Professional Photography, Is it Professional anymore?

[meow_mix450]

Hey

Now that were in year 2004, I find that photgraphy is being messed with a lot, by our computers. Any guy that has a good computer and knows a lot about there photoshop can really fix them up. It makes them 10 times better then digital or an SLR. Now a days you cant even tell if it has been messed with, cause they look so real. Some are just amazing.

So how are you suppose to find a picture that hasnt been messed with by a computer/photoshop. Or is this impossible? I bet a member on this site is able to take a picture with there digital camera and change it all around. Making the imagine nice and crisp. So whats the difference between amteur and professional photography? They both look as good, why not just call all photographers professional.

I take pictures as a hobby. What I think is that digital doesnt give me much of a challenage like an SLR does. With an SLR you have to focus your shot, fix the lighting, speed of the take etc. Not everyone can do that. But with digital you dont have to put much effort into taking a picture, just one click and you can a crisp shot.

So I guess I want to hear your opinions on photography these days, Is it still a real picture

Meow

[Jeff_Favelle]

How can photoshop fix a picture that you didn't focus properly on?

And if everyone has access to all the tools, there is NO level of unfairness with or without digital. It will just cause the industry/profession to get better. I don't see how AT ALL it will negate the profession though. A picture is an art form. If the methods and procedures change/get better, then so does the art form. But it doesn't make it any less of a profession. If you're good at it, you're good at it. No amount of computer gadgetry is going to make an average person on the same level as a true artist. Just because you can digitally clean up a picture and don't have to worry so much about F-stop, shutter speed, film speed/texture, etc etc, doesn't mean you'll have en eye for taking the RIGHT picture at the right time.

[Cruciform]

I totally agree with Jeff. There's only so much you can do with Photoshop.

You need to have an eye for it, or at least be versed in composition to take consistently good pictures.

The great thing about digital formats though, is that they allow you to take hundreds, even thousands of shots during a shoot at no extra cost.

It gives you a much greater "contact sheet" to work from when you don't have to work about the cost of film, developer, fixer, etc.

So even if you don't have an eye for it, you can get lucky with 1 shot out of a 100 :)

[Jeff_Favelle]

Totally agree Cruciform. And all these advantages are available to EVERYONE. So if everyone has the advantage, then pictures as a WHOLE get better and so does the profession. But it's all relative. If the amateur gets better, then so does the professional. Its not like the amateur gets better pictures and the professionals stay the same, LOL! BOTH get better. But relatively, are the same distance apart.

[Stockwell]

Nicely said Jeff! I think Digital Photography is fantastic!! It does mean nearly everyone can produce excellent photos, with a little practice, and a few moderately priced tools. And yes you can fix some stuff digitally, that is no different to what they've been doing with magazine models and other advertising photos for eons. It just means such tools are now in the hands of more of the population, creating more of level playing field.
I must say, I'd be a bit worried if I were one of those free lance shutter bug guys trying to do it for a living. Heck even I've taken pictures for corporate literature, employee ID's, and xmas parties, etc. and I'm sure lots of companies with photo hobbiests are doing away with at least some the so-called "professional"photgraphers. Long gone are the days of it being a huge advantage to lug around a massive SLR, and to have your own chemical dark room.
The ability to see your results right away and to shoot hundreds of pics without the bother of sending the film in to see if anything is worth printing, is truly a monumental step forward, not to mention the miracle of home printing. This do-it yourself age of photography, is however taking its toll on old industry Icons like Eddie Black and Kodak, who might go the way of the Doo Doo bird, if they can't find and alternative revenue source to photo processing.

[BAZ]

I dont think photoshop can make a good photo.. it can make a good photo BETTER. As a profesional graphic designer I use Photoshop everyday. I have used it on occasion to crop, fix the lighting and contrast, sharpen and sometimes a combination of all this on photographs.

Anyone can just set their camera on automatic and take a picture but I think what makes a good photograph is the photographer and his or her ability to see the subject in a interesting and/or new way. Think of it as a painting... its the artist that makes the painting and not his canvas or brushes. Ofcourse the artist can express himself better if he learns how to use his tools.

[Jeff_Favelle]

Anyone can just set their camera on automatic and take a picture but I think what makes a good photograph is the photographer and his or her ability to see the subject in a interesting and/or new way. Think of it as a painting... its the artist that makes the painting and not his canvas or brushes. Ofcourse the artist can express himself better if he learns how to use his tools.

Exactly what I was trying to say, only better BAZ! :-)

Digital photography is truly amazing Roy, and I'm sooooo thankful for it, that's for sure. The internet and digital cams are the biggest things to hit the reptile industry since heat tape, LOL! ;)

[meow_mix450]

lol, well if you put it that way, you got a very good point. So if people are about to get into photoraphy would you tell them to get a digital camera or an SLR? I always thought that a digital camera was a small dinky camera that has little features. I check the news paper this morining and looked at some digital cameras where you can focus the picture your self just like an SLR but your able to take dozens after dozens of picture without getting another roll of film. I have a digital but i have never developed any, cause i thought it would look like crap cause it was a 2.5 MP. But I get your point.

Meow

[Stockwell]

There are digital SLR's now. If you like the idea of changing len's and having more versatility you can go that route.

[BAZ]

U can take some pretty decent shots with a digital camera. I have a Canon Powershot A70 and it takes pretty good pictures. You can also get a telephoto lese for it and a wide angle and fish eye lens (altho I didnt buy them). It goes for around $450 I think but it may be cheaper now.

I love my SLR though. Its a Nikon F65 and cost me around $500 when I bought it altho I believe its come down in price. I use a Sima 70-300 zoom lens on it (thats another $300) and I just bought a great Nikon flash for it that I can also use on a digital Nikon SLR (the flash was another $300).

Next year I plan on getting a digital SLR. I think thats the way to go. The only thing is that they are quite expensive but I think if anyone is serious about getting into photography then a digital SLR is something you will end up buying sooner or later. The Nikon D70 seems most "affordable" at around $1800 for the body and lens. I did some research on it and it got some great reviews. I can use my Sigma zoom lens with it which is great.

A good place for digital camera reviews is www.dpreview.com.

[Big Mike]

The digital revolution has changed both professional and amateur photography but digital snapshots will not take the place of professional photographs, film or digital.

Small digital cameras have helped amateurs improve their photo skills...instant feed back is a wonderful learning tool. However, most people are still taking 1000's of snap shots. There is nothing wrong with that but it's a long way from what I would consider "professional" photography.

Pictures from the average digital camera look pretty good on a computer screen but most are far from good enough quality to be viable in the professional world. Even the 8MP cameras like Sony, Nikon...are not really that good. The problem is that the sensor on these cameras are very small. A digital SLR camera with a larger sensor will out perform any of those small sensor cameras...even if the smaller one has more mega pixels.

As mentioned, even the small digital cameras have to be focused, they have to have the shutter speed and aperture set as well. A lot of those cameras just don't allow the user to set them...it's all automatic. All (or most) SLR or DSLR cameras will allow manual control of focus and exposure (shutter speed & aperture). For the last 20 years, SLR cameras have also had automatic mode so that people can just point & shoot regardless if they have any skill or knowledge about it.

As far as Photoshop...it's just a digital dark room. It's more accessible than a traditional dark room...so everybody & their dog can alter photos these days. That doesn't mean that poor photographers can make their photo great. As mentioned, photos have been altered for a lot longer than digital has been around. It's just easier now.

There are a lot of good photographers on this site with lots of good photos. However, most of the shots are snap shots, that is they have poor composition (or at least, ignored compositional elements). Quite often the lighting is from the built-in flash which makes the subjects look flat and washed out. My point it that photography is an art form...if you want to see how digital has affected professional & amateur photography...this site would not be the best place to check that out.

I'll shut up now.