Originally posted by jaytee But why does "believably" matter? Who cares? Okay it does matter if you are trying to document something, It matters if you are a photojournalist, scientist or something like that. But that is not the same as photo art. ...!
I think we all understand that there are two major divisions of photography: photojournalism/documentary and fine art (we hope its fine
)
The debate seems to be with fine art, and how credible those images should be. When i'm in the viewing mode, I'm pretty accepting that what i see is credible (although with more experience in PP, my alarm bells go off earlier now
), but if its too stretched, my interest just falls off dramatically. Except when, like in heavy hdr, if its well done and its presented as hdr, then i can appreciate the occasional good image from that venue.
A professional photo guide came to our photo club a few years back. One of the photos he presented of his guided trips was a head-on shot of an orca whale traveling toward the camera with a rainbow in the background. The combination of factors caused one person to ask if any of his photos were composites of 2 or more images. He acknowledged that the whale/rainbow was a composite image. I remember feeling disappointed at the time. the show was presented as a travel slide show, not a fine art presentation, and i hadn't expected to see an "imaginary" photo.
RioRico:
Quote: I'll say again: What a camera sees ain't what you want to see, nor think you see, nor all of what's really there. Photos have been manipulated since the very beginning (and by Ansel). Believability is a fantasy...
Rio - i understand what you are saying...but i'm think your point may be over simplified. To make an analogy: On the spectrum of verbal deception, one could image a slider going from 1) a "white" lie to spare someone's feelings, all the way to 2) a fraud to deprive another person of their money. Its all part of the same spectrum of verbal deceptions, but there is a big difference between 1 and 2 regarding people's expectations of how people should treat each other in civil discourse. (I'm not suggesting there is any criminality in photoshopped images, however
)
I'm fortunate in having participated in 4 juried art shows now, and i think i see a trend in how jurists are treating photographic images. If they are trying to fill a gallery for a week or month long show, then they will accept well made and presented images of a variety of types. But for those that are selected for prizes. jurists seem really adverse to selecting images for prizes that may have been composites or overly fantastical, if thats a word.
As an example, this was from last weekend, you'll have to scroll down to the 5th category of winners to see the 4 winning photographs - which to my poor judgement, don't look to be composites, but all have some degree of toning. (my photo was not included in the prize selection in the interest of full disclosure)
Juried Galleries - Edmonds Arts Festival
Last edited by philbaum; 06-19-2012 at 12:17 PM.