Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2007, 01:49 PM   #1
Ed in GA
Guest




The art in Digital Photography

With all of the tools available for PP, is the art of todays photography in what can be done with a photo on the computer? Or, does it still lie in the eye of the photographer?

Probably been hashed and rehashed numerous times but I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.


Thanks,

Ed

01-12-2007, 01:59 PM   #2
Veteran Member
jfdavis58's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 13 S 0357397-3884316
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 876
Art is in the eye of the beholder. So neither camera nor photographer.
01-12-2007, 02:02 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
bin there just a few days ago.. wade thru this and u will have some idea..

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/2198-where-digital...phy-going.html

the real question is does it still lie in the eye of the photographer before or after he presses the shutter release.. he he

trog
01-12-2007, 02:11 PM   #4
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lancaster, PA.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,041
Hi Ed,
well of course you probably know I work very hard in Photo shop but I am still of the firm belief the photograph is and always will be in the eye of the photographer. Photo shop and any other post processing program lets the photographer or graphic artist enhance the photograph that is already taken Or even to add to and create something else from the original.

It is the photographers job to give his audience the very best he can, and if this means enhancing the colors or the light and saturation (which by the way photographers have done since the first camera took the first picture) Or to create an abstract that WOWs it's viewer. Then it is his obligation to give his very best at all times.

Good Shooting.
Cheers: David

01-12-2007, 02:40 PM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 150
The photograph is the finished product. How it gets to that state is a combination of camera work and PP. It will be different for every photo. Sometimes I take a lot of time in composition and setting up the shot and sometimes I don't (or can't). Sometimes I do very little in PP (maybe sharpening & crop) and other time I can spend over an hour on a single image. I guess to sum up, it's all my creative view...does not matter if I'm creative in front of the camera or in front of the computer. Then once I'm finished, it's up to the world to decide how successful I've been.
01-12-2007, 04:23 PM   #6
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perth
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 669
I see many posts criticising someone or a camera because of post processing - I remember back to the dark distant days of film, darkrooms and that wonderful smell of chemicals.

Even with film not every shot was perfect and you used to crop it , dodge and burn, even furiously rub the light areas of a print in the developing tray to bring out a little more detail from the developer. (I am talking B&W here).

I remember doing absurd things like painting negatives, using numerous filters on the camera lens (vaseline on glass wow); what about using high iso film for the effect (grain or noise seems to be some sort of sin these days, sandwiching negatives - the list goes on.

Anyway my point is that pretty much all of these old darkroom tricks are copied on photoshop - what you are doing on photoshop is nothing new just far more convenient, easier and cheaper to experiment with.

It is really good to actually see a post regarding the art of photography rather than just the technical aspect of cameras and their pixels.
01-12-2007, 06:43 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
i am begiining to get the impression that lot of people have no idea exactly what can be done in the so called digital darkroom..

90% camera 10% darkroom... 80% camera 20% darkroom..

70% camera 30% darkroom.. 60% camera 40% darkroom..

50% camera 50% darkroom.. 40% camera 60% darkroom..

30% camera 70% darkroom.. 20% camera 80% darkroom..

10% camera 90% darkroom.. errr. well yes.. whatever happened to the "art of photography"... ???

camera.. whats that my lad.. we dont need one of those any more..

dont be silly its always been done.. they used to call it dodging and burning back in the old days.. now we just call it digital imagery.. time u caught up with the times my lad.. bl-ody luddite.. dont u know what progress is..

he he he

trog
01-13-2007, 01:12 AM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 296
Art is in the soul of the Artist: Photography is one of the possible media.
The more thoroughly the Artist knows the medium the more successful the result.
Try 10% inspiration 90% application as an appropriate formula to begin with.
And remember, the more you know about something, the more you realise that there is so much more yet to know.
'Twas ever thus :-)

01-13-2007, 03:56 AM   #9
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Art is an expression of oneself using various media or measures. So there is no rules or limits to express oneself as long as there is no self harm, homicidal intent or disruption of public safety.

The common criticism of "image manipulation" and "post processing" being unreal is a bit far fetched.

The whole idea of using digital sensors or artificial films to create photos is already "unreal" and "un-natural". The real thing is still real and the real thing is not defined by what we see or create in our images. Even we are not here; the real things still exist and are not defined by our senses and descriptions.

The mere cameras are just our desperate attempt to "see" the universe with our limited senses defined by our knowledge. A bit of PP or exagerated image manipulation are just for our satisfication in the name of art.

After all, professionals usually refer to people who are devoted and obsessed in various ways to improve oneself standard and go to the far realm that no one else really bothers to enter


My 2 cents
01-13-2007, 07:48 AM   #10
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,518
Ladies and Gentlemen, all very eloquently said. What more could I add?
01-13-2007, 12:50 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,206
My source of satisfaction from photography comes from producing an image on paper that matches the one in my mind before I lifted the camera to my eye. While PP may play a role, my occasional successes in this regard come primarily from the classical manipulations of the camera: context via composition; control of light and shadow with exposure; subject definition by combining aperature for selective focus and shutter speed to deal with motion (from which we sense time's passage). I dosen't happen as often as I'd like, but I'm certainly pleased when it does.

Jerry
01-13-2007, 04:17 PM   #12
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,515
QuoteOriginally posted by EddyinGA Quote
With all of the tools available for PP, is the art of todays photography in what can be done with a photo on the computer? Or, does it still lie in the eye of the photographer?

Probably been hashed and rehashed numerous times but I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.


Thanks,

Ed
You can change composition, view point, crop, etc with the computer, but to me effective lighting is still an art, and no program including Photoshop, can replace this skill.
for example, photoshop can't make a crappy looking mid day light look like that of a golden light near or after sun set.
try as you might

just my 2 Cents (one cent American)
01-14-2007, 07:17 AM   #13
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Manchester, TN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 51
QuoteOriginally posted by jfdavis58 Quote
Art is in the eye of the beholder. So neither camera nor photographer.
Wrong. The photographer has to see it first, and capture it, before it can be appreciated be the beholder.

Is art the object or the emotion?
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, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In Juried Art Contests, is there a bias against digital processing? philbaum Photographic Technique 3 02-06-2011 10:59 AM
Smibs.tv -- Webcasts about Fine Art Photography brecklundin Photographic Technique 4 11-11-2010 04:42 AM
Can one learn the ART of photography? emr Photographic Technique 23 07-29-2010 03:13 AM
New website - fine art landscape photography - need your feedback Josť Ramos Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 05-30-2010 08:14 PM
Has anyone read Photography and the Art of Seeing hockmasm Photographic Technique 9 05-20-2010 10:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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