however, it takes alot of post processing to cross my threshold

 

[QUOTE=Penforhire,Feb 4 2009, 04:58 PM]Red, you can upload an actual custom "tone mapping" curve to the D70s (and D70 I believe?).

 

[QUOTE=NFRs2000NYC,Feb 5 2009, 01:13 AM]My point was that RAW format is technically, imcomplete, and REQUIRES post processing.

 

The point of this poll was to let us get to know one another a little better, and I find your view quite refreshing.

Like you, I can't understand why so many (though IMO, hardly "everyone") is "so caught up in this," but obvoiusly some people are convinced that their way is the only way and that disagreement can only come from morons. j/k

To answer your question about film, there are still plenty of people around who care about film. There are many things that are much easier to do with film, and the characteristics of images made digitally are quite different from the characteristics of digital images. Further, this isn't a "Digital Photography Forum," it's a "Photography Forum," and we have members here who still shoot 4"x5" sheet film in wooden field cameras. If you want an all digital forum maybe you should ask the moderators to start one, hahaha, or you could ask them to ban all the idiots who still shoot film. j/k

It's just one man's opinion, but I think you need to lighten up a little, and if you don't enjoy the discussion, just stay out of it and it shouldn't bother you.

"Purist" can be defined a number of ways, and if you look back at my earlier post, I said as much. It can mean many different things, and we're probably all purists in some ways. LOL, you're a purist when it comes to digital, because you make no allowence for film. That makes you a digital purist, and I don't see any way that this can be seen as a bad thing. Given that both the things you have criticized in others, can be viewed from other perspectives and seen to apply to you, perhaps you might want to reconsider some of your thinking, not because I disagree, but because I agree, and think this is all a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

The only thing you've said here that I strongly disagree with relates to EDITORS, and becasue too many people are arguing about other stuff in this thread already, I think we'll do better if we have that discussion in another thread. Besides, to discuss editors I have to address more than photography, and I think it might be an interesting topic unto itself. I think the conversation will be fun and informative (to all, myself included), and hope you'll join me in the discussion.

I'll go start that thread right now, and with the full hope that it won't get as picky as some of the things have gotten in this thread. There is a lot less subjectivity involved in the way we have to interact with editors (and other clients), so it should be a less volitle subject. LOL, and if I'm wrong about that, you guys can take me out behind the barn had give me a good swift kick in the butt.

Please join me in getting the "Editor" thread off to a good start.

 

An image that originates from a camera is a photograph - regardless of post-processing. The amount of PP determines the type of Art it would be considered.

IMO.

 

Photography is a distinct type of art. If I take a photographic image and apply something like a Difference Clouds filter to it, it 'aint a photograph any more. It just became abstract art. But I'll agree it is a thicket of semantics.

 

Oooookay. Too much text in this thread and not enough pictures. j/k

I voted "I always pp" because I shoot RAW. Besides that, I would still prefer to do at least SOME PP before uploading, distributing, etc. The amount of PP work depends on what the picture will be used for. Less is better because editing takes time and time = money.

Glad nobody voted "I do no PP" because I was going to say they're severely limiting themselves in digital imaging.

 

Thats exactly right. There is a big difference between photography and snapshooting.

 

I started this thread so we could have a little fun, but I never expected to learn so much along the way.

Seeing the different ways we define identical terms has been fun.
When I realized that I didn't know what the words "photography" and "snapshot" meant, I decided to go to Webster to see what they had to say about it.

Merriam-Webster - photography

Merriam-Webster - shapshot

Hahaha, in the end, I think all I'm sure of is that we all use the terms in somewhat different ways; I'm certainly not convinced that any one person's definition is any better than anyone else's (not even Webster's definition ).