I have a question. I know your thinking oh great here comes a camera question and the ding bat still has not read the manual to her camera lol

well dont worry I will spare you of those questions :-)

I was talking to a guy that shoots nothing but film and has for many year. and he told me people that use photoshop are not real photographers. if you have to edit your image in photoshop then you are thought of as a hack by real photographers that do film.  and the real talent shows in the dark room without any need for photoshop.

but when I told him my thinking on it. and that is people do a lot of tricks in the dark room as well to touch up photos. and to me photoshop is an extremely advanced dark room and can do a lot more then you could do with film. and he told me if I keep thinking that way then I will always be a hack photographer.  he had a few more insults for me personaly after seeing my images once he knew I used a digital camera and photoshop on them. But at first he seem to like them till he found out I use photoshop lol

so do the film guys here find this to be true digital photography is for hacks and not real photography? Now I am not posting this to cause a war between film and digital people at all.
I wouldnt write this if I didnt already know that some of the film guys here do digital as well.

so please be kind to one another on this im just asking so I dont feel like a cheap hack photographer like I was made out to be lol

It's just my opinion, but the person you were talking to seems very narrow minded ... not a good trait for an artist.

Indeed, Photoshop is the modern day darkroom and with new technologies come more interesting abilities.  This guy seems like the type who would look for the "Any" button when prompted to press any key... ;o)

If you can use Photoshop to properly present your artistic vision, do it and don't worry about who might not like it ... there are many of us who will appreciate your creativity.

Gary

if you enjoy doin it then i wouldnt worry what others think

Well, I've done my film shooting, developing and darkroom printing more than 20 years ago. I spent days on end in the darkroom, learned most of the tricks and invented a few, LOL... really addicted to it for years... yes, I loved it; but then another demanding job made me give up photography. Now I'm into digital, and here it is: I would never go back to the darkroom. And I don't have nostalgic feelings about the smell of the chemicals or the touch of the papers or the orange lights... on the contrary.
But that's a personal view.
There will always be some who say that electronic music isn't real music and who prefer the traditional instruments. Who say that artists should work with the old brush and paint. But hey, these are all just instruments, just as the new technologies are just instruments... what counts is the mindset, the vision, the creativity and the sensitivity. And art (there's that word again) has little to do with the ability to master this or that or another instrument... people seem to confuse these concepts a lot: art and ability. The latter can help a lot if you use it well... but mostly it just stands in the way, :o))

Edit: and for the vast majority of professional photographers who do regular, non- artistic work... I'm sure they all benefit greatly from the new digital technologies and applications like Adobe® Photoshop®...

Well I have to agree with you all. I think my biggest worry was what if I wanted to go bid on some freelance work. and I go up and make a fool of myself looking like some hack lol

I have zero Idea what a company would look for in a photographer. And I was more afraid if I did try this would I look like im applying for a computer job and I show up with an etch a sketch lol

I do know years ago when my hubby first got into computer graphics and he learned a software that most companies didnt take him serious untill he learned photoshop.

so i think that was more of my fear after the guy told me the difference in digital artist and film :-)

I talk to out staff photographer at work a lot..  he's a pro who did "product photography" for years.

he only shoots digital theses days..  and uses photoshop.

It's a tool, as an artist, you use whatever tool you want to create art.

I believe there are some film photographers, who feel threatened by technology  There are those that have not made the move to digital for one reason or another.  Maybe its because they know FILM like the back of their hand. Using film is a passion and they develop (pardon the pun) a mindset that FILM  is the definitive basis for this art form (no ifs, ands, or buts about it)  For others, film is THEIR way of life. How they pay the bills and make a living.  Again, they see digital "taking over" and those not willing to change the way they think or adopt new methods, see it as threatening. Can we really blame them? 

Before digital, I wasn't taking infrared pics or into macros.  I wasn't sitting at a computer for hours each day  doing "postwork" on my pics.  I had a cheapo 35 mm point and shoot and used it to take SNAPS of friends and family.   Would drop it off a Kmart and a week later...go pick'em up!   I don't recall ever going back to the photo dept and asking could you REMOVE my thumb from this one or SHARPEN that one.  I was just HAPPY with what I got....a SHOEBOX  FULL of  MEMORIES...even those badly composed, chopped off head ones! 

So, what's my point here.  Digital has changed the playing field in MANY ways.  Enabling people to express themselves like never before and allowing us to share with others all over the world. However, I also feel it's made us sloppy and technology is used as a crutch  these days.  It's no longer truly about  photography technique or skill per say. ANY image/photo can be made to "look good" or considered art these days....Just tweak it in Photoshop! 

Nuff said (by me!)

Joe

hello ;o)

i'm a film photographer  but digital too as you know....

so my thinking iq simple : we are both working to create image, to create emotions on the public, and this by taking a pic.... a pic is a pic : whatever you use a diital, a film or even a single use camera ;o)

May be this person believe you are compltely hacking your pistcure, but you must know that many thing we are doing in photoshop can be done in darkroom (not everything of course).

Personnaly, i never speak technique with a photograph, this is really not important, i try to speak image, feeling, approach, démarche... try ;o)

Film and digital are complementary ! not the inverse.

don't worry and continue the good work.
Olivier

I think the guy is being narrow minded, there are plenty of pros and amateurs using digital, maybe as mentioned he feels threatened (isn't very computer happy??).

An image is an image / art is art irrespective of the route you take to get there, and the quality of the end product is really down to the artists knowledge and vision not the tools......

Having chatted with press / magazine photographers not one of them still uses film, and at the last two weddings I've been to they've been digital as well.... (I was interested by the latter as I would have expected the take up from larger format films to digital to have been slower?)

I was a projectionist for about 8 years on and off. While actual film still predominates in the film industry, digital projection is here and is about to put the vast majority of projectionists out of work. Instead of paying me to get the average12,000ft movie on 6 reels and splicing it together with ads, trailers, cues and then having to watch the same damn movie over and over again., it will be done by a computer tech. 

Ask your friend if he holds the newer format of movies in the same disregard.

I have used film and dark rooms in the past, now strickly digital.  I don't consider myself the best photographer, but I don't think I'm a hack.  There are alway some poeple to stubbon to change and seek out new ideas.  Maybe he is frightened of new technology, it may show him to not be as good as he thinks he is.    Take my Dad for instance, (yes please take him) he was a proud film photographer for many years and a good one.  Last year for Xmas I bought him a digital camera, now he snaps any thing that moves,  he won't thank me for saying but he's in his 70's.  So it show with a little help you can teach an old dog new tricks.  

if you play electric guitar, you're not a real guitar player. Sorry: if you don't play spanish guitar, you're not a real guitar player. Sorry: if you don't play spanish guitar with gut strings, you're not a real guitar player. Sorry: if you don't play classical music on a spanish guitar with gut strings you're not a real guitar player. And so on.

People who have curved ideas like that keep on going round in circles . If art were pure technique, it would be created in laboratories and follow strict scientific rules.

If you ever go to a company with your prints on baryte paper, and they like your work, they'll ask for a cd. Unless they're a real high-end gallery that is specialised in
da capo (read again from the start)

Would a company depending on images entrust a Hasselblad 24mp in the hands of a hack or a photographer?  I suspect photographer is the answer.

Unfortunately, the commentator who is a film purist has missed a lot of what is here now. I have and once in a while shoot film..but it is always back to digital for what I really want to do.  Convenience is one reason and the digital darkroom is a large part of it.  Still, the original determines the overall value of the shot in the first place, whether straight from camera or improved as it should be in software.

Some of us record events, some produce art, some do both and sometimes both at the same time.  Whether digital or film, what is the difference?   If the end result looks like it should for the purpose it serves, the goal is accomplished.

Attached Link: Jerry Uelsmann

Reading through everyone's comments, all that I might have expressed has pretty much been said. This "photographer" is part of a narrow minded dwindling old guard stuck in a certain way of thinking. We are all entitled to our opinions, but remeber that terms like photographer, hack and artist are all just labels that everyone interprets differently. This guy said, "...photoshop is an extremely advanced dark room and can do a lot more then you could do with film." If you ever run into him again, ask him if he's familiar with Jerry Uelesmann's work. Jerry did things in the darkroom that are still exceeding difficult to achieve in Photoshop.

... and in some ways, I understand him. 

After the darkroom effects by people like Sabattier, Man Ray, Dutto, we had the psychedelic era. (Ever tried a colour solarisation in the darkroom?). Then came the era of filters. Remeber the vignettes for wedding shots, softers for the babies etc? Remember the multiprisms,...?
It's not that filters aren't ok, but they have been overused, and often by incapable people. Subtle use can make the difference, but when it becoms blatant, it becomes a bore.

Same goes for Photoshop. First of all, many things become easy. Want a Sabattier effect? Get your black and white (or colour) capture, copy it to a second layer, make this copy negative and set the blendmode to difference. The same thing on paper in the darkroom required a lot of skill, and/or serendipity. Unsharp mask, go to effects and use it. Even edge sharpening is included in CS2.

Second: the filters in photoshop have been misused, abused by too many people who simply wanted "an effect". Is this bad, or a critique? No; everyone is free to do as he or she pleases. But when you use it for a longer time, the fun corrodes because you recognise the effect all too easily. Yet superb things can be done with the filters. And have already been done.

Third, when you print your black and white on your four inks home printer, the result is meagre when compared to a baryte print from a negative. Yet, when either you get a ten or so coloured printer with extra greys, or have a four coolour printer that allows "real" paper and is set to use for example Lyson(s four channel black, the difference becomes very small. Very, very small.

And last but not least: it helps when you have darkroom experience.

I guess that, like always, it boils down to the person who uses it, and not to what is used by the person.

Back to work.

Wow a lot of input and I have to agree with all of you. :-)

Dont get me wrong I have a huge respect for film photographers. reason being if I had to learn on film I dont think I would have stuck with it mainly because of the way I shoot.

with digital I can take many shots of the same subject because I can look and see right away what it looks like. and then adjust from there. if I had to shoot blind and not know what I had until I got them back from walmart. Oh my would that be a mess for me and lots of money spent trying to figure it out.

in some ways I feel not knowing film first it has hurt me on camera knowledge. because digital sure makes it easy to go by what you see and not by knowledge.
so I have a HUGE! respect for film photographers even any old guy that would call me a hack lol

and I have a huge respect for guys that do darkroom work as well. I know for a fact I would have gave up there as well. Just from the word chemicals would have sent me running alone lol

in photoshop if I dont like something I can hit undo. im pretty sure you dont have that luxury in a dark room lol
So I will never loose respect for film photographers at all they sure have payed their dues to bring us great photos with 10 times the amount of work then I have to go through with digital.

I think digital is great because it brings out more people like me that would have never got into photography if it wasnt for digital.

I will always consider film photographers as the original masters like what buddy guy was to stevie ray vaughan :-)

Attached Link: Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

I see that **promiselamb** raised a significant issue when she reported that a film photographer stated that by the use of Photoshop,

[she] will always be a hack photographer

I am outraged at reading about this cheap insult.

That 'photographer' has used one of the oldest tricks in false rhetoric
to advance his weak, stale, outdated ideas.

What he did was to use a well known false argument (or Logical Fallacy)
called,  "Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)"  as a way to
diminish your art and reduce your effectiveness.  ... It might even
have been nothing more than a cheap trick to disguise his own lack of
artistic ability and/or integrity.

One way to respond to that form of attack would have been to say,

"That was an 'ad hominem' attack -- you attacked the person instead
of the idea.  If you want me to continue to pay attention to what you
have to offer in this discussion, you will have to focus on speaking
about the actual merits or disadvantages of using digital photography
and doing post processing in Photoshop -- instead of taking the easy
way out by attacking me as a person."

This 'photographer' is probably a hack  -- but please don't fall to his
level by saying that to him.

(I'll make additional comments later when I've had a chance to review
the entire thread)

--
Martin

p.s. Does this 'photographer' have an online gallery?  I'd really like to
review and critique his images. 

Martin I have no idea if he has an online gallery or not...... he owns a small camera store here...Kind of a mom and pop camera shop... and only sells film cameras that I could see anyway..

I dont want to attack him in anyway shape or form.. like I said I do hold a huge respect for film photographers.. he is an elderly man so I am pretty sure computers would not be his thing at all.. but who knows lol

Well, there you go, the picture becomes clearer. More and more people are buying digital camera so his business suffers. This old dog doesn't appear to want to learn any new tricks, so....

yep... it's always the same problem .. but be wise, say yes, let him in his dream and forget it.

concentrate yourself on your work, to create better and better photography.

Are you playing and painting with light ? so you are photographying ! :oD photography is not more than playing with light, and will be what you are doing with it ;o)

see ya ;o)

There is one thing about film I like better and I hope this dont offend anyone lol

But I did notice in his shop his black and white photos had so much more depth and rawness to them. more then any black and white photo I ever shot. or even color photo that I converted to black and white. I myself have never seen digital with that much depth to them vs film

unless there is a trick to it that I am missing. and thats always the first problem with me lol

but from what I see and where I stand now I do like film black and white better then digital. but im open to have my mind changed on that as well lol

He probably prints on baryte paper.

Like I wrote, this makes simple digital prints meagre. Just like cheap books printed in offset with only black ink look meagre.

To get digitally to a better level of black and white, you either by Lyson inks and change your colours (CMYK) by the four Lyson grey's, and print with the Lyson profile for your paper and ink (prefereably no plastic coated paper), or you get a print(er that has more than the four traditional inks and that included a few greys.

If you don't want this, switch to a barely coloured tritone, or even quadtone.

basic rules: never use the desaturate command. the truest greyscale of your pic is the luminance channel in LAB mode. if you want to play, you can either use the channel mixer set to monochrome, or load the separated channels as layers and play with these.

The only thing photoshop cannot do is replace a polarizer.

Attached Link: WEB STYLE GUIDE, 2nd edition

It seems that **promiselamb** saw some,

black and white photos [that] had so much more depth and rawness to them

... and wondered,

unless there is a trick to it that I am missing ...

Some things you should consider/research about your work flow ...

1. Gamma correction/adjustment in the edited image

Please see the Web Style Guide article on 'Gamma'

1. Contrast/saturation curves when editing the image in Photoshop. 

2. What printer options/settings that may affect B&W printing ...
   hint: check the printer manufacturer's web site/tech support

3. What kind of paper are you using when you print B&W? 

--
Martin

p.s. Thanks for your question ... it made think.  ... and research. 

BTW, here is another explanation of Gamma

Oh wow Tanchelyn I just tired what you said on black and white and all the depth I love jumped right into the image lol thank you so so so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok digital RULES!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

I am blown away so much better then the desaturate command by far.. everytime I used the desaturate command it made them looked washed out all the depth would fall off. simply amazing.
see I told you my mind could be changed lol
thank you very very much :-)

Now I will mess with gamma Martin and see what I get :-)

Sorry, but that's not really the solution. Just like your monitor is limited to a maximum illumination that must represent light but is no way near to the brightness of, say, sunlight, so also your printed image is limited. With a well-calibrated printer you can almost equal PE paper, but you won't even come close to baryte when you only use black ink. Changing the gamma with levels or curves does not change this fact. It only shifts more hues to darker or lighter greys. And you don't have more greys between that darkest grey that must represent black, and the absence of any pigment, read: the paper hue, that must represent white.
To put it really crude: you can't even print a monochrome with CMYK installed. You'll always see small dots of cyan, magenta and yellow.

Attached Link: Stefan De Lay - Personal note

I was intrigued when I saw that **Tanchelyn** observed that,

He probably prints on baryte paper.

Hmmmmmmmm ... "baryte paper", what's that?, I thought.  Well, my Good
Buddy Google probably knows.  ... and that search led me to these thoughts
by Stefan De Lay.  

... it's almost as if Google knows what we are thinking about.  LOL

--
Martin

p.s. Oh yeah ... now I'll have to try what Tanchelyn said about improving
B&W images.  I'll let you know.  ... later.  ...

Shhhhh! The Google hears all... ;'P

On a somewhat similar note:  A lady I know pretty well makes her living in the print business, a lot of which is CD covers and inserts.  I asked her how she wanted images and the answer was, "I want a large digital file, prefer Photoshop and CMYK if you can do that."   Well, CMYK to get the black into the scheme is not my cup of tea and I am not versed well enough to read a file converted to that color mode to know if the conversion is accurate or not.   So, she wants large digital files.

At least one mag I get regularly asks that illustrations for articles be submitted in, guess what, large digital files.    This magazine is particular about the quality of images but wants digital to work on their end as needed for print.

One of the few hold outs is stuff like "juried art shows" where from tradition or whatever, the recommended submission is almost always Slides.

I pay little attention to "purists" who have not experienced digital at its best or who are simply biased against it in the first place. I pay lots of attention to the work of the great, great film photogs mentioned already in this thread who did stuff in darkroom still amazing to me.

I follow up my previous post with an off the wall thought:  Garbage in, Garbage out...a key expression in digital land of computer geeks.  With photos, much is the same.   As for me, I believe the best way to judge a photo overall is not on the web which is so very limited in color and resolution.  So, I look to print to tell me what is seeable by others, truly.

The basic home printer will not do it justice.    The basic print shop dealing mostly in business cards will not do it justice.   As for me, I use an on-line service using Fugi equipment and my digital images are processed much as photos from film would be, using photo papers and processes.   The results are generally pretty good.  I spoke to them about the processes used and about color management and all is well on that end after some experiment.

Then there is the local printing company "who know photography".   These are the digital/offset printers who know the tonality and color requirements of photos.  These are not the everyday printing companies but there may be one near you. I cannot afford to have prints made this way and only a couple of times have used these services.  Yet, if the printer(person) truly does understand color and tonality, the results can be very, very pleasing.   Ink choices are one thing and application is another to the correct coated paper for the job at hand.

Sure, I am talking about stuff I really know very little about but talking decently nonetheless.

Still, I have to feel a bit of pity for the person who cannot see the value of digital imaging.  Perhaps like traditions in religion, the darkroom has become the "faith" and other areas are dismissed outright. For that, I feel some pity.  I do hope they continue to enjoy their darkroom and have fine results...but to miss all that other good just waiting to be discovered..oh my.

Well, sitting at home I have a canon s9000 and to be honest the results from it are excellent, but as said by otheres here, you can still see the difference if you take an image to a well set up lab that you can talk to someone who know what they're doing.

I bought my daughter her first digital camera for her eight birthday on wednesday, a relatively cheap 5mp and I can't wait to see what she does with it, she gets frustrated by running out of film with her 35mm so the 1gig sd card should give her space, and she can already d/load the piccies to PC.

So that's another point when it comes to experimentation and learning, I sure wouldn't let her in a dark room (aside from the fact that my brother has all our shared gear), but she can drive the GIMP pretty well already, and can start playing with some of the concepts at an earlier age :).

My daughter recently turned 3 and is already learning her way around Photoshop. What a era to be a kid and what a difference from my time. I think I had 16 colors on my Vic20, and certainly not way to work on a photograph. If any of the kids express an interest in digital photography, I will get them a nice sturdy 5MP for Christmas or their birthday. :)

As much as we hear about kids on the computer too much, when they pursue creative directions beyond the simple game playing...wow, some are truly impressive. Most have better keyboard,  ooops..keypad skills than I do.   If they want to shoot photos..by all means!

Alex (my daughter) also loves playing with Bryce, at some point I may create a gallery for her here, we're pretty careful with the software she has, there is a lot of creative things (she loves GIMP and Fireworks), and the games she has are creative or learning through stealth which I'm a big fan of.

He's probably just a tad jelous of the new technology.

I watched a 'whodunnit' where a film and digital camera club members  were killing each other even as the film guys were being 'seduced to the Dark Side' .....hubby said I was NOT to go to camera club ever again! :^} LOL I was cracking up something shocking.

hmmmmmmm 

Film behaves differently to digital -  there is a place for both. 

Silly prejudices just show a lack of understanding of either media imho

Well said Richard. I can certainly see place for film even in this digital age, but I doubt I will use it much for what I do.

Each to their own. I say live and let live and just enjoy the art cause that is what matters in the end. Jen

BTW, I was fortunate enough to be able to aquire a photo printer at work. It is the HP PhotoSmart ProB9180. I was not planning on getting the HP at first, but rave reviews and a few other factors (replaceable printheads for one) changed my mind. I have to say, it is capable of printing gorgeous photos, better than most film based prints I've seen. It has 8 pigment based inks and the last 13x19 print I made on HQ glossy stock was sensational. I'm afraid I would have to recommend it. ;']

It seems that TwoPynts has been,

able to aquire a photo printer at work. It is the HP PhotoSmart ProB9180.

I have a Canon PIXMA IP5000 (5 ink tanks, up to 9600 x 2400 color dpi, and
prints on credit card stock (2.13" x 3.39") up to letter/legal paper. 

I have considered upgrading to either

Canon PIXMA Pro9000: 8 ink tanks, 4800 x 2400 dpi, up to 13" x 19"

Canon PIXMA Pro9500: 10 ink tanks, 4800 x 2400 dpi, up to 13" x 19"

I also considered some Epson models ... but don't remember which ones. 

How would you compare your hp PhotoSmart ProB9180 with the Canon
printers I mentioned? 

Thanks for your input. 

--
Martin

Attached Link: review

You IP5000 sounds like a great little printer. If you are happy with the results, why not stick with it? If you want to upgrade for whatever reason, I can unequivocally recommend the B9180. It really is an amazing printer for the price. The 8 ink system will give you a broader color range than your current one, but you may be hard pressed to see the difference. The inks of the B9180 are supposed to last up to 200 years if that is important to you. And it can print on a variety of fine art media and banner sized media at that. I have the Epson R1800 at home and like it very much, but I find the B9180 to be the superior machine and without the clogging issues I experience from time to time with Epson. It is also built like a tank with a METAL output tray. Also, in addition to a USB port, it can also print via the built in ethernet port. It is also very quiet. I considered the Canons you listed and of them I would say the 9000 is probably the better choice, though I have read they both have gloss differential problems. Having used neither though I probably am not the best judge. The 9500 sounds like the Canon to get if you want to print B&W prints, though the HP Photosmart 8750 Professional Photo is supposed to be amazing in this regard as well (see the Amazon page listing). Anyway, read the very convincing review I provided a link to. So far he is right on the money.

Attached Link: 3 printer comparison

Oh yeah, check out his other reviews too, including this one.

I see that TwoPynts responded to my earlier question by saying,

You IP5000 sounds like a great little printer. If you are happy with the
results, why not stick with it?

True, I am happy with the Canon IP5000 and will continue to use it for
both B/W text printing, general color printing and photo printing as well. 

I was considering getting either the Canon Pro9000 or Pro9500 in order
to produce and sell quality prints up to 13" x 19". 

My alternative plan is to use a color lab to do the printing -- but there are
additional considerations such as monitor callibration, ...

--
Martin

Well, it is nice to have it all under one roof, that is for certain. Let me know what route you decide to go.

I use a pre4-cursor of the Pixma range, the canon s9000, (up to A3 zero bleed) and can't rate it highly enough - especially as I won it from computer arts magazine a few years ago :). It's produced thousands of pages on different paper types from daughter homework to A3 photos and has coped well with all. I would only say that the advanced driver options are not all that good, but that's not a great loss!