Hi Everyone,

When i was in the States it was recommended we only shoot in raw mode and we dont doodle. Do you agree with this.

We were taught that you shouldnt have to doodle with a photo if you took it properly in the first place. Mind you another teacher taught us to download using adobe bridge and we can use the raw format converter to help with exposure, saturation, contrast etc.

So my question is how many doodle with their photos? Some are really good i must admit and i am severely jealous of their technique. But does that make them a photographer or an artist?

Just curious as to your point of view on the subject.

Chris:)

you will always have the range from craftsman via artisan to artist in photography (hoping these English words describe properly  what I intend to express).

and you will always meet purists (saying f.i. that true photography is in B/W, printed on baryte paper in your own darkroom).

another dimension is between amateur and professional (i.e. those living from their photography).

I think only for the latter working with raw-files is a must (if not even in medium format).

That in contrast to the fact that f.i. for me as an amateur my Fujifilm boxes have jpeg-engines fine enough to meet my requirements - while processing thousands of raw-files is far beyond my budget in free time....

With the FinePix S3 pro I did some RAW shootings in the beginning (some of the series with the red haired Nina) but the jpg's are more than sufficient (see attached image).

Even for the more compact s7000 the use of a tripod and a slight exposure bias (-0.3) produced the recently posted sunrise images as unprocessed jpg's.

Hello Christine and Gwfa..

First, thank you Christine for the thread! That is a very important question tho..

I agree with Gwfa till a point, but answering your question so quick.. You said it! If you don't shoot .RAW you will counted as a hobbier or artist photographer.. Sigh!

I can tell you something that about 10% only or less know it here or any other community tho.. I am not counting the Pro photographers..

Why Shoot In .RAW Format Christine?

If you are using a digital camera to produce images for professional use, or want to get the best possible digital images as an amateur, you are almost certain to have bought a camera that produces images in a 'raw' format and be using this for the majority of your work.

All digital cameras designed for professional use can produce 'raw' images, that is files that contain the actual data produced by the photo sensors in an appropriate digital format. Most digital cameras use an array of photo sensors under a filter matrix which results in each sensor recording either red, green or blue light intensities. Usually this is what is known as a Bayer matrix, in which every other sensor records green, and the other cells in alternate rows are either red or blue. So a typical pair of lines across a sensor looks like this:

Green - Blue - Green - Blue - Green - Blue - Green - Blue - Green - Blue
Blue - Red - Blue - Red - Blue - Red - Blue - Red - Blue - Red - Blue - Red

You know what i mean Ms Aussie? :P

I shoot only .RAW for my commercial use "WORK", any other then that, i shoot .JPEG + .RAW!! and i always shoot in full sizes!! Why? You don't know if someone will come to you someday asking to pay several thousands dollars to buy one of your shots! Right! Usually, for my unique work and super high rates.. I provide a copy of both files the .JPEG and .RAW

If the customer wants to pay a bit less, which usually happens not often! I provide only the .JEPG tho..

Hummm.. I don't know.. it depends on people's minds tho you know! So hope that info will help you and some others..

Please read about why shooting .RAW on this link: http://www.lonestardigital.com/shooting_raw.htm

Thank you and have a nice day ms Aussie

JOE

Hi Joe&Gerald,

I only shoot in raw&jpeg format with histogram showing. What i was really asking was about manipulation of a photo. When does a photo stay a photo and not art. Was just interested in peoples views on this topic. When time allows i am going to start reading and doing more manipulation because i love some of the affects that are displayed on some of the image here in Rendo. Gorgeous and so imaginative. But if i do that will it remain a photo?

Chris:b_confused:

Oh! I was kinda lost now! But finally got your answer Christine :)

I would say yes and no, so to make it more easy, when you sell a manipulated shot, it would be called art piece! But if there is an online contest, lets say.. dark, glamoure or such things, you still can enter with your manipulated photo! Sigh! After all, manipulated or not, the photo while it was taken by a cam, no matter what you will do, it will remains a photograph! And both manipulated shots and/or as is shoots "Photographs" are ARTS!

Hope that made it clear Missy and will see your around

JOE

A good topic and one that has lots of answers, I am sure we will get lots here... I always use Raw for much the same reasons as Joe if you intend to sell your work many agents and printers dont like any manipulations whatsoever.. Photography is an Art form, so is the wonderful efforts of the skilled postworker, and many a mundane image can be transformed.. And there is also a good market for these images as well, more often as fineart prints

Interesting questions, Chris... You know, I was 'trained' as a graphic designer. One of our classes was called 'photographics' (not photography). The point of this class was to use photography as a starting point and do something creative with it afterwards. The class was given by one of our finest Belgian portrait and art photographers, Ronny Heirman. He was constantly pushing us to go 'beyond the barriers' of traditional photography. Mind you, digital photography didn't exist in those days... We used and invented special darkroom and reproduction techniques. To put it in the words of your question: we were taught to 'doodle'... I often ask myself this question: has anyone ever seen a movie or a video clip where the images weren't manipulated? I guess only news reports use unaltered footage (at best, that is). All the other stuff you see on television or in a movie theatre use manipulated images... from the weather forecast to a music show or a quiz program. And another question: let's say that you want a photograph of a face, but it has to be all in blue... Now would you go and buy blue lights or filters, or would you add the blue afterwards in Photoshop? Hats off to those who have the ability and resources to do that in-camera without manipulation afterwards... But what's the difference actually..? Many of the creative filter processes in image manipulation software are specifically based on traditional darkroom techniques... So, yes, I 'doodle', because I was taught to twenty years ago... but I don't doodle all the time. And I don't understand the question: "is it photography OR is it art?"...

Great topic Christine and yes, lots of different answers. I think it is pretty much agree that if you have the time, computer/card memory and inclination, shoot in RAW. You will have a higher quality image to work from and more flexibility as well. However, for most non-pro situations, high quality JPEGs are probably good enough. Like Geert, I was trained as a graphic designer (and a fine artist before that). We were always encouraged to "doodle", even by the photography professors. The maxium seemed to be, "Make the best possible image you can in-camera, but don't let that stifle your creativity." The photo was a jumping off point for the artist/photographer to give the image their own personal interpretation, which I find to be one of the most compelling elements of most photographs. You may see something in your own mind that the camera is not quite capable of capturing. I think of photographers as artists so personally think adjusting the final image to meet one's artistic vision is perfectly acceptable.

I guess TP has got the closest answer to what I would say, too in "Make the best possible image you can in-camera, but don't let that stifle your creativity." - If you are taking photographs but then having to resort to postwork to crop them, move the focus of the image around, straightne the image etc, then you need to practice your photography as an artform - and yes, I'd even be a purist so far as to say if something is blocking a part of your image, change your viewpoint.

BUT when you hit a point where you have an amazing image that is spoilt by something that is in the way, then certainly,  postworking it out doesn't detract from the purism.  That said, even I don't know where that boundry ends before it becomes non-photographic art and steps into other realms.  If people are looking at a photograph that was manipulated, but they don't know it was manipulated, does it count?!? lol

(",)

"If people are looking at a photograph that was manipulated, but they don't know it was manipulated, does it count?!?" Good point RB. I guess it would depend on the circumstances then, wouldn't it. ;o}

I manipulate, doodle, and experiment, lol.  Sometimes a lot.  Sometimes a little but almost always I do something.

I have a point and shoot camera and my skills are less than proficent with it so as has been stated by others - I do the best I can with the camera, then try to creatively improve the images with editing programs. My images come out of the camera as jpgs then I convert to tiff and work on them. I doubt the saved tiff image is a better image than the original jpg but by using tiff, i avoid pixilations that occur with multiple opening/editing/saving activities. I do notice that there are major file size differences between the different formats when saving the same image using them but I am not sure the images look different when viewed on the pc. Maybe printed versions would show whether or not the larger file size version (tiff) is better than the smaller file size version (jpg).

It may be unsupported but I often get the feeling that my images are more photo imagery than photography. but I have come to an acceptance that it doesn't really matter. I would like to think that a good image will be appreciated regardless of the particulars of how it was achieved.

My advice is that you experiment and see what happens. I highly recommend Paint Shop Pro 9 as  a user friendly, highly affordable,  high quality editing program. So there is my 2 cents worth.

Lee

Hi Chris,

There must be more than one way, no matter what subject you take, especially about art.  Having no professional photography background, I keep experimenting with the raw because I don't think any of my photos is perfect. And I feel excited at that! Moreover, there's no end to perfection, so it's a never ending process, especially about non-commercial projects, where you have to compromise. 

I hope I made it clear

Hugs   

Nikolay

hmmm.... good topic...
as a nonprofessional I was brought up with the idea, that a photo taken had to be "on the point" in composition, color etc. if considered to be art/professional. In my opinion this has changed a lot with digital photography and the great possibilities of enhancing digital photos with software. I guess in many cases you could not even tell, if a digital photo is an original or worked over.
When I began to take photos myself  I mainly took slides, so for me no chance to change anything, so I tried to be to "the point" as best as I could. This continued even into the digital age as a habit. It was only in the last six years when photo editing programs became manageble to me, that I started to work with my photos. Nevertheless I still try to make the best possible image and leave it unchanged. But having the possibilities myself now to make a cutout or deepen the colors or change the background is fascinating and opens a new range of creative possibilities.

Quote -
Please read about why shooting .RAW on this link: http://www.lonestardigital.com/shooting_raw.htm

Thank you and have a nice day ms Aussie

JOE

Thanks for the great link, it explains things quite nicely.

When a discussion comes up on the "great photographers", names like Adams and others appear.  Such "photographers of renown" did what in the darkroom?  Ahhh..perhaps doodled? I know their work is art and I don't need to know the exact doodling  done to produce the wonderful images.  To the world, such folks are "great photographers".

I do the best in camera I can at the time but "doodle" as needed within the honesty of the scene.  Sometimes, the photo is also only a part of a creative graphic effort..that is a different beastie.

I shoot raw for special shots and jpg when doing something simple like the Christmas meal and relatives, or a bunch of shots of a church function which are to be shown on the big screen once and not printed.  Subject determines the format for me.

TomDart.

To quote Ansel Adams...

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

and...

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."

and one from Edward Steichen...

* "No photographer is as good as the simplest camera."*

This is an age old discussion.. I've seen this same conversation go on in most of the forums here.. Terragen users have some REALLY strong opinions on this !!

One of my favorite music producers Eddie Kramer
said pretty much the same thing about recording music..
To paraphrase, if you need to go back and fix it, you did it wrong in the first place..

BTW, he was also a decent photographer as well..

http://www.kramerarchives.com/

My personal opinion..practice your craft, learn to take the best possible picture you can.

If you want to "doodle" then go for it..

How you feel about the end result is really all that matters..

Ask your self this question,
Why do we create art?

is it for the applause from the crowd?
is it to make people think?
is it to express an idea?
is it beacause you enjoy it?
is it because you have something to say?

Only YOU can answer that for yourself..

To, it's more about why art is created than how...

Let me disagree with what Eddy Kramer said regarding if you need to go back and fix it, you did it wrong in the first place. Art is always here and now, i.e. closely-knit with how you feel at a particular moment and time, and the author, as any other human, has a right to change their mind about what they have created or done.  We do not livde in the past or future.