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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
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... What are the attitudes of tradional 'film' photogaphers towards photos that have been digitally enhanced and manipulated to the stage that the end photo is a million miles away from the original photograph? Do 'traditional' photographers frown upon such artifical asthetics and measure a *good* photograph by more 'tradtional' metrics, such as effective use of lighting, camera settings, compostion, etc? Personally, I think that post processing is a wonderful way of enhancing a photograph in terms of correcting any adjustable 'flaws', but I feel somewhat retcinct to mutilating a photograph to the point where it resembles nothing of the original exposure....and when i see some of the outstanding photo's in people's online web galleries, i wonder if the photo is a bona-fide photograph with the minimal adjustments made in post processing or if it is a totally mutilated version of the original... I like the fact that post processing can genuinly help in making the photos you take look like how you *want* them to look... but some of the shots i see...well thats just plain old showing off how good people are at post processing and perhaps not as good as photographers ;-) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
In article ,
"the_niner_nation" wrote: 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... No more so then the dodging, burning, toning, manipulation that has been part of darkroom work. What is the difference to you if the manipulation is done in the darkroom with film or in the computer with PS? -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
the_niner_nation wrote:
What are the attitudes of tradional 'film' photogaphers towards photos that have been digitally enhanced and manipulated to the stage that the end photo is a million miles away from the original photograph? While I have no problem with "digital art" as an art form, it's not what I'm interested in doing -- and it bothers me a lot when it's passed off as photography. As for "when" it goes from one to the other, I think that happens at the moment the image is no longer honest. Of course, there is no fine line you can technically define for that, so there is a lot of room for debate. Much of the usual processing we do, both with digital and with film in the darkroom, is still honest -- and can actually be necessary to *make* the final image honest. Of course, even things like color and contrast manipulation can cross the line into dishonest, but there is a lot of gray area there, too, and partly due to different peoples' visual perceptions being different. But for me, the test is whether something is an honest representation of the scene. Of course, a representation can be both honest and biased, or honest and completely out of context, or honest and any number of other things that would be bad from a journalistic perspective, but that's a whole other discussion. Personally, I think that post processing is a wonderful way of enhancing a photograph in terms of correcting any adjustable 'flaws', but I feel somewhat retcinct to mutilating a photograph to the point where it resembles nothing of the original exposure....and when i see some of the outstanding photo's in people's online web galleries, i wonder if the photo is a bona-fide photograph with the minimal adjustments made in post processing or if it is a totally mutilated version of the original... That's what bothers me, personally. If it's not a real photograph, it shouldn't be passed off as one -- doing so hurts photography as a whole. It reduces the confidence people have in photographs, while simultaneously increasing the expectations people have for them. -- Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
"Bob Salomon" schreef in bericht ... In article , "the_niner_nation" wrote: 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... No more so then the dodging, burning, toning, manipulation that has been part of darkroom work. What is the difference to you if the manipulation is done in the darkroom with film or in the computer with PS? The difference between the two is the amount. Nowadays, most pictures in most glossy magazines have been shopped. Allthough darkroom 'shopping' was possible and done, it wasn't done to the extend that photo shopping is done. Why because it was hard or impossible to do compared to digital shopping. With film it was almost impossible to alter shapes, with photoshop it's almost easy. Shaping is done a lot with pictures of especially women. ben -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
In article .net,
"Ben Brugman" wrote: Allthough darkroom 'shopping' was possible and done, it wasn't done to the extend that photo shopping is done. Why because it was hard or impossible to do compared to digital shopping. Then you should see what John Sexton or Jerry Ulesman, among lots of others, can do in the darkroom. -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
"Pete D" wrote in message
... 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. From a raw image? In camera JPG have some processing done before being saved. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
"N" wrote in message ... "Pete D" wrote in message ... 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. From a raw image? In camera JPG have some processing done before being saved. Yes from jpeg. I guess that from RAW would qualify if all you did was use defaults and maybe a bit of exposure adjustment then print it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography andbecome post processed 'art'?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly OFF Topic..when does it stop becoming photography and become post processed 'art'?
"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 .. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slightly off topic. | keith_nuttle | Digital Photography | 2 | November 6th 06 07:41 PM |
Slightly off topic (cell charger) | Charles Schuler | Digital Photography | 1 | February 14th 06 10:12 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 |