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 Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 26th 05, 12:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 02:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 02:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 03:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 03:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 03:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 03:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 05:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 07:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 26th 05, 08:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 AM.


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.