Is it Photography or Is it Photoshop?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/18/2007 10:16:27 AM · #76

Originally posted by Davenit:

Everyone is so busy saying it doesn't matter what category it's in so why not just call it what it is... digital art? If it didn't matter these categories wouldn't be around.

Of course it matters. Photography is more than the final image. It's the process of getting that final image. The time put in, the hours, days, weeks waiting for the perfect light. The research needed to find a location for the shot you have in mind. The sitting in a blind for 2 weeks waiting for that one chance to catch your subject. It's the culmination of all events.

We live in a society where all that matters in the final product and the applause that's lauded on us for a great image. It use to be about personal satisfaction. That has nothing to do with it these days.

Yeah, darkroom techniques like masking and using multiple negs have been around for ages but they weren't used in the art world that much, it was extremely frowned upon. Anyone who thinks different isn't old enough to remember the brow beating anyone who merged images use to take.

Photoshop is a great tool and that's all it should be. When it's used to take multiple mediocre shots and make 1 great shot it's digital art IMO. When the focus of the image is manipulated it's digital art. Still in the photography category, but under manipulations.

Photography is about clicking a shutter once, capturing what you labored over for a period of time then looking at the final result and saying, 'yeah, that works'. I know a guy who takes weeks to get one image of a bird. He waits for the right light, the right atmosphere and the right composition. Now some other person goes there at noon, shoots a bird for an hour, goes home and PS's it for 30 minutes and has a good looking shot. Which one is the photograph? If you think the guy who waited in the blind is a fool for doing so you're not a photographer at heart. He deserves the credit to be called a photographer not the other person. Like I said, photography is more than the image.

So you can all sit here and claim that categories don't matter. That art is art. No it's not. The people who pain over true photography deserve the credit to be called photographers. If it bothers you being called a 'digital artist' then go out and learn how to shoot images traditionally.

I've seen a few comments here that said 'learn photoshop'. I say 'learn photography'.

Just my take...

Dave

You consider Jerry Uelsmann's work as not being art?

If traditional photographic process matters so much to you, why are you not shooting with an antique view camera on glass plates and fuming them in a dark wagon over mercury?

If making images one way brings you personal satisfaction, that's great. Good for you. That doesn't mean you should deride those who choose a path to creating their images that you deem to be outside your narrow definition of photography.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

09/18/2007 10:28:02 AM · #77

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If making images one way brings you personal satisfaction, that's great. Good for you. That doesn't mean you should deride those who choose a path to creating their images that you deem to be outside your narrow definition of photography.

He's not. He's asking why such people can't describe themselves accurately (eg, digital artist) rather than constantly displaying some bizarre need to term themselves photographers - as if any other term puts their efforts in a lesser light...

Jimbo_for_life

Olympus E-500 EVOLT

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

09/18/2007 10:42:30 AM · #78

i think if you dont like how things are run around here, there are plenty of other web sites to go to.

09/18/2007 10:45:55 AM · #79

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If making images one way brings you personal satisfaction, that's great. Good for you. That doesn't mean you should deride those who choose a path to creating their images that you deem to be outside your narrow definition of photography.

He's not. He's asking why such people can't describe themselves accurately (eg, digital artist) rather than constantly displaying some bizarre need to term themselves photographers - as if any other term puts their efforts in a lesser light...

No, he's made his narrow definitions and seems determined that they are the way things should be defined as "photography" or "not photography". Perhaps others think his "accurate" descriptions are anything but accurate.

I'm glad that his friend who waits for weeks in a blind gets good results, but just because he does that doesn't make him a photographer. Process is only important as far as it impacts the final result. If he only sat in the blind for 2 hours would that make his image less of a photograph than if he sits there for a week? The suffering of the artist does not make what he creates into art.

Originally posted by Davenit:

Photography is about clicking a shutter once, capturing what you labored over for a period of time then looking at the final result and saying, 'yeah, that works'. I know a guy who takes weeks to get one image of a bird. He waits for the right light, the right atmosphere and the right composition. Now some other person goes there at noon, shoots a bird for an hour, goes home and PS's it for 30 minutes and has a good looking shot. Which one is the photograph? If you think the guy who waited in the blind is a fool for doing so you're not a photographer at heart. He deserves the credit to be called a photographer not the other person. Like I said, photography is more than the image.

So you can all sit here and claim that categories don't matter. That art is art. No it's not. The people who pain over true photography deserve the credit to be called photographers. If it bothers you being called a 'digital artist' then go out and learn how to shoot images traditionally.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/18/2007 10:48:07 AM · #80

Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:

i think if you dont like how things are run around here, there are plenty of other web sites to go to.

And if you've been here for a while and paid attention, you'd know this dead horse gets hauled out and beaten periodically on DPC.

Davenit

Canon EOS-1D

09/18/2007 10:53:05 AM · #81

Post removed... sorry all...

Message edited by author 2007-09-18 11:08:03.

Davenit

Canon EOS-1D

09/18/2007 10:55:37 AM · #82

Post removed...

Message edited by author 2007-09-18 11:08:22.

daboardergirl

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

09/18/2007 10:58:58 AM · #83

I like the idea of Jerry Uelsmann being a 'digital artist'. It's quite amusing! :)

Davenit

Canon EOS-1D

09/18/2007 11:07:32 AM · #84

Originally posted by daboardergirl:

I like the idea of Jerry Uelsmann being a 'digital artist'. It's quite amusing! :)

Yeah, I probably should have said photomanipulator. LOL...

In the end I consider it all art. That's really all that matters. Before I piss the rest of the community off I will take my leave. I really didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I was just giving my 2 cents and it probably isn't worth that...

Peace...

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/18/2007 11:30:57 AM · #85

Originally posted by Davenit:

...
In the end I consider it all art. That's really all that matters. Before I piss the rest of the community off I will take my leave. I really didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I was just giving my 2 cents and it probably isn't worth that...

Peace...

I appreciate your opinion, as do others. Three photographers picked you as their favorite today. :)

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/18/2007 11:37:26 AM · #86

i thought i already had...

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/18/2007 11:46:27 AM · #87

Screw photography I am just using Photoshop from now on. Um OK wait where does the image come from? Do I have to create it from scratch? I can't draw or paint. Will it happen by osmosis?

Oh well I guess it's back to my Nikon...

:-P

elsapo

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

09/18/2007 12:11:05 PM · #88

I was reading through this thread and I must say, why is everyone so worried about it? I mean if you like Photoshop then use it and if you don't, well don't. Itâ��s really not a big deal, just do what you like and respect what others do. People need to stop arguing and worrying about all this stuff and just focusing on what is good for them. Like in all art, you have to appreciate the work of the artist, and if you don't like it, just move on. We all know that no one will ever agree on this topic, so why waste your time when you can be doing something for yourself. ;)

As for me, itâ��s not Photography OR Photoshop, it's Photography AND Photoshop. :o

pixelpig

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 1.8/50mm SAM

09/18/2007 12:14:56 PM · #89

I know a photographer who feels that true photographers only use film--digital camera users (according to this photographer) are tourists, easily satisfied w/snapshot quality, too lazy or too stupid to learn to develop & print their own film. If photography is made so simple & easy an idiot can do it, then idiots will be taking pictures & calling themselves photographers, he says. That photog is my Dad. I'm tempted to think that his 'true photographer' stand comes from a natural human fear of the unknown. An artist naturally seeks out the unknown. Some artists are using cameras in a way that is a shock & an insult to a film photographer. I'd like to find or define a genre of photography not leveraged on the morals & ethics of film photography or based on the camera's original capture, or on the limitations of film camera technology--but on the photographer's unique point of view. We could call ourselves The Tourists. I guess we wouldn't be welcome at this site.

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/18/2007 12:24:23 PM · #90

It's Photoshopography! :-)) Taking the picture is fun but working with that picture is the best part.

GueDesigns

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/18/2007 12:36:07 PM · #91

The beauty of DIGITAL Photography, is the wide range of editing possibilties. Some people like to use editing as a whole 'nother art form. ...if you do it right.

I do agree, sometimes too much editing can ruin a photo, and take away from the "photographic" aspect. ...I am guilty of such editing.

But I feel, if you can make something better out of a great photo, more power to ya.

I would like to see more 'minnimal editing' challenges though.

-my 2 cents ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-09-18 12:54:37.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/18/2007 12:39:43 PM · #92

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The suffering of the artist does not make what he creates into art.

You can't have been to a modern art gallery for a while, you just about defined what makes it 'art' there.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/18/2007 12:44:32 PM · #93

I'm not so much anti-photoshop as disinterested. I spent 10 years learning the ins and outs of digital imaging, designing hardware accelerators for photoshop, helping to optimise the algorithms, coming up with new approaches to making filters faster. All this before I started taking pictures.

So now I prefer to learn photography and not worry or spend the time doing post capture manipulation, because I find that dull. I can get the results I want in camera and then I can optimise them in photoshop.

I think quite a lot of the anti-photoshop vibe comes from seeing bad captures 'saved' when great captures could have been made better.

The best images come from the best possible capture with the best possible post capture manipulation. You need to focus on both parts and be as good as you can in each area.

There's also the world of realistic improbabilities and unrealistic probabilities and where they overlap that ends up in fantastic views of reality or realistic views of fantasy. Some people prefer one over the other.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/18/2007 12:56:13 PM · #94

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The suffering of the artist does not make what he creates into art.

You can't have been to a modern art gallery for a while, you just about defined what makes it 'art' there.

Oh, I have.

I just don't agree that process makes art. It can be some small part of what gives art its appeal, especially if the process is interesting, but it's not essential.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

09/18/2007 01:24:08 PM · #95

You're all wrong. All of you.

GueDesigns

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/18/2007 01:26:07 PM · #96

Originally posted by routerguy666:

You're all wrong. All of you.

HAHAHA!!

...I Concur

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/18/2007 03:37:36 PM · #97

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I just don't agree that process makes art. It can be some small part of what gives art its appeal, especially if the process is interesting, but it's not essential.

I particularly remember one exhibit at the New York Museum of Modern Art, where I think the photographer had lived in a hole in the forest for 2 months, shaved off all her body hair after that, set fire to it and then took a picture of the ash. The picture was the end product.

Another case where a different artist locked himself in a basement with a video camera pointed at the door and assaulted anyone who tried to convince him to leave.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/18/2007 03:42:15 PM · #98

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I just don't agree that process makes art. It can be some small part of what gives art its appeal, especially if the process is interesting, but it's not essential.

I particularly remember one exhibit at the New York Museum of Modern Art, where I think the photographer had lived in a hole in the forest for 2 months, shaved off all her body hair after that, set fire to it and then took a picture of the ash. The picture was the end product.

Another case where a different artist locked himself in a basement with a video camera pointed at the door and assaulted anyone who tried to convince him to leave.

Really? Wow. They both sound like somewhat drastic weight-loss schemes, not art :)