Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-19-2012, 10:09 AM   #46
Senior Member
jaytee's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: tucson,az
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 255
The "real" aspect of photography can be important to the "artistic" aspect such as a simple well lighted portrait. We may feel a very real connection or understanding of this person we have never seen before. What if you see a landscape and absolutely love it...it's stunning, but then some pixel peeper with his head in a very dark place ( as is their way ) tells you it is HDR work, do you now hate it ? If you take a truly great shot with little or no PP will it be diminished in any way if it is on a page with manipulated shots, will it not be just as great as ever? I have no interest in seeing a picture of a dog with a cats head but if folks like that, well to each his own. I will keep chasing the moon and won't feel threatened at all.


Last edited by jaytee; 06-19-2012 at 10:12 AM. Reason: typo
06-19-2012, 10:11 AM - 1 Like   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 11,008
The type of "photography" described by the OP is photography progressing to data collection in landscape. You set your camera up on a tripod, shoot a 180° pano with multiple exposures (for exposure blending and focus stacking) each without even worrying about composition, go home, stitch them, stretch your mountain tops to be more aesthetically appealing, add or remove trees or other elements, push the colors to the edge of a neon color pallet and claim that's how you saw it - your vision - and finally, in the relaxed comfort of your easy chair with plenty of time to think about it, cut out the composition from that 180° pano that you didn't think of at the time of taking the pictures.

Nothing wrong with that. It is just a different type of (evolving?) "photography" than the past.
06-19-2012, 11:16 AM   #48
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
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. There is more to photography than documentation and snapshots. Photography just means writing|drawing with light. We can write|draw|record with many tools, including cameras; and we can write|draw|record in many media and spectra, including visible light, and we can translate what is written|drawn|recorded into many forms, visible or otherwise.

A comparison: Photography records images. Phonography records sounds. Do we hold each to the same standards? Sounds and images can both be recorded raw, with only the most minimal processing to make them perceivable. Sometimes, are satisfactory for our purposes. More often, they're processed and edited to suit their intended audiences. (Audience literally means listening, paying attention.) Too often, the raw forms just aren't palatable.

A raw AV recording may not tell the story we want told. So we edit and process and shoop and mix until it suits us and our audience. Anyone can use some device or tool to record aspects of the environment: sights, sounds, weather, whatever. Making that meaningful takes some processing. And we can make it mean whatever the hell we want. Just don't expect 'pure' objectivity to be interesting, eh?
06-19-2012, 11:18 AM   #49
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jaytee Quote
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:
QuoteQuote:
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.
06-19-2012, 01:50 PM   #50
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,306
I should have added an example of why I think that what St Ansel did and what I call photo manimpulation are different: take a photo of a world leader, say your president, convert the image to black and white , add a little dodging and burning and that image could be used in a newspaper or magazine or even in a government office. Take the same image and change his clothes to a Nazi uniform or a bunny costume and the possible reasonable uses of the image changes totally. One is more intrepretive the other is more content changes.

In our local annual visual arts exhibition photos are split into three categories, black and white, colour and digitally altered so that the judge or judges are comparing the images against others of their own kind. Leaving what you can do with Photoshop out of it, Adams' work could and was used to accompany articles such as a location whereas Usselman (never can remember how to spell it) would not be. One intreprets what he or she says and the other uses what he or she sees to create something that would or perhaps could not be seen at the time of the image. Different approachs, neither right nor wrong, better or worse just not the same.

I do very little to my images and others totally transform theirs; those who transform theirs are not beyond or better than mine any more than a colour images is beyond or better than a monochrome one.
06-19-2012, 02:26 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The North
Posts: 879
My first reaction to such advanced post processing is that there are documentary pictures which allow rather little manipulation and then there are artistic pictures which leave the artist free to do almost anything.

But it isn't really that simple, is it? After all, a photograph always has a documentary element to it even is it was made for art. And on the other hand, every documentary truth is always a subjective interpretation of some sort.

I'd conclude that I'm against "lying" in a photograph. Adding elements that aren't there, unless the manipulation is obvious and the point of the picture. Removing essential elements, unless the manipulation is obvious and the point of the picture. Finer processing such as cropping, color, contrast and such changes are completely fine by me. But this is just my opinion.
06-19-2012, 02:44 PM   #52
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
Manipulation goes far beyond PP. We manipulate images by our choices of light, filters, angle, subject, background, all sorts of stuff, even before a shutter has been pressed. We manipulate an image just by choosing a viewpoint, which is a type of staging. If shots from both positions A and B show the same truth, but position B makes a more interesting composition, that's manipulation, right? Or suppose we give directions to a shoot subject. Is a posed portrait less truthful than an impromptu? Suppose you can't tell that a scene has been staged or posed -- do you care?

06-19-2012, 03:06 PM   #53
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
The debate of purism in photography is an old one. There is also the matter of taste - some people want a photo that looks "beautiful" no matter the truth. That grey mountain range with an overcast sky? They want you to add contrast, saturate the colors and sharpen it like a madman. Make the sky neon blue and the trees green as if each one was lighted up with a flash unit. It has to look like a ridiculous painting, but still be "plausible" (because hey, these people are the same group that also thinks photography captures the true reality). On the other hand some people appreciate the "form," which is the creative use of tools to capture a scene. In this group you have either people that appreciate digital manipulation or on the other hand people that appreciate using a camera and lenses.
However the market has its demands and forces many photographers with unique vision and syle to follow a homogenous set of rules, which happens to sell. This set of codes is also dynamic and has its subgenres, so it cannot be pinned down at a given time.

Oh, but photography should be about "getting what you want." If that is a documentary photo, do that. If that is an overshopped image, go for that. Just don't cheat and tell people lies about the editing.
06-19-2012, 05:16 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
give me an example of a purely artistic photograph whose value has endured over 50 years or more.
This comes close:

Edward Weston American
Pepper 1930

The fact that objectively its an image of a pepper becomes irrelevant and Weston has turned it into an almost pure abstraction of tone and form.

On the other hand:

August Sander
German, 1914
Young farmers on their way to church in their Sunday best.
This shot is so direct so unadorned that to me it obliterates objective reality by it's simplicity.
There is a power behind this image that goes far beyond it's superficial realism.

Different strokes for different folks.

Addendum:

Come to think about it what is this closer to, regardless of the photographer's original intent - "objective" journalism or Picasso's Guernica? (last frame)

Last edited by wildman; 07-11-2012 at 11:23 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
art, camera, elements, image, images, photograph, photographs, photography, techniques, trees
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NYT Ansel Adams Yosemite weatherwise2 General Talk 7 01-23-2012 12:43 PM
Ansel Adams Plates Founds zinj Photographic Technique 3 08-14-2010 09:15 AM
Painter 'finds' lost Ansel Adams negatives r0ckstarr General Talk 2 07-30-2010 01:13 AM
K20D, Yosemite and Ansel Adams... ebooks4pentax Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 07-17-2008 05:37 PM
Question about Ansel Adams books little laker Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 18 12-18-2007 07:43 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top