GR User Forum
The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users
Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!
Tell your friends about us!25-6-2014
- Thread starter quester
- Start date
Orol":2im07qz5 said:Changing presets or post-processing might well be a sign of creativity. Or?
Peter
Thanks Richard and Peter.
@Peter : I get into arguments over this, but generally I believe that photography is mostly not creative at all. You can say that you have recorded an image in an aesthetically pleasing way; you can say that the image, or the way it was photographed, is thought-provoking; you can show your proficiency in the use of a camera as a tool; but the image is there even if you are not. You have not created the image (as opposed to a story, a song, a table or a painting).
And any processing work on the image with digital tools that someone else has built for you, is not that creative either.
So for me, high contrast black and white is only just fooling around, even though the result can send your mind off to wander.
Even doodling on a piece of paper is much more creative than PP'ing, in my opinion.
Orol
New Member
Excuse me, quester, I am not fully with you on this one. In my humble opinion, there is nothing like an exact imprint of the reality in photography. Any presented photo is in fact an altered reality (already simple setting of exposition changes it all) and the photographer as an author can affect this alteration to their liking. True, the digital tools quite differ from the traditional painter's tools but it does not matter that much I believe as the result is what counts regardless the way to go there.
Peter
Peter
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Peter - your opinion is clear. I still feel that the creative process entails putting into material existence that which resides in the imagination. So most photography does not fall into that category for me. The closest thing relevant in this respect for me might be the staging of a shot, much as is done by a good portrait photographer.
PP'ing is a bit similar to what a painter does with colors and brushes - but again, for me it depends if the painter is re-creating the image exactly as it is seen, or is creating an altered image based on what his mind captures from the image. In the first case, I would simply say that the painter is very competent with his tools and vision. In the second I would say that he is being creative (using his imagination).
PP'ing is a bit similar to what a painter does with colors and brushes - but again, for me it depends if the painter is re-creating the image exactly as it is seen, or is creating an altered image based on what his mind captures from the image. In the first case, I would simply say that the painter is very competent with his tools and vision. In the second I would say that he is being creative (using his imagination).
Orol
New Member
Yes, I see what you mean quester. A camera can capture existing light only. It is the very principle of photography. However, some space for creativity is still there. Even for purists proud of "unaltered" output from their camera (that I do not truly understand in general, to be honest, as it seems to be a very limiting approach although, naturally, depending on the intention as always 
). One can prepare the scene to be photographed (using a spray to make dew drops that were not present before for instance), one can alter the light (using artificial lights, coloured reflecting surfaces, mirrors, shades, etc), one can even literally paint by light (you sure know painting by a flaming branch or an electric torch captured in dark night using long shutter speeds) or directly by a camera (moving the camera instead or also), and so on, and so on.
The photographer's mission seems to be quite harder, comparing to contemporary painters, when questing (not only) surreal tasks of their unleashed artistic minds; a photographer needs not only to "invent" the scene, the contents, but also the way how to transfer the idea on the film (digital chip) using the light instead of paints (if one does not want to paint over raw photo stuff in post processing that also is possible, and widely used, though usually not considered to be a "pure" photography anymore; although "how about retouching?" might be a good question here). "Just" looking for, seeing, and shooting is just one of many possibilities. For instance, how about photo-montages and photo-collages both as old as the photography itself?
Peter
). One can prepare the scene to be photographed (using a spray to make dew drops that were not present before for instance), one can alter the light (using artificial lights, coloured reflecting surfaces, mirrors, shades, etc), one can even literally paint by light (you sure know painting by a flaming branch or an electric torch captured in dark night using long shutter speeds) or directly by a camera (moving the camera instead or also), and so on, and so on.The photographer's mission seems to be quite harder, comparing to contemporary painters, when questing (not only) surreal tasks of their unleashed artistic minds; a photographer needs not only to "invent" the scene, the contents, but also the way how to transfer the idea on the film (digital chip) using the light instead of paints (if one does not want to paint over raw photo stuff in post processing that also is possible, and widely used, though usually not considered to be a "pure" photography anymore; although "how about retouching?" might be a good question here). "Just" looking for, seeing, and shooting is just one of many possibilities. For instance, how about photo-montages and photo-collages both as old as the photography itself?
Peter
Yes, I agree that there are ways, like those you mention, which combine a photographer's skills and his imagination in a creative way. Planning and implementing a slow exposure that puts a blur in the shot in a timely and meaningful way is certainly an example of this (provided the photographer was not just simply lucky...). Photo-collages and montage are not really photography, in my opinion, but uses of photography, and there certainly can be creative uses of photography.
All this has not made me feel any better about using a pre-set effect, though... , and I will keep these thoughts in my mind when I develop my skills some more. Preferably with a camera that at least has aperture and shutter control! Or are we going to get in that discussion that the sophistication of the camera has no bearing on the art ?
All this has not made me feel any better about using a pre-set effect, though...
, and I will keep these thoughts in my mind when I develop my skills some more. Preferably with a camera that at least has aperture and shutter control! Or are we going to get in that discussion that the sophistication of the camera has no bearing on the art ?
Orol
New Member
The tool usually is important. Digging a hole for a house by a spoon sounds quite crazy but for a daisy it sounds reasonable.
Peter
Aah, these feelings. If the presets help you to overcome current boredom and to keep you interest in photographing until catching "better" motivation or a new gear, it's fine.quester":3m1b00i4 said:All this has not made me feel any better about using a pre-set effect, though...
Peter