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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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Sandman: Skills can be become outdated, and no longer needed.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 With new tools that replace or do these things for you and with a better end result, the skill is obsolete.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 That means of producing a photograph is obsolete when you use the "outmoded" definition of "obsolete".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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |