[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;45619549]Editing your photos does help to make you a better photographer? What is hypocritical about that? The fact that a photographer edits their pictures doesn't make them better automatically, but having a great editing style and getting the best out of your images does make you better at the trade overall in my opinion.
Photography to me is about the whole process of creating an image, from start to finish. It's not just solely about the capturing of the image.[/QUOTE]
What's hypocritical is saying "not editing editing your photos doesn't make you a better photographer" and then saying "editing your photos does make you a better photographer" while at the same time trying to promote "the end justifies the means".
[QUOTE=Stopper;45619150]You can boil all of it down to this thesis, and I can absolutely get behind that.
Apparently though, according to some people here, editing your photos does indeed make you a better photographer. Which is a bit hypocritical as I see things.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't automatically make you better, but by saying that you'll never do it you're closing off potential ways of improving your work
You're not wrong Stopper, but I don't think anyone is saying "editing your photos does make you a better photographer." Rather, it's "editing your photos can make your photos look better." If you think that better looking photos means a better photographer, it would follow that "editing your photos might make you a better photographer if you're good at editing."
But that kind of depends on what the term photography includes right? If its just the act of shooting or does it also include developing, which is the editing part. Ansel Adams created multiple print off 1 single negative, does that mean hes more of a developing artist than of a photographer? You can call Henri Cartier-Bresson a photographer, but he was never really interesting in the editing part, he just sent his photos to development and bam finished.
If you see photography as a the act of delivering photos, then the editing comes to play, and making your photos better in the darkroom/photoshop would still be part of the process and you're then called a photographer.
But if developing and editing is a whole other thing and photography is just the use of the camera then you can be a good photographer and not have to edit, editing would just be an improvement of your photographs and a process that comes later
[QUOTE=D3TBS;45629410]But that kind of depends on what the term photography includes right? If its just the act of shooting or does it also include developing, which is the editing part. Ansel Adams created multiple print off 1 single negative, does that mean hes more of a developing artist than of a photographer? [b]You can call Henri Cartier-Bresson a photographer, but he was never really interesting in the editing part, he just sent his photos to development and bam finished.[/b]
If you see photography as a the act of delivering photos, then the editing comes to play, and making your photos better in the darkroom/photoshop would still be part of the process and you're then called a photographer.
But if developing and editing is a whole other thing and photography is just the use of the camera then you can be a good photographer and not have to edit, editing would just be an improvement of your photographs and a process that comes later[/QUOTE]
son
Where is the line drawn between operator and artist?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rWm8o3V.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=bopie;45636427]Where is the line drawn between operator and artist?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rWm8o3V.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
operators follow instructions
actually found that page I was talking about last page.
[url]https://fstoppers.com/post-production/why-do-photographers-hate-photoshop-followup-3012[/url]
"This is complete nonsense. What you're saying is give any graphic designer a camera they take exceptional photos? How about a certified photo finish engineer, can they all take exceptional photos too? Someone can't just pick up a $40,000 Hasselblad and take award winning photos - a camera is a tool and it still takes a photographer to use it correctly. Photo finishers have been manipulating negatives for decades and decades. A photographer post-processing digital images today is no different than a photographer manipulating images in a darkroom 30 years ago."
[QUOTE=bopie;45636427]Where is the line drawn between operator and artist?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rWm8o3V.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
operator is just a man on the ground being told what to do by the director
a director of photography would have a more artistic role on a film set
well most photographers edit and say unedited, can't really tell too much of a difference, if their professional
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;45715675]operator is just a man on the ground being told what to do by the director
a director of photography would have a more artistic role on a film set[/QUOTE]
the directors still follow rules, they're still bound - all their work comes from all they have seen and absorbed
Would you consider an influence to be an instruction?
an instruction is an influence acting on a lower level between the neurons and the brain
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
~ an instruction is an influence which acts on an abstract symbol on a less general level than an influence proper
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
like for instance: AARON, robotic painter
~ is it influenced or instructed by its creator?
~~ can you tell from its work?
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
no sharp boundaries exist
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
ill think of a better response in the mornin soz xx
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
well, it won't be me cos this arrangement won't exist in the morning, but something similar will answer
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
