Quote Originally Posted by digiconvert
Ok this will sound like sour grapes at the start but stick with me ...
At last weeks college night we were discussing our work (not a lot of it going on as it happens ) and my 'oppo' with the 5D and the IS lenses et al. is showing his landscape project work to our lecturer while I am showing my war graves work. The 5D guy is GOOD he produces really classy prints from his latest printer, I am still working my way through MF and darkroom but I am not totally incompetent and I am pleased with some of my work.
Anyhow everyone likes our work, the lecturer gives me some advice on my BW print and praises one of the shots from my Lubitel but comments that the 5D pic is beyond improvement. However what really got up my nose was that 5D guy gladly recognises that he spends about 4 hours in PS with his final images and that he takes a SPARE 1Gb card per shoot so that he is bound to get a good shot somewhere. He explains that the sky in one shot was not what he wanted so he 'swapped it' for a better one in PS - as I said the finished article is really good, better than I produce and I have no gripe with the lecturer or 5D guy BUT what's the point in shooting a scene then making it better with part of another scene. Why not just buy in a stock of photos and manipulate them ? It would be cheaper than a 5D plus all of the support gear !
As a sort of therapy I went out today with 2x36 films in the 35mm and took photos of landscapes (It was tranny film so I get through a fair bit since I bracket) but it struck me while I was doing this that I could put the camera on AF/green rectangle mode and shoot away hoping to get a good shot - it seems that for a lot of digi photographers (NOT all) who have never used film this is the way they shoot, if it's no good then thank God for photoshop and put it right.
So after the rant I return to my title, a photograph to me has to have "some of me" in it. I need to have thought about it, considered the exposure, differential focus, metering etc. etc. if APUG weren't here to give us all support and film based photography DID wither away (it won't) the world would be a really poorer place.
Sorry for the rant but I do feel better now and welcome your views.
Cheers CJB
Let me begin by saying that I do not have digital anything in my photography equipment. That being said let me go on and say this. A photograph can amount to many different things. For some of us a photograph is a creative expression and the means by which we arrive at the expression is secondary to the expression.

Who is to say that someone Photoshopping is any different then someone burning in a sky, dodging a shadow, retouching a negative, or bleaching a print? Just because one is done in a manner different than another seems to make a poor argument.

If one were to choose to argue that difference as being sufficient, then why would retouching a negative be any more or any less "proper" then burning or more likely dodging a print...let alone, for heavens sake, masking the negative.

Should we throw people like Howard Bond, Charles Phillips, Alan Ross and others that dye dodge or mask negatives out of our community because they are not adhering to "proper" or "traditional" methods?

Should we throw those real rebels like Misha Gordin or Jerry Uelsmann out of our community because they combine images and present prints that are not literal renditions of objects or scenes found in reality?

I would hope not.