| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2007 04:23:40 PM · #26 |
| One of my highest rated shots was in a minimal editing challenge, and I am someone who tries to take every shot how I would like it to look, so I was pleased that my efforts were rewarded.. photoshopping is a talent in itself but i think sites like deviantart were made for that.. i don't mind photoshopping to improve a picture, but some don't look anything like the original! |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:27:02 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ?
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:28:59 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
Better yet, If you have a house and you make it a train station. Is it still a house?
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:30:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I so agree with this, in particular the last sentence. I think it is funny how often it is assumed that ribbon winners have to be edited heavily when they win, how often people will think that photographers with ribbon winners are "photoshop experts" to get images like that. The reality is they usually, like Ann puts it, "started with good pictures and had the ability to know what post processing the image needed to look its best." |
I think this is a key piece that often gets missed. As I get better with a camera, I use photoshop less. to the point that my higher scoring images basically look like that coming out of the camera. A small tweak here and there, maybe a touch of clean-up but I use about 1% of what can be done in photoshop, if you just pay attention to what you are doing before you press the shutter.
I've been convinced that it is actually possible to polish a turd by careful use of photoshop, but I much prefer to find the shiny results without all the work, straight out of the camera.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:31:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
Occasionally (like right now) I feel like saying (respectfully), "Who cares?"
I mean this in the sense of, what in the world am I doing even arguing about all this stuff instead of going out and actually making some decent images.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 16:33:30. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:33:42 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
Occasionally (like right now) I feel like saying (respectfully), "Who cares?" |
and that's a real valid approach to take too. You can waste a lot of time putting things in boxes.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:44:06 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
To use your logic he's building a brick from a stack of bricks, not a house.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 16:44:52.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:45:57 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
To use your logic he's building a brick from a stack of bricks, not a house. |
Urm. yes. That'd be my point. Just because something is made up of some constituent parts, doesn't mean the end result is still the same thing.
Collage maybe. Composite, perhaps. Photograph ? unlikely. Beautiful certainly.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 16:48:14.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:55:45 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
To use your logic he's building a brick from a stack of bricks, not a house. |
Urm. yes. That'd be my point. Just because something is made up of some constituent parts, doesn't mean the end result is still the same thing.
Collage maybe. Composite, perhaps. Photograph ? unlikely. Beautiful certainly. |
Well better through in multiple exposures and many film/darkroom techniques into that non-photograph bucket you carry there.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 04:58:56 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well better through in multiple exposures and many film/darkroom techniques into that non-photograph bucket you carry there. |
Not really. Again, entirely different techniques shouldn't get called the same thing. Otherwise all we are all doing is painting. After all, there's a picture at the end in both cases.
Cutting pictures up and sticking them back together is very commonly referred to as collage. I don't see why that changes when you use digital scissors.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 05:10:13 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 05:26:05 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Where do you draw the line?
There is a lot of discussion in other threads about this however I wanted to take it away from any particular challenge.
I start thinking that some images have gone over the line but then also start thinking about multi-media artwork etc. The line seems to be blurring more and more. |
Unless you submit a RAW file (which you cannot), your picture has been postprocessed.
The camera has built-in, limited, preset, configurations that apply processing to the image AFTER it has been captured by the sensor. Whereas film was WYSIWYG, what was seen (by the camera) was what was captured, digital allows us to do all sorts of neat things -- including POST PROCESSING in camera.
What is the difference? Why is the in-camera stuff acceptable to so many so-called "purists" yet the out of camera stuff is not? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Sorry, but even Ansel Adams did trickery in the darkroom. Just because we don't mess around with chemicals and redlights doesn't mean we're doing anything more heinous than he was.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 05:38:08 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Where do you draw the line?
There is a lot of discussion in other threads about this however I wanted to take it away from any particular challenge.
I start thinking that some images have gone over the line but then also start thinking about multi-media artwork etc. The line seems to be blurring more and more. |
Unless you submit a RAW file (which you cannot), your picture has been postprocessed.
The camera has built-in, limited, preset, configurations that apply processing to the image AFTER it has been captured by the sensor. Whereas film was WYSIWYG, what was seen (by the camera) was what was captured, digital allows us to do all sorts of neat things -- including POST PROCESSING in camera.
What is the difference? Why is the in-camera stuff acceptable to so many so-called "purists" yet the out of camera stuff is not? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Sorry, but even Ansel Adams did trickery in the darkroom. Just because we don't mess around with chemicals and redlights doesn't mean we're doing anything more heinous than he was. |
I never said that it has to be straight from the camera. I'll add a footnote.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 17:43:11.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 05:49:59 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well better through in multiple exposures and many film/darkroom techniques into that non-photograph bucket you carry there. |
Not really. Again, entirely different techniques shouldn't get called the same thing. Otherwise all we are all doing is painting. After all, there's a picture at the end in both cases.
Cutting pictures up and sticking them back together is very commonly referred to as collage. I don't see why that changes when you use digital scissors. |
Ok so the film equivalent also rendered the end result not a photograph? True? It would have to be based on your reasoning. Was Ansel Adams' work photography or film art? Clearly it must be the latter. No?
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 17:52:10.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 06:05:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so the film equivalent also rendered the end result not a photograph? True? It would have to be based on your reasoning. Was Ansel Adams' work photography or film art? Clearly it must be the latter. No? |
If you want to point to the collage work that Ansel Adams did, I'd be happy to talk about it.
The specific example was composited from a variety of photographs.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 06:06:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so the film equivalent also rendered the end result not a photograph? True? It would have to be based on your reasoning. Was Ansel Adams' work photography or film art? Clearly it must be the latter. No? |
If you want to point to the collage work that Ansel Adams did, I'd be happy to talk about it.
The specific example was composited from a variety of photographs. |
Ok so the ones you are referring to, that's film art. Correct? Or whatever term you want to call it just not a photograph.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 18:12:25.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2007 09:48:32 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Gordon:
If you want to point to the collage work that Ansel Adams did, I'd be happy to talk about it.
The specific example was composited from a variety of photographs. |
Ok so the ones you are referring to, that's film art. Correct? Or whatever term you want to call it just not a photograph. |
I'm still not aware of any collage work by Ansel Adams - like I said, if you want to point it out I'll be happy to talk about it. The image I responded to in this thread was composited from pieces of 7 distinct photographs.
Ullesman comes close to using similar techniques, where he'd build a final image in the darkroom from multiple negatives. But I don't remember seeing any multiple image collages from Ansel Adams.
Message edited by author 2007-09-16 09:49:02.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:38:59 AM · #43 |
If you take it with your camera, it's a photo. Edit it to how you like it, it's your photo. If others don't consider it a photo, that's too bad for them. If you care about how well it scores, it's too bad for you. Be content with what you have.
Photography is art. There should be no line drawn. There are lines drawn for different challenges only to the extent of editing, but it's all still art.(ie. Basic, Advanced, Expert). Don't like the rules, don't enter that challenge. Think your less edited photo can do better, then enter it and see what the voters think. Don't wine about it, be proud of your work. If you want to be a crowd pleaser, get with photoshop. Want to be happy with how you do it, keep doing it. People will advise you on how THEY think your photo can be improved. If you apply that technique and you feel it's a better photo for it, then incorporate it next time. If you think it takes away from it being 'your photo', then don't do it.
EDIT - I'd like to add that learning photoshop has allowed me to take more photos because I can look at a scene and say "Hey, while out of the camera this composition might kinda suck, but if I did 'this' and 'this' in photoshop, it would make for a really cool photo."
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 00:43:00. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:45:36 AM · #44 |
To all who say that they can't compete because they are not as photoshop savy there is a very easy solution. LEARN PHOTOSHOP. Take a class, read a book, look up tutorials. Everyone who is a great editor at photoshop didn't just wake up with those skills, they put in time and effort and probably a whole lot of crappy images.
There is no line to be drawn between photography and photoshop. Once you take an image with a camera, its up to you to do whatever you want. If going crazy with photoshop is your thing great, it may not be mine, but who cares.
I love dealing with the "purist" photographers I meet all around this town. Some of them shoot film and love the darkroom because its the old way and for some reason they think its more artistic than digital and photoshop. SOme of them are snotty little pompous jerks who completely discredit digital. Meanwhile they don't know anything technical and feel that film and darkroom automatically make them great photographers. I like to call tehm the unemployable photogs. I am happy they are doing their thing because it just leaves more work for me because I can meet a deadline and produce results for multiple media... website and print media w/ 1 file.
I feel no need to convince them of my digital ways or justify it as photography. I understand the concepts that have always surrounded photography and I use that mixed with the ease of digital to produce what I think are good results. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 11:46:26 AM · #45 |
| If you're using anything other than a pinhole camera, it's not real photography. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:04:35 PM · #46 |
| If you want to be a pro, you MUST know how to use Photoshop! |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:32:27 PM · #47 |
Is it Photography or Is it Photoshop?
Why does it matter? |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 01:17:12 PM · #48 |
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 01:19:03 PM · #49 |
Thrilling, brilliant discussion.
Photo graphic material or art is that which has been achieved through 'drawing with light', according to the etymology. Enabling light to leave an impression on film and then further enabling the transference of the film impression onto paper via the medium of light is the process known as photography. The individual photographer gets to make a lot of decisions during the process and is then said to be engaged in photography.
In the case of digital photography light per se is involved only in the initial exposure of the sensor. The rest of the process is electronic and, it might be argued, not strictly speaking photography.
Then again, it is probably useful to consider 'digital photography' as a discrete noun phrase rather than interpreting it in terms of its constituent parts.
I wonder what it means.
(edited to bugger about with the link texts)
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 13:22:32. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 01:27:52 PM · #50 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 03:37:13 AM EDT.
