and who the hell are you?
are you the police of photos?
go around and tell everyone that theyre doing it wrong because theres a way to do it?

do you lay down the laws?
youre so full of yourself.

depends on your definition.
everyone has their own opinions on what is good and what is bad.
and even if 99.999% of the people think something is god awful, theres still a .001% that think its amazing. still a percent and theyre still people with ideas and thoughts
and opinions.


and how would you know?
have you asked every good photographer?
or any photographer in general?

Are you saying it's good that people are lazy and they shouldn't bother doing things properly?

I don't know about you, but I get a sense of satisfaction in doing something properly. A lot of great photographs aren't spur of the moment things, artists have spent a lot of time thinking how to carry it out effectively.



My definition of what?
I'm sorry to break it to you, but a lot of people are morons who's opinion are worthless.
I've spoken to quite a few professional photographers and artists, my sister's currently going out with one and I spend a lot of time talking to him about stuff like this when we're at the pub.

This post was edited by Veilside on May 27 2009 11:33am

I think that although you can take something beautiful and make it even more beautiful, to be able to show your pictures unedted and have people say oooohhh and aaahhh, takes talent.

If you need to edit your pictures a LOT to get jaw droppers, then your talent will be more in computer than in photography...
I use the term computer cause I don't know exactly what photoshop and other means of editing do, never seen it and never used it.

Both take talent, but in different areas, and you need an artistic mind to get beautiful results on either way

I hope I'm making some sense here.....

Also guys, please keep your comments objective without attacking other users....

This post was edited by MotherOfTwo on May 27 2009 11:34am

Is photography an art? or a process?
i'd say photography is an art, why shouldnt someone be able to alter art to make it more expressive, or to create or remove imperfections?
isn't the end goal to create something that is beautiful?


Why are people even arguing about this? Professional pride doesn't apply here

This post was edited by elslapnut on May 27 2009 11:35am

i thought you said it takes hours to edit photos?
if people would spend hours thats being lazy?
even though you are wrong about that and it varies, probably because you have no clue.


how is it improper?
your own opinion.
also you cant say whats right or wrong. you dont make the rules. no one does.


thats just your own hypothesis.
a lot of people run into great ideas and results on accident.
whats the point in exploring and trying things if its just better to think it out or follow the plan?

O_o" How does changing hues and saturation automatically make a shot mediocre and require hours of extra work? Ofcourse it's still photography.

@Veil
That's true ofcourse, however it often saves time not doing it that way. It's also a lot harder as often when you take shots of wildlife, one shot may have great composition but contain fringing or weird hues and I don't see any point discarding an image like that when you could just spend a few minutes tweaking the .raw.

@Everyone
I'm gonna leave this discussion alone now x3 I'm not looking for a flamewar and excuse me if I somehow offended someone. Imo to sum this topic up: Everybody has their own specific ways of photographing and their own interpretations of what photography really is. Although you may or may not agree with somebody elses views on it, you should respect them, as there's no denial in the fact that photography has evolved (and therefore been interpreted differently) now that digital is all the rave.

Indeed, anyone can stumble upon a good shot every now and again, the true distinction of a great artist is being able to make everything look good.

You do need a certain amount of creativity to do art related.



Photography is both an art and a process. I think there's a clear distinction between photography and photo manipulation, which is the point I'm trying to make. Most of the time, given correct equipment and talent, you don't need to edit your photos whatsoever.
As I've said earlier, there are plenty of ways to make sure you get the result you want by using the right equipment, be it the right lens, filter, camera settings, lighting, etc.

why do you think so highly of yourself?