 john smith |
When does photograph enhancement cross the line Forgive me for being confused, I'm new to this site and have spent a lot of time going through the photo uploads, critiques, and galleries. One thing that I am struggling with is people's use of Photoshop or related software to do more than just enhance, correct, or better a photograph. There are so many examples where an original photograph has been so manipulated that it no longer reflects the original subject and instead moves into the world of artistic creation. Then these "photos" go on to win recognition as "photo" of the day. So my question that I hope will trigger a discussion is: When does photo enhancment using tools like Photoshop cross the line away from photography and closer to graphic or artistic design?
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
That discussion will never lead anywhere since it is a matter of taste and opinion. So, as long as there are no laws defining what IS a photo and what is NOT, it is purely personal.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I agree with WS that the decision is personal. However, if you read some of the threads and you're looking at most photos on this site, you'll come to the conclusion I did a long time ago - specifically, that most people take too many digital shots of the same subject in the HOPE of getting a decent image through the editing process. Because [excluding all costs associated with camera, accessories, a high-powered computer, printer, paper and ink] taking a digital image is cheap, it's too easy to shoot image after image. As to exactly what's done via editing, the fact remains that one can usually differentiate between a print produced from film and a digital print, especially larger sized prints. But, when my DIL asks me to "adjust" images she's taken of my grandkids, a little exposure adjustment or color tweaking seems fine. In my opinion, however, regarding the BP contest, too many images, that should be entered in the categories Elements of Design or Digital Darkroom, are entered in Nature and Landscapes, People, etc. As such, there is no good way to determine what an "original" may be.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Funny that there are no threads discussing having trouble with people's use of the darkroom. Photoshop itself doesn't automatically make you a better artist. You still have to shoot a picture to manipulate unless you want to build it from scratch; if you do build from scratch the latter technically wouldn't really be a photo. Using Photoshop is a skill...so is taking a picture. Doing both will likely get better results than either alone. But measuring those results...it's impossible. While generally I use photoshop to enhance an original (rather than obliterate the capture and turn it into something completely different), I am not sure why it matters if someone chooses to manipulate an image beyond recognition to fit their vision or flat out create artwork. It is a different art than documentary photography...apples and oranges. If you think it will help win photo of the week, then learn the program. In my opinion it will require developing your eye as much or more than your Photoshop skills -- but training in one can help with the other. The 'cool look' people get from filters or plugins will only hold interest for so long. You have to become your own master and understand image manipulation to be truely good at it. Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Richard, I think the main reason there is no discussion about the [wet] darkroom is that, with the development of color print films - expanding from the original Kodacolor to all the marvelous versions by Fuji, Agfa, etc., the vast majority of photogrpahers didn't develop their own film or make their own prints. And, most people stopped shooting B&W. I've been shooting since 1947 and probbaly have developed only two rolls of B&W film in a wet darkroom, and made no more than 5-6 B&W prints. I've never developed color film. If others are like me, they didn't have the chance to learn how or, in fact, to make wet darkroom adjustments. I concur that one must "make" a picture in the camera; my point about too many people shooting in the hopes of achieving a "lucky shot" remains. In another thread, the initiator [an admitted amateur and three year owner of a digtial camera] reported she'd shot 30,000 images - in three years. This is one example proving my thesis. Overuse of Photoshop only matters when an enhanced image must compete against that over-manipulated image which could never have been taken in real life. Appropriate use of a contest's "categories" would eliminate the concerns about crossing the line between graphic or asthetic design, the question posed by Glen.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stan Lubach |
I always get a kick out of threads like these. While folks in photo forums are coming up with new ways of making photographs look more abstract, folks in the 3D computer graphics world are shooting for realism. As an example, check out: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=473076
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Have all of the these threads about this same subject involved getting a medal?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
John, I think my point was that many people manipulated images in the wet darkroom -- some were quite famous (Ansel Adams). Yet no one seems to object to their ability to 'version' reality. Just because some don't have the opportunity to learn something doesn't mean it becomes unfair for others to make the time. If people shoot volume to get a good shot, that is their business -- as long as it is a good shot all the same. I don't see that manipulating discounts anything: you need to have vision and skill to do it well. Leave it to the judges to discern in their expertise between what is a photo and a graphic though photography usually is thought of as a combination of these ;-) Richard
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Glen, if you're asking this in relation to the contest then it's fine to do whatever you want to a photo. The BP judges don't seem to care how manipulated a photo is in any category. I've seen "buzzed" and "dreamy" photos win in the Nature & Landscape category where you would think those at least would be basic PS editing more or less.
|
|
|
|
||
|
john smith |
Thanks all for stirring my thinking. My question was posed as a general question, not necessarily in response to contest decisions, but more through observation of what was being uploaded and entered. I agree that it is clearly a matter of personal preference. Ansel Adams (mentioned above) did wonders in the darkroom for his B&W images, but he also spent just as much time waiting for the perfect lighting before taking his photo. I always got the sense that he was enhancing the dramatic without losing the reality.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||