The Anti-processing brigade ... or those who claim not to PP but do

DaireQuinlan

Promac wrote: »

And it's an open discussion forum

That's the important bit right there, and everyone else is as free to weigh in. Besides, everyone GETS it, it's just that it's a meandering and kind of pointless rant in the first place. It's like complaining about people pretending that their digital shots are polaroids or something. So what.

Thecageyone

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That's the important bit right there, and everyone else is as free to weigh in. Besides, everyone GETS it, it's just that it's a meandering and kind of pointless rant in the first place. It's like complaining about people pretending that their digital shots are polaroids or something. So what.

Pointless is not actually contributing to the discussion. You're just opinionating on an opinion, that's a bit of a waste of time. But fire away ... One day you'll say "I agree with thecageyone" and I'll drop dead from a heart attack

Calina

If you lot don't get back onto some version of the substantive topic of the thread which I think I can summarise as "some photographers are delusional about how much or how little processing is done on their digital works of art" I will shut the thread.

In particular, discussions about the point of a discussion forum are off topic. Go and have the substantive existential discussion elsewhere.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I can understand somebody pointing out that an image has not been 'shopped' in the following scenario:

I've seen a few pictures from a set by a guy who had them in for a strobist assignment, where he had several champaign glasses filled with blue and red liquids, one of them was upside down, but the liquid didn't flow out, another had both blue and red liquid split down the middle, nice, well lit and well processed images (contrasty and colourful). However they weren't 'shopped' to get the effects in question, the 'liquid' was jelly, and he had gone to considerable effort to set it all in the glasses, with the different colours, and set up his shot perfectly to fool the eye. The question of 'shopping' never came up as he explained his technique in the setup shot, however I can understand someone wishing to point out their hard work, when many people might otherwise assume that it was a simple copy/flip horizontal, in gimp or photoshop.

People who claim something is 'unprocessed' aren't talking about levels, curves and contrast, they're talking about wholesale adjustments, manipulation of large area's of the image to change the scene, from what was originally recorded, or use of the clone or heal tool or whatever.

It's a vanity thing I suppose, a desire to call attention to one's own hard work, rather than letting people assume you've taken some 'easy' short cut.

Thecageyone

Eh? I've been on topic all the way. APart from replying to the OT replies ...

I'm still awaiting other's actual opinions on the subject rather than on my opinion. What's your opinion on people making the claim Cailin? Not your opinion on processing in general, but the original post.

Thecageyone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I can understand somebody pointing out that an image has not been 'shopped' in the following scenario:

I've seen a few pictures from a set by a guy who had them in for a strobist assignment, where he had several champaign glasses filled with blue and red liquids, one of them was upside down, but the liquid didn't flow out, another had both blue and red liquid split down the middle, nice, well lit and well processed images (contrasty and colourful). However they weren't 'shopped' to get the effects in question, the 'liquid' was jelly, and he had gone to considerable effort to set it all in the glasses, with the different colours, and set up his shot perfectly to fool the eye. The question of 'shopping' never came up as he explained his technique in the setup shot, however I can understand someone wishing to point out their hard work, when many people might otherwise assume that it was a simple copy/flip horizontal, in gimp or photoshop.

People who claim something is 'unprocessed' aren't talking about levels, curves and contrast, they're talking about wholesale adjustments, manipulation of large area's of the image to change the scene, from what was originally recorded, or use of the clone or heal tool or whatever.

It's a vanity thing I suppose, a desire to call attention to one's own hard work, rather than letting people assume you've taken some 'easy' short cut.

Totally fine with people claiming it and actually not-processing. But I've seen people claim no-photoshopping, and it would be in the data that they had at least ran it through the program. maybe they simply cropped/resized in there? That's also fine. But you can often tell there was a lot more done to the image.

jpb1974

A Friday debate that veers not too far off the original path and already 'thread closure' is being thrown out as a possibility.

I mean come on... Thecageyone has his opinion and feelings on the matter and he has expressed them... they're not a million miles off the original topic... what's wrong with that?

Don't see any real niggle or bite here... people get a bit passionate... that's a good thing.

Calina

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's a vanity thing I suppose, a desire to call attention to one's own hard work, rather than letting people assume you've taken some 'easy' short cut.

Which is fine and dandy except a lot of work may go, unseen, into creating something digitally as well as through making coloured icecubes (something I've done in the past) and relayering composites for example.
For me the issue is that some people value processing effort less than icecube making efforts. Cleaning red food dye is a drag. But so too is organising 26 layers of kitesurfers.

achtungbarry

Interesting topic and as one who tends to use heavy processing, one that interests me a lot.

First of all, I have to say that I love surreal photography. I love surreal art in general. As a result a lot of my own photography has a surreal and often unrealistic feel. I acheive this through a mix of HDR processing and sometimes the use of textures blended with the image.

Now, some people absolutely love this and others absolutely hate it. You should see some of the more negative comments I have rceived. I tend to get a 70/30 positive negative reaction. The negative stuff doesn't really bother me because I like what I do and that's the most important. I like that my stuff doesn't look like the majority. The negative comments used to bother me but with time you gain confidence and begin to not give a sh1t about the knockers. Many seem happy to accept surrealism in painting but not yet in photography..... and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I love Van Gogh's "Night Cafe" in Arles. I love the exaggarated colours, the huge stars, the bright light in the cafe. Of course that looks nothing like the scene that Van Gogh saw but his painting invokes the atmosphere that was there, the way he felt when he was gazing upon the scene. I love this and at least try to do this with my photography, although rarely sucessfully.

To me the beauty of photography or any form of art is the sheer variety of styles and ways of doing things that are out there. I obviously love certain heavily processed images. I love HDR as long as the sliders are not maxed out and there are halos everywhere but some do and that's fine. Live and let live. I also love some more simple photography too. A friend of mine shoots black and white film street photography, barely processed and I love it. Another friend does a lot of textures like me and goes heavy on the processing and I love that too.

The only people I dislike are the dogmatic "my way is the right way" types and everything else is not really "photography". I've come across them here, on flickr and elsewhere. I just ignore them to be honest. They are the same type of people who saidthat HDR is an abomination, that photoshop would ruin photography, that digital photography was not real photography, that colour film was not real photography. They were even the same type of people waving their paintbrushes in anger when cameras were invented shouting that photography could never be art. They tend to fear anything that strays from the norm, anything that is new and different. That something is not to a person's taste, that is fine but to declare that it is "not real photography" or just plain "the wrong way of doing things" is just pure ignorant. Thank goodness that we had artists who challenged the norms and "the right way of doing things". They gave us the Renaissance and Impressionism among other gifts. To think that salons, refused to hang Impressionist paintings beside "real paintings" at the beginning.

My philosophy is if you don' like the heavily processed look, great, everyone is entitled to their opinion but to be dogmatic and say that it is not real "photography", well that's just pompous. As I said, I love all types of photography, heavily processed and straight from camera. It's all photography. I love the variety.

Thecageyone

That's the opposite of claiming it's un-touched though.

My gripe was with the ones who make the mighty claim that their image is 'pure' and un-processed. Stating how you processed an image and the work you put in is very different. i have no quarrel with that.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thecageyone wrote: »

Totally fine with people claiming it and actually not-processing. But I've seen people claim no-photoshopping, and it would be in the data that they had at least ran it through the program. maybe they simply cropped/resized in there? That's also fine. But you can often tell there was a lot more done to the image.

Ah I see, that's a bit different from the OP... I would agree with this. A bit stupid of someone, but then the world is full of cheaters...

Slidinginfinity

Back on the topic of Unprocessed vs. Processed:

It is important to know your equipment and what it is capable of doing.

Being able to set your digital SLR up in the right way to get the image as a JPG just how you want it straight out of the camera on a regular basis is an important skill. It shows a level of familiarity with your gear that is to be emulated.


On the other topic of "this person is claiming something that, I feel, is untrue."

Move on, there are always going to be people that will irritate you and even more some on the internet.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Calina wrote: »

Which is fine and dandy except a lot of work may go, unseen, into creating something digitally as well as through making coloured icecubes (something I've done in the past) and relayering composites for example.
For me the issue is that some people value processing effort less than icecube making efforts. Cleaning red food dye is a drag. But so too is organising 26 layers of kitesurfers.

I wasn't making a judgement on the skills or effort required to PP. However *some* things are easier in PP than in setup, while others are harder, and I can at least understand the desire to point out what has actually taken place, rather than letting the viewer make assumptions.

It's equal and opposite to people posting an 'original' image and the final version in those before/after threads, just people being proud of their skills.

magicbastarder

Calina wrote: »

In particular, discussions about the point of a discussion forum are off topic. Go and have the substantive existential discussion elsewhere.

what's the big deal about a thread taking a completely natural change in direction? it has people talking, there's not much strife, and people seem to be enjoying the debate.

jpb1974

Achtung -

My opinion would be that you're using photos to create digital art.

For that reason I wouldn't draw much inspiration from your work from a photography perspective.

I recall a piece you displayed once that you said was inspired by Cartier-Bresson... but the person in the photo either wasn't in the original photo or was moved (and badly at that) to suit the composition. That to me isn't photography.. it has nothing to do with what you seen through your eyes... only your minds eye when you got back to your computer.

But you're right not to care what people think, if you're happy then who am I to care?

Promac

jpb1974 wrote: »

That to me isn't photography.. it has nothing to do with what you seen through your eyes... only your minds eye when you got back to your computer.

But you're right not to care what people think, if you're happy then who am I to care?

You do that every time you hit the shutter button. What's the point of photography (other than documentation) if you're not showing people a different way of looking at the world? That's in your own mind's eye - you try to get it to come across in the final image whatever way you can, either through composition or processing.

Of course there's also the process of creating imagery for the sake of the final appearance which I also like but wouldn't class as just photography.

sNarah

jpb1974 wrote: »

Achtung -

My opinion would be that you're using photos to create digital art.

For that reason I wouldn't draw much inspiration from your work from a photography perspective.

I recall a piece you displayed once that you said was inspired by Cartier-Bresson... but the person in the photo either wasn't in the original photo or was moved (and badly at that) to suit the composition. That to me isn't photography.. it has nothing to do with what you seen through your eyes... only your minds eye when you got back to your computer.

But you're right not to care what people think, if you're happy then who am I to care?

Mods - apologies - I could have reported the post (which I should have) but I feel the need to make this comment in public:

1 - Why do people keep commenting back on a mod-comment ON thread and therefore further agitating moderation? I think ALL of us have been here long enough to realize it is not the way it's done and rightly deserves a yellow card or time out.

2 - jpb1974 That comment to Achtung is completly uncalled for, entirely Off Topic and a personal insult after a constructive contribution from him in regards to the OP's subject. No kudos for you from me at all.

jpb1974

Do you think Henri Cartier-Bresson went home and manipulated his photos so's to ensure that people that we're never actually there existed in his final print in order to totally justify the purpose of the photograph?

Photoshopping a person into the bottom of a stair case and then claiming you we're inspired by Cartier-Bresson is fine... just so long as you can admit to yourself that it was due to the 'decisive moment' in front of the computer and had sweet f all to do with the 'decisive moment' in the photographic sense.

jpb1974

It's not a personal insult at all... just a difference of opinions in relation to what defines photography.

Thecageyone

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

Back on the topic of Unprocessed vs. Processed:

It is important to know your equipment and what it is capable of doing.

Being able to set your digital SLR up in the right way to get the image as a JPG just how you want it straight out of the camera on a regular basis is an important skill. It shows a level of familiarity with your gear that is to be emulated.


On the other topic of "this person is claiming something that, I feel, is untrue."

Move on, there are always going to be people that will irritate you and even more some on the internet.

For someone who keeps insisting that I 'move on' you're sure keeping tabs on the thread that interests you little.

I should just never have an opinion on anything eh? Or keep it to myself because a few might disagree, or have no interest in? [though continue to post how little interest they have]

Topic in short - There are people claiming they don't process their images as if it's a major feat, it's not IMO. You're entitled to your own. Worse though is that a lot of thes claimants DO process the bejaysis [at times] out of their images.

magicbastarder

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

People who claim something is 'unprocessed' aren't talking about levels, curves and contrast, they're talking about wholesale adjustments, manipulation of large area's of the image to change the scene, from what was originally recorded, or use of the clone or heal tool or whatever.

i think that's part of the problem, because people have different ideas about what constitutes processing. adjusting the exposure in camera raw (or whatever tool you might use on a computer) would be seen by many as 'processing', yet doing it in camera would not.

might be an idea to start a thread for people to post their most heavily processed shots, but i imagine it's been done...

101001

jpb1974 wrote: »

Achtung -
For that reason I wouldn't draw much inspiration from your work from a photography perspective.

Well that is a shame. I would've thought all forms of art influence other art forms. If they don't then all art forms would stagnate. Photography can be inpart credited for impressionism and Achtung (may i call you achtung )almost brings that back upon itself.

Personally I was really inspired by his work on mostly a technological level. I have been trying for quite awhile to translate that look to video (unsuccessfully so far). When i saw his work i was like BAM that'll work and I could kind of reason out how he was doing it and how i could translate it to a different form.

I love the technology of photography, I like when people explain how they do things so that i can learn. Im a fan of PP mostly as a techie thing. I genuinely don't see why people would proclaim themselves purists of a specific form, if the do their learning stops and that is truly a shame. Photoshop is basically a darkroom... most of the PP that people do can be recreated in a darkroom I don't see why you would rail against something that makes life a little easier. Maybe their is some glory in Photographic martyrdom

Thecageyone

I process 99% of my images. Even the plain ol' family shots. I enjoy it, I like to get the best out of all images. Even if it's just sharpening, adding vibrance/clarity/saturation/light etc ... it's all processing. Some confuse processing with manipulating.

jpb1974

Well that is a shame. I would've thought all forms of art influence other art forms

I did say from a "photography perspective".

squareballoon

I like photography. I LOVE photoshop. I don't see them as the same skill but more as 2 steps to one product.
I certainly like taking lots of photos that don't need any processing like when I find good light and location and willing subjects but more than that I like making honey out of **** in photoshop. A shoot that seemed like a bloody nightmare and wondering if I'd got anthing at all and then gradually picking through each image and using processing to create images that a client would be delighted to have in their wall.

101001

jpb1974 wrote: »

I did say from a "photography perspective".

I know, I meant that other art forms influence photgraphy and vice versa

Thecageyone

101001 wrote: »

I love the technology of photography, I like when people explain how they do things so that i can learn. Im a fan of PP mostly as a techie thing. I genuinely don't see why people would proclaim themselves purists of a specific form, if the do their learning stops and that is truly a shame. Photoshop is basically a darkroom... most of the PP that people do can be recreated in a darkroom I don't see why you would rail against something that makes life a little easier. Maybe their is some glory in Photographic martyrdom

Ah yes, you say it better than I. But that was part of my main point [that I was obviously failing to get across] - Why they claim to un-touch their work post shoot? When there's so many things possible to enhance rather than destroy your images.

All for processing here, I know most of my images would be [even more] bland without it.

Slidinginfinity

Thecageyone wrote: »

For someone who keeps insisting that I 'move on' you're sure keeping tabs on the thread that interests you little.

I should just never have an opinion on anything eh? Or keep it to myself because a few might disagree, or have no interest in? [though continue to post how little interest they have].

Never said I didn't have an interest in this thread.

Never said anything about your opinion being being kept to yourself.

Did say you opinion has little to do with photography and more to do with a perceived lie by someone you don't know and have little invested in.

Simply saying that there are people out there that are bound to upset you. If there is nothing you can do about it, why get all worked up over it. Tempest in a teacup and all.

I say, move on from the "this guy says he didn't do anything, but clearly he did" rant.

If you think getting the exact shot you want out of your camera with out processing every time is easy, why on earth would you ever need to process your shots. You must also have an amazingly accurate sense light and shadow with an well learned or innate ability to control your equipment.
If this is the case, you must have a lot more free time then the rest of us who have to spend time processing our shots.

Thecageyone

I never claimed to be anything. I've repeatedly stated I process most of my images. Doesn't mean I can't straight shoot - i can, and have done. But on location I'm already working out in my head how I will improve the shot later. I don't have any more time to shoot than anyone else, wish I did. You contradict yourself a little too - First you're saying there is all this skill involved in straight shooting without the need for processing, then you finish by saying I must think i'm 'amazingly accurate' because I have more free time [?] while you're processing? And you're making this argument to someone who's repeatedly admitted [me] that they process a lot.

artyeva

a lot of people seem to have come onto this thread and completely misunderstood the OP's point, which is a pity, caus ei think it's a good 'un. and he also makes a fair point about the difference between processing and manipulation.

i would say that i ''process'' my digital images, but i don't ''manipulate'' them. now that's according to MY PERSONAL definition. for instance, i don't crop or clone stuff out, i don't add or remove elements or objects in the actual image, i do change what i already have, but i don't add anything mad in there.

but's off topic....

i was in a 365 group on flickr last year with this girl who used to tag every single one of her photos with SOOC, and unprocessed... now a blind dog with a hammer up his hole could tell that the colours and tones in her photos just weren't natural... yet she was a member of all these ''sooc'' groups and used to get hundreds and hundreds of views each day. i sent her a mail once about a self portrait she had taken where her eyes were just a totally mental colour - and she replied that she had adjusted the levels and used a photoshop something or other to change the colour. i replied that they weren't strictly SOOC then, were they - when she promtly removed me as her contact and about an hour later i was getting hate mail from a load of her more sycophantic [mostly male] followers.

Thecageyone

That's just it, people are slating me here for being 'annoyed' by these claims of non-processing - Yet try putting it to someone who makes the claim, that they do process and it's evident. You'll face a barrage of insults and they'll probably get all their explore mates to leave nasty comments on your images. Which is why it's easier have a light moan in here amongst like minded folk ... aye ...

achtungbarry

jpb1974 wrote: »

Achtung -

My opinion would be that you're using photos to create digital art.

For that reason I wouldn't draw much inspiration from your work from a photography perspective.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there in a way. Some people look through the lens and see their finished piece. For me the taking of the photo is part of a longer process. I use the raw photo to build up my vision of what I want to acheive. I've heard it descibed as "digital art" or even "photo art". I think that is fine. As I said, already, there is room for all types of photography or art or whatever we want to call it even if it is not all to our taste. And if something doesn't inspire you, that's fine too. As I said, some love my stuff, others hate it. Wouldn't it be boring though if everybody followed the same rules? Luckily they don't and we have this wonderful variety even here on Boards.

jpb1974 wrote: »

I recall a piece you displayed once that you said was inspired by Cartier-Bresson... but the person in the photo either wasn't in the original photo or was moved (and badly at that) to suit the composition. That to me isn't photography.. it has nothing to do with what you seen through your eyes... only your minds eye when you got back to your computer.

I rember that. I think the HCB thing was more to do with the basic composition than following the spirit of the great man. Although he himself admitted that many of his photos were staged. And, you're right, the person was badly moved........... but sure we all feck up now and again and learn from it.

The only problem I would have with anything you said is this bit:

That to me isn't photography

I've already explained why. Who am I or you or anybody for that matter to declare what is and is not "photography". We are all of course perfectly within our rights to say "I don't like that".

jpb1974 wrote: »

But you're right not to care what people think, if you're happy then who am I to care?

Nail on the head again. I like what I do. I enjoy it and a few others do too which is a nice bonus. As I said I used to let that kind of critisizm get to me and question what I was doing but when I tried to follow what others felt I should be doing, it felt wrong. It wasn't me. It wasn't my work. It was what somebody else told me it should be. A Tunisian artist once told me that I should be present in every photo I take. When I tried to do what others felt I should be doing, I was not present in my work, I was just pandering to somebody elses opinion.

jpb1974

Barry -

I do believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of what photography is/means to them (that's not to say that you have stated otherwise).

If you post what you define as a photo for C+C, as you have in the past, then I would critique it based on my definition of photography.

I certainly believe that what you do is digital art based on how you describe it - taking photos with a specific view that the image creation process is only part the way there, whereas my view that 95% of the work would be done once the shutter button was pressed.

It's good to disagree... and it's good to see that you interpretted my comments in the manner that they were meant and not as suggested by others.

J

BTW: I firmly agree that not worrying about the expectations of others is paramount to enjoying whatever it is we want to call it e.g. the 'photography experience'.

achtungbarry

jpb1974 wrote: »

It's good to disagree...

Agreed

dave66

Thecageyone wrote: »

That's just it, people are slating me here for being 'annoyed' by these claims of non-processing - Yet try putting it to someone who makes the claim, that they do process and it's evident. You'll face a barrage of insults and they'll probably get all their explore mates to leave nasty comments on your images. Which is why it's easier have a light moan in here amongst like minded folk ... aye ...

I think part of the problem, at least for me (and I could be hard of understanding) is that there seems to be a confusion between the thread title and what I think what is actually annoying you. The thread title is very anti people who do not believe in post processing whereas it seems that what bugs you is people who claim they don't post process but you believe they actually do.

To me the thread title is akin to the whole film/digital debate. The way I feel about it, if people don't want to post process or use digital, fine. But perhaps if you want to moan about something, it would help if it easier to understand what it is you are moaning about - naturally everyone is free to moan. But try not to get too perturbed if people don't understand what your moan is about, it took me 3-4 reads of the OP to get to a point where I think I now understand it and I do feel it's because of the thread title.

In reality for me it comes down to what I have in my signature the desire to capture the shot you think you are capturing. When I printed my own stuff I naturally used to dodge/burn areas to get an image that I felt (A) was a good image (B) captured the scene or moment as I remembered it. Now I will do the same, but electronically. When I post something I will rarely state whether or not it was processed. The one exception to that since I joined here was a shot of my Daughter's ballet show, where I posted the image as it was from the camera, I stated that but added a "yet", why? well because I was excited by the shot but had not taken time to see if it would benefit from some form of processing.

Thecageyone

That would mean people are flying in with responses without actually reading the posts! Surely not on here! :P

Will change the title ...

dave66

Thecageyone wrote: »

That would mean people are flying in with responses without actually reading the posts! Surely not on here! :P

Will change the title ...

Not necessarily, it could be people taking their understanding of what you are saying. Words are a tricky thing, and written words without a feeling for nuance are even trickier. That's why I like photo's, processed or not, you either like them or you don't.

I was once asked to take part in an exhibition, I then discovered that I had to submit an "artists statement", which was supposed to contains stuff like how I felt when I made the photo, printed it etc. I said WTF? my artist's statement was, if you like it great, if not move on and look at another!

Thecageyone

There's a lot of arsery [made up word] around 'art' alright. You hear people giving these profound, 'intellectual', out-there reasonings and explanations for their painting/photograph. Always funny when you see the abstract artists at it. I'm with you on that point, you either love it or hate it or think it's ... meh. From the viewer's perspective at least. As the artist, and I do believe photography is an art, well ... you won't hang it if you don't believe in it.

But back OT, in relation to that, can you imagine photographers in a gallery emphasising to all onlookers "I didn't do any post-processing whatsoever!" - and all viewers cringing because it's blatantly obvious that the sliders have all been pushed to 100.

magicbastarder

i've a special version of photoshop - the sliders go to 111.

Thecageyone

Spinal-shop is it?

AnimalRights

Only read OPs original post but what gets on my breasts are people who always add that they used a film camera for their pics and then straight away their fellow film heads fall in love with the picture.

magicbastarder

you just need to join our clique and then that would cease to annoy you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

AnimalRights wrote: »

Only read OPs original post but what gets on my breasts are people who always add that they used a film camera for their pics and then straight away their fellow film heads fall in love with the picture.

If we're going for pet hates then I have to admit to reserving a certain amount of cynical eyebrow raising for when I see a half ok looking female 'tog with a self portrait featuring a bronica or yashika-mat tlr that's clocked up 5 million views and 1 million favourites.

Thecageyone

The film-heads are a whole other breed!

It is true though, I've seen some terrible, bland, lifeless images online. And just because they're shot with a certain old camera they receive mad praise. I'm thinking, if I shot that on my dslr and processed it to look like film ... I'd be told how bland it really is. So people do care how the image got there. But should they? Should the image not speak for itself?

artyeva

i think it's very presumtious to think the only reason people might like a photo is what it was taken with. that smacks of inverse snobbery to me. maybe peeps just like it cause they like it?

Thecageyone

artyeva wrote: »

i think it's very presumtious to think the only reason people might like a photo is what it was taken with. that smacks of inverse snobbery to me. maybe peeps just like it cause they like it?

It's not snobbery at all. Allow me to elaborate before you jump in with more judgement on me for one post ... I'm talking when they make it clear they love it because it was shot on film!


So quick with the guns lads ...

Promac

It's a real shooting match today.

Film snobbery is my biggest pet peeve in photography. I've shot more film than I have digital and I know how little difference there is. The worst are the punters who will show extra appreciation for a pic just because it was shot on film.

"These are all shot on file you know"
"Oh really! wow!"

Thecageyone

You big snob!
:P

Yeah, it's getting silly the over-reading into posts in here.


Close it to hell ...

can't be bovriled to keep having to defend simple, basic opinion.

I think too many people were bored and looking for a scrap today.

artyeva

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's not snobbery at all. Allow me to elaborate before you jump in with more judgement on me for one post ... I'm talking when they make it clear they love it because it was shot on film!


So quick with the guns lads ...

i wasn't referring to your post. and i wasn't jumping in with judgement.

i get what you had said. i was actually referring to AR's post - but in hindsigt i shouldn't have fed it - off topic as it was.

*smacks forehead*

Thecageyone wrote: »

Close it to hell ...

can't be bovriled to keep having to defend simple, basic opinion.

I think too many people were bored and looking for a scrap today.

no one was asking you keep defending anything.

i joined this thread cause i was standing up for your OP, but i give up, i just f****ing give up.

*smacks forehead off wall*

dave66

Thecageyone wrote: »

You big snob!
:P

Yeah, it's getting silly the over-reading into posts in here.


Close it to hell ...

can't be bovriled to keep having to defend simple, basic opinion.

I think too many people were bored and looking for a scrap today.

Emm, people in glass houses .... , let he who has not sinned ...., cat calling the dog hairy ... and all that seems to apply