A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Just a question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 13th 18, 07:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Just a question

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Skills can be become outdated, and no longer needed. Sometimes a
skill can be used in different ways and still serve a purpose even
when something replaces the major usage of the skill.


Lots of skills have fallen away from photography, developing film,
light metering, manual focusing just to name a few. With new tools
that replace or do these things for you and with a better end
result, the skill is obsolete.


That - developing film - is getting close to the heart of my
question. There are film shooters around who develop their own film.
That means of producing a photograph is obsolete when you use the
"outmoded" definition of "obsolete".


Just as there will be people that use older techniques to edit images in the
future as well. Film shooters today are scarce at best

Then why do they do it? The finished product is not going to
available quicker, it's not going to be a better finished product,
and it requires chemicals and equipment.


As a hobby, for nostalgic reasons, or they like the handiwork really. Just
like some people build their own kitchen tables instead of buying them from
IKEA.

The answer has to be "pride of accomplishment" or something of that
nature. The quick and easy route of digital photography doesn't
appeal to them. They like working with the skills they've developed
(!) over the years.


Of course, but there is a difference between building your own table or
developing your film versus using a light meter or copying and pasting image
region and meticulously editing it to fit.

For developing film, there is no automatic process that does it for you - at
least not available for home use. So if you ave a developed photograph,
there is only one way you could have arrived at that.

When you meticulously use your editing skill to edit a photograph and the
end result is worse than what could be done with the click of a button, I
don't really think there is a sense of pride in that.

Now, if your manual workflow - while harder and slower - produces a *better*
result than the automated one, then there is a different story. When someone
tries to replicate your manual work with an automated function and it turns
out worse, then there is still "pride" to feel for that manual workflow. But
there are so many areas of image editing where the automated functions
produce way better result than the older manual ones.

Sandman:
So the question is - if the end result is better and more
importantly; faster and more efficient, is there any value to the
skill in itself, or was it just needed because there was no better
way to do it before?


Yeah, I'd say there is a "value" to some obsolete skills. Personal
satisfaction counts as a value in my mind.


Sure, but most skills are acquired to be used professionally, and an
employer that sees you using outdated, slow and inefficient methods will not
be pleased. Or rather, an employer that sees a younger less skilled person
getting things done faster and with a better end result - then that personal
satisfaction isn't worth much.

--
Sandman
  #22  
Old September 13th 18, 07:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Just a question

In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
Skills can be become outdated, and no longer needed. Sometimes a
skill can be used in different ways and still serve a purpose even
when something replaces the major usage of the skill.


Lots of skills have fallen away from photography, developing film,
light metering, manual focusing just to name a few. With new tools
that replace or do these things for you and with a better end
result, the skill is obsolete.


Developing film hasn't fallen away from those who still shoot film.


But it has "fallen away" as a means to produce photographs, when looking
generally. Just because there are "some" that still do it doesn't matter.
Developed photographs would be such a small portion of all photographs it
would be hard to even use fractions to express it :-D

Perhaps many users find the results of auto-focus to be superior to
their ability to manual focus, but that isn't universal.


No, but the photographers that prefers to do things manually is such a small
minority that they don't matter statistically.

In fact, except for simple scenes, manual focus can be faster and
more accurate.


For video, yes. Pulling focus is a skill. For todays modern still cameras,
focusing is so lightning fast and accurate that there are few scenarios where
manual focusing is needed for technical reasons.

The same can be said for metering; how one wants the
scene to appear is subjective, and one with the requisite skills can
often make the decisions to accomplish that without chimping or
taking a hundred shots.


Metering was essential in the analog world, in the digital world of RAW, the
cameras automatic metering and the dynamic range of the sensor renders manual
metering unneeded.

Sandman:
So the question is - if the end result is better and more
importantly; faster and more efficient, is there any value to the
skill in itself, or was it just needed because there was no better
way to do it before? "Better" is subjective; did one get the
result they were after or not?


Faster and more efficient depends on the skills of the users. If one
takes 100 shots of a scene, at some point any time saved shooting
will be more than offset during editing, and even then they may not
get what they were after.


But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post-
processing, but editing.

--
Sandman
  #23  
Old September 13th 18, 07:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Just a question

On Sep 12, 2018, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In , Tony Cooper wrote:


Yeah, I'd say there is a "value" to some obsolete skills. Personal
satisfaction counts as a value in my mind.


Sure, but most skills are acquired to be used professionally, and an
employer that sees you using outdated, slow and inefficient methods will not
be pleased. Or rather, an employer that sees a younger less skilled person
getting things done faster and with a better end result - then that personal
satisfaction isn't worth much.


Today’s employer is more than likely going to use robotics on his production
line than skilled artisans. The employees with skills in need of development are
the ones maintaining those robots. Today there are even some types of surgery
which are performed better, and safer with surgical robots than a surgeon who
has years of developed skill behind him/her.

https://www.massdevice.com/11-surgical-robotics-companies-you-need-to-know/2/

  #24  
Old September 13th 18, 08:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Just a question

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

On Sep 12, 2018, Sandman wrote (in
):


Andreas Skitsnack:
Yeah, I'd say there is a "value" to some obsolete skills.
Personal satisfaction counts as a value in my mind.


Sandman:
Sure, but most skills are acquired to be used professionally, and
an employer that sees you using outdated, slow and inefficient
methods will not be pleased. Or rather, an employer that sees a
younger less skilled person getting things done faster and with a
better end result - then that personal satisfaction isn't worth
much.


Today’s employer is more than likely going to use robotics on his
production line than skilled artisans. The employees with skills in
need of development are the ones maintaining those robots. Today
there are even some types of surgery which are performed better, and
safer with surgical robots than a surgeon who has years of developed
skill behind him/her.


https://www.massdevice.com/11-surgic...s-you-need-to-

know/2

I thought we were talking about photo editors? :-D

--
Sandman
  #25  
Old September 13th 18, 08:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Just a question

On Sep 13, 2018, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:

On Sep 12, 2018, Sandman wrote (in
):


Andreas Skitsnack:
Yeah, I'd say there is a "value" to some obsolete skills.
Personal satisfaction counts as a value in my mind.

Sandman:
Sure, but most skills are acquired to be used professionally, and
an employer that sees you using outdated, slow and inefficient
methods will not be pleased. Or rather, an employer that sees a
younger less skilled person getting things done faster and with a
better end result - then that personal satisfaction isn't worth
much.


Today’s employer is more than likely going to use robotics on his
production line than skilled artisans. The employees with skills in
need of development are the ones maintaining those robots. Today
there are even some types of surgery which are performed better, and
safer with surgical robots than a surgeon who has years of developed
skill behind him/her.


https://www.massdevice.com/11-surgical-robotics-companies-you-need-to-know/2

I thought we were talking about photo editors? :-D


Well that, and how advancements in technology have changed our thinking in all
things from photography to manufacturing cars, and clothing, to surgery. To keep
things inline with what this discussion has been about, consider the
advancements in *Artificial Intelligence* (AI) applied to photography post
processing with software such as Photolemur, and in a lesser way, the use of AI
in Luminar.

https://photolemur.com/preorder3

https://skylum.com/luminar

  #26  
Old September 13th 18, 01:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Just a question

On 9/13/2018 2:32 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
Skills can be become outdated, and no longer needed. Sometimes a
skill can be used in different ways and still serve a purpose even
when something replaces the major usage of the skill.


Lots of skills have fallen away from photography, developing film,
light metering, manual focusing just to name a few. With new tools
that replace or do these things for you and with a better end
result, the skill is obsolete.


Developing film hasn't fallen away from those who still shoot film.


But it has "fallen away" as a means to produce photographs, when looking
generally. Just because there are "some" that still do it doesn't matter.
Developed photographs would be such a small portion of all photographs it
would be hard to even use fractions to express it :-D

Perhaps many users find the results of auto-focus to be superior to
their ability to manual focus, but that isn't universal.


No, but the photographers that prefers to do things manually is such a small
minority that they don't matter statistically.

Really? I haven't seen such statistics... where are they? If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images I'd
agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".

In fact, except for simple scenes, manual focus can be faster and
more accurate.


For video, yes. Pulling focus is a skill. For todays modern still cameras,
focusing is so lightning fast and accurate that there are few scenarios where
manual focusing is needed for technical reasons.

If what one is shooting doesn't depend positioning, I consider that a
"simple scene", which as nothing to do with video. For scenes that use
atypical framing, autofocus can be a PITA. For those shooting fast
action scenes, autofocus can be a help.

The same can be said for metering; how one wants the
scene to appear is subjective, and one with the requisite skills can
often make the decisions to accomplish that without chimping or
taking a hundred shots.


Metering was essential in the analog world, in the digital world of RAW, the
cameras automatic metering and the dynamic range of the sensor renders manual
metering unneeded.

Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all that is
needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the subtleties of a
difficult scene.

Sandman:
So the question is - if the end result is better and more
importantly; faster and more efficient, is there any value to the
skill in itself, or was it just needed because there was no better
way to do it before?


Neil:
"Better" is subjective; did one get the
result they were after or not?

Faster and more efficient depends on the skills of the users. If one
takes 100 shots of a scene, at some point any time saved shooting
will be more than offset during editing, and even then they may not
get what they were after.


But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post-
processing, but editing.

Time is wasted if one has to select from 100 shots vs. 1 or 2 shots of a
scene, which is editing, not post-processing.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #27  
Old September 13th 18, 01:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Just a question

Neil:
If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images I'd
agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".


Not even the professional who snagged a beautiful TIME magazine cover
with an iPhone? Or the videographer who won an Oscar for a iPhone
movie? The notion that "photographers" don't use iPhones is obsolete,
like saying that "travelers" don't use motorized vehicles. Such an
attitude condemns you to be left standing in history's dust.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #28  
Old September 13th 18, 02:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Just a question

On 9/13/2018 8:45 AM, Davoud wrote:
Neil:
If you're
referring to people who primarily use their phones to capture images I'd
agree, but I wouldn't call them "photographers".


Not even the professional who snagged a beautiful TIME magazine cover
with an iPhone? Or the videographer who won an Oscar for a iPhone
movie? The notion that "photographers" don't use iPhones is obsolete,
like saying that "travelers" don't use motorized vehicles. Such an
attitude condemns you to be left standing in history's dust.

I didn't say, nor even imply that photographers never use their phones
to capture images...the word "primarily" has a definition, after all.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #29  
Old September 13th 18, 02:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Just a question

On 13 Sep 2018 06:32:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post-
processing, but editing.


That depends on what you feel the topic is. That was not the topic of
the original post. It may be the topic of what was added in responses
to the original post.

Saving time is a consideration in employing the new PS features, but
the consideration I was asking about is more along the lines of "You
don't need to hone your skills in doing this because it can now be
done automatically."

There's a similar example in both LR and PS: Auto as opposed to
tweaking the sliders, adjusting the Curve, or using any individual
adjustment.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #30  
Old September 13th 18, 03:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Just a question

In article , Neil
wrote:

Skills can be become outdated, and no longer needed. Sometimes a skill can
be
used in different ways and still serve a purpose even when something
replaces
the major usage of the skill.

Lots of skills have fallen away from photography, developing film, light
metering, manual focusing just to name a few. With new tools that replace or
do these things for you and with a better end result, the skill is obsolete.


Developing film hasn't fallen away from those who still shoot film.


very few people still shoot film. almost none, in fact.

Perhaps many users find the results of auto-focus to be superior to
their ability to manual focus, but that isn't universal. In fact, except
for simple scenes, manual focus can be faster and more accurate.


nope. autofocus is faster and more accurate than any human could ever
possibly hope to do in almost every case, particularly when tracking
moving subjects.

The
same can be said for metering; how one wants the scene to appear is
subjective, and one with the requisite skills can often make the
decisions to accomplish that without chimping or taking a hundred shots.


autoexposure does not prevent anyone from making decisions.

So the question is - if the end result is better and more importantly;
faster
and more efficient, is there any value to the skill in itself, or was it
just
needed because there was no better way to do it before?
"Better" is subjective; did one get the result they were after or not?

Faster and more efficient depends on the skills of the users. If one
takes 100 shots of a scene, at some point any time saved shooting will
be more than offset during editing, and even then they may not get what
they were after.


anyone who takes 100 shots hoping that one will turn out good is not
relying on their own skills and would greatly benefit from technology
to help them.

These are just a few reasons that I see distinct differences between the
kinds of users in terms of technology "replacing" skills.


the difference is that some people fear technology while others embrace
it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Rôgêr Digital Photography 0 April 21st 05 03:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.