn't make me more or less of a photographer. Nor artist for that matter.

(I digress. My children are in their late teens. They can't believe a world that used to have: black and white TV's that you had to stand up and change channels, telephones that you needed to crank and then ask to be connected, and computers that used to be the size of entire rooms but were only as powerful as the scientific calculator on my desk!)

And if you believe the pundits, anyone who brings a camera to his eye, selects and composes his/her shots before clicking the shutter, is an artist. And photographers who use something digital in their workflow (camera, scanner, printer, display medium) are digital photographers.

In today's world it's increasingly difficult to avoid one or the other moniker, so I'd say photographers and digital artists will soon, if not already, mean the same thing.

Bobby

Before I got into the world of photography (and I plan to live in this world, hahaha) I used to be more inclined to digital arts, including from nothing to everything works and 3D, I used to collaborate PS, teragen and Vue d' esprit. But now I've started to incline myself into photography, as much as possible I would like to limit myself into cropping, color enhancement and other minor tweaks. I just started to learn different techniques and processes in photo manip. I can say I am 50-50, I use landscape photos to give me inspiration to create digital 3D landscapes.

i am more of a photographer than a digital artist...
don't have time for post-processing, just a little bit though...:Grin:

I think there should not be a dichotomy. If I will define what I try to be, it would be an artist. Photography AND digital art need not be mutually exclusive. An artist should be flexible and open to all the tools available. For me, when it comes to photography, I try to shoot in a way that I would not have to use photoshop after, that;'s the discipline I adhere to. I try t o shoot it the best way I can. But, it doesn't mean I won't use PS if it can enhance the photo, the same way we used to use the traditional darkroom to brun, dodge, crop, etc.

I am definitely a photographer. The reason I quit using a digital camera and went to using a film camera. ;-)

What I've noticed is that "old timers" would usually prefer a picture "as is" or straight from the camera. They prefer not processing their work in PP or if so, just a little bit of it. They are the ones who who often preach that a good picture comes from a good composition/exposure and settings.

I also noticed that people who prefer "as is" photos are the ones that don't know much about PP or what they know is only the basic (sharpening / crop / resizing).


I'm not saying ALL but I think most of them...

Well for me, photography is more on self expression than presentation. I won't sell myself cheap just to get everybody's approval.

I am a documentarist more and I don't PS my entries, have a guy to do that, with my instructions of course. I try to crop while shooting so as to avoid cropping and leave it as pure as the image capture.
I always subscribe to the belief that if it was film, there would be no room for mistakes, so I choose my shots wisely. PS for me is just to color correct, convert to B/W and if need be, crop.

But I would like to learn more of course.

I guess I am a 100% shooter.

i'm a photographer who enhances my images through PS.. although i only apply global changes to the image (B/W conversion, USM, color correction..etc)

i consider myself a photographer. there are shots that i need to work on PS, so i'm a digital artist too.

i'm a graphics designer at the same time but not expert.

I'll think for what the images will be used.

..if it's for me, I'll use everything to convey my message. Yes, even the kitchen sink, if I have to.

I think I consider myself a freshman in photography and been around, for quite sometime, as a digital artist.

Gearing up on my latest hobby (photography), I observed how light really plays an important role in both worlds. In the actual photo shoots and in the digital realm.

I love to do simple photos as a digital work of art. Including masterpieces in still life and portraitures, film or dslr.

In an article says "...Photo manipulation has always been one of the most enduring and popular genres of digital art, and also one of the most accessible...By blending multiple photographs together and adding your own lighting effects you can yield a range of wonderful and innovative results, which can transform a simple snapshot into a work of art...." - Computerarts. Well, Im agreeing to that especially Filipinos are very creative and innovative which can do more on creating good and stunning images.

Anyways, I'm not bounded by certain rules, it will just complicate my ideas and emotions. Imagination and creativity must not be restricted in anyway.
Sorry of I'm being too radical but there are no rules for me in my craft.
Digital Adjustments and Manipulations are the same thing. Adjusting contrast, sharpening, brightness, global adjustments is a part of manipulations which is manipulating the colors(rgb/cymk/lab), et.al.

Anyways, I just want to share one link which talks about the Ethics in Photomanipulation. Well, the reference talks about real estate and landscapes but the viewpoints are much the same :

http://activerain.com/blogsview/201892/Photography-1-1-The


Photoshop is really my best buddy since 1996. I saw her from a kiddo to a majestic tool for graphic and digital enthusiasts. And really she served them very well =)

I don't care if your using SLR or DSLR. Manipulated or Adjusted (huh? hehehe...) , 'Coz at the end of the day, a nice image is all that matters and I make people happy... :-)

just retouches, i dunno how to "manipulate" (so i can shout WELCOME TO MY WORLD!)

anyway, photoshop was made because of a reason, now a person can be a photographer who doesnt use PS, or a digital artist that spends hours on a single image, or a mix of both :D

a photographer and that's it. im just using lightroom for adjustments and photoshop for final touches. :)

in shooting i try mey best to get the right angles and lighting.. but iiba talaga when i use Photoshop for "post" i like the dessaturated look (not b&w) :Grin:
but asmuch as possible i do not alter image.. just color
and i shoot for this purpose.. so that would make me a little of both (mongrel)

Photography is now digital... so in a way aren't we all digital artists? But I am no PS artist though...

In my opinion, if you intend to do some post processing before shooting something, you're a digital artist. If you just shoot for the love of photography,regardless of doing some post processing after, you're a photographer.

I still consider myself a photographer even though i use PS alot for my photos. At this age and time, a camera and a computer cannot exist without each other.

I love retouching photos because I actually like doing it. BUT of course, a photo should be almost perfect to begin with - composition, detail, lights, dynamic range.

I consider myself as a digital artist just because photography isn't my main source of income. It's doing graphic design and I'm proud to be called as a graphic designer who makes graphics rather than lay-outing stuff that's already there or on the net.

Siguro mas timely na yun term na DIGITAL ARTIST, though I will never ever discount calling a photographer a photographer. And I am neither of the 2, for I am your MAKE UP ARTIST, hehehe. Nakikisabat lang sa usapan,hahaha. Im enjoying it here.

Ms Barbarra, yup, hindi lang naman photography hobby ng mga tao dito and hindi lang naman siguro para sa photographers ang DPP :) siguro I can also call ourselves photography fans.

I think a lot of photographers are somewhat "pressured" to do major PP on their photos to stay competitive. Nothing wrong with it, but it loses the simplicity and greatness of some photos. Most photos that are chosen in magazines are PP'd greatly, and fashion photographers rely heavily on this also. But ofcourse that is just how it is.

End of the day I'd rather be a photographer.

i am an Amateur Photographer :)

if i can be the best of both worlds....why not =)

More of a simple photographer. I barely add effects on my photos. usualy just adjusting the brightness and sometimes the saturation... but thats just it.

I work on both since I will enjoy the benefit of being able to express my artistic sense from taking simple photos to digital enhancement and manipulation.

I also think that one should not short change himself by choosing only a single camp for after all both are skills that can be developed.

I think it's a little serious problem..

more priority is for photographer. because All based on photo.! but nowaday, so many digital
photographers are retouching or using mixed computer graphics. coz They want to be more outstanding!

because of it, We can find sometimes not natural photo but excellent.

so, I like better.... natural photo.. sometimes, it can be original photo works, or graphic works.
I don't like greedy mind. it can make photo not naturally!

I'm photographer and graphic artist at the same time.

As for me, I'm not really fond of doing post-processing mainly because I'm geared towards keeping what was taken from the camera "as it is" and because I'm too lazy to do post-processing. But of course, if you can improve your photos through post-processing, why not.

If I am to choose which field would I pursue more, I'd choose photography over digital art. I think it's more challenging. Just my opinion. :)

I think it's a little serious problem..

...but nowaday, so many digital
photographers are retouching or using mixed computer graphics. coz They want to be more outstanding!



Not necessarily. They "photoshop" because it's what the market demands for. It's what magazine industry leaders like Summit requires. And photographers have families to feed ;)

*I'm not in that line of business. I just don't blame them, it's not their fault.

Digital post processing nowadays is a necessity with digital photography. Especially now that clients are aware that what's impossible with film can now be achieved with digital photography. So, its up to you to satisfy a client or let them hire someone who does.

Even a true photographer will find post processing a necessity, due to some limiting factors like Camera gear performance, Lens quality, working environment, some things that is out of your control at times.

If there are photographers here who just print directly or submit their images directly from camera, please raise your hand..

Are you a Photographer, or a Digital Artist?:)

-How many hours would you spend retouching your images with any available software?...because some says if you spend an hour working on 1 photo, you are a digital artist, and not a photographer. Could anyone clarrify this?
:Thinking:
-While shooting, do you treat your every frame as FINAL, or still thinking that you will PS it later?:Sick:
- What is important to you, the process of digital darkroom, or the set-up and preparation during the shoot just like the old times?:)

Ross, it's just a play of words. And your words have hidden meanings that others may assume to easily. By stating it as you did, you make it sound like a photographer, by default, is not an artist. I am sure, you didn't have that intent.

A photographer, like a painter is just that, a photographer or a painter. A photographer can be an artist. Or he/she may not be one. But for sure, he/she is a photographer. Well, unless when you say "photographer" it is not just a snapshot person, but someone who shoots with flair or with a good eye. But if that is what you mean, then somehow, there is a standard that is required to be called one. Whether that qualifies to being artistic is beyond me. But for sure, not all photographers, competent may they be, can be called artists. But neither should we subliminally imply that a photographer cannot be capable of artistic output.

2ndly, the medium does not automatically imbue something with creativity or make it automatically artistic. It doesn't mean that if I use oil for my paintings, I am automatically artist, vis-a-vis to someone using watercolor. Art is not bounded by the medium by w/c one has chosen to express that art. You can use film, or you can use digital. Art will be there, IF it is there. OTOH, if the picture is not "artistic," no medium, be it digital or analog will make it a work of art. In short, being artistic or an artistic picture is not about the medium used to express it. It can be found both in digital or analogue. In fact, it is independent of the medium used. Art is art and it will be found in those objects or pictures that has them, regardless if they are digital or not.

Now, carry that logic to post processing (PP), and it is the same. Not all PP produce artistic outputs. And not all PP, should really be about producing new art or make it artistic. It is not mandatory, and it is not a red badge of shame not to pursue artistic intent.

And for those who want to produce artistic output, well go for it. But digital PP doesn't mean you are creating art. Not all the time, and it need not be the intent. It is, like the original explanation, just an act of PP, or digital manipulation. It may not produce art at all. And that is not exactly bad or good either way.

If I PP an image simply because I want to correct the limitations of my equipment, one can't just call that art automatically. Most sensors have heavy bayer filters, and the use of sharpening techniques in PP is just to counteract the softening of the bayer filter. Same with the limited dynamic range of sensors. If I use shadow-highlight, I just want to expand my dynamic range (or rather make it like it is expanded by revealing the shadow areas or muting my highlights). Same with lowering the noise in the image.

Are these PP or digital manipulations art? Not necessarily so. They can be, but not necesarily so. We have to look at the manipulation done, and what changes have been made. It is a case-to-case thing.

And if one thinks he is more "artistic" because he shoots film or shoots digital but doesn't post process, think again. Your settings in the camera are active in-camera processing by themselves. You do process the image, whether you do it in camera or out of it. The fact that you produce a jpg or a TIFF file (for some cameras) is already processing done to your image. The camera's default compression, color space, sharpening, contrast, saturation settings are already processing done to your image. It's just that it is done in-camera. If you change these settings, you are also manipulating the image already.

If you are going to be anal about it, if you want no processing whatsoever, then use RAW. But then again, how are you going to print it? What color will you use? What color space, what lattitude for exposure, contrast, saturation, white balance or color temperature? With raw, you still have to process, and that makes the position of "no processing at all" really a losing proposition. You have to process to produce a working image. And you can't print raw. Even if you can, it won't be good enough as it is. It does need processing. RAW just makes it easier to go any direction one wants to go in terms of processing compared to jpg, w/c is a processed file already.

If you think shooting in film absolves you from processing, think again. The moment you hand your film to the lab, they process it. They choose the exposure, color, density, etc for you. The only difference is you don't get to do it yourself. The machine operator does it for you. In developing, the machine does it for you. Even if you shoot digital, if you hand over your CD/SD card, processing will still be done. It's not just you doing it. But processing happens.

So let's not kid ourselves. We do have to process one way or the other. To produce an image, processing must be done. The only question is to what extent. The only question is - when do we produce new art when we process?

If I have burnt skin a la 300, and glassy eyes, have I produced new art? If I push the color of the sky to blue, and my skin tones to orange or burnt sienna, far from what the original colors of the scene as seen by my eyes, is this art? If it is, am I creating a new one, independent of the drab shot I took originally? If I shoot and remain faithful to the scene, can't that be construed as art too?

I won't go into these, as these are really the proper questions to ask but really requires a new thread. But we must dispel the mistaken notion, that if I shoot, I am just a "photographer." We seem to be relegating the word and its status to something lower. We should not.

Oh, one can spend 10 years PP an image and it can still not be art. And yet, one can take the shot as it is, and not do any PP as we know it from the computer, and that can be art. Again, the length of PP or lack of it, does not make it art, or make it NOT art. OTOH, Ansel Adams spent weeks, even months PP in the darkroom to produce some of his stunning images. But H.C. Bresson needs very little PP or just the standard film developing and printing and his images are still art. These 2 alone show the contrasting position of PP. Both can produce art. But spending lots of time in the computer doing PP does not automatically mean one is creating art. It may be a digital manipulation. But not necessarily artistic.

I think that there's basically no distinction nowadays, so there's no need to distinguish anymore. Digital manipulation is part of the workflow of any photographer who works with digital. I'm reallly lazy with doing PP but sometimes when the mood strikes I can go on PPing for HOURS. That wouldnt make me a digital artist though.

When I shoot a project, I try to capture it as perfect as I can. No matter how nice it is, however, I know for a fact that it will still go under the digital knife for slight tweaks and blemish control hehe!

I think that obsessing over the whole "PP or not to PP" and being defined as either a photographer or photoshop artist by anyone else is pointless. You make do with whatever tools you have, and the only definition that's really important is your own. I'd make up a term of my own for myself if I have to hahaha!

OT: It's really fricking amazing what photoshop can do though :D

im more of a digital artist :D i was a graphic designer before i became a photographer..

im more of a digital artist :D i was a graphic designer before i became a photographer..

This is TRUE....now a days what U only need is a basic modest DSLR, some talent in composition and a talent in GRAPHIC arts...and your OUTPUT will come out fantavelous!!! Pity on us who is still strugglin to learn photoshop:(. However, some people are completely dependent on photoshop not learning anymore the basics of photography and what their gear can do!!!. Anyway as the saying goes over and over again...." it is not the PANA, it is the "INDIAN"... so a talent in photoshop is really an inherent or acquired talent spawn out from constant practice and patience:)

I'm still new to the photography world. As of the moment I don't like photoshop. I treat my shots final.:)

If I where to ask you this: "Are you a photographer or a digital artist?" what will be your direct answer?

In the article i read yesterday in manila bulletin which tackles this topic, the writer tells us that we can never be both.. but why??? as what i have understand in the topic, digital artists manipulates the photographs and to which it now becomes a digital craft or art, whenever you change the depth of field or clone a photograph it is no longer the original photo so that means it's already an art.

that's quite interesting to know! IMO you can be called both.. a photographer and a digital artist..

I'll give an example: If I were to shoot a portrait (i'm a photographer) and the model has a pimple in her face, I'll then remove it in photoshop and add some adjustments in tones and so on (i'm a digital artist).


Does this simple example can tell you that you can become both a photographer and digital artist?

I guess yes.. Since you were the one who photographed it, then your are the photographer.. and if you were also the one who manipulates it, then you're the digital artist, so that means you can be a photographer and digital artist.

But the question will now go to the photograph. Is that a photograph or a digital art? IMO if you show a picture or an image which was printed out directly from the camera without any manipulations, you can proudly say that it is a photograph. But if you remove or add something in the photo and adjust a lot of things, then it is a digital art. Does this make any sense? I really don't know.
But all i know is everything in photography is an art, and no matter what you do in your photographs, it's still an art.

I'd like to suggest also that if you are both a photographer and digital artist, you can be called a Digital Artist Photographer. Since most photographers are called Professional Photographer or Amateur Photographer or simply Photographer. Can DIGITAL ARTIST PHOTOGRAPHER be included as a title?:Thinking:

Existing thread...

http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=385

threads merged. do search first before posting anything.

I think Photoshop skill is important but not as important as knowing and appreciating the art of photography. I remember somebody telling me about how nowadays if you want to produce a good picture it doesnt matter if you are a point and shooter as long as you know how to pull a couple of photoshop tricks from your sleeve. But having seen the works of Lara, Zuckerman, Stulberg among others -- we cannot deny the fact that basically you have to get a very good raw image to process first before you can add the extra "oomph" that photoshop infuse.There are lots of photoshop tutorials you can acquire from different resources but, like the professionals and seasoned photographers say, only practice and patience alone can help you get the perfect shot. Thats why I am submerging myself to learning the craft itself now. And whew, there's still a long way ahead of me.

I am such in awe of photographers who use photoshop to improve the image versus those who use it to make the image. I only wish i could be half as good as them someday.

I'm with him...

http://www.outbackphoto.com/open_your_eyes/oyi_004/essay.html

The issues and concerns regarding manipulation have certainly ‘gotten worse’ in the digital era, where anyone can cut out their bosses head and place it on a monkey’s body.

Clearly, however, ‘manipulation’ occurred long before the digital age by making choices as simple as deciding what focal length lens to use or even what type of film to load into the camera. For more complex manipulation using film, one need look no further than the type of magnificent work Jerry Uelsmann does today using ‘only’ film and the darkroom.

threads merged. do search first before posting anything.

oryt! sorry about that sir! next time il do my research very well..:Oops: