A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 20th 07, 06:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
the_niner_nation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?


"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184906578.411657@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184896542.668854@ftpsrv1...
the_niner_nation wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184893495.832792@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
This is easy.

A photograph is what you take with any camera and then do a direct
print, this is a photograph.

Anything else is simply not a photography, it will be a digitally
altered image.
Agree 100%.

BTW, what sharpening, white balance, and saturation settings should I
apply to best achieve this?

Would it be cheating to set the exposure time to freeze or allow
motion blur to be used as a feature, or use the aperture settings to
control DOF?

Would shooting in monochrome be cheating?

Would correcting distortion be cheating? What about perspective - can
I use a PC lens? Should I use rectilinear corrected lenses or
fish-eyes? Can I even use different focal lengths?

I think that the only way to avoid cheating with a dslr is to fit it
with a standard prime lens, then glue your camera mode dial to "P",
smash the pop-up flash off if it has one, and thenceforth only ever
use the shutter button.
the changes you are referring to dont actually distract from the
'ethicical' spirit of your photograph..it's not like you are pinching
the sky from an arizona desert landscape to make up for blown
highlights you got from a waterfall in the lake district ..
So is it ethical to use a large aperture to obscure/blur out something
in the background - something really was there, but not ethical to do
the same using pp techniques?

IMO the "ethical spirit" is mainly crud. The "legal spirit" matters if
you're taking forensic photos and can apply to photos used as records,
journalism etc, but I can also think of perfectly legitimate uses of
digital pp for those - that are also entirely ethical.

As for photography as an art, then IMO any criticism of pp is precious
crock, probably purveyed mainly by luddites and other fixer-sniffers who
don't know how to use a computer.


I think you have missed the point here, pretty much every image we as
photographers print up these days are digital images, not photographs.
Never did I say anything about ethics etc, I simply said basicly print
from the camera and that is a photograph, do more than that and it is a
digital image, whatever you want to do is fine by me, you have to look at
it.

Rubbish.
Even while I type this, I'm looking at a photo of my Great Grandmother and
Grandmother taken in about 1895, and probably more heavily altered than
many people typically do with digital, but I doubt that anyone over the
past 112 years has ever even questioned the purity of that image as a
"photograph".



would you at least conceed that today's digital photographer has far more
sophisticated and easier to apply post processing tools than the guy who
took the photograph of your great grand parents?

My point was that I find it odd that an image that has been processed to
such a level that it is totally isolated form the gravity of it's 'original'
elements can be passed off as photography...art is art, photography is also
art....perhaps we should consider those with very high and sophisticated
levels of post processing skills 'artists', too?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #22  
Old July 20th 07, 06:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
JoeT[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?


"the_niner_nation" wrote in message
.. .
Having bypassed film all together and entered the world of SLR into the
very contemporary 'digital' age, I have been looking at lots of people's
work posted on line, spectacular photos and amazing visuals.

I oftentimes wonder just how much post processing ( photoshop, etc, et al)
are responsible for making a good photograph into a jaw dropping work of
art? I reckon probably more often than not...


To my mind, most any post processing of the captured composition is
perfectly allowable, including removal of obstructions and distractions
(although this might be objectionable to some purists, the practice isn't
new or peculiar to digital processing). For me, the clearest point at which
the line from photograph to post processed art occurs is when something's
placed "into" the composition that "wasn't" there when the shot was taken. I
know that's also arguable and subjective but then, what isn't?

joe


  #23  
Old July 20th 07, 06:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete D[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?


"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184906578.411657@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184896542.668854@ftpsrv1...
the_niner_nation wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184893495.832792@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
This is easy.

A photograph is what you take with any camera and then do a direct
print, this is a photograph.

Anything else is simply not a photography, it will be a digitally
altered image.
Agree 100%.

BTW, what sharpening, white balance, and saturation settings should I
apply to best achieve this?

Would it be cheating to set the exposure time to freeze or allow
motion blur to be used as a feature, or use the aperture settings to
control DOF?

Would shooting in monochrome be cheating?

Would correcting distortion be cheating? What about perspective - can
I use a PC lens? Should I use rectilinear corrected lenses or
fish-eyes? Can I even use different focal lengths?

I think that the only way to avoid cheating with a dslr is to fit it
with a standard prime lens, then glue your camera mode dial to "P",
smash the pop-up flash off if it has one, and thenceforth only ever
use the shutter button.
the changes you are referring to dont actually distract from the
'ethicical' spirit of your photograph..it's not like you are pinching
the sky from an arizona desert landscape to make up for blown
highlights you got from a waterfall in the lake district ..
So is it ethical to use a large aperture to obscure/blur out something
in the background - something really was there, but not ethical to do
the same using pp techniques?

IMO the "ethical spirit" is mainly crud. The "legal spirit" matters if
you're taking forensic photos and can apply to photos used as records,
journalism etc, but I can also think of perfectly legitimate uses of
digital pp for those - that are also entirely ethical.

As for photography as an art, then IMO any criticism of pp is precious
crock, probably purveyed mainly by luddites and other fixer-sniffers who
don't know how to use a computer.


I think you have missed the point here, pretty much every image we as
photographers print up these days are digital images, not photographs.
Never did I say anything about ethics etc, I simply said basicly print
from the camera and that is a photograph, do more than that and it is a
digital image, whatever you want to do is fine by me, you have to look at
it.

Rubbish.
Even while I type this, I'm looking at a photo of my Great Grandmother and
Grandmother taken in about 1895, and probably more heavily altered than
many people typically do with digital, but I doubt that anyone over the
past 112 years has ever even questioned the purity of that image as a
"photograph".


Whatever, thats your opinion and you are allowed to have one.


  #24  
Old July 20th 07, 07:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Andy[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?


To my mind, most any post processing of the captured composition is
perfectly allowable, including removal of obstructions and distractions
(although this might be objectionable to some purists, the practice
isn't new or peculiar to digital processing). For me, the clearest point
at which the line from photograph to post processed art occurs is when
something's placed "into" the composition that "wasn't" there when the
shot was taken. I know that's also arguable and subjective but then,
what isn't?



The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]

Photography \Pho*tog"ra*phy\, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F.
photographie.]
1. The science which relates to the action of light on
sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of
images, and the like. The production of pictures by the
photochemical action of light on films of chemicals sensitive to
light, and also the production of electronic images in electronic
cameras, are both considered types of photography.
[1913 Webster]

2. The art or process of producing pictures by this action of
light.
[1913 Webster]

Note: In traditional photography, the well-focused optical
image is thrown on a surface of metal, glass, paper, or other
suitable substance, coated with collodion or gelatin, and
sensitized with the chlorides, bromides, or iodides of silver, or
other salts sensitive to light. The exposed plate is then treated
with reducing agents, as pyrogallic acid, ferrous sulphate, etc.,
to develop the latent image. The image is then fixed by washing
off the excess of unchanged sensitive salt with sodium
hyposulphite (thiosulphate) or other suitable reagents.
[1913 Webster]

color photography, the production of colored images by a
photographic process. A variety of dyes are used to produced the
colored images in photochemical processes. Such processes may or may
not use silver to produce the colored image. Color photographs may
also be produced by electronic cameras.
[PJC]

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]

photography
n 1: the act of taking and printing photographs [syn: picture
taking]
2: the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive
surfaces
3: the occupation of taking and printing photographs or making
movies

Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]

115 Moby Thesaurus words for "photography":
X-ray photography, abstract art, aerial photography, aerophotography,
albertype, art, art form, artist, arts and crafts, arts of design,
astrophotography, book printing, calligraphy, candid photography, cave
art, ceramics, chromotypography, chromotypy, chromoxylography,
chronophotography, cinematography, collotype, color photography, color
printing, decoration, design, designing, drawing, electron optics,
electronography, electrophotography, electrostatic printing, engraving,
etching, fine arts, folk art, graphic artist, graphic arts, graphics,
gravure, halftone engraving, history of printing, holography, infrared
photography, infrared spectroscopy, integral photography, job printing,
laser photography, letterpress, letterpress photoengraving, line
engraving, lithography, lithogravure, lithophotogravure,
microphotography, microscopics, microscopy, mimeograph, offset, offset
lithography, onset, optical physics, optics, optometry, painting,
palaeotypography, phonophotography, photo-offset, photochemical
process, photoengraving, photogelatin process, photographic
reproduction, photoheliography, photolithography, photomacrography,
phototypography, phototypy, photozincography, planographic printing,
planography, plastic art, primitive art, printing, printmaking,
publication, publishing, pyrophotography, radiography, relief printing,
relief-carving, rotary photogravure, rotogravure, sculpture, sheetwork,
spectroheliography, spectrometry, spectrophotography,
spectrophotometry, spectroscopy, stencil, stereophotography,
stereoscopy, telephotography, telescopy, the arts, three-color
printing, two-color printing, typography, typolithography,
uranophotography, wood-block printing, xerography, xeroprinting,
xylotypography, zincography
  #25  
Old July 20th 07, 07:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography andbecome post processed 'art'?

Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184906578.411657@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184896542.668854@ftpsrv1...
the_niner_nation wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184893495.832792@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
This is easy.

A photograph is what you take with any camera and then do a direct
print, this is a photograph.

Anything else is simply not a photography, it will be a digitally
altered image.
Agree 100%.

BTW, what sharpening, white balance, and saturation settings should I
apply to best achieve this?

Would it be cheating to set the exposure time to freeze or allow
motion blur to be used as a feature, or use the aperture settings to
control DOF?

Would shooting in monochrome be cheating?

Would correcting distortion be cheating? What about perspective - can
I use a PC lens? Should I use rectilinear corrected lenses or
fish-eyes? Can I even use different focal lengths?

I think that the only way to avoid cheating with a dslr is to fit it
with a standard prime lens, then glue your camera mode dial to "P",
smash the pop-up flash off if it has one, and thenceforth only ever
use the shutter button.
the changes you are referring to dont actually distract from the
'ethicical' spirit of your photograph..it's not like you are pinching
the sky from an arizona desert landscape to make up for blown
highlights you got from a waterfall in the lake district ..
So is it ethical to use a large aperture to obscure/blur out something
in the background - something really was there, but not ethical to do
the same using pp techniques?

IMO the "ethical spirit" is mainly crud. The "legal spirit" matters if
you're taking forensic photos and can apply to photos used as records,
journalism etc, but I can also think of perfectly legitimate uses of
digital pp for those - that are also entirely ethical.

As for photography as an art, then IMO any criticism of pp is precious
crock, probably purveyed mainly by luddites and other fixer-sniffers who
don't know how to use a computer.
I think you have missed the point here, pretty much every image we as
photographers print up these days are digital images, not photographs.
Never did I say anything about ethics etc, I simply said basicly print
from the camera and that is a photograph, do more than that and it is a
digital image, whatever you want to do is fine by me, you have to look at
it.

Rubbish.
Even while I type this, I'm looking at a photo of my Great Grandmother and
Grandmother taken in about 1895, and probably more heavily altered than
many people typically do with digital, but I doubt that anyone over the
past 112 years has ever even questioned the purity of that image as a
"photograph".


Whatever, thats your opinion and you are allowed to have one.


What is that supposed to mean?
Because you now see that your view was crazy, you excuse yourself by
commenting that an opposing view was "allowed"?
Sheesh.
  #26  
Old July 20th 07, 07:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography andbecome post processed 'art'?

Andy wrote:
snip

Note: In traditional photography, the well-focused optical
image is thrown


Sheesh - use of even some Canon L glass on new $4500 cameras excludes
the resultant image from being called a traditional photograph!
  #27  
Old July 20th 07, 07:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete D[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?


"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184911799.852889@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184906578.411657@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184896542.668854@ftpsrv1...
the_niner_nation wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184893495.832792@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
This is easy.

A photograph is what you take with any camera and then do a direct
print, this is a photograph.

Anything else is simply not a photography, it will be a digitally
altered image.
Agree 100%.

BTW, what sharpening, white balance, and saturation settings should
I apply to best achieve this?

Would it be cheating to set the exposure time to freeze or allow
motion blur to be used as a feature, or use the aperture settings to
control DOF?

Would shooting in monochrome be cheating?

Would correcting distortion be cheating? What about perspective -
can I use a PC lens? Should I use rectilinear corrected lenses or
fish-eyes? Can I even use different focal lengths?

I think that the only way to avoid cheating with a dslr is to fit it
with a standard prime lens, then glue your camera mode dial to "P",
smash the pop-up flash off if it has one, and thenceforth only ever
use the shutter button.
the changes you are referring to dont actually distract from the
'ethicical' spirit of your photograph..it's not like you are pinching
the sky from an arizona desert landscape to make up for blown
highlights you got from a waterfall in the lake district ..
So is it ethical to use a large aperture to obscure/blur out something
in the background - something really was there, but not ethical to do
the same using pp techniques?

IMO the "ethical spirit" is mainly crud. The "legal spirit" matters
if you're taking forensic photos and can apply to photos used as
records, journalism etc, but I can also think of perfectly legitimate
uses of digital pp for those - that are also entirely ethical.

As for photography as an art, then IMO any criticism of pp is precious
crock, probably purveyed mainly by luddites and other fixer-sniffers
who don't know how to use a computer.
I think you have missed the point here, pretty much every image we as
photographers print up these days are digital images, not photographs.
Never did I say anything about ethics etc, I simply said basicly print
from the camera and that is a photograph, do more than that and it is a
digital image, whatever you want to do is fine by me, you have to look
at it.
Rubbish.
Even while I type this, I'm looking at a photo of my Great Grandmother
and Grandmother taken in about 1895, and probably more heavily altered
than many people typically do with digital, but I doubt that anyone over
the past 112 years has ever even questioned the purity of that image as
a "photograph".


Whatever, thats your opinion and you are allowed to have one.

What is that supposed to mean?
Because you now see that your view was crazy, you excuse yourself by
commenting that an opposing view was "allowed"?
Sheesh.


What gives, am I not allowed an opinion, last time I looked that was ok, not
allowing it now in your group? So sorry but I cannot agree but am more than
happy for you to think differently!

Cheers.

The Crazy Man!!



  #28  
Old July 20th 07, 07:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete D[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?


"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184911959.220270@ftpsrv1...
Andy wrote:
snip

Note: In traditional photography, the well-focused optical
image is thrown


Sheesh - use of even some Canon L glass on new $4500 cameras excludes the
resultant image from being called a traditional photograph!


We were thanking that Canons will not be allowed at all!! ;-)


  #29  
Old July 20th 07, 08:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography andbecome post processed 'art'?

"the_niner_nation" wrote:

would you at least conceed that today's digital photographer has far more
sophisticated and easier to apply post processing tools than the guy who
took the photograph of your great grand parents?

My point was that I find it odd that an image that has been processed to
such a level that it is totally isolated form the gravity of it's 'original'
elements can be passed off as photography...art is art, photography is also
art....perhaps we should consider those with very high and sophisticated
levels of post processing skills 'artists', too?


It would be simply absurd to claim they are not.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #30  
Old July 20th 07, 08:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography andbecome post processed 'art'?

Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184911799.852889@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184906578.411657@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184896542.668854@ftpsrv1...
the_niner_nation wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1184893495.832792@ftpsrv1...
Pete D wrote:
This is easy.

A photograph is what you take with any camera and then do a direct
print, this is a photograph.

Anything else is simply not a photography, it will be a digitally
altered image.
Agree 100%.

BTW, what sharpening, white balance, and saturation settings should
I apply to best achieve this?

Would it be cheating to set the exposure time to freeze or allow
motion blur to be used as a feature, or use the aperture settings to
control DOF?

Would shooting in monochrome be cheating?

Would correcting distortion be cheating? What about perspective -
can I use a PC lens? Should I use rectilinear corrected lenses or
fish-eyes? Can I even use different focal lengths?

I think that the only way to avoid cheating with a dslr is to fit it
with a standard prime lens, then glue your camera mode dial to "P",
smash the pop-up flash off if it has one, and thenceforth only ever
use the shutter button.
the changes you are referring to dont actually distract from the
'ethicical' spirit of your photograph..it's not like you are pinching
the sky from an arizona desert landscape to make up for blown
highlights you got from a waterfall in the lake district ..
So is it ethical to use a large aperture to obscure/blur out something
in the background - something really was there, but not ethical to do
the same using pp techniques?

IMO the "ethical spirit" is mainly crud. The "legal spirit" matters
if you're taking forensic photos and can apply to photos used as
records, journalism etc, but I can also think of perfectly legitimate
uses of digital pp for those - that are also entirely ethical.

As for photography as an art, then IMO any criticism of pp is precious
crock, probably purveyed mainly by luddites and other fixer-sniffers
who don't know how to use a computer.
I think you have missed the point here, pretty much every image we as
photographers print up these days are digital images, not photographs.
Never did I say anything about ethics etc, I simply said basicly print
from the camera and that is a photograph, do more than that and it is a
digital image, whatever you want to do is fine by me, you have to look
at it.
Rubbish.
Even while I type this, I'm looking at a photo of my Great Grandmother
and Grandmother taken in about 1895, and probably more heavily altered
than many people typically do with digital, but I doubt that anyone over
the past 112 years has ever even questioned the purity of that image as
a "photograph".
Whatever, thats your opinion and you are allowed to have one.

What is that supposed to mean?
Because you now see that your view was crazy, you excuse yourself by
commenting that an opposing view was "allowed"?
Sheesh.


What gives, am I not allowed an opinion, last time I looked that was ok, not
allowing it now in your group? So sorry but I cannot agree but am more than
happy for you to think differently!

Cheers.

The Crazy Man!!



No - and I don't mean to **** you (or anybody else) off.
But, the restriction that you believe should be in place for what you
think should be called a "photograph" must be defined by some arbitrary
decision where biased personal opinion is used to determine what "degree
of manipulation" etc should be allowable.
There's nothing unusual about that from people, who from my experience
seem to have a desire to control others in a manner which I would
describe as "authoritarian", despite the absurd reality that to do so
requires extended definition to the point at which it all becomes absurd
and futile.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slightly off topic. keith_nuttle Digital Photography 2 November 6th 06 08:41 PM
Slightly off topic (cell charger) Charles Schuler Digital Photography 1 February 14th 06 11:12 PM
poss slightly off topic Monopods.. Loopy Digital SLR Cameras 4 May 17th 05 10:54 AM
Copyright Question? - Slightly off topic sorry.... IB Medium Format Photography Equipment 17 July 8th 04 01:42 PM
Slightly Off Topic, FT-3 & 50mm 1.4 Quietlightphoto General Equipment For Sale 1 July 28th 03 08:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.