 Sunil Mishra |
Digital Manipulation When one manipulates a photograph digitally thru software, in my opinion it remains no longer a photographic art. One can say that it is an image making art like painting etc. which has nothing to do with photography. I would like views of those who are in this field.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dave Cross |
H Sunil. I anticipate a lively discussion on this one so I'll get my 2c in first :-) IMHO. The digital 'adjustment' of images such as cropping, levels, sharpening, even shifting colours etc. are no different to what you would normally do in a chemical darkroom. I see no problem with still calling it a 'photograph'. I make photographs to reflect the world I live in and like to keep my manipulation to a minimum but I DO modify my images to remove phone wires and the like. I don't modify my images excessively by adding objects that weren't there in the first place, major distortions etc. Doing this is definately a visual art and, I agree, the result can't really be called a 'photograph'. Lets see what the others have to say. Like I said, threads like this one tend to get 'lively'. Cheers
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Steven Chaitoff |
Sunil, you may find this link interesting: I used to feel the same way, but no longer. You're right in that when you move to digital editing, the medium is no longer photography based, but that should be no reason to bother you. As Dave said, a number of these processes are simply emulations of darkroom techniques, but I would go so far as to say that even Liquifying & cellophane wrap & all those ridiculous things in Photoshop are perfectly justified. It is just another tool in our arsenal for being creative. I like photography more than other art forms because of the science involved. It's fascinating to understand just the simple idea of shutter & aperture, achieving proper exposure, when one goes up the other goes down...simple stuff like that, & I think a lot of people would agree. But there is certainly no reason to exclude it as a medium on its own. The new age of computer technology hands everybody a lot of convenience so why not take advantage of that? It isn't ruining your pictures...it's making them better in your own eyes. Well, that's me. Your gonna have like 500 comments by tomorrow. -Steven
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Howard Leigh |
Problem to me is the association of photography with "reality" in most viewers' minds. I know all images are, in fact constructed, but now the original source of the image is a lot easier to change and hence pervert than before. Yes, I know experts have always been able to do that! But images based on negatives are very hard to alter significantly and the negative will show the cheating - digital files are easy to change and hide the traces.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Is there any distinction to photography only being what you do to get the negative, and then it stops and turns into something else when it comes to what you do to get the print? If an original negative is "photography" but an original file isn't, based on proving somebody took a picture, then printing can be argued that it's not really part of photography. So anybody want a distinction between a scanned negative that gets printed to not be called a photograph, but a print, because only from an elarger with a light bulb can it be called a photograph. Sometimes this same old argument came seem like art world snobbery, trying to say put one above the other. But before anybody tries to bring Ansel Adams in and the proverbial "turning over in his grave", he did prefer the control that digital gave him. Not saying that he would replace his film camera with a digital camera. But he did prefer the control that making the image into digital form at some point, gave him when it came to printing the image. So anybody that keeps saying the changes to digital aren't photography, you can keep lobbying. You still need a camera and some way to get the image. A collage of several film images wasn't taken on a single negative, but it still gets placed under photography. It may not be called a PHOTOGRAPH, but it isn't excluded from photography. The arguement over distinguishing seems redundant.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Steven Chaitoff |
I think Howard makes a great case, very good point about "reality." You know back in the day, like 1860 Daguerre, way before high-speed shutters people were doing the same stuff. To make amazing looking "magical" pictures of like a guy juggling with the balls frozen in midair (which no camera could capture because exposures ran for at least 3 minutes) they'd shoot a guy standing still in a juggling pose for 5 min & then shoot a ball at rest on a neutral background (much like a bluescreen today) & then superimpose the ball all around the print of the guy as many times as they wanted to make a new "final" print. Now if that's not photography I don't know what is, & I applaud their effort. They could position 3 or 4 balls in his hands or anywhere to make it look like he was juggling. Or make him juggle 15 razor sharp knifes to be a real ace maver.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sunil Mishra |
My sincere thanks to all who responded to my question. First of all I would like to say that I had already acknowledged Digital Manipulation as an art because one is able please others who see the image. However enhancing a photograph, specially when one is not changing the basics, well I am in agreement that it may be appropriate to call it a photograph. But once he makes changes to add flavours then I would like to call it as digital painting which requires additional knowledge & skill. Yes, it is still a perception as to how one views it as argued by some of my friends in their responses.Thanks once again & regards to all.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
I don't have a problem with color balancing, dodging/burning to balance contrasty areas, or cropping . . . provided they don't substantively *change* what is depicted in a manner that would delude, deceive or misrepresent what is being portrayed. I do begin to have a problem with entirely removing elements present in the photograph . . . it's a *very* slippery slope from there to misrepresentation . . . including misrepresenting the *skill* of the photographer. More than one reknowned and very highly respected photographer has been unmercifully hammered and derided by his peers, and lost all credibility with the public, with the discovery that a very compelling and widely regarded photograph was staged, manipulated or otherwise modified to substantively change its representation to the viewer of it. One such photo is the famous Albert Schweizer B/W that (IIRC) appeared in Life Magazine. Where is the photographer skill? How is that to be valued? I begin to have some problems with things such as power line removal and my question would be . . . was it possible to have made a photograph that depicted the same subject in the same manner or executed the same concept (i.e. telling the same story) *without* the power lines distracting the image . . . however difficult or inconvenient that might have been? Digital manipulation performed to create outstanding photographs from mediocrity has gotten to be such a problem with one regional and competitive show that I now co-chair that we are rewriting the rules for it. Part of the objective for this is to promote and reward those who "get it right" in camera, and downgrade those that post-process Band-Aid their work afterward . . . to foster developing these artistic and technical skills so that photographers *don't* have to fix things. Along the same lines, photographer integrity also goes to presenting what is represented as "original work." I have seen far too many photographs that are essentially recreations of Ansel Adams' or John Shaw's works . . . if not nearly identical in subject . . . then identical in concept down to details. This is also deception regarding originality and creativity. It usually demonstrates technical prowess but absolutely zero artistic skill . . . and those with whom I associate professionally and non-professionally find it appalling when we see it. -- John Lind
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
There's basic principles that carry over to so many situations that you're bound to get vast similarities. There's only so many ways to shoot landscapes before you start seeing things in common. Some of your photos of the metal workers are just like some Margaret Bourke White has taken. So is that appalling too?
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
x |
This question is asked alot. I have to say, knowing a bit about lab work that I can't very easily define what manipulation means. You can pretty much manuipulate every aspect of an image in the darkroom using very basic equipment. You can't quite get as wild as you can with a computer, but you can get pretty wild. If I did not have the knowledge of the darkroom, I'd probably ask the same sort of question. But, it is very common that the images you see from the greats of the past are not just off the camera onto some paper and shown "as is". They are heavily manupulated and cropped for artistic purposes. Jerry
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Steven Chaitoff |
Sunil, you seem to be extraordinarliy concerned with names: Photography vs. Digital Manipulation vs. Art Painting? That is a very discriminating and critical thing to do -- the very antithesis of creating a piece of artwork. I give exception to that in events like competitions, where you must sift and cull for the purpose of judging. In general though, just keep in mind that there isn't much in a name. Call it whatever you want; it really doesn't matter if you acknowledge something as a photograph or not, especially now as we all are seeing first-hand how photography & computer graphics are meshing. Jon, as I mentioned, when judging a contest, rules are a necessity. But you place so much emphasis on the apparent skill of embracing traditional photography. The realm of digital postwork is not a "free ride" for amateurs to falsify their own abilities, and in this respect I very much agree with Sunil. To remove, add, or change a photograph with graphics is a skill in itself. You could step in a little closer with a wider lens to get that phone-line out of the picture, but when people don't have those tools at their disposal, computer editing is a wonderful alternative. As far as the literal sense of photography goes, and even the word itself, once the photo goes into post processing software, it is no longer a photo. However, as this kind of software propagates all of our homes & we won't even print a photo until it's been touched up on the computer, digital software really is an inherent part of photography as well. So it's a moot point, but with many interesting faces. -Steven
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
Regarding the "metal" workers . . . They're glass workers but that's a very minor point. I'm familiar with Bourke-White's work with heavy industry in the U.S. and Russia during the 1930's and in the U.S. in the 1950's; the workers, their machines and their work environs. My work with the glass works is not "just like" her work although the goal was the same . . . documentary of the glass workers, their work, and the environment in which it is performed. If mine is "just like" hers, then hers are equally "just like" the industrial workplace photographs of Edward Weston (Armco Steel in Ohio comes to mind) and Paul Strand's at least a decade before hers during the 1910's and 1920's. If you're referring to her "Fort Peck Dam" series circa 1935 . . . either the Life Magazine cover showing the towers on top of the dam or another one depicting the diversion tunnel openings . . . and my photograph showing three furnaces in the glass works, any similarity ceases beyond using repetition of shapes in perspective as a very legitimate compositional technique. The only other photograph that has any "similarity" is in task being performed . . . pouring of molten material into a mold . . . Bourke-White's 1950 South African photo of man pouring molten gold into cast iron molds: My 2003 Indiana photo of man pouring molten glass into wrought iron molds: The subject material is similar but different in detail, the perspective of the camera angle and focal length are different; hers has her trademark celebration of repeating patterns of the molds with a low view perspective of them into which the man is pouring the molten gold which can barely be seen. Mine celebrates the glowing hot glass by making it prominent. Composition is different in concept about what is to be celebrated with it and how that is executed with camera angle and perspective. The lighting is completely different in concept and execution. They're two photos of two guys pouring molten stuff into molds, and that's where their similarity ends. In looking at all 1722 of Bourke-White's photographs on file with Time-Life this evening I haven't found any of my work that closely recreates _in_detail_ anything that she did. I'd have to show you what I've seen hanging in competitive shows to explain what I was describing. I have seen similarity in underlying theme or goal and that is legitimate. What's not is execution to the point of obviousness that it's a deliberate recreation of someone else's work . . . if not in the same exact location, then with a composition in another location that so closely mimics it in detail as to be an obvious recreation. Candids are rare, although I've seen one or two of those that were staged to look candid; it's usually landscapes and still-lifes (nature or manmade). I believe I may puke if I see another close-up of a fall leaf stuck vertically into a fir or pine tree branch. -- John Lind
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
Part of the problem we have had with the show over the past couple years is submission of works that have a basis in photography, but over half of the work is not a photograph, or even derived from one. We were seeing works that were mostly entirely computer generated graphics with some small part coming from a digital photograph. If the show were "all media" that would be fine, but it's not; it's photography. Part of what we will require in the future is that 100% of the work be a photograph or derived from one in some manner . . . and there will be a separate classification for "manipulated" works (film or digital) in which the photograph has been manipulated to the extent that it is a composite of more than one photograph or approaches abstraction . . . although the requirement that 100% of it be derived from one or more photographs still applies. We recognize (I'm not alone in organizing the show) that there is legitimate artistic manipulation . . . but that it should be for artistic effect . . . not to fix compositional flaws. For those works that "on their face" purport depiction of some "reality" it is still our goal to encourage development of skill in getting it right "in camera" whether it's digital or film. Steven is correct that doing "Band-Aid" work post-processing digitally isn't usually a free ride and that it does require some skill to get past the learning curve . . . but that's the point for rewarding those who don't modify their work to fix problems . . . that it's far, far better to do it well up front than to patch it up on the back end. A close associate does digital work of school events and sports . . . and does some excellent work, especially with sports. He loathes having to fix something afterward if it's a photo he needs of a particular participant (for his/her parents). Not that it isn't impossible to fix many things, it's the time required to do so, and do it well enough. -- John Lind
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
So if you change the lighting or use a a wide angle lens, can somebody take a picture of a leaf stuck in a pine tree and it be okay? Or are all leaves stuck in a pine tree considered copying?
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
What you're asking for is akin to the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case about obscenity which resulted in Justice Potter Stewart remarking: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it." It defies codification with strict legalistic definitions to embrace the infinite number (ad nauseum) "What if ????" questions. Suffice it that when a Fall leaf (turning color) is stuffed into an evergreen tree branch vertically under flat, indirect lighting and it's composed with a close-up showing the side of the leaf to look very, very much like this John Shaw photograph, including orientation of leaf stem and point: -- John Lind
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Wing Wong |
(2cents) A photograph is recorded light. Much as a phonograph is recorded sound. You can change the qualities of the recording by adjusting volume, speed, pitch, or outright changing the order of the sounds by re-recording onto another phonograph. It is still a phonograph. With a photograph, you capture light and change it to suite your desired outcome, be it to accurately represent the scene or to represent what you saw in your mind's eye. You are adjusting lightness, color balance, shadows, sharpness, and even the orientation/shape of the photograph. In the end, it is still a photograph of something. It may now have more artistic qualities, but it is still a photograph. That's how I see it, at any rate. Whether or not that photograph accurately accounts for the original scene doesn't make it any less a photograph. It just makes it a less accurate representation of what was there. Also my opinion. I shoot digitally. I convert my raw files to 16bit tiffs which are too dark and not properly "developed" and so need to be adjusted to look right. I might decide it was too shady and lighten it up, or not. Then some sharpening here and there and maybe evening out the colors. What results is my photograph. Anyways, that's my 2 cents. I'm sure there is a more rigerous and debatable definition of what is and what isn't a photograph somewhere. Wing (Would rather be out photographing stuff)
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Maverick Creatives |
I'm an amateur. I'm very new to the "hobby". I took a course here at better photo and now I'm hooked. The question sunil has put forth here seems to have the "pro's" offering their opinions based on experience that I do not have. Having said this, let me offer my opinion. Last month I took a photo in my garden. I was sitting there sipping on a beer and suddenly realized that what I was looking at in my garden should be photographed. I'm developing a photographers "eye" it seems. That photo turned out lovely, clear and crisp, good composition and all that, the results of my lessons. I took it into photoshop elements just for fun and applied a simple crosshatch filter. Suddenly that photo resembled a watercolor. Was I "cheating"? I don't think so. I believe I'm learning TWO new skills and combined they make a wonderful marriage. I had the resulting image printed on textured watercolor paper and learned that fine art printing is an art, I had it Framed and learned that Framing is an art. To me, the results of all this is a wonderful piece of Art that I created for the enjoyment of myself and others. It's the feeling you get, wether it be creating, manipulating, printing or framing. I have only stuck my toe in the photographic waters thus far, however somewhere down the road, when I can do back flips from the high board into the photographic pool, I'm sure my computer will aid me to make a splashless entry. Competition is fine, judging and critiques are helpful, but at the end of the day only you really know if you have produced your best. No matter how that "best" was acheived. Gary
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
don't think any pros have actually given an answer. But I get your point.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Howard Leigh |
What's a pro and what's an amateur? most pro photographers are amateurs as well, in that the word amateur derives from amare = to love! And where does that leave the "hobbyist"?! Anyhow, what is Art? To misquote, one man's, sorry, one person's Art is another person's rubbish. I have yet to see a universally accepted definition of Art, as opposed to art. (Perhaps here's the seed for another thread...) I still return though to my previous point which is that Photography was (and is) in many peoples' minds linked clearly to reality. When a photograph effectively loses that link then is it no longer a photograph but an image? That image may be aesthetically attractive to its maker and its viewers. But is it Art? I read a book by Cynthia Leppard on that general theme and I still don't know the answer! Howard P.S. - nice photos, though, Gary!!
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Howard Leigh |
The simple one was severely underexposed and has been corrected here using layers. The second one was then treated to a water colour filter, followed by some tweaking with layers to darken and make more moody. Are they both photographs? Are they Art? Does it matter anyway if I like them? Does it matter if other viewers like or dislike them?
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Howard Leigh |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||||||||
