Dumbed down?

[Stupid]

Thought to ponder.
My 86 year old, retired photographer grandmother in law made an interesting comment. She commented, "Photography isn't what it used to be". "You picked your shot, picked your film, took your shot, and stood in awe when you got it right".
As I thought about this, one thing came to mind. We went to see the new Star Trek movie. There was something about it that just disappointed me. A friend of mine, made me realize what it was when he said "I didn't like it, there was too much CG"
Thoughts?

[AlphaBjerke]

Art is art if it appeals to you on some level, effects you somehow, etc. No matter what happens before it gets to that point, it is still art in the eye of the beholder.

[candleman]

it comes from the camera, its a photo.

how far the editing process is taken is where is where it becomes digital art...
but a digital photo without editing is still a photo, and its still subject to artistic interpretation. therefore its art.

i have many images with no editing.. its still art.


"the art is gone" is not true, there is still as much technical ability required to be a good photographer.
the basic principles of photography are still the same.

[AlphaBjerke]

Someone who worked on cars was a mechanic in the 1950s; someone who works on cars now uses different tools, but he/she is still a mechanic. Many people wish it were the same as in the good old days (people could actually work on their own cars and things were much simpler), but truth be told, the new ways often work better.

[RubyT]

As for Star Trek: what was missing was the deeper, more thoughtful philosophical component that differentiates Star Trek. I choose to look at this movie as setting the clock back, and hope to see more of that more cerebral element the next time around.

I do wish they still used model ships, though.

[digirebelva]

This is all assuming that no one did any darkroom editing back then..they they simply went from camera to print with nothing done in between..does anybody really believe that..Ansel Adams was known for his darkroom work as much as his final images...does that now make his images any less so because he did things to them in the darkroom v's what goes on now in PS for todays digital photographer?. Remember this, a number of the editiing functions in PS have their basis on what went on in darkrooms (i.e. dodging & burning come to mind first)..

[windrider86]

This has been said a million times but even back int he "film days" they manipulated the photos. Double exposures, burning adding things in or taking them out.
Its all a double standard usually coming from folks who just dont understand the digital age. I dont call it manipulating, I like to call it digital painting

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Stupid

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that photography is art. But what is real and what isn't. Can anyone know if what ends up on paper or computer screen is what the eye actually saw at that moment, or was is something envisioned and made possible by computer manipulation. The answer was clear not too long ago.
So, there seems to be a BIG difference between the two.
Most people take photos to immortalize a moment, not for the sake of "art".

Unedited photos are great. But once they are processed by software, the realism ends and the fiction takes hold.

I see unedited photos vs. photoshop photos , the same as a film portrait vs the mona lisa. They are not the same and should not be treated as equal. IMHO

Tom

To each his own I guess, but I totally disagree with that statement. Every picture is fiction. It's an image of the real thing, but it, in itself, is not real.

Anyway, the world is full of critics, and I really care not what others think of my images. Some get edited, some don't. When I take a picture, I try to get it right in camera. If I don't and I can make corrections with software, I'm going to. In many cases it's not like I can just go back to the location and reshoot. At the end of the day I am happy with what I have. Post processing has existed since photography began. Like most things in this world, technology has taken hold and advanced to the point where it's easier to do things and get better results.

I get a kick out of older folks who say "It ain't what it used to be". I honestly believe they should look back further to what things were like before they came along. Do they honestly believe they were the first to do something and their way is the original or correct way to do something? Look back, because you're right, it ain't what it used to be, but neither was what you had.

[dannyrich]

They picked their camera and their film because they had no other choice.

Thats like saying an F1 driver is worse than an old racing car driver because he haas better tools.

[kencaleno]

1. The correct term is Digital Imaging

2. Ansel Adams was more of a manipulator than a photographer-he would spend hours in the darkroom working on one shot.

3. I'm an "Old School" film photographer- I use both film and digital-and I find that digital lacks in fine definition compared to film. But, digital image manipulation is a lot easier than darkroom manipulation.

4. If you ever used slide film,exposure latitude (Dynamic range) was only one and a half stops, and you had to get it right in camera,because there was no manipulating after shot was made

Ken