- This topic is empty.
oh no, not another Digital Art debate-
-
Following Latchiko’s post in Landscape yesterday,
the one that spawned a proper storm in a teacup,
I’ve been doing a little wondering-There are areas of Photography which would be well served by retaining a little credibility-
Documentary, and its branches, including Reportage, Sports, Architecture, Forensics, and so on-
That’s not to say there aren’t many who wouldn’t take this seriously at all,
and wouldn’t be averse to a little cloning here and there…Other areas are more open to interpretation- Fantasy, I think Andy called it-
including Advertising, Portraiture, Landscape, ‘Art’, and so on-However, there is one other area that might need a little clarification, maybe, and it’s on this site-
It doesn’t affect me in the slightest, because I don’t go there,
but others might be interested to know if the competition run on this site is a Photography Competition,
or whether any form of digital manipulation, or compositing is acceptable-The answer would interest me-
if there is a consensus that anything goes,
then the competition becomes a de facto Digital Art Competition-
which might concern those who thought they were entering a Photography Competition-I was pretty ambivalent yesterday, while talking about a picture posted in the Landscape section,
but there are pictures that maybe shouldn’t be tampered with…I was going to put up a poll,
but I’d need to think harder about the question…j
Ambivalent eh? Then put up your poll, but hang your flag at half mast…
I’d agree that there are pictures that shouldn’t be tampered with, documentary,
forensic, reportage, etc., but hasn’t ‘tampering been part’ of ‘photography’ for
a century already? Just because most of it is now done in a digital darkroom
does that make it less acceptable?Compositing is nothing new, it’s just become a lot easier. And as for montage,
imagine the fun Rodchenko would have with CS3 and a digital camera…I suppose the simplest way around this would be to specify in each round
the photographic requirements for the theme, be it artistic interpretation or
raw documentary…Another question comes to mind; if a manipulated image can be interpreted as
digital art rather than a photograph, do the arcane machinations of a dark room
connoisseur constitute chemical art?In other words, how far must we push an image from its original unaltered state
before it ceases to be a photograph per se?Rob.
I suggest we just carry a huge frame around with us. If you see something of interest and want to enter it into the competition you need to call everyone else and get them to look through the frame (people with contacts or glasses can’t enter sorry). That way we can be sure there is no trickery involved ;-)
JB,
I wouldn’t say there was a storm in a teacup. There was a critique thread where everyone respectfully gave an opinion on the image. Some found the image morally acceptable as posted, some not so. Others, like me, are perfectly happy with it as long as it is declared as “fantasy”.
I was looking recently at some of the images produced using Terragen software. It is getting so sophisticated now that I’m sure some of these 100% artificial images would win landscape “photography” competitions. It is very difficult to draw a line on this debate and everyone will have their own limits.
To me, this list below is the sliding scale of manipulation that we are all working. The most benign is at the top to the most extreme at the bottom. The debate on this will rage on for a long time to come, but this is the way I see it.
Dust clone
Saturation and Contrast
Local Dodge and Burn
Filtration
Simple blend
HDR
Colour replacement
Composite
TerragenI think it is up to competition organisers to make their own rules as to where on the scale they go. It will depend on the genre of course. If I was an organiser of a landscape photography competition I would draw the line at major colour replacement. A yellow sea or pink grass for instance is not really a celebration of the landscape in which we live. Nor in my opinion is an “almost” impossible combination of two completely unconnected frames. And of course, nor is a 100% artificial Terragen image. A conservatively processed HDR however could be seen as a fair representation of the landscape in front of the camera and thus a celebration of it.
I suspect that the word I’ve used here “celebration” will be jumped on. But at the end of the day, it is the landscape and the respect for a landscape that matters most of all to a landscaper photographer.
That’s me on this one.
Out of interest Andy would you rule out cross processing film and sandwiching slides with the idea that they are colour replacement and compositing?
I wonder before digital were there competitions that didn’t allow sandwiching and cross processing film? I can understand that in landscape, colour representation is very important but it’s too difficult to draw a line. Lenses, White Balance, Colourspace, Camera, filters film type, processing etc
I think a competition should be left open to whatever methods are available. In my opinion people/judges will always pick the better photo in the end (well almost always)
I personally would say no to these techniques in my imaginary competition. My competition would be about illustrating and celebrating the actual landscape rather than making a new landscape of our own. But of course, this is just my competition.
In my opinion this issue is nothing to do with digital or film.
As the instigator of the “storm” I guess I’ll add my two cents…
Firstly, regarding my orginal post, my intention was not to claim the image as being straight from the camera but rather to get some feedback on it as a whole. I appreciated all of the opinions received and I think it’s an interesting topic of discussion. Perhaps I posted it in the wrong section. Perhaps I should have been more upfront from the start. I certainly didn’t intend to cause such controversy!
I agree with jb7’s point that documentary shots should for the most part be unedited. I say for the most part because inevitably (especially with digital) there will be some editing of the image. Sharpening, colour correction and so on. But the content of the image should remain intact and true.
I also agree with Andy in that there is a sliding scale of manipulation when it comes to images which fall outside of the scope of documentary. However, I disagree that the output of Terragen (or any other computer generated imageray application) ever be considered photography/manipulation. A camera of some description must be involved in the capturing of the image in order for it to be considered photography in my opinion. Similarly, combining CGI with photography (e.g. superimposing a photograph of a person on some computer generated architecture) is no longer photography.
Finally, on jb7’s point about competitions on this forum, I think the rules for the monthly POTY competitions made it clear that “images can be made from combining multiple exposures but not by taking part of one photograph and adding it to the entry”, which would rule out composites. With the Photoshop Challenge I think pretty much anything goes but there is usually a competition specific guideline as to the desired techniques to be used.
This is an interesting question and one I think will be raised at national level in the near future for IPF competition. At the national finals early in the year the projected images catagory was a combination of digital projections and slide. NO slide came within the lowest score of the digital projections which opened the debate for me. There clearly has to be a destinction but unfortunately this will never be the case on general competition such as those seen here in the POTY.
Hands up who shoots digital in RAW mode? If this is the case digital manipulation is vital to produce an image. Agreeing with Andys scale, or the presence of one, there is a degree of acceptance in competition. In the wide world of photography I don’t see a problem though. You make your choices of what you like…doesn’t matter how the image was produced as long as you like it…or maybe not. Cartier-Bresson didn’t allow his images to be cropped, Adams thrived on dodging & burning and Nick Brandt does what ever it takes. All have their following.
Joseph – I agree totally with the documentary/sport/forensics point, but in competition I’d like to see anyone come up with a solution to a problem that’s going to be as irrelevant as diesel v petrol now is.Alan.
Do whatever makes you happy… after all… they are your photos… and… because you can.
For competitions do whatever satisfies the rules.
Is it not that simple?
No, with regard to competitions it isn’t unfortunately John and I refer again to the national finals of the IPF to explain. Some of the more experienced photographers from the film era will produce images as they were seen with some manipulation in the darkroom (I speak as an ignorant of whatever this is) but it was clear to see from someone who plays with PS a lot that the striking images, not necessarily the technically perfect ones, came to the top of the pile in the competition. These images were obviously helped along in post processing and this made for an unlevel playing filed.
As far as competitions like the POTY goes I don’t know how you would differenciate the two to provide a stable, equal competition. I suggested a competition some time ago elsewhere for images straight from the camera and I was torn to shreads for suggesting it from some angles, while others approved of it.
As far as doing what ever makes you happy…I’m all for it!!! Your final image is what matters, not how you got there.Alan
The state of the science is changing.
I just hope in journalism and forensics the integrity of the accuracy is never allowed to slip.
Maybe art is art and truth is truth. What?
Don’t get you Alan… again I state:
For competitions do whatever satisfies the rules
If you don’t break the rules and win… then who can complain?
andy mcinroy wrote:
JB,
I wouldn’t say there was a storm in a teacup.
Critiquing the critique again…
It’s only a metaphor Andy,
you’ve got to allow me that-This has become quite wide ranging-
but in answer to a few specific points-Alan, I suppose I can’t agree with you about the process being distinct from, and less important than, the end result-
I suppose if the process is purely digital,
and the majority of the work is done post capture-
then this might be the case-But there are other ways to make images where the process might be integral to the image-
Anyway, regarding the big question,
I suppose it doesn’t really matter…It’s only a question of degree, I suppose…
(more ambivalence)j
Whatever about competitions and they’re hard to police to be honest, I personally don’t believe in the following;
– Adding objects to a photograph – if it wasn’t there. don’t add it… so yep taking the sky from photo A and pasting it into photo B etc… doesn’t do it for me.
– Removing untidy objects – you should have seen them before you took the shot
– Replacing colours outside of the use of filters/wb – this excludes mono of course as toning/b+w is clearly what its about. But I do think that if the flower was red, don’t make it blue
– Manipulating photojournalism/documentary/street/sport/wildlife photos- should be left untouched (except my list below).What I (stress the ‘I’) think is ok;
– Dodging/Burning
– Cloning out dirt
– Increasing contrast
– Increasing saturation
– Adjusting levels
– Sharpening
– Correcting exposureMost of these required because of the digital medium and shooting in raw. They’re unavoidable. Of course some of them also apply to film.
Anyhow. above constitutes what for me are the boundaries which I feel I must keep my photography within.
If I started doing the things in my “don’t believe in” list, I’d feel like I was cheating.Before anyone starts off on one ;), this is just what I believe in. What you do and how you achieve is 100% ok with me :)
Live and let live…I am not sure I completely agree that manipulation is wrong
its more about at what point it is just art.
I have no problem with changing colours etc, I mean this is done all the time by the pros for commercial images
things are replaced and inserted etc all the time in adverts etc
BUT, my opinion is based on what the use of the image is for and the context etc
as far as competitions, my understanding of the IPF competitions is that manipulation is allowed if its discrete.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
