TraditionalPhotographer.NET / General Discussion / Ethics and Philosophy / Just to get things going. / Latest Posts

RE: Just to get things going.

naturephoto1 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:13:29 GMT

You mean everything isn't supposed to look like it was done with a cookie cutter to be identical?;)

Rich

RE: Just to get things going.

roteague — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:56:28 GMT

[quote][b]Jorge Gasteazoro (2/27/2008)[/b][hr]That is a great analogy Joe...just what I was trying to say.[/quote]

I admit to being a bit dense at times... :hehe:

RE: Just to get things going.

Jorge Gasteazoro — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:53:39 GMT

That is a great analogy Joe...just what I was trying to say.

RE: Just to get things going.

roteague — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:22:45 GMT

[quote][b]J.Q.Feesh (2/26/2008)[/b][hr]I know what Jorge is talking about. I'm reminded of an article I read years ago in which the writer talked about the world-wide proliferation of McDonalds' eateries, and how he could be sure, no matter where he was in the world, that the burgers would taste exactly the same at every McDonalds. He called this, "The grim taste of consistency." I guess for our purposes in this discussion we could alter that to "The grim look of consistency."[/quote]

I've been hammered more than once on some forums for comparing digital photography to McDonalds .... but if the shoe fits.... ;)

RE: Just to get things going.

J.Q.Feesh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:23:16 GMT

I know what Jorge is talking about. I'm reminded of an article I read years ago in which the writer talked about the world-wide proliferation of McDonalds' eateries, and how he could be sure, no matter where he was in the world, that the burgers would taste exactly the same at every McDonalds. He called this, "The grim taste of consistency." I guess for our purposes in this discussion we could alter that to "The grim look of consistency."

I suppose consistency is desirable - and certainly more cost or effort/energy efficient - when churning out thousands of something per day. But it's not ideal, or even attainable, when trying to handcraft something one at a time. It doesn't matter if the "thing" is photograph or a burger.

Joe

RE: Just to get things going.

roteague — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:54:02 GMT

[quote][b]Jorge Gasteazoro (2/26/2008)[/b][hr]Was I was hoping to confrim and that maybe you guys would pick up on, is this perception I have that digital photographs are starting to look the same to me, regardless of who took the shoot it, to me, they are all starting to look the same. Visit photo.net and look at the shoots. Regardless of how nice they are, it seems as if all are using the same photoshop steps.

...

Maybe I am wrong and seeing things, but I used to enjoy visiting sites like photo.net, etc and see what people were doing. This is no longer the case, the photographs look so unreal and so homogenized that it is like looking at 2000 pics from the same guy....

PS. You know what books looks good too...the one by Joe Cornish, "Light and the Art of Landscape photography"[/quote]

I know what you mean. I used to spend a lot of time over on Photosig, but the norm there is that everyone follows the leader - right now that seems to be HDR. I'm not surprised, as magazines tend to lean more towards articles on Photoshop, they get more and more alike in their coverage.

Joe Cornish is one of my favorites, I carry his book almost everywhere I go.

RE: Just to get things going.

Jorge Gasteazoro — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:40:42 GMT

Was I was hoping to confrim and that maybe you guys would pick up on, is this perception I have that digital photographs are starting to look the same to me, regardless of who took the shoot it, to me, they are all starting to look the same. Visit photo.net and look at the shoots. Regardless of how nice they are, it seems as if all are using the same photoshop steps.

Some might say, "well, the same can be said for traditional" and I disagree with that. I always thought that the difference between an advanced amateur and a professional was the print. There was always that little extra variable that made the prints glow and the tonal relationship perfect. In fact I think many of us grew or evolved in photography by looking at the works made by the masters and trying to emulate them, at least at first. Since photoshop has gotten rid of this special quality, in other words, now anybody who is capable with the software can make a technically perfect print, I feel that some sensibility has been lost, that by virtue of not having to think about the subject before we press the shutter there is a disconect between the photographer and the subject that is later attempted to recapture in post production.

Maybe I am wrong and seeing things, but I used to enjoy visiting sites like photo.net, etc and see what people were doing. This is no longer the case, the photographs look so unreal and so homogenized that it is like looking at 2000 pics from the same guy....

PS. You know what books looks good too...the one by Joe Cornish, "Light and the Art of Landscape photography"

RE: Just to get things going.

roteague — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:04:48 GMT

You make some really good points in your journal. For a long time, I've felt that most photography books are like most photography magazine; a lot of fluff with very little substance. I'm back to reading David Ward's "Landscape Within: Insights and Inspirations for Photographers". He has a new one titled "Landscape Beyond" which I'm impatiently waiting to be released.

RE: Just to get things going.

jjc — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:56:41 GMT

My thinking on the subject is in basic agreement with your journal. Stated less eloquently, careless methodology up front, followed by extensive doctoring in post processing, even with the most powerful software, does not necessarily circumvent the old adage "garbage in... garbage out."

I don't believe any software will ever obviate the need for careful composition and technique in photographing a subject - although this discipline seems to have become a victim of the promotion of digital products to appeal to those who are unwilling or unable to "see the light" as you say.

jjc

Just to get things going.

Jorge Gasteazoro — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:15:19 GMT

I made a new entry to my journals... visit my web site and tell me what you think about it.

http://www.jorgegasteazoro.com

PS. I forgot, the new entry is titled the way we learn photography.