What I think...

Nov 25, 2008 21:40

If you're a "Pro Photographer," but you only shoot digital then really you're just a "Pro Editor." Right?

Leave a comment

Comments 4

rejouir November 26 2008, 21:31:59 UTC
A lot of people also "edit" 35mm. Dodging, burning, cropping, I would consider these all edits. A lot of people think that film photography is in essence more "truthful" than digital but film can be manipulated just the same.

I think it's pretty interesting to think about and question what "editing" really means, especially in photography.

Reply

jessica_joyce November 27 2008, 04:03:25 UTC
I don't think digital photography is the devil or anything. But I think that the difference lies in the instance of digital photography...in being able to instantly view an image and react to it. I do think that film photography requires a lot of artistic skill to be able to imagine what the final product could be. Because there are more limitations I think it requires much more skill to produce a great film print than it does to produce a great digital print.

Reply

rejouir November 29 2008, 05:36:32 UTC
Yeah, I agree. It's really sad that print photography is dying, so to speak. There is something so special and rewarding about print.

But I can see why digital is so popular, it takes a fraction of the time.

Reply

jessica_joyce December 1 2008, 06:02:26 UTC
I'm really just bitter because in my heart of hearts what I really want to do is go to back to school and get a Master of Fine Arts and then I want travel the US and publish some awesome Bill Owens-esque book. But that really doesn't make sense. And then there are a million "pro photographers" who shoot mediocre family portraits that they edit the hell out of to make the eyes of a ten year old boy some unnatural blue color. Everyone thinks they're fantastic and have some amazing artistic talent and I'm like, "WTF?"

Reply


Leave a comment

Up