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
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
I don't want to start a flame war, but...
I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:09:22 GMT, baker1 wrote:
I don't want to start a flame war, but... I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. Actually, the photo begins life not representing the real world... it's only 2 dimensional, the perspective and colors are wrong, the range of light is wrong... and it's so small compared to the real world image! So draw the line wherever you like! Have a happy! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
Thanks...you saved me a lot of typing as I could have used a lot more words.
-- Thanks, Gene Palmiter (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com) freebridge design group wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:09:22 GMT, baker1 wrote: I don't want to start a flame war, but... I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. Actually, the photo begins life not representing the real world... it's only 2 dimensional, the perspective and colors are wrong, the range of light is wrong... and it's so small compared to the real world image! So draw the line wherever you like! Have a happy! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:09:22 GMT, baker1 wrote: I don't want to start a flame war, but... I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. Actually, the photo begins life not representing the real world... it's only 2 dimensional, the perspective and colors are wrong, the range of light is wrong... and it's so small compared to the real world image! So draw the line wherever you like! Have a happy! A police mugshot, real estate shots taken for prospective clients etc. should accurately represent the subject. Photgraphs taken as a hobby or for exhibition can be manipulated either to remove artifacts or to render a more pleasing or artistic representation as long as the photographer is not claiming otherwise. Dave Cohen |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
"baker1" wrote in message
news I don't want to start a flame war, but... I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. Hi. It started being a photograph the instant the shutter opened and light touched the sensitive layer. There is very little real about it, just as there is very little real about a painting. People started changing their photographic images, almost as soon as they were invented. The early glass plates had a very low sensitivity, that meant skies always recorded as plain white or light gray. Those "Artists", as they liked to be known, bought and sold Sky images for adding into their landscape pictures. You only have to look through any archive around 1900, and you will see the same sky in many different locations. Ansell Adams did a fair amount of burning in and dodging, or had it done, on his images, so which bits are the "Real" bits? His Zone system is a system for manipulating the way the medium reacts to the light falling on it, which Zone is "Real" ? So what is a "Real" photograph?. I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Roy G |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 02:12:07 GMT, "Tesco News"
wrote: Hi. It started being a photograph the instant the shutter opened and light touched the sensitive layer. There is very little real about it, just as there is very little real about a painting. People started changing their photographic images, almost as soon as they were invented. The early glass plates had a very low sensitivity, that meant skies always recorded as plain white or light gray. Those "Artists", as they liked to be known, bought and sold Sky images for adding into their landscape pictures. You only have to look through any archive around 1900, and you will see the same sky in many different locations. Ansell Adams did a fair amount of burning in and dodging, or had it done, on his images, so which bits are the "Real" bits? His Zone system is a system for manipulating the way the medium reacts to the light falling on it, which Zone is "Real" ? So what is a "Real" photograph?. I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Roy G Yeah, I hear you all and agree. It just seems that so many pictures out there are manipulated so much it begins to look artificial... something out of Star Trek. I've done my dodging and burning in the darkroom, but when I see water that has been made to look like it's moving or excessive fog around a pier, it just seems out of place. However, I do agree it's "art" and being so, has its creative flair. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
baker1 wrote: I don't want to start a flame war, but... I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. Consider the original photo as the raw material for CREATING the image in your mind's eye. Capturing a quality photo is largely a technical task. Editing it is largely a creative act. Think about a painting. The artist starts with a BLANK canvas, and the final product is entirely a product of his imagination and creativity. You should take pride in your final digitally edited image. No apologies necessary for deviations from reality. A friend of mine always said: "Reality is a crutch" G Bob Williams |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
baker1 wrote:
I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. This is too far ;-) http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/egret-comp-web.jpg This is a composite of 2 pictures with fake water and significant burning & dodging. -Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
baker1 skrev:
I don't want to start a flame war, but... I've been reading about photo retouching programs and it seems to me that you can alter a photo so much, that it ends up not representing what you actually photographed. If you can add Polarizing, color match, gray eyedropper, haze effects, etc...is the end product really a representation of what you shot? I realize touch up is a necessary evil, but it appears that photos are so manipulated these days that they almost appear false. Would Ansel Adams have used all these gadgets? If I put an 8x10 on my wall, I have to feel that it at least is accurate to what I originally shot...not some 'nip & tuck' version of imagination. I see no problem here unless you claim a photography to be an excact journalistic report of what was. And if you do that, you´re making a contradiction as long that any 2-dimentional image is a abstraction of a 3.dimentional reality that is only a "reality" to the eyes that see it at that moment. If you want a picture to be as "natural" as possible - OK with me - but then you can´t worship AA´s pictures (whitch were filtered, dodged and burned with great skills) But is there anybody in the world who has decided, ultimately, that at photography has to be more or less "naturalistic" than a oilpainting? After all a camera is just a tool for making pictures just as a pencil is for someone making a drawing. If anyone thinks a photographic image shows the "thruth" or must show the "truth", think again. -- Regards, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?
To me it turns into digital art when what is in the print didn't exist in front of the camera at a specific point in time. Adjusting colors, contrast, density, DOF etc don't change it from a photograph to digital art, it's when the clone tool is used or you start morphing several elements from different shots into one that it's no longer a photograph. That's just how I feel and how I work, YMMV. -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Your right to Photograph in public places? | Dantorp | Digital Photography | 2 | October 14th 05 01:30 PM |
Your right to Photograph? | Draco | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 13th 05 10:10 PM |
Photography: Artist vs technician | Siddhartha Jain | Digital SLR Cameras | 554 | June 25th 05 09:46 PM |
Printing: Developer + Stop = Sizzle | Francis | In The Darkroom | 11 | April 23rd 04 07:15 AM |
Apertures and focal length | Stephan Goldstein | Large Format Photography Equipment | 12 | February 29th 04 03:28 AM |