Technology is replacing the true photographer.

Are you serious?  Tools do not replace craft.

The true photographer does not simply take a picture any more.

.... sometimes.

The true photographer sets up the image, takes it, processes it, etc..etc..

Which is not enabled by technology.

Now, the only thing left to do is have a vision and shoot.

Which is involved setting up the image, taking it, (having part of) processing it, etc..etc..

No processing needed (unless you want to photoshop it)

What?!?   By stating this as an absolute you are obviously not aware to how much editing (darkroom or photoshop) occurs in professionally produced images.

No lighting needed (because the cameras are becoming self adjusting)

Are you completely serious?  No lighting needed, well then most photographers are wasting all their time and money with expensive lighting rigs and rentals.  This is the most ignorant statement I have read today.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
No lighting needed (because the cameras are becoming self adjusting)

wow...that is the truly the dumbest thing i have ever read.

maybe in your videogame world, not in my real world.   

Really Steve?
Perhaps you should read the reviews in Photography magazine.

Then again, Perhaps they are dumb too.

ok, for the sake of arguement here - how can i adjust my camera to give me a good wraparound key light, a nicely feathered fill and a hair light to pop the subject out of the background when i am shooting without my strobes?

please link the photography article.  i am interested in reading it.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I am not changing my argument.
Technology is replacing the true photographer.
The true photographer does not simply take a picture any more.
The true photographer sets up the image, takes it, processes it, etc..etc..
Now, the only thing left to do is have a vision and shoot.
No processing needed (unless you want to photoshop it)
No lighting needed (because the cameras are becoming self adjusting)
Do not assume things.
I never said creativity was not needed.
You assumed that fact.

Wow, you are so fantastically deluded it's just mind-boggling. I don't really know what else to say, except, uh... good luck with that!

Posted by Ty Simone: 
From Photography Magazine on the EoS Camera as compared to conventional film.

This says it all IMO:

"I’d say it’s settled. ISO 100 color negative film may capture a bit more detail than the 1Ds Mark II under ideal lighting conditions, with a great lens, and on a supersteady tripod. But for its better color and lower noise, the “Color Image Quality” award goes to Canon’s $8,000 digital SLR. Seeing is believing…or is it vice-versa?"

The Eos has Automatic light balancing, Automatic Color Balancing, and jitter control (so you do not need a super sturdy tripod)

The image taken is Equal to a high quality 100 Iso film image.


"In real-world shooting, you’d barely notice a resolution difference in images captured by both systems, especially if you were handholding the camera. However, color negative film still captures a better image when overexposed due to its wider exposure range. In its favor, the EOS-1Ds Mark II gives you several stops of exposure leeway when shooting in RAW mode, and also lets you adjust ISO, white balance, sharpness, saturation, and contrast in the camera or afterward when processing RAW files."

The complete canon system, End to end, Allows anyone to pick up the camera, Take a picture of what they want to see, adjust it until it is perfect in their eyes, and print it out on quality paper.

Could someone do that 20 years ago?
10 years ago?
2 years ago?

Not unless they were a professional photographer.

what does that have to do with your statement that no lighting is needed? 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
No lighting needed (because the cameras are becoming self adjusting)

wow...that is the truly the dumbest thing i have ever read.

maybe in your videogame world, not in my real world.   

Really Steve?
Perhaps you should read the reviews in Photography magazine.

Then again, Perhaps they are dumb too.

ok, for the sake of arguement here - how can i adjust my camera to give me a good wraparound key light, a nicely feathered fill and a hair light to pop the subject out of the background when i am shooting without my strobes?

please link the photography article.  i am interested in reading it.

Photoshop, Knockout 2.
You are talking effects that can be reproduced in photoshop.

I was referring to lighing balance, but still....

Posted by Ty Simone: 
From Photography Magazine on the EoS Camera as compared to conventional film.

This says it all IMO:

etc...etc....

You are SO taking that little aricle out of context.  Amazing.  I question that you can comprehend what is being said in the article.

Posted by steve prue: 
what does that have to do with your statement that no lighting is needed?   

Steve,
You can shoot the image in natural light, use the balancing features of the camera, then put it into photoshop, click wham bang, have the effect you wanted.

Before, you needed lighting, hence every studio has studio lighting now.

I can take an image with my camera in natural light, and with a minor adjustment, have the lighting balanced as if I had studio lights.

You can not do that with film, unless you are over exposing.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

I was referring to lighing balance, but still....

maybe you should read what you post before getting all huffy when people question your comments.

dude - you made a stupid comment, i called you out on it, you were proved wrong, take it in stride.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I can take an image with my camera in natural light, and with a minor adjustment, have the lighting balanced as if I had studio lights.

Okay, prove it. Go take a photo of someone out in full mid-day sunlight, bring it into your computer and make it look like it was shot with a classic 3-point portrait lighting setup.

If you had at least one competently lit shot in your portfolio I might buy this, but as it is... you're going to have to create a compelling example.

Posted by Sam Bennett: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I am not changing my argument.
Technology is replacing the true photographer.
The true photographer does not simply take a picture any more.
The true photographer sets up the image, takes it, processes it, etc..etc..
Now, the only thing left to do is have a vision and shoot.
No processing needed (unless you want to photoshop it)
No lighting needed (because the cameras are becoming self adjusting)
Do not assume things.
I never said creativity was not needed.
You assumed that fact.

Wow, you are so fantastically deluded it's just mind-boggling. I don't really know what else to say, except, uh... good luck with that!

Deluded?
Really?
I am amazed at how close-minded you are.
Then again, Maybe youa re a GWC wannabe :-P

It is simply.
Technology has gotten to the point now that "Point and Shoot" is not a bad thing.
The Camera I sited allows anyone to point and shoot an excellent image, and add in the power of photoshop, you do not even need a special lens anymore.

All that is left is the creativity piece.
And creativity is much more abundant than you seem to think.

20 years ago, I could picture a creative image in my mind, but I doubt I could get it on film.
18 years ago, I was just getting to the point where I had images worth keeping.
I also became a photojournalist (tdy assignment) for the US Army.
I had a friend, Lance Abernathy, who was an incredible photographer. He could do wonders with the camera.
He processed his own stuff he'd take hours on end prepping and then shooting.

Now, with today's technology, the only thing I have to do is capture the image.

The camera makes sure all the other things that Lance and a bunch of other people went to school to learn, is taken care of.
You can not overexpose or underexpose the image accidently.
You can not have a bad lighting situation that will ruin the image because you screwed up on your readings.
The camera self adjusts to it.

That is the point I am making here.
All the little things that made a pro photographer a pro (EXCEPT THE ARTISTIC CONCEPT) is now obsolete by technology.

Posted by Sam Bennett: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I can take an image with my camera in natural light, and with a minor adjustment, have the lighting balanced as if I had studio lights.

Okay, prove it. Go take a photo of someone out in full mid-day sunlight, bring it into your computer and make it look like it was shot with a classic 3-point portrait lighting setup.

If you had at least one competently lit shot in your portfolio I might buy this, but as it is... you're going to have to create a compelling example.

Seconded.  If you can provide one decent compelling example of how to completely recreate 3D lighting in a 2D graphics environment then I'll buy it.

You should be able to "click wham bang" this in about an hour ehh? 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

I was referring to lighing balance, but still....

maybe you should read what you post before getting all huffy when people question your comments.

dude - you made a stupid comment, i called you out on it, you were proved wrong, take it in stride.

Steve, I beg to differ. Photoshop does all that.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

I was referring to lighing balance, but still....

maybe you should read what you post before getting all huffy when people question your comments.

dude - you made a stupid comment, i called you out on it, you were proved wrong, take it in stride.

Steve, I beg to differ. Photoshop does all that.

Hey Ty *waves* tell me specifically how photoshop renders 3 dimensional effect on a 2d image plane?  I would really like to know.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

I was referring to lighing balance, but still....

maybe you should read what you post before getting all huffy when people question your comments.

dude - you made a stupid comment, i called you out on it, you were proved wrong, take it in stride.

Steve, I beg to differ. Photoshop does all that.

why are you begging to differ when you were backpedaling about saying you were talking about lighting balance instead of lighting in general? you also just explained that you can do this in photoshop, not in the "self-adjusting" camera like you argued earlier.  figure out your line of attack before posting pls.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 
for who?, i have been setting up my lights, measuring and adjusting the lights for the shawdow ratio i want with my light meter, setting my camera to the light meter reading and composing as i have done for almost 25 years..

and i shoot wit a D1X that cant aticipate the flash going off in a program mode..it has to be shot manually..same with my F100..you have to know what your doing..
there is no smart camera that do what i do..or gwc with a P&S that can either

And I am saying with the new line of cameras coming out, I can duplicate all that without the hassle.

you flatter yourself...you not that good with photoshop...

Posted by Sam Bennett: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I can take an image with my camera in natural light, and with a minor adjustment, have the lighting balanced as if I had studio lights.

Okay, prove it. Go take a photo of someone out in full mid-day sunlight, bring it into your computer and make it look like it was shot with a classic 3-point portrait lighting setup.

If you had at least one competently lit shot in your portfolio I might buy this, but as it is... you're going to have to create a compelling example.

You are so right! I am just a hack.
I suck at photography.

I also do not have the Eos camera.
I also never claimed to be a professional photography.
But for all the inability I seem to have here, I am published.
I have my own book forthcoming as well.
But it has more to do with my vision than with my images.

Want me to post an image that is a good photographic image done in digital and lighted correctly? (photoshop enhanced lighting?) Fine.
I can do that.

Posted by rwspangler: 
Ty's work says it all!! :-D

Yep - Where does it say I am professional again?

ok....

Posted by theda: 
Even I can tell the highlights are way blown out and because there's no fill, there's so much shadow under the eyes even the child look like she has serious eye bags.

And I'm a mere model.

And terrible .jpg compression to boot.

Posted by Ty Simone: Want me to post an image that is a good photographic image done in digital and lighted correctly? (photoshop enhanced lighting?) Fine.
I can do that.

CAn you?
Where is it?

Posted by Myopic Earache: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by steve prue: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

I was referring to lighing balance, but still....

maybe you should read what you post before getting all huffy when people question your comments.

dude - you made a stupid comment, i called you out on it, you were proved wrong, take it in stride.

Steve, I beg to differ. Photoshop does all that.

Hey Ty *waves* tell me specifically how photoshop renders 3 dimensional effect on a 2d image plane?  I would really like to know.

Deep Paint - Dynamic 3D Lighting

3D lighting and texture control lets you view realistic lighting from any angle. Set spotlights to cast shadows over Deep Paint's 3D painting effects.


You should check it out some time.

Photoshop Plug-in
Deep Paint includes a companion plug-in for Photoshop.

Although Deep Paint may be used as a stand-alone program, it is designed to complement Photoshop's powerful editing and image processing capabilities by adding artistic tools. Deep Paint complements Photoshop in the following ways:

Fast 2-way workflow between Photoshop and Deep Paint
Same layer concepts, including layer export and import
Color pickers and swatches work in a similar way and support Photoshop .ACO color swatches
Same hot keys as Photoshop wherever possible
Deep Paint supports both RGB and CMYK images

Use other Photoshop compatible plug-ins from within Deep Paint. Note: Not all Photoshop plug-ins are supported


Next Question please!

Posted by theda: 
Even I can tell the highlights are way blown out and because there's no fill, there's so much shadow under the eyes even the child look like she has serious eye bags.

And I'm a mere model.

ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!

I did nothing to it.

I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by Sam Bennett: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I can take an image with my camera in natural light, and with a minor adjustment, have the lighting balanced as if I had studio lights.

Okay, prove it. Go take a photo of someone out in full mid-day sunlight, bring it into your computer and make it look like it was shot with a classic 3-point portrait lighting setup.

If you had at least one competently lit shot in your portfolio I might buy this, but as it is... you're going to have to create a compelling example.

You are so right! I am just a hack.
I suck at photography.

Finally, something I can agree with.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I also do not have the Eos camera.

Well, I do. And I can tell you several things:
* No EOS camera has built-in image stabilization.
* While the auto-exposure on these cameras is quite good and can give you consistent results if used properly, if you shoot a poorly lit subject, it is still poorly lit.
* There is very little difference in the "lighting" that the $800 Rebel can capture versus the $8,000 1Ds. You are giving attributes to cameras which simply do not exist.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I also never claimed to be a professional photography.
But for all the inability I seem to have here, I am published.
I have my own book forthcoming as well.
But it has more to do with my vision than with my images.

So what? Crap gets "published" all the time. That doesn't change the fact that it's crap, and in the context of this conversation it is completely meaningless.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Want me to post an image that is a good photographic image done in digital and lighted correctly? (photoshop enhanced lighting?) Fine.
I can do that.

Thank you for proving conclusively that you absolute, positively have no clue what you're talking about. That is a poorly lit photo. It will always be a poorly lit photo. Even if you could fix it, it says absolute nothing about your initial assertion. Having some teenage photoshop hack massage that into a usable image will take far longer than it would have taken a professional photographer to simply setup the shot correctly to begin with.

Quit while you're behind.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!

I did nothing to it.

I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

And yet, it's still a piece o' crap.

Posted by Sam Bennett: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by Sam Bennett: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I can take an image with my camera in natural light, and with a minor adjustment, have the lighting balanced as if I had studio lights.

Okay, prove it. Go take a photo of someone out in full mid-day sunlight, bring it into your computer and make it look like it was shot with a classic 3-point portrait lighting setup.

If you had at least one competently lit shot in your portfolio I might buy this, but as it is... you're going to have to create a compelling example.

You are so right! I am just a hack.
I suck at photography.

Finally, something I can agree with.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I also do not have the Eos camera.

Well, I do. And I can tell you several things:
* No EOS camera has built-in image stabilization.
* While the auto-exposure on these cameras is quite good and can give you consistent results if used properly, if you shoot a poorly lit subject, it is still poorly lit.
* There is very little difference in the "lighting" that the $800 Rebel can capture versus the $8,000 1Ds. You are given attributes to cameras which simply do not exist.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
I also never claimed to be a professional photography.
But for all the inability I seem to have here, I am published.
I have my own book forthcoming as well.
But it has more to do with my vision than with my images.

So what? Crap gets "published" all the time. That doesn't change the fact that it's crap, and in the context of this conversation it is completely meaningless.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Want me to post an image that is a good photographic image done in digital and lighted correctly? (photoshop enhanced lighting?) Fine.
I can do that.

Thank you for proving conclusively that you absolute, positively have no clue what you're talking about. That is a poorly lit photo. It will always be a poorly lit photo. Even if you could fix it, it says absolute nothing about your initial assertion. Having some teenage photoshop hack massage that into a usable image will take far longer than it would have taken a professional photographer to simply setup the shot correctly to begin with.

Quit while you're behind.

READ ABOVE!

Now, Since that professional photographer, and he is professional, produced that image, And I quoted you photography magazine's opinion on the work, I have to wonder, Where do you get off on claiming I suck?

Behind? I think not.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by theda: 
Even I can tell the highlights are way blown out and because there's no fill, there's so much shadow under the eyes even the child look like she has serious eye bags.
And I'm a mere model.

ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!
I did nothing to it.
I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

the image has been manipulated..so you picked a bad example to try and trick us with...

Posted by theda: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!

I did nothing to it.

I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

And yet, it's still a piece o' crap. 

Yes it did.
And how quickly they attributed it to an amateur.
But then again, it is all a matter of opinion I guess.

These so high and mighty perfect photographers....

I am a mere artist.
And they slam me. :-)
Got to love it.

Posted by Ty Simone: 
READ ABOVE!

Now, Since that professional photographer, and he is professional, produced that image, And I quoted you photography magazine's opinion on the work, I have to wonder, Where do you get off on claiming I suck?

Behind? I think not.

Huh? There are professionals that produce bad photos all over the place, what is your point? Which article are you referring to? The one on the 1Ds that you completely misunderstood?

You've completely ignored our challenge. If you'd like me to take a photo with my magical EOS out in full sunlight and turn it over to you for the challenge, I'm game. Do you want it in RAW or JPEG?

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by theda: 
Even I can tell the highlights are way blown out and because there's no fill, there's so much shadow under the eyes even the child look like she has serious eye bags.
And I'm a mere model.

ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!
I did nothing to it.
I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

the image has been manipulated..so you picked a bad example to try and trick us with...

Manipulated?
It was cropped and placed on a site.
How did I manipulate it?

Please - Move along now.

Hey Ty *waves* tell me specifically how photoshop renders 3 dimensional effect on a 2d image plane?  I would really like to know.

Deep Paint - Dynamic 3D Lighting

etc...etc...

Next Question please!

I stand corrected, I am sure every image worked on in Deep Paint will offer the ability to map objects and render them with different light sources.  Sure, and really man, how much time does it take to map an image?  Hours.  For what?  A ridiculous CG looking rendering which would fail to fool a trained monkey?

It is much more of a hassle with much lower quality results.

Posted by Ty Simone:Unlike most other Art, Photography is easily duplicated by technology.

What used to be a long and arduous process can now be accomplished in mere seconds. (snap the picture to print)

So, all that is left in photography once you remove all the gizmo and gadgets that are being replaced by technology, is the ability to capture the image you want.

Any GWC can do that with modern technology to the point that it is pleasing to a group of people.

If you read the thread here about how many people are actually self taught, it leads to that point...

what if you were self taught BEFORE digital cameras and photoshop?

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Yes it did.
And how quickly they attributed it to an amateur.
But then again, it is all a matter of opinion I guess.

No one attributed it to an amatuer. We just said it was lousy.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by theda: 
Even I can tell the highlights are way blown out and because there's no fill, there's so much shadow under the eyes even the child look like she has serious eye bags.
And I'm a mere model.

ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!
I did nothing to it.
I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

the image has been manipulated..so you picked a bad example to try and trick us with...

Manipulated?
It was cropped and placed on a site.
How did I manipulate it?
Please - Move along now.

wow i didnt say you manipulated it..i said it was manipulated..the contrast varies throughout the image..it not consistant..someone has lessend the contrast on the center girl..to cmpensate for no fill..it wasn't done well..

Posted by Myopic Earache: 

Hey Ty *waves* tell me specifically how photoshop renders 3 dimensional effect on a 2d image plane?  I would really like to know.

Deep Paint - Dynamic 3D Lighting

etc...etc...

Next Question please!

I stand corrected, I am sure every image worked on in Deep Paint will offer the ability to map objects and render them with different light sources.  Sure, and really man, how much time does it take to map an image?  Hours.  For what?  A ridiculous CG looking rendering which would fail to fool a trained monkey?

It is much more of a hassle with much lower quality results.

I would estimate propably a few hours to set up the presets on it, After that it becomes easy.

However, Given the fact that technology is progressing so fast, perhaps 2 years from now, maybe less, there will be so many presets to this that you can simply click click click and have the lighting done how you want.

Look at how much PS has evolved over the years.

Posted by theda: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
Yes it did.
And how quickly they attributed it to an amateur.
But then again, it is all a matter of opinion I guess.

No one attributed it to an amatuer. We just said it was lousy.

Yeah Theda, They attributed it to me :-)

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Posted by theda: 
Even I can tell the highlights are way blown out and because there's no fill, there's so much shadow under the eyes even the child look like she has serious eye bags.
And I'm a mere model.

ROFL! - That is a cropped image from a professional Photographer's Website!
I did nothing to it.
I am so impressed that you pros are so professional!

the image has been manipulated..so you picked a bad example to try and trick us with...

Manipulated?
It was cropped and placed on a site.
How did I manipulate it?
Please - Move along now.

wow i didnt say you manipulated it..i said it was manipulated..the contrast varies throughout the image..it not consistant..someone has lessend the contrast on the center girl..to cmpensate for no fill..it wasn't done well..

My Apologies Doug, I misunderstood and thought you were claiming I manipulated.

I am sorry.

Posted by Ty Simone: 

Yeah Theda, They attributed it to me :-)

No they didn't.