Tag Archives: photographer

Commentary, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’

12 Comments

Read enough online stuff about photography and you eventually begin to recognize certain “common knowledge” assumptions about photography that are frequently repeated, quoted, and stated as truths. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are, at best, personal opinions rather than facts, and a good number are just plain wrong. I have a couple of ideas for a series of posts on this blog, and I’ve felt that occasionally dealing with some of these myths and platitudes might be one such thread. So, here goes — a new series: “Photographic Myths and Platitudes.”

I’ve seen writers attempt to draw distinctions between “photographers” and “photoshoppers” – in fact I just saw another today. The underlying assumption seems to be that if you are really a “photographer” you’ll be able to do everything perfectly in-camera and won’t have to do anything in the “post-processing” stage, and that “photoshopping” is a form of non-photographic cheating or tweaking that only has the purpose of making a poor photograph less poor. Further, quite a few who hold this view attempt to build their case on photographic history, often suggesting that “Great Photographer X” fully and accurately “pre-visualized” the image in its finished form, carefully calculated composition and exposure in such a way that the final print would be inevitable, pressed the shutter release, and captured a perfect image that could not be improved in any way by further work.

Of course, with the exception of a few genres of and approaches to photography, this is generally nonsense both as history and as a practical description of how photography is done. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’ →

Commentary, News, Photographers, Publications

First Light: Five Photographers Explore Yosemite’s Wilderness

Leave a comment

So, you like landscape photography, right? And you are aware that some of the most beautiful photographic subjects can be found in the back-country of California’s Yosemite National Park, right? And you very much enjoy looking through and absorbing the work of photographers who know the place especially well, right?

You need to pick up a copy of First Light: Five Photographers Explore Yosemite’s Wilderness, published by Heyday Press.

The book features the wonderful photography of a group of photographers whose experience in the park is extraordinary and varied: Charles Cramer, Karl Kroeber, Scot Miller, Mike Osborne, and Keith S. Walklet. Right now copies of the book autographed by all five photographers are available from the Ansel Adams Gallery.

(For the record, I have no financial interest in this book and if you purchase through the links in my post I receive no compensation from the sale. I just like the book and the photographers a lot and think you might, too!)

Ideas

What Does “Purist” Mean?

8 Comments

So, let’s say you happen to be spending some time in a popular place doing photography and other things. In the course of your day you wander down to a spot that is very popular with tourists, and you discover an interesting and impressive-looking gallery of photographs. You go inside and read about the photographer – a self-described “purist” who says the photographs show the scenes as they were at the time of the exposures and don’t use fancy and artificial post-processing.

But all but a few of the photographs look like the saturation slider in Photoshop was pushed up to about 100. (OK, I exaggerate… a bit! :-) Highlights in clouds and such are blown out. Shadows are blocked. And colors are pushed in odd and impossible directions.

You understand why such an approach is appealing to folks unfamiliar with fine photographic work, especially when the presentation and pricing of the prints screams “This is Great Photography!” But you’ve seen really, really fine photographs that did not depend on heavy-handed post-processing. In fact, among the photographs in this collection you see a few that take the high road and don’t go over the top, and which remind you of some of those other fine and subtle and sophisticated prints – and which even inspire you a bit.

The artist’s statement keeps coming back to you – the business about being a “purist” and about not post-processing and about presenting in the photographs an unadulterated and real vision of the original subjects.

What do you do? Do you get mad? Do you laugh? Do you try not to think about it? Something else?

Just wondering…

BTW: A few things for the record:

  • I am not criticizing any specific photographer, but rather thinking about an issue that we might all have to deal with.
  • You do not know what photographer (or “popular place!”) I might be writing about – and since the specifics don’t matter I won’t confirm or deny anyone’s guesses.
  • Consider the possibility that I might have just made up the whole story as a literary device for this post… :-)

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” (Heyday Books) is available directly from him.

G Dan Mitchell: Blog | Bluesky | Mastodon | Substack Notes | Flickr | Email


All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Ideas

Things that sometimes baffle me about photographers and photography

11 Comments

This is by no means a complete list, but inspired by seeing one of these oddities in a post earlier today I thought I’d write it up.

  • “Unboxing videos” of new cameras. Why would someone make a 5 or 10 minute video of the act of opening the box that their new camera came in and then lovingly taking out… the manual, the USB cables, the styrofoam inserts, the warranty card, and on and on and on – often with narration and sometimes even background music. Do people actually watch these?
  • Spending thousands and thousands of dollars on “the best” camera, lens, etc. when one isn’t really a photographer and doesn’t really make photographs all that much and perhaps only shares the odd jpg or letter size print with friends and family.
  • Getting caught up in the “brand wars” between manufacturers like Nikon and Canon. They both make really, really fine equipment. Both are used by a lot of excellent photographers. Really wonderful photographs are produced using both systems every day.
  • Assuming that there is only one best “whatever” in photography. There is no such thing as “The Best… camera, lens, tripod, photographer, memory card, place to shoot, time of day to shoot, filter, brand, store, paper…” First, there are many good versions of each. Second, what is best for one person may not be best for another.
  • Obsessing over very tiny and insignificant equipment “flaws” or differences. The classic is, of course, choosing a less functional lens over a more functional lens because the less functional lens might measure .001% better resolution at 100% magnification on the test bench. Related are obsessions over very tiny differences in noise in digital cameras, concern about small difference in camera burst rate, worry that your lens might vignette some…
  • Thinking that you have to “take a position” on zooms versus primes. (Zooms and primes are both great, and you have my permission to use both… ;-)
  • Secret shooting locations – unless the area is fragile and too much use would damage it, if ten good photographers shoot it you’ll get ten different interpretations.

Anyone else?