Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Learning  (Read 4816 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5498



WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2011, 05:00:50 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a big difference though : jpeg is all about your choices at the moment of capture, and after that you're stuck (or nearly so) ; while contact printing is made after the fact, and can be redone at will to better convey the vision of the photographer...

You are far from stuck with jpeg… it can be further manipulated after the fact (though with less flexibility than RAW), much more than a contact print can.

But we are now engaged in semantic nitpicking and are further deviating from the point I tried to make with the comparison between jpeg and contact printing: that there are great images that do not require much, if any, manipulation in post-processing, and that even "great manipulators', like AA, used to do them.

Both jpeg and RAW are just tools, neither being superior to the other by itself, no more than hammer is superior to screwdriver by itself. Under certain circumstances, yes, each can be superior to the other, just like hammer is superior to screwdriver if the task is to hit a nail, and vice versa if the task is to unscrew a screw.

The same goes for manipulation if post-processing. Some images benefit from it, and some are great without it. Photoshopping is not inherently bad, and neither is non-photoshopping. Not photoshopping a visually lousy image is not going to make it inherently superior, just as photoshopping it wouldn't either (though it might make it a nicer-looking crap Wink). It is a mismatch between the purpose and the process that gives them both a bad name.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2011, 05:10:37 PM »
ReplyReply

[...] there are great images that do not require much, if any, manipulation in post-processing, and that even "great manipulators', like AA, used to do them.
To which I fully agree.

For the rest, I see more the jpeg as a lesser tool (less possibilities), but you can call me biased.  Grin
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
welder
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2011, 11:03:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Music ? music played on original instruments.
Art ? water colour painting rather than acrylic.
Film based photography
All immediately spring to mind, I'm suer there are very many more.

Actually the idea that you must use Photoshop is pretty daft in itself.

As pointed out in the original post, we are talking about a course in digital photography. The idea that college professors would say that Photoshop has no place in digital photograhpy is what is daft. No one is claiming that you must use Photoshop. But to teach a course in modern digital photography and deny that Photoshop is a valid tool, it seems to border on being a Luddite.

Try to walk into a recording studio and tell the musicians they shouldn't be using multitrack recording devices.

Do art professors really teach that only watercolor paints are valid for use in painting?

And if you were talking a course in film photography, would you be told that a darkroom has no place in film photography?
Logged
welder
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2011, 11:51:37 AM »
ReplyReply

You are far from stuck with jpeg… it can be further manipulated after the fact (though with less flexibility than RAW), much more than a contact print can.

But we are now engaged in semantic nitpicking and are further deviating from the point I tried to make with the comparison between jpeg and contact printing: that there are great images that do not require much, if any, manipulation in post-processing, and that even "great manipulators', like AA, used to do them.

Both jpeg and RAW are just tools, neither being superior to the other by itself, no more than hammer is superior to screwdriver by itself. Under certain circumstances, yes, each can be superior to the other, just like hammer is superior to screwdriver if the task is to hit a nail, and vice versa if the task is to unscrew a screw.
I think there is a misconception in this way of thinking. A jpg is essentially a RAW file that has already been processed, it's just the camera software that has selected the processing parameters. There is no circumstance where a jpg could be superior to RAW, because a jpg starts out as RAW.

Please note that I am not denying the validity of shooting in jpg format if that is your choice. But trying to compare a jpg to a contact print is a flawed metaphor. There actually is no equivalent to contact prints in digital photography and I think that’s an important philosophical difference to be aware of. There is no physical medium that can be transferred directly onto paper, it’s all data, and all of it is manipulated into a form that allows us to see an image at the end of the process. It just is a choice of who does the manipulation, the camera or the photographer.
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636



WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2011, 04:56:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The OP said he got this info from a person not from the school.  If they're using Macs they're doing PP.  Why don't you do yourself a favor and call the school and ask them for the course curriculum so you know what the course covers.  I think you're relying on bad info from this guy your spoke too.  Good luck.  Alan.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad