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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |