What do you call Photographers That Fall on the far end of the Spectrum ?

[JFG]

In the world of photographers there are two extreme tribes.  The ones who live at the far ends of the post-processing spectrum.  They have unofficial names, unofficially hilariously, and sometimes lovingly whispered in camera clubs.  For those that are unaware, here are the archetypes:  

🛠️The Purist  Lives on the "minor touch-ups only" end.  Also known as: 

• SOOC (Straight Out Of The Camera) Zealot 
• The Naturalist
• JPEG Monk
• The Sensor Worshipper
• The "I don't need Lightroom, I have integrity" guy  

Traits:

• Believes cropping is a moral failure.
• Thinks sliders are a slippery slope to artistic corruption.
• Says things like "I prefer to get it right in camera" while standing in impossible lighting.

🎨The Alchemist Lives on the "full creative transformation" end.

Also known as:

• Pixel Wizard
• Photoshop Sorcerer
• The Color-Grade Prophet
• The Composite Conjurer
• The 'Is this still a photo?' Artist

Traits:

• Has 47 layers named "final_final_REAL_final".
• Believes reality is merely a suggestion.
• Can turn a cloudy day into a cosmic nebula with three adjustment layers and a prayer.

⚡The Fun Part

Most photographers, including myself, dance somewhere in between these two.  But extremes?  They're iconic.

I like to think that I sit dead-center between Purist and Pixel Wizard but with my own twist.  If you ask me I'll tell you why. 🥸

Where do you think you dance in the spectrum?  Let us know. 😎

[Tintype_18]

All of the above.

[JFG]

Hi John, 

I can see why you chose all of the above,  that's because you're both an Alchemist and a Pufrist.  For you, it all depends on your project and what you visualize it to be.  On some projects your photos are only to document.  In others you express your visual experience.  You also like to experiment and push the envelope.  You’re the "Spectrum" shape shifter.  A photographer who:
- Shoots like a purist on Monday
- Edits like a wizard on Tuesday
- Preaches SOOC on Wednesday
- Adds 14 layers of glow on Thursday
- And on Friday says, “Labels are limiting, bro.” 😉

Shapeshifter

1. The Chameleon Artist
Changes style depending on mood, weather, or caffeine level.
One day: National Geographic.
Next day: Cyberpunk neon fever dream.

2. The Post‑Processing Gemini
Two personalities:
- “I don’t edit much.”
- “Here’s my 37‑layer Photoshop file.”

Both are true. Somehow.

3. The Omni‑Photographer
Believes every style is valid because he is every style.
A walking contradiction, but in a charming way.

---

🎒 Behavioral Traits
- Uses the phrase “It depends” more than any other human.
- Has presets ranging from “Natural Clean” to “Apocalypse Teal.”
- Can argue both sides of any editing debate convincingly.
- Claims to be a purist but owns a graphics tablet the size of a dinner table.

---

🧠 What this really means
You're not confused — you're versatile.
You don’t fit in a box — You own the whole warehouse.

Some photographers pick a lane.
You build a highway.

[LeeP]

I appreciate your attempt at characterizing the two imagined sides, though I think that's a false construct, but nevertheless...

While I definitely skew my initial instruction toward SOOC competence via control of composition and exposure as a prerequisite to any digital manipulation if so desired, I find mischaracterization in the description of SOOC advocates. The characterization of the "alchemist" is largely positive versus the occasional negativity in the characterization of the "purist".

I would suggest some edits:

The Master  Lives on the "minor touch-ups only" end. 

• Advocates for SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) images 
• Holds that comprehension and application of composition and exposure guidelines are essential prerequisites to the outcome
• Believes that natural is better than engineered
• Uses Lightroom for minor adjustments  

Traits:

• Believes cropping should be done via composition to the maximum extent possible.
• Thinks sliders should be used sparingly.
• Says things like "This is tricky lighting. Let me hop to manual and use my understanding of exposure control to get the photograph."

"Purist" and "zealot" are words that bring with them negative connotations and therefore create a judgmental tone whereas "master" pairs better with "alchemist" because in order to be an alchemist or a master one would have to be at the top of their respective forms.

I maintain that if you're going to be an "alchemist" and do photoshop wizardry, you'll be better served if the images you are manipulating were created with "master's" attention to excellence up front.

Thank you for the conversation.

[mohsin025]

"Gear acquisition syndrome" is the polite term, but honestly, the community has developed much more colorful vocabulary for this over the years depending on which end of the spectrum you are looking at.

The interesting distinction is between people who collect gear as the primary hobby, where photography is almost incidental, and people who genuinely believe the next purchase will unlock something in their work that the current setup is holding back. The second group is more self-aware about it, which somehow makes it worse rather than better.

The photographers I know who produce the most consistently interesting work tend to be suspiciously resistant to upgrading anything. there is probably a correlation there that the gear obsessed community collectively agrees not to examine too closely.

What prompted the question: a recent encounter with someone at the far end of the spectrum or more of a self-assessment situation?

[March411]

---

@LeeP wrote:

While I definitely skew my initial instruction toward SOOC competence via control of composition and exposure as a prerequisite to any digital manipulation if so desired

---

Not sure that skew is an accurate depiction of how you teach Lee. Control of composition and exposure are the foundation of any teaching or instruction, the first vital step to creating an image. You are not skewed, you are starting in exactly the right space teaching them the fundamentals that will be the backbone of their success in the future.

As a freshmen in high school the first semester totally revolved around those two aspects of photography. Our instructor gave us clear direction, capture, print (zero adjustments) and review. It was a humbling experience to sit in a classroom and have the entire class critique each others images but it occurred every week for the entire semester. That being said it taught us about others observations/views and what was aesthetically pleasing to a larger audience. Hated it at first, very beneficial in the end.

We didn't even get to discuss post production nor was it taught until the second semester.      

[TomRamsey]

Good stuff!  It's nice to get it right the first time, but it doesn't always happen to raw is great.  In the early morning the light changes so fast that you may have to fix the white balance, if you do it then, you may miss things, so again raw is great.  It's great to be able to compose a shot to fit the frame, but that bobolink 100 feet away isn't going to fill any frame, gotta crop.  That Barn Swallow I shot this morning at ISO 12800 is going to need some noise reduction.  

I really don't care how other photographers do things, the fun is doing my things.  I do like to get the picture as I saw it, and sometimes that means some pp is needed.

[LeeP]

Spam?

[SignifDigits]

There are two kinds of people in the world:

1. Those that believe that people and subjects can be grouped into two extremes/polemics and labeled, and 
2. Those that don't

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  I'm definitely in the "those that don't" camp and am mystified by people that fall into category 1.

As for me?  I limit myself to what I can do in DPP4 99.9% of the time (unless I'm on a lark just for fun).  I don't plan to own Topaz, Lightroom, etc.  Why?

1. I'm lazy.  I don't want to experience the learning curve of PhotoShop.  (LightRoom Classic was as easy as DPP4, though), so
2. I'm cheap, thus DPP4
3. I only want the photos for myself.  I'm not doing this stuff for anyone but my own personal joy.
4. I want to encourage myself to get as good as I can get in the camera.  I should probably shoot film so that I take shutter clicks more seriously, but I'm not doing that.  Plus, I think getting as good as I can in the camera will keep me busy the rest of my life.

That said, I'm not a purist.  I don't care what others do with their art.  That's their art, not mine.  I don't see why anyone else cares so much what others do that they have to label folks and/or judge others.  Seems a tremendous  waste of time when there's so much room for personal improvement in photography.   From what I've read even the greats were always pushing themselves to improve.

Why can't we just let this topic go and move onto self-improvement?