- This topic is empty.
Post Processing
-
Mark wrote:
Now this is something I object too and its was the Irish Photographer winner of the Open Category in 2005
The crows were added, the scarecrows were added as was the photographers face to the photograph.
This is not in my opinion photography a 12yo kid could combine this element together.
You could just as easily say he added background to 2 other peoples photograhs!
Fajitas! wrote:
“I don’t think that pictures made up of more than one image can be classed as photography.”
I have to disagree with that…a carefully composed double exposure on film, is still a photograph…Even look at photographers like Angus McBean for portraits composed of different shots!
How annoying. I’m sure I was certain of my viewpoint before you pointed that out. :twisted:
Although – even if technically it can be produced on film and thus can be called photography, it just has an extra element that to me says it’s beyond ‘photography’ in the sense of capturing a scene. More of a personal thing that I can’t really explain properly… just seems different, somehow.
I don’t have any problem with blending multiple exposures of the same image, say for scenes where the dynamic range is too great to capture in a single exposure.
Now that the Luminous Landscape site appears to be back up, I can quote directly from the page in support of my point above:
Michael Reichmann wrote:
While I have never added anything to an image that wasn’t there, I don’t have a problem in my fine-art images in removing things.
My point is that ‘fine-art’ standards are being applied to what is essentially a documentary image. The actual changes made are fairly minor, but the impression has changed. The original shows a homeless guy in a sheet, whereas the altered version gives a more corpse-like impression.
Well, yes, in the case of photojournalism, my views would be completly astray. But it’s something I have never really ventured into myself, apart from the Magnum Photographers Photo documentaries.
My photography is completly fine art based, as in, that’s where I’ve learnt all of my skills, not just photography for that matter, so I am very biased.
Julie, I didn’t mean that you were wrong in saying that, I was just saying that I disagree with it!!! :)
I’m under the impression that adding elements from various images is art ,almost art and design.
Isn’t photography an art of it’s own? ,if someone goes out to get a picture of a mountain to stick into the backround of a cow shot ,they’re not in my mind working in photography ,they are working in art and design.
If someone manufactures an image in their own mind ,this is design ,no????Adding an artistic element to a photograph like dodge and burn ,blur ,unsharp mask ,is an artists impression on a photograph and is adding to an image to put their stamp on it. In my opinion I think this is photography and a good artist will be great with it.
I’m probably completely off the mark ,but someone will have to invent a few descriptions soon ,some images take the ps as photography IMHo.
Adding an artistic element to a photograph like dodge and burn ,blur ,unsharp mask ,is an artists impression on a photograph and is adding to an image to put their stamp on it
What about choosing what film you use, or what aperature you shoot at, or what grade of paper you print on?
Once you buy a camera you’ve made an artistic choice because each manufacturer’s camera has different quirks, certainly with film there’s a big difference between Kodak & Fuji and slow Vs fast speed film. Wide Vs narrow aperatues make a big difference to the end result, as do slow fast shutterspeeds and not forgetting choice of lens. We won’t even mention filters, swing and tilt on larger format cameras, or cross-processing. All these are choices a photographer makes, not necessarily for art’s sake but to communicate how they see things.Before Photoshop photographers were well capable of taking multiple exposure shots, whether for lighting effects or compositing in-camera…especially in advertising. I wouldn’t call this art, it’s a trade and a good tradesperson will always know how best to use whatever tools available to achieve the required result. Dodging and burning, pre-flashing paper, etc, are just tools a photographer can use in the darkroom. I wouldn’t necessarily label them artists tools, no more than I’d label a chisel an artists tool. Tools are tools, end of. How you choose to use them all becomes your vision, much as a writer has to find his/her voice when writing. What you do with what you got defines you as an artist or a craftsperson. As the man said, there’s an art to being a good craftsman and a craft to being a good artist.
Photoshop is just a digital darkroom, for me its where you process your image without getting high on fixer and developer. Nobody ever criticises a film photograph that has been altered in the dark room, if your a true film purist only wanting to see ‘natural’ or ‘real’ photos then that would mean printing minus any grading, dodging, burning etc. Whats the difference in cross processing in a lab or in photoshop? Photoshop processing does not affect the right to call a photo a photo or documentary photo just because you have increased contrast, or sharpened an image.As long as composition hasnt been altered I dont think anyone has the right to say its not a photo. I would have difficulty alright in calling an image in which composition has been altered or two images combined to create 1 a photo that is graphic art to me. I think many people are too hung up on the film v digital debate as they are both just formats neither has the right to be called a truer photo. Each should be used on its own merits and relevance to a particular project or subject.
Totally agree with you shanec,
It doesn’t matter what tools you use as long as you get the result you want.
The photography is an art form. My phylosophy is do anything what you want. The final picture is important. How you made it, is not. Use anything to make what you want to show and say with your picture.
Of course we have exceptions. For documentary or technical photography the above is not relevant.
When the photography borned, artists were against it as an art form. Now we have some photographers against the digital manipulations.
Photographers are artists using photography as a media to show own feelings.Nothing is ever ‘real’ except the original scene.
Everything else is just a representation either in the form of electrons on a chip or silver halide in a film – it is always just a version of reality.
How far you choose to take that is up to your own skill, ability, judgement and personal preference. A good photographer will always have an image in their mind of what they want to portray. The final photograph should be just an attempt to show that (however this might be achieved). The technology used is effectively irrelevant – what really matters is the image in your imagination, and your representation of that.
If you want to set your own rules as to what is and isn’t acceptable in your own work, that’s fine by me – I will judge you on the result, not the method.I would however make a distinction here between what we regard as factual or reportage photography which I believe should not be grossly manipulated to misrepresent the reality (though of course even this represents a subjective judgement)..
Im fairly against heavy editing, the most i ever do is Levels and Desaturate. Maybe the contrast.
Too many people try to cover up a bad photo with heavy post processing, and I just dont agree with that!!
This could be as heated a debate as the Nikon Vs Canon one – I’ill throw in my tuppence worth.
Personally I use levels, and desaturate on my digital images – but this is mainly because I’m crap at photoshop. I started taking photos on a Mamiya C330 twin lens, and my first wedding was using this and guessing the exposure. When the results came back I was absolutely thrilled and very proud of them. This is a feeling that I don’t think can be replicated when using digital. I still shoot a lot of slide film when possible, and still feel the buzz when waiting for the black & white box to come dropping through the postbox. Through (a lot) of trial & error I got to the stage where I knew my camera & my film type extremely well and used to take most of my shots using manual calculations.
That said, when it comes to commercial work, for me, the use of digital cameras and photoshop is a god send. When doing portrait / wedding work you can see the results on the spot, and consequently leads to a much less stressful experience for the photographer (I’ve still lost most of my hair however!)
Photography in general is a totally subjective medium – you say tomato – I say ‘yeuuch’!. It boils down, in my opinion and experience, to a simple choice – when shooting for someone else (paid job) you have to deliver what they want, I use digital and my limited photoshop skills to achieve the desired results and I have no qualms about it- however, when I am shooting my landscapes for my own pleasure I use slide film as I like to test my skill and still like the thrill of waiting to see how I got on.
Its very much different strokes for different folks – if it makes you happy why not do it? For most people after all its a hobby / passion, if we were all the same it would make for a very boring life.
Regards
Kevin
gerardk wrote:
elven wrote:
I don’t think that pictures made up of more than one image can be classed as photography.
.
Couldnt agree more with that statement.
I, on the other hand, most vehemently disagree with that statement! I have a number of images which pre-date digital imaging and were all created without any form of computer manipulation but rely on such things as in-camera multiple exposure, slide sandwiching and multiple printing in the darkroom. As these involve more than one image, is this no longer photography? What then should this be classed as?
I personally dislike over-Photoshopped images as much as the rest of you seem to here. But I think it’s dangerous to make sweeping generalisations and shows a lack of appreciation of the craft of photography which our predecessors had simply because we can do it all with the click of a mouse!
Interesting definition from photo.net of what it defines as ‘manipulated’ vs ‘unmanipulated’ photographs :
http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
I am pretty much in agreement with the Photo.net definition as a reasonable demarcation line for photo-manipulation. Not that further use of Photoshop is necessarily a bad thing, but what does concern me is the blurring of the boundary between ‘art’ and ‘factual’ images as I have said before.
E.g. someone takes a photo of, say, the Grand Canyon and uses Photoshop to substantially ‘enhance’ it away from the original, saying as a justification that this is ‘art’, not documentary, and so anything is OK. But, if they then caption it ‘Grand Canyon’ (or even if they don’t, as people will recognise it anyway) then there is a problem, because what appears to be a factual image of a real-world object is really an artistic creation that may not be true to details (e.g. maybe they have cloned out various hotels, tourist buses etc.).
As a personal example, in my photo Ha’penny Bridge I cloned out a few bright bits of litter in the foreground, as well as a very small neon sign that had blown out to white behind the railings. I have no doubt that the photo is improved by the changes, but was it right to do so? If it’s OK, then where does one draw the line? Should I also take out the phone wire, and any other distracting features I care to, even maybe a person or two (had they been there)? The B&W conversion I don’t really see as a manipulation, as it just shows tonal range minus colour information, but sepia-style toning I would. Dublin is now portrayed as being tidier than it is in reality – a direct factual distortion has resulted from my alterations. Perhaps that is just the price we pay for ‘art’.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
