"Purist" Used As an Insult

CaptainPenguin

CaptainPenguin

Messages
5,161
Name
Nigel Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
I am sure many are aware of a thread on TP relating to a competition disqualification but this is not about that it's about comments made here and elsewhere blaming the "Purists" for the disqualification and using purist as a derogatory term.

I will admit now to being a Purist in that I have neither the ability nor the inclination to carry out major manipulation on a photo,I try as much a s possible to get it right in the camera with some minor tweaking in Elements,however I have no objection to those with PS skills who can produce some astonishing images its just not my bag.

So please ,Purists if we have to use that term are just those who go for virtually straight shots nothing more or less and don't deserve to be looked down on by fellow photographers
 
great story bro, but tbh, a bit too soon maybe?

The guy is still recovering from a hearty ball kicking and quite a major stalking around the internet. Mods, by all means boot me off again if you like but i dont think this is the time for this thread.
 
No probes if the Mods think it's the wrong time but this isn't aimed at David who to my knowledge has not blamed the purists and who doesn't deserve a kicking when his only mistake was not reading the T&C's,and who amongst us hasn't done that.
 
I don't think that when people use the term "purist" perjoratively, they're talking about people who simply prefer doing things in-camera. I think it's more about people that not only do everything in-camera, but also smugly dictate that their approach is the only valid one and that everything else is unacceptable, which does not appear to apply to CaptainPenguin here.
 
I don't know anything about anyone being booted out... but I just wanted to comment on the "getting it right in camera" bit.

Personally I try to get the exposure and composition (and composition will include trying not to have branches coming out of peoples ears etc...) right in camera so that I only have to do minor cropping, if any.

The other stuff such as sharpness, minor changes to colour and contrast etc and noise reduction I'd rather do on my pc as I believe that my pc and its software are both better at it and give me more control over what I want rather than settling for what someone at Canon or Panasonic thinks I should have. I see nothing wrong with this and surely it was just the same in the days of film when you either chose your own film and chemicals and produced the look that you wanted or relied on someone at Kodak and Boots to give you what they thought you should have.

All images be they film or digital are subject to some manipulation through choice of in camera settings, post capture processing and display media and I don't think that anyone should be looked down on for performing any manipulation to produce the shot and look they want as long as they don't misrepresent what they're done. Neither do I think that rejecting any particular level of or indeed all pc based manipulation and choosing only in camera manipulation should earn anyone any Brownie points.
 
That says it all for me.

People should do whatever they want, however they want.

If someone offers me constructive criticism to improve what I'm trying to do, then I'm delighted.

If someone tells me I'm wrong, they can **** off.
 
Last edited:
I've no idea what the lead up to this thread is, but I do agree that the term purist can be used to insult photographers that don't use photo manipulation.

Personally, I think, there'll come a time when we differentiate between Photographers (whos images will only have subtle differences to the image from the camera) and Digital Artists (who's images are significantly different from the image from the camera), but suspect there'll be a lot of screaming and shouting before we do.
 
My problem is I couldn't care less.

For me it's about the image, however it's produced.

IMO if there's a camera involved, it's photography.

A digital artist doesn't need a camera.
 
The problem I have is where the line between purist and non purist should be.

All images must be accepted as having been manipulated unless someone comes up with an acceptable level of manipulation that will be regarded as unmanipulated and that'll never happen as there'll never be any consensus between the camera, film, processing chemical, paper, printer/ink and display screen manufacturers. They'll all do their own thing based on what results they think "we" should have.

The whole idea of purists getting it "right" in camera and not carrying out post capture manipulation is IMVHO a falsehood. At the very least they've subconsciously selected a camera (and possibly film) in camera settings/development and print and output chain that affects how the final image looks.
 
Last edited:
As has been said, yes it can be used in a derogatory way towards someone, but only usually if it's beacuse that photographer has implied that the incamera way is the only way a photo should be taken, which, is rubbish.

It's like the arguement between flash and natural light and the people that believe one is better than the other. The problem is, they are both wrong, someone that uses the right tools for the job is the person that is going to win.

Same goes for photos, the person that doesn't do PP and those that reply on PP to fix things are the ones losing out, it's those doing both that will benefit the most :)
 
Here's a challenge...

Can anyone post a digital image which hasn't been manipulated in any way? :D
 
I don't think the term "purist" is helpful or descriptive. I've not heard it as an insult before, but I've certainly heard it used in condescension. When I've called on it, I've never heard it adequately justified, however. Usually just some scrambling, caveat and auxiliary theory.

If "purists" feel the need for a moniker, I'd suggest "photo-documentarian" or something along those lines, which would provide for the many idiosyncrasies which "purism" encompasses.

Alternatively, separate out the essential elements of photography into its two main constituent parts - art and craft. Photographic artists, who use photography as a component of their creative expression (liberal art), and photographic craftsmen who are, to a greater or lesser degree, more conservative in their definition of what photography is. There is of course no reason to elect for, or confine oneself to, either camp exclusively. Both are equally valid as either a primary or secondary approach to photography.

/insert 2c to continue...
 
Next June, I will be running a competition for disposable cameras and the one major rule will be that NO PP or digital manipulation of images will be allowed. The whole point of the competition is to see what sort of eye entrants have for a photograph, not how good they are with Photoshop or similar. Purism? Maybe but that's not intended as an insult, the rule is there to level the playing field.

I may also run a PP competition - if I do, I'll supply a deliberately crap JPEG for people to do with whatever they will in an effort to rescue/improve it.
 
I don't see how 'purist' is an insult, if someone wants to insult a person there's lots of choice of much better words.

But regarding the use of the word 'manipulation' I think we need some clearer terminology for the modern age.

For those of us brought up in an age of film photography, it's quite easy to see the line between processing techniques and retouching an image.

In the darkroom we could crop, change contrast, adjust shadows and highlights, dodge and burn, adjust colour balance etc. all straightforward parts of the photographic process.

To remove distractions, change shapes, remove skin imperfections, composite images etc. was still possible, but was considered to be the art of a 'retoucher' rather than a photographer. And was usually only done where there was lots of money involved because it was time intensive and therefore expensive.

Photoshop and other software lumps all these tools together and makes them easy (in comparison to a darkroom). So the line has blurred for many, and isn't even visible to a lot of people brought up with digital.

To call both retouching and image processing 'manipulation' or 'post processing' is changing the landscape of photography (pun intended). Personally I think that we as photographers need to redraw the line - so that we don't have stupid 'is PP necessary?', 'should I be able to get it right in camera' or other ridiculous debates. And so that when people are retouching an image, they understand that whilst it's still photography, cloning isn't simply 'necessary PP'.

For anyone that's been asleep for the last five years - there's no such thing as 'no PP' and by 'getting it right in camera' all you're doing is letting your camera manufacturer* do what we let Boots do to our film - it doesn't mean no PP, it means you've made someone else responsible for the PP.

*or the photographer can tweak all the processing parameters in camera and then all they've done is their own PP up front so the camera can output it for them.
 
I can't imagine how purist can be used as an insult. However, there are people though who are so entrenched in their ways that anything different, or challenging seems to get them all hot under the collar. Composing a shot so the subject is right on the edge of the frame will be disregarded as "wrong" by them; Deliberately skewing a horizon onto an angle will be "wrong" to them; Deliberately shooting with the wrong white balance will be "wrong" to them; Including telegraph wires or phone masts in a landscape is "wrong" to them.

I find that a little annoying, but on the whole, being a purist is not a bad thing. Purists who insist everything is done in camera are basically being silly anyway. They may as well slag of Ansel Adams, as nothing in his images was free from manipulation. It may not have been DIGITAL manipulation, but it was manipulation nonetheless. Go take a look at "Moonrise Hernandez" and tell me that's not manipulated :)
 
The only 'purist' photography is slides - and some of you may not have a clue what that means :D

Even negs are 'maniuplated' by the printing company to give you a decent exposure & colour balance however crap you shot it

Good PP in digital is easier and has more options than good work under the enlarger, in the past the great darkroom guy could win competitions largely based on the dark arts, just as a good 'Photoshopper' can today - so what :shrug:

Personally, I prefer good manipulation of a good capture to amazing polishing of a turd, but the end result can still be amazing - so what :shrug:

The winning/disqualified image the OP refers to is FAB and merely broke the rules hence it was disqualified (rightly so) as that's what the rules were for - basically to place more emphasis on the capture than the PP - on another day in another comp it may win again - so what :shrug:

'Purists' (back to slides) are very rare and pointlessly snobish IME; they might as well argue with the landscape painter that he MUST include the powerlines, or the portrait painter that he MUST include the zits - silly arguments abound and always will :D

So what :shrug:

Dave
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I am sure many are aware of a thread on TP relating to a competition disqualification but this is not about that it's about comments made here and elsewhere blaming the "Purists" for the disqualification and using purist as a derogatory term.

I will admit now to being a Purist in that I have neither the ability nor the inclination to carry out major manipulation on a photo,I try as much a s possible to get it right in the camera with some minor tweaking in Elements,however I have no objection to those with PS skills who can produce some astonishing images its just not my bag.

So please ,Purists if we have to use that term are just those who go for virtually straight shots nothing more or less and don't deserve to be looked down on by fellow photographers
Click to expand...

For me at least it was more about the images being manipulated and entered into categories that didn't allow it.

I have no problem with 'purists' doing it their way and 'non-purists' doing it theirs. As long as nobody is trying to dupe people into believing the final product is something it is not.
 
Nod said:
Next June, I will be running a competition for disposable cameras and the one major rule will be that NO PP or digital manipulation of images will be allowed. The whole point of the competition is to see what sort of eye entrants have for a photograph, not how good they are with Photoshop or similar. Purism? Maybe but that's not intended as an insult, the rule is there to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

I shall probably join in. It will take me that long to get over the trauma of the last one with a throw away camera :)
 
woof woof said:
Here's a challenge...

Can anyone post a digital image which hasn't been manipulated in any way? :D
Click to expand...

If you shot RAW and produced an uncompressed TIFF with no alterations to exposure, sharpening or anything else that would probably be quite close to un-manipulated wouldn't it?
 
Nod said:
Next June, I will be running a competition for disposable cameras and the one major rule will be that NO PP or digital manipulation of images will be allowed. The whole point of the competition is to see what sort of eye entrants have for a photograph, not how good they are with Photoshop or similar.
Click to expand...

You might struggle with that, scanning film from a disposable is impossible without some level of manipulation. When shooting colour i don't know about you but the colour is an important part of the composition and if the scanner can't give me the colours i shot then it will require PP to do that, scans pretty much always look low contrast, unsharp and washed out, that's just how they scan, even Velvia 50 looks like crap right out of the scanner. Even B&W scans will suffer from low contrast and poor sharpness and require PP.

The only way to see non-manipulated film shots is to use slide film and project it on a wall, even printing B&W or colour negative optically requires darkroom manipulation.
You'd be better laying down the absolute limits for PP for film scans to compensate for the faults of the scanning process.

As for purist, if that works best for you then by all means do it, just don't be a smug **** about it.
 
SimonH said:
I don't think the term "purist" is helpful or descriptive. I've not heard it as an insult before, but I've certainly heard it used in condescension.
Click to expand...

What he said. :LOL:

I've never heard of people who claim to do no processing having any negative comments put towards them. :shrug: I've seen a few threads, as mentioned above, where a person who claims no processing comes across as thinking they are better than someone who processes their images. :thinking:

Do whatever you're comfortable with.

The only time processing is a nono, is for journalism (sport/news) or in situations when the final image is subject to certain rules, such as competitions, as has been seen recently. And even in most competitions, there are degrees of processing allowed.

I always tell people when I've done anything more than a brighten/darken, sharpen, colour adjust and crop if they show interest in any of my images. I say that's had a bit of 'jiggery pokery' ;) done to it, and if they are interested enough I will go into detail. I'm as proud of my Photograph as of my image editing skills. (such as they are) If anyone's interested, I'll waffle on about either. ;) :LOL:

I don't want anyone under the illusion that they can get an image similar to a edited image of mine straight out of their camera, because that way disappointment lies.
 
Firstly, I'm not a purist and do use PS occasionally, but I suspect a purist would quite easily able to define what is acceptable PP and what isn't. At a guess I'd say once you start adding or removing elements from an image, you've gone beyond pure photography, and are now introducing digital artists skills.

The idea that a purist only accepts a RAW file from camera and does nothing more to the image, I find unlikely. Sharpening, dodging, burning, and tonal adjustments etc are probably still considered true photography and therefore purist.

I've worked with photographers who achieve stunning images, by using PS, and 9 times out of 10 its because they don't have the skill to get the results they want in camera, however they do have the skill to do it in PS. The idea that one way is right and the other wrong is a little odd, but personally, Im not sure that someone who relies on extensive photo manipulation to create an acceptable image, should still be considered a photographer, maybe Photographic Artist would be more appropriate? And then we wouldn't need the slightly elitist sounding term of Purist.

The thing I find odd is why Photographers that are able to achieve saleable results without using PS are somehow derided as being snobs or smug. If you had a skill set that someone else didn't, why shouldn't you be proud of it, any more than the person who uses PS to its full extent, be proud of their skill set too? :shrug:

Ultimately I'm sure no one really cares that much, though I will admit, its a hard blow when someone compliments me on my work and then says I must have great Photoshop skills to have achieved it :bonk:
 
srichards said:
I shall probably join in. It will take me that long to get over the trauma of the last one with a throw away camera :)
Click to expand...

I rather enjoyed the challenge and can certainly live with the comments left about the sand/wall one, especially the single word one!

The enjoyment was the main spur to my competition next year - and assorted comments by people about the No PP rule (which I'm sure many ignored or glossed over when joining in) have made me make my slightly draconian rule. The rule will save people loads of time though - the lo-res file as supplied by Boots is well under both pixel and Byte size for the gallery here, so no need to resize and mess around with Flickr or similar. Not sure if it's possible to set up a gallery open to all to post photos - if so, that might be a way to speed up any thread posts, especially for 'phone users of the forum. (Photos don't half slow down thread loading!)
 
Nod said:
- and assorted comments by people about the No PP rule (which I'm sure many ignored or glossed over when joining in) have made me make my slightly draconian rule.
Click to expand...


That was your interpretation of a rule, which isn't necessarily everybody's.
In the absence of clear defining rules, some people didn't take it absolutely literally like you seem to be fixated on, if that's how you see it good for you, but don't think your understanding of it is the only one possible.
Imo, a crop and a straighten is not PP, its a basic function everybody ought to make when displaying their images, if you don't at least do that then you clearly don't care about your work, so why the hell should your prospective viewers.
I wouldn't mind but yours is one of the best pictures in that thread so stop sniping about it every 5 minutes and start your "can't do nothing" thread.
 
treeman said:
Firstly, I'm not a purist and do use PS occasionally, but I suspect a purist would quite easily able to define what is acceptable PP and what isn't. At a guess I'd say once you start adding or removing elements from an image, you've gone beyond pure photography, and are now introducing digital artists skills.
Click to expand...

At a guess I'd say it was covered in my post regarding what was done in a normal darkroom and what was handed to a 'retoucher'. The problem of course is that if you've only ever used digital, you probably don't have that hardwired:thinking:.

And I never used a darkroom (except a couple of times) but I shot film for years and these things are on the 'You just know' list.:)
 
treeman said:
The thing I find odd is why Photographers that are able to achieve saleable results without using PS are somehow derided as being snobs or smug.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think I have seen this. Maybe I'm not looking at the right threads. :shrug:

If people are making a point of saying that they do no 'Photoshopping' as part of their marketing, then they are seemingly trying to mark themselves out from other people by insinuating that other people may be doing it. And by mentioning it, are they not saying that that it is a positive, and doing it that way is better? If I say I'm doing something better than you am I not being 'snobbish'? :shrug:

If someone asks, and they say what they have or haven't done that's another thing. ;)

Even with film there was always some processing, be that the method of processing the film and/or the choices made and techniques used when printing. 'Photoshopping' is too general term as well, is it brightening sharpening, contrast etc or removing/replacing elements? As mentioned earlier, slide was the only way to ensure it all happened in camera. ;)

If anyone can sell images, in whatever way, good luck to them. (y)

Nobody seems to want to buy my images, Photoshopped or not. :( ;) :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Is this not a question of integrity, credibility and what a photograph actually is ?
 
joxby said:
Is this not a question of integrity, credibility and what a photograph actually is ?
Click to expand...

You would hopefully get integrity and credibility from a journalism/documentary image, everything else is a representation of the scene imho. How accurate that image is with regards to the scene, only the photographer can say. :shrug:

If it is an image you like, unless the originator is making false claims with regards to the image, what difference does it make? :shrug:

Most people don't have to justify how the image came to be, they, and hopefully the people they show it to, just enjoy the image.
 
joxby said:
That was your interpretation of a rule, which isn't necessarily everybody's.
In the absence of clear defining rules, some people didn't take it absolutely literally like you seem to be fixated on, if that's how you see it good for you, but don't think your understanding of it is the only one possible.
Imo, a crop and a straighten is not PP, its a basic function everybody ought to make when displaying their images, if you don't at least do that then you clearly don't care about your work, so why the hell should your prospective viewers.
I wouldn't mind but yours is one of the best pictures in that thread so stop sniping about it every 5 minutes and start your "can't do nothing" thread.
Click to expand...

As it happens, I asked the originastor of the challenge about it in person and she was adamant that no PP (and horizon levelling, cropping and denoising were specifically asked about) was allowed. Out of my 27 shots, very few were worth posting, which is the main reason I only posted 2. The other reason is that I ran out of time before I ran out of shots.

Thank you for the compliment about my shot, I am rather pleased with it - and it involved no straightening (blind luck - I'm way too old to bend down that far!), cropping (again, blind luck for the same reason) or denoising (being mainly sand, noise reduction would probably have smoothed that texture out too much had I applied any).

I have posted a "can't do nothing" thread and it was kindly stickied by the mods for a week or so until I decided that most people would have seen it and taken note. It won't be running until June and I'll try to remember to start a new thread promoting it in April next year. The early thread was basically a heads up so people could find their preferred disposable in case production of them may be halted (I believe Kodak may already have stopped). http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=443204 will save you the hassle of looking for the thread - as I say, I look forward to seeing the results!

I'm not against PP - in fact, I've mentioned elsewhere the possibility of running another competition where I shall supply a suitably poor photograph for people to do with what they will to rescue/improve it. Anything will go in that one, although I will point out that I'm not a fan of overblown HDR or colour popping, so any of those may well be at a disadvantage! Not sure of the prize for that - probably a card or USB stick of the winner's choice again. In fact, I may start trawling my archive for a suitable image next week - it'll give people something to do while the weather's cr@p!
 
I try my hardest to get everything done in camera and I don't like to use any programs on the computer to alter it. I do sometimes use Canon DPP to tweak my photos but I certainly don't go into the realms of major image manipulation, but I certainly don't disrespect the people who do.

I have my own views on the way I take my photos and on the occasions I've been commissioned to do some shots the people are more than happy with the results. Just because I don't use any PP to most of my shots I don't expect to be told by anyone that I shouldn't do it like that and it should be done this way. Likewise I don't try to force my opinion on those that use image manipulation programs all the time. I wouldn't consider myself a 'purist', in fact I consider myself an amateur who enjoys taking photos the way I do.

The image manipulation arguement gets very similar emotive reactions as the RAW vs Jpeg arguement. If more people spent less time telling other people what to do instead of going out and shooting these sort of threads would be shorter and fewer.

For the record I've seen the images that were the inspiration to the thread and personally I wasn't overly impressed, mainly because I'm not into landscapes or B&W, but I'm not a big fan of that much image manipulation. I much prefer to take a photo and let everyone be able to recognize the image I took as realistic ie. how it looked when I took it.
 
redhed17 said:
You would hopefully get integrity and credibility from a journalism/documentary image, everything else is a representation of the scene imho. How accurate that image is with regards to the scene, only the photographer can say. :shrug:

If it is an image you like, unless the originator is making false claims with regards to the image, what difference does it make? :shrug:

Most people don't have to justify how the image came to be, they, and hopefully the people they show it to, just enjoy the image.
Click to expand...


It my be obviously faked, or the viewer may find out at a later date the image doesn't or couldn't exist.
It would hardly matter if the image was fake if the viewer didn't question it, or was not moved to, ie, it looked as though it could exist.
But where does that leave the viewer of a image presented as a photograph.
I think photography has always been viewed with a certain amount of integrity and credibility, because a photograph is a copy of what existed, there is not much room for wholesale manipulation.
Unfortunately the further away from actuality we go with our images that we present as photographs, the more that undermines the integrity and credibility of photographs.

Like it or not, people in general expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were in fact grey and not orange, they feel cheated or conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning.
They also de-value the work by saying the photographer didn't shoot the scene, he made it up afterwards.
Now if that piece of work had been a painting, digital art, clay...whatever, it would be no less beautiful and nobody would give a toss how it was made.

Is this not the specific quality that separates photography from painting, in that it can't be imaginary.

I don't have a theory for real scenes that do exist but look imaginary..:shrug:
 
srichards said:
If you shot RAW and produced an uncompressed TIFF with no alterations to exposure, sharpening or anything else that would probably be quite close to un-manipulated wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I don't think it'd be manipulation free as the manufacturer will have set what blue, red... etc should look like, and they all have different ideas, and how would you display the image?

If you print it out you're relying on Mr Epson and his ink and paper and if you display it on a screen you're in the hands of Mr Samsung or Mr Compaq etc... Dificult, isn't it?
 
joxby said:
It my be obviously faked, or the viewer may find out at a later date the image doesn't or couldn't exist.
It would hardly matter if the image was fake if the viewer didn't question it, or was not moved to, ie, it looked as though it could exist.
But where does that leave the viewer of a image presented as a photograph.
I think photography has always been viewed with a certain amount of integrity and credibility, because a photograph is a copy of what existed, there is not much room for wholesale manipulation.
Unfortunately the further away from actuality we go with our images that we present as photographs, the more that undermines the integrity and credibility of photographs.

Like it or not, people in general expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were in fact grey and not orange, they feel cheated or conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning.
They also de-value the work by saying the photographer didn't shoot the scene, he made it up afterwards.
Now if that piece of work had been a painting, digital art, clay...whatever, it would be no less beautiful and nobody would give a toss how it was made.

Is this not the specific quality that separates photography from painting, in that it can't be imaginary.

I don't have a theory for real scenes that do exist but look imaginary..:shrug:
Click to expand...

I hold a completely, almost polar opposite view to this. The thing some people miss though is that your view is equally valid for you as mine is for me.

Thank god we're all different and good luck with whatever floats your boat (y)
 
Im with Simon, to me its all about the image, not how it was achieved. However if competition rules state minimal manipulation such as sharpening only, so be it. I seem to recall many years ago when film and darkrooms ruled that we manipulated photographs by burning in etc so its not exactly something new.
 
I'm in the don't give a crap corner - some of my photos get a fair bit of PP other get no more than a contrast and sharpen. People can do what ever they like to their images - you can normally tell how much the image has been made in photoshop V camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top