Hey all, seeing as how it's been a bit quiet here the last few days, why not start some dialogue?
The last couple of weeks here witnessed a hearty debate on manipulation of images. "Photoshop" has, whether we like it or not, become an indispensible tool. Photographers everywhere, including this cantankerous old fool, seemed to have embraced the tool. Obviously, Photoshop, and other image-editing programs, are here to stay.

So what is our direction? Where is this technology taking photography? What is acceptable/unacceptable? (aside from the obvious) What effect will digital imaging have on us prior to pressing that shutter? How will our [automobile] photography benefit from these innovations?

Just some thoughts/questions. This could end up a dead thread, who knows. But if it gets y'all thinking . . .

 

First of all, the techniques have always been here, in a sense. What image editing software has done was put the tools into the hands of everyday user.

Where is the techonlogy taking photography, you ask? I would say the death of film. Just look at the sales data of digital vs. film equipment and the direction should be fairly ovbious.

Acceptable/uncacceptable? That would be in the eye of the end user and his/her audience.

What effect will digital imaging have on us prior to pressing that shutter? Well, I know my phtographic skills are wanting, but I find myself producing a whole lot better pictures now that I am able to edit them after the fact. Which makes taking pictures a lot more fun.

How will our [automobile] photography benefit from these innovations? I don't know. But I have some amazing closeups of my cat's nose.

 

Goaljnky,

Well put.

 

I've heard/seen people on photography forums say that it is a necessity to do some post-processing of digital photos. Whether it be color balance, hue/saturation, etc., the camera settings can be somewhat limited in the fine-tuning adjustments that you can make for sharpness, contrast, or saturation so therefore to make a photo more visually pleasing, some post-processing must be done.

I've taken a few (but not many) photos that looked great straight out of the camera. The best part of going digital is that you can view the histogram data (if your camera has that functionality) and make in-camera adjustments and shoot again (and again and again... if needed, or the situation permits and within the storage limits of your CF cards).

The other thing I like about going digital is being able to make a photograph into "art" by applying special effects filters, etc.

My two shiney coppers.

 

I would break this down into at least three categories: photo journalism & documentation, artistic photography, and graphic design. I'll try to carve out some territory here, but it is by no means an all inclusive description.

1) Photo journalism and documentation: I would expect to see some minor editing for contrast, brightness, levels and even very minor cloning used only to address dust on the sensor. Generally speaking, most photos we take fall into this category. Cloning objects in or out of the photo and using multiple photos overlaid should be prohibited for this type of photography.

2) Artistic Photography: For this category I wouldn't have any problem with cloning or overlaying multiple layers/shots to create a composite image. To the first order it still should "look" like it could have been taken on camera. Also, if contrast/saturation has been adjusted a lot, then a photo which may have been "documentary" in nature could become artistic if it deviates too far from what the reality of the situation was.

3) Graphic Design: photos have past the point of appearing to be "captured on camera". Some might say that photos used in this way are "over photoshopped", but depending on the application, I don't have an issue with that amount of processing, other than I think we have passed the point of being able to call it "photography" when the original image is no longer recognizable. It may be photo based, but (to me) it's no longer photography. That's not to imply anything about the quality of the work. There is great photo based illustration and graphic design work, but (again, to me) it just isn't "photography."

 

Well normally I would have a boat load to say but I pretty much agree with you guys on all of it. I know that my photography has improved greatly due to many factors of the digital era.The biggest being the money factor. When I was in highschool all the way up to a few years ago I would shoot and proccess at leats 2 rolls of film a month.
if you do the math on that;
$10 a roll(low average including proccessing)
X 2rolls a month (often more)
X 12 months
X 5 years
=$1200 (approx 8640 photos not including the fine tuning or resizing)

Now lets do the math since I went digital;
$150 first camera 1.3mpx
$450 second camera 7.1mpx
$100 1gb card
$0 copy of photoshop (shhhh) allowing me to do whatever I want to my photos
$170 printer, processing time is cut down to nothing and can preview with out having to re-order
$100 tack on price for photo paper and ability to print when I feel like it of have individual shots printed for the last 5 years.
=$870 (Approx 3000 photos in 4 months on new camera and many more to come w/no further cost) Wow I'm bored at work today

I think Digital is in my world for good! I miss the dark room but it's a poor mans world and I'm loving the feeling of being with out bounderies in my photography. I give props to anyone with the resources for the old way but I am happily moving on.
If any of you care to chack out my mostly non-Mini, sometimes manipulated works go here http://emilymartian.deviantart.com there's even a cute bunny rabbit.