- This topic is empty.
Post Processing
-
Cant say I’d consider the likes of the below a photograph
I feel that when you get into splicing multiple photos together your in the realm of image manipulation and not photography.
I have to disagree – what stops it being a photograph ?
All photography involves image manipulation.Personally – I don’t like it or think it’s a particular good photo.
Mick & Thorsten – think we broadly agree here – it’s an interesting discussion anyway.
I don’t mind what personal rules people want to set for their own definition of what a ‘photograph’ is – as long as they realise that it’s a personal, subjective and pretty arbritary definition.Thorsten wrote:
gavin wrote:
I feel that when you get into splicing multiple photos together your in the realm of image manipulation and not photography.
Does that include panoramas produced by stitching multiple images together to replicate the view that one might get if one used a panorama camera, or if one cut the top and bottom off a regular print to produce a panorama print (which I would also class as manipulation!)?
I wouldn?t see that as the same thing as taking different images and splicing them together as another person here said if you don?t have the use of a panoramic camera, then you make use of the next best, but taking different images such as the link I posted is not photography, the artist is representing something imagined not seen.
And as for Illustration and photography being the same thing well that?s just well out there, for me photography is about capturing a moment a feeling at particular time and conveying to other people, illustration is about conveying something from the mind or an interpretation of scene
but taking different images such as the link I posted is not photography
They’re all photographs, so I don’t understand how you can say it’s not photography. You use software to stitch landscape panoramas together and that’s legitimate, yet you can’t use software to stitch one part of an image with another even though this work has up until relatively recently been done using masks in a darkroom environment, or in camera with multiple exposures by accomplished photographers. Bizarre.And as for Illustration and photography being the same thing well that?s just well out there
Ironic, because the literal translation of photography means ‘drawing with light’.for me photography is about capturing a moment a feeling at particular time and conveying to other people
So, no long exposures from you then? ;)
They’re all photographs, so I don’t understand how you can say it’s not photography. You use software to stitch landscape panoramas together and that’s legitimate, yet you can’t use software to stitch one part of an image with another even though this work has up until relatively recently been done using masks in a darkroom environment, or in camera with multiple exposures by accomplished photographers. Bizarre.I’m aware of masks being used in the darkroom and I would say the same thing about that as using PS combining various images is not what I personally consider photography, as I have said for me its about a moment in time, capturing that moment and relaying to other people either digitally or on film, not making one up made of various images. I don?t have a problem with it, it’s just not what I would consider photography.
Ironic, because the literal translation of photography means ‘drawing with light’.I’m aware of that it still does not make them the same thing. When I draw a scene with a pencil its very different form a photograph, I would not consider them any near the same thing and just because someone in the 19th century coined a phrase does not make them same thing, when drawing you transfer roughly what is there both spatial texturally and colour its no where near exactly what is there where as with a photograph its exactly what was there.
So, no long exposures from you then? ;)Dont really understand what you mean by that, a moment is not defined by specific length of time. And its still the one image
Mick451 wrote:
Reuters recently got into shit for publishing a photo which had some of the most blatantly amateurish cloning I’ve ever seen which had been used to ‘enhance’ the results of an air-strike in Lebannon. Reuters reputation took a serious knocking and I guarantee any image from them will be held under even more scrutiny for some time.
As a followup to this, I thought the following link may interest some of you… the pic Mick is referring to is (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong Mick) the second shot in this series of images which have been modified “beyond straightforward cropping of edges or lightening shaded areas”
You can say that again!
http://news.com.com/Photos+Pictures+that+lie/2300-1026_3-6033210.html
edit: before I saw this, I didn’t believe that cloning could be so “blatantly amateurish” as Mick put it. I thought you were exaggerating Mick. I apologise! :o
Cheers,
David.FrankC wrote:
The question then arises – are converging verticals fact or fiction I suppose it could be argued that if you fix converging verticals using software, you’re really only fixing something that the camera broke and are restoring reality. Conversely,if you use a camera capable of shifts and swings and correct the converging verticals before taking the shot, is that not cheating?
Well, I would argue that converging verticals are what you see – even though you ‘know’ they are parallel. Therefore, from a purist point of view, they should not be ‘fixed’. However, I don’t see anything wrong in doing so – especially in technical architectural photography.
Verticals in a building don’t usually converge, unless the building is a pyramid-
that’s my contribution to this great debate-I came across this thread from over a year ago-
some names still around,
some long gone-Mostly a lot of sense being talked,
with a soupcon of dogma, to keep the pot bubbling-Mostly an interesting read- if you’re interested in the distinction-
I don’t know if its worth contributing anything more to it though, it seems to have all been said already-
j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
