 Gillian Oren |
A comment This is not so much a question, as a comment. I recently joined this group and have seen some great, even amazing "photos" provided by the members. Why have I put inverted commas around the word "photo", because I look upon most of them more as "works of art" because of the fact that the original photo has been touched up so much in some graphics programme. I think that photo contests should be run in one of two categories, untouched originals and touched up originals. "Real" photography to me is an untouched original showing the photographers real skill at taking photos. The rest is art. (Photography is also an "art", I know, but I think you know what I mean). However, don't get me wrong, I love both versions, I just feel that they should be addressed separately.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
There is a category for digital darkroom (photos that have been edited so much that the final version doesn't look like the scene you were seeing when you took the picture), you know. Now, are you suggesting that if the camera didn't do a %100 perfect job in capturing a scene (meaning, the lighting wasn't set perfectly and there weren't any small annoying details in the original) it shouldn't be called a photo? Gillian, my friend, most photos need a slight amount of retouching, and brighting up a photo that's a little underexposed doesn't make it an abstract work of art. But then again, I see what you mean. :) I just think you're a little mistaken. Ariel
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
I agree with both of you. I know that it doesn't make sense, and it would be hard to define at what amount of 'retouching' or how much distortion from the original would you no longer call a photograph a photograph. Even in a darkroom the technitian would apply tequnigues such as burning, dodging and masking to improve upon the image. Granted, in todays digital world, we can go way beyond what ever could have been accoplished in the darkroom. But how does one define at what point we have gone too far. To the point where the photograph is no longer a represntation of a persons skill as a photographer, but rather emphasizes computer and digital editing skills. Certainly, not every photograph can be digitally manipulated into a "work of art", but a great percentage of blah pictures can be turned into something interesting with some creative and artistic editing tequniques. In my own gallery I recently posted a picture of a man and his son pulling a canoe behind them on the Genesee river, while there were some geese floating in the foreground. It was late afternoon and a lot of contrast. The figures were dark enough that trying to lighten them in levels made the overall shot too light. And there wasn't much color other than a blueish cast. To make the shot much more interesting, I decided rather than try to reduce the contrast, to let it work for me. I subdued the color saturation in everything but the geese and boosted the contrast resulting in an almost litho appearence with color only being visible in the water fowl and a slight bit on the canoe. A much more pleasing and interesting picture as a result of editing. Was the picture greatly changed from the origianl. You bet! But does it an anyway mean the photographer was less a photographer because the scene doesn't look in the picture anything like it was in real life? If anyone answered 'Yes' to that, I think Ansel Adams would have to argue with them. Photography as an artform is really the ability for a person to see a scene, pre-visualize how he wants to interpret it in the final print and then apply whatever techniques needed to accomplish that goal. Granted, my final shot was not previsualised when I took the picture, but after viewing it on the computer, I could see it coming together and how I wanted it to look. The rest was just a bunch of mouse clicks.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Darren J. Gilcher Contact Darren J. Gilcher Darren J. Gilcher's Gallery |
Nice photo, Bob.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Irene Troy |
I have been thinking, a lot, about this issue. For some time I felt that anyone who relied on Photoshop to create a good image was a hack. Of-course, at that point I lacked any real knowledge of PS. I still believe that those who are deliberately lazy in the field (or studio) and who solely rely on PS to correct their mistakes is unlikely to ever produce the really great images that we all go WOW over. However, I now see that PS plays an important role in producing images that are of the highest quality possible. Personally, I am not sure that there is any real difference between what Ansel Adams did in the traditional darkroom and what a skilled photographer does on the computer. Years ago, when I was still a kid (many years!) I took a class in photography one summer. We were told that taking the picture was only the start and that one needed to learn how to properly develop the image in the darkroom. Today, once again getting serious about my photography, I feel that knowing how to create an image properly involves knowing composition, exposure and how to process that image once captured. I shoot in RAW format so every image I shoot is processed in Photoshop. Much of the time this processing is fairly simple; adjust the levels a smidge, maybe adjust contrast and/or saturation and let it go. But, I have no problem with people using the more complex tools in PS or in creating art from the original image captured in the field. I only envy their expertise!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
if a camera made it and you painted over it. It would be a photo that you painted on, so its still a photo. A photo is a photo, but a photo can be turned into art or art can be turned into a photo, understand me not.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gillian Oren |
Thanks for all your replies, I was interested in hearing what you guys thought on the topic. I have some knowledge of PS so perhaps I'll try making some of my pictures more interesting, in the past I felt that this was "cheating". However, I must admit that in the short time that I've been a member of this group I've seen quite a lot of "wow" pictures. I hope that one of these days I'll be able to make one of my own!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Thank you Darren. Irene you are absolutely correct. There is not a single Ansel Adams image that was not manipulated either in the developement or printing process. That is why he is called 'The Master'. He learned early on that the medium cannot always record a scene just as it is in real life, nor could it always record it as he visualized it. Film latitude just isn't wide enough to capture the subleties between the two extremes of light and dark. Ansel learned how to process his negatives to compress that latitude somewhat, and whatever else needed to be done to render the scene the way he wanted it, was done in the darkroom. He knew what film to use, what chemical to use to develope it and what work he would have to do as far as exposing the print to get the results he wanted. Here again, we have the same thing with PS and other fine editing programs. I agree that there are a lot of effects people use to try to make a work of art out of the ordinary and these are usually pretty obvious. Frame filters and multiple vision filters are usually the most popular. I did recently take a pic of the American Flag with the sun directly behind it. The bright glow of the sun through the flash produced almost a cross shape. I did boost the contrast to totally obliviate the surrounding scene and used a diffraction filter to emphasize the cross. Not what I would call a work of art, but again, just another way to turn a rather boring shot into something with pizzazz! I'll upload the shot on my next post as I'm not completly signed in right now. Bob
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Okay, I'm in. Here is the original shot and then with the added diffraction.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Okay, I'm in. Here is the original shot and then with the added diffraction.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
"Ansel learned how to process his negatives to compress that latitude somewhat, and whatever else needed to be done to render the scene the way he wanted it, was done in the darkroom. He knew what film to use, what chemical to use to develope it and what work he would have to do as far as exposing the print to get the results he wanted." "....That is why he is called 'The Master'." This cannot be accurately compared to throwing an image up onto a screen and clicking a mouse. Now, we are ALL "masters" but are we really better off?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I'd say that no you can't compare that, if that's the kind of example you're going to use. There's plenty of corny attempts with digital, just like there's plenty of empty attempts with film. Something dosen't become artistic or abstract just because it's done with black and white. It stays a plain picture, just lacks color. It's always how you use it. And no, we're not all masters, and we're certainly not worse off.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
No, computers have not made us masters by any means, and I was not comparing technology with what Ansel Adams did. I was merely stating that, very few of the great photographers, including Adams, ever made a terrific print without some form of 'touch-up'. The original statement by Gillian was whether a not a person was trully an artistic photographer, if they had to use any type of editing of altering tequnique to improve upon the original shot. My response was simply that even Ansel Adams altered his originals and he is 'the master', so if it's okay for him to do it and still be considered the greatest landscape photographer of all time, then it must be okay for the rest of us too. And it shouldn't matter if that altercation takes place in a darkroom or on a computer screen.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Thanks, people, for this interesting discussion. As someone who used every technique and tool -- invented or available -- in the privacy of my darkroom to better render an image, I'm excited to now be able do what I only dreamed of while waiting for my Cibachromes to develop. Not then, not now have I represented my images as True. Since they're not for journalism and not used in court, to me it's the result that counts. I have no control over people's expectations. Anyone expecting Reality from photography as a whole, historically or now, should see Ansel Adams's 15 darkroom versions of his original Moonrise Over Hernandez. Yes, clicking a mouse is easy and much easier than darkroom work. What people seem to forget is that for an artistic result (1) you need a decent picture to start with, so you need a minimum of photographic knowledge or to be consistently lucky. And (2) you need to know how to run a computer, not obvious to old broads like me. And (3) you need to master the post-processing programme and to use those easy mouse clicks in artistic ways, all of which takes more than reading a Help file. ITA with what Bob wrote above. The same debate (Is It Art) rages today in architecture. Maybe less vehemently since there are less architects than photographers ...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"...After spending his life in darkrooms and working with chemicals and perfecting his zone system, I fear that even Adams, if he were alive today, would agree that digital photography is not an artform. Too fast. Too easy. Too many people think they can take pictures now. They don't have to mess with smelly chemicals that burn your nostrils and stain your clothes. Don't have to work in the dark. It's just not an artform. I beleive that it how Adams would perceive the digital photo... I know you're speculating, but you have nothing to fear, he wouldn't feel that way.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
I have had the cheaters discussion with a friend of mine many times. He says he is a "purist" because he doesn't use any photoshop processes. What he doesn't realize is that what is in the camera is not necessarily what the eye sees. It cannot capture the depth of color or contrast that the eye can. Another point is that for those shooting JPEG images, the camera already does it's own version of photoshop inside the camera trying to get it right. To me the bottom line is the photographer should do whatever it takes to get the finished photo that he saw in his/her head before the shutter release was depressed.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||