Photography turning into a "fad"? - General

*take picture of flower, grayscale in shoop* lol guise so deep

good thing i'm one of the only photographers in my school. it's me and like 5 other people in my school who are actually into photography and want it as a career. i hope it never turns into a fad in my school. i will move.

ITT: people that suck complain and say other people suck and they are great because they are pretentious [editline]06:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Star Son;24550682]Nothing is wrong with people taking pictures. But it is getting a bit ridiculous now that TONS of people all have these 300 dollar cameras going around and doing what they said, taking from a 'slightly' atristic angle. most likely zoomed in on a small object, focused and then change contrast. and I totally was into it before people started making it a common thing... sometimes its just true damnit! I see a balance between guys and girls do it. except the guys tend to do it MUCH better.[/QUOTE] you just sound like a jealous twat to be honest

i read the title as "Pornography turning into a "fad"? :D

[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;24553993]Hey now, I may use filters, but I use them with a pre-defined aim Here's an example of a panorama I created while at San Francisco Bay [B]Original[/B] [IMG]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/219/6/6/Panorama_o_rama_by_Tetromino.jpg[/IMG] And then I cropped it and changed the levels to make it look hotter and post-apocalyptic: [IMG]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/220/5/3/Panorama_o_rama_2_by_Tetromino.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] It looks pretty good as a sort of wasteland environment. Maybe you should consider opening it up in Photoshop and add some wrecked buildings, etc in the distance. You could make a pretty cool scene.

[QUOTE=HarryG321;24550616]If you have a camera you are automatically a photographer. It is the rules.[/QUOTE]

Nowadays anyone with a half way decent digital camera and photoshop is a "photographer". These people pretty much killed it for me. I miss darkrooms.

Photography is not an art. You capture the image of someone's/something's work. There is no inspiration in it whatsoever. Truly an art is to take something raw and make it into something beautiful, be it a painting, a sculpture, or a giant stallion made of nothing but rusted car parts. If photography can be considered art than so can turning on a light.

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557780]so can turning on a light.[/QUOTE] I take it you havent visited a museum showcasing modern art have you? There was a lightbulb, with a black background, and a ladder. Yup thats considered art, and the artist was paid $3500 for it..........

[QUOTE=Lyoko774;24554877]I personally like to think I'm good with photography, but recently I have been filter raping my pictures with an app on my phone... [/QUOTE] That blue railroad one looks awesome.

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557780]Photography is not an art. You capture the image of someone's/something's work. There is no inspiration in it whatsoever. Truly an art is to take something raw and make it into something beautiful, be it a painting, a sculpture, or a giant stallion made of nothing but rusted car parts. If photography can be considered art than so can turning on a light.[/QUOTE] [url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art[/url]

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557780]Photography is not an art. You capture the image of someone's/something's work. There is no inspiration in it whatsoever. Truly an art is to take something raw and make it into something beautiful, be it a painting, a sculpture, or a giant stallion made of nothing but rusted car parts. If photography can be considered art than so can turning on a light.[/QUOTE] dumb

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557780]Photography is not an art. You capture the image of someone's/something's work. There is no inspiration in it whatsoever. Truly an art is to take something raw and make it into something beautiful, be it a painting, a sculpture, or a giant stallion made of nothing but rusted car parts. If photography can be considered art than so can turning on a light.[/QUOTE] [img]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs46/i/2009/232/f/b/Frozen_lady_by_Daemonoropsis.jpg[/img] Because getting a photo like this is as easy as turning on a light

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557780]Photography is not an art. You capture the image of someone's/something's work. There is no inspiration in it whatsoever. Truly an art is to take something raw and make it into something beautiful, be it a painting, a sculpture, or a giant stallion made of nothing but rusted car parts. If photography can be considered art than so can turning on a light.[/QUOTE] Yes because photography studios don't exist for you to create your own scenes in and neither does Rolling Stone magazine :downs:

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557780]If photography can be considered art than so can turning on a light.[/QUOTE] If taking a lump of clay and squishing it into shapes can be considered an art, surely walking on dirt is too Calling yourself an artist and claiming another form is not an art is a sure sign you are nothing short of pretentious and closed minded.

so am i an art

I shit you not I thought this said pornography.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;24558459] Calling yourself an artist and claiming another form is not an art is a sure sign you are nothing short of pretentious and closed minded.[/QUOTE] right so it's settled op is stupid

thank you pain also that's like the fourth time in the past two pages someone's dropped in to say "LOL I read pornography"

[QUOTE=daijitsu;24558679]thank you pain also that's like the fourth time in the past two pages someone's dropped in to say "LOL I read pornography"[/QUOTE] Didn't read the thread, sorry. :saddowns:

[QUOTE=daijitsu;24558679]thank you pain [/QUOTE] you are welcome camera artisan

I got the Canon Powershot SX10 IS as a starter camera and even though people like my photos I still don't call myself a photographer. Also I try to leave my photos as pure as possible and never edit them unless I need to fix lighting or remove blemishes. Not many people in my school are in to photography, but I hate the pictures females post on Facebook, always filter raped, blurry, or way over exposed.

[QUOTE=TheRatKing;24558769]I got the Canon Powershot SX10 IS as a starter camera and even though people like my photos I still don't call myself a photographer. Also I try to leave my photos as pure as possible and never edit them unless I need to fix lighting or remove blemishes. Not many people in my school are in to photography, but I hate the pictures females post on Facebook, always filter raped, blurry, or way over exposed.[/QUOTE] what i got from this: "I don't know how to photoshop"

Not expertly. But I think that photoshopping can strip the reality of a photo. Think about it, what is a real authentic image when most are photoshopped? Just my 2 cents, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know shit.

[QUOTE=TheRatKing;24558864]what is a real authentic image when most are photoshopped? [/QUOTE] i don't really care if you base images based on how photoshopped they are and not how good or pretty they are, that's a reflection of you not the image

Photoshopping can't help if you can't take a half-decent picture in the first place. I use photoshop to bring out the [i]natural[/i] beauty of a photo, not to rape its quality. BUT, there is always the uses in surrealism and just plain old photo merging. Replacing a background is handy and helps to get the best of both pictures (literally).

I'd actually love to get into taking pictures of animals. Not just "lol my dog in the backyard", but wildlife. There are a lot of different lizards, birds, snakes, etc. around here that are gorgeous and I'd love to get some pictures of them. But I can't take pictures worth shit. Makes me sad. Whenever I feel like taking pictures it's just candid shots of my friends with my mom's $200 camera that she bought for when we go on vacations. So.. I'm not a photographer by any means. Anyways, on topic, I think that everyone picking up a camera and trying to find different things to take pictures of is a good thing. Sure, not everyone is GREAT at it, but at least they're taking in the world and its sights and trying to at least be a little creative. Hating on people who are trying to enjoy taking pictures just because "I did it first when it wasn't cool" is extremely self-centered. Of course, this is with the notion that people who are carrying a camera around are actually taking pictures and not just carrying it as an accessory. I have a friend who owns an $800 camera and I know he really doesn't use it to its full potential. I'm trying to get him to go and take some pictures and stuff with me sometime though. I actually had a little $120 digital camera for myself that I bought just to take pictures here and there for fun but it got stolen.

Like I saw an image of a woman before and after photoshop. Before the image had a terrible green hue and after they made the colors look correct and they made her appear thinner. Does this editing make them a good photographer?

[QUOTE=TheRatKing;24558988]Like I saw an image of a woman before and after photoshop. Before the image had a terrible green hue and after they made the colors look correct and they made her appear thinner. Does this editing make them a good photographer?[/QUOTE] makes them a good editor. If they took a picture with crappy white balance (the reason for the color shift if it is what I think it was), they need to work on learning how to use their camera's settings. The quality of the woman in the picture isn't of much consequence to technique, obviously.

[QUOTE=TheRatKing;24558988]Like I saw an image of a woman before and after photoshop. Before the image had a terrible green hue and after they made the colors look correct and they made her appear thinner. Does this editing make them a good photographer?[/QUOTE] They could be a good artist. Photographing and editing are two different things.