Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: alifatemi on October 05, 2019, 04:39:34 am
-
Hello friends, I believe todays photography, or at least those which exhibit in dedicated websites or galleries of photography and fine art, usually suffer from too much of post production(PP) and they are getting really boring, not intuitive, not exiting, not true or near the truth photos. Has been a while that I really have not enjoyed lookin at a photo. What I see is show off of photoshop mastery rather than photography. Framing or composition used to be the most important part of skill of photographer. A simple but genuine composing of a simple object. I have really missed photographers like Tina Modotti; Looking at the LL recent article/photos of Robert Vamos, much as I appreciate his respect and love of trees, me too hugely, but still this idea that our photographers drown deeply into the ocean of technics, too much of PP but not having our saying with just a simple composition, takes us away from what we really wanted to say in first place; Too much of a technics usually ruin the concept. Hundreds of photos I have seen during last years, many of them but not all, are part of these boring cliché. I believe enough is enough and our friends should stop doing too much of a PP and try practicing not to do that. An object beauty, ugliness, mystery, etc., Fram it with min. PP and publish it. I believe art is all about impression but too much of manipulation, takes away all this essentials from a photo. Please kindly advice me if I am wrong with your own ideas. Regards...
-
As for PP, I'm not sure how much is too much.
The idea of photography is IMO that of creating an image that conveys the intention of the artist.
How he does it shouldn't matter. Today we call it (AOT) photoshop. Some time ago we chose the kind of photographic paper, toned it, made masks to burn in or dodge, used maybe different materials (silver, platinum, whatever)
For me the goal ist the end product, in my case the print. How to achieve it is secondary if I am satisfied with the result and of course I'm very happy if other people like it as well.
As an example: Last week I went to an exhibition of W. Turner's sea and alpine landscapes.
He had a vision and he conveyed it with his technique. I'd say pure "PP" ;)
As a confessed ignoramus in matters of art I must say that I don't see any philosophy or "meaning" there.
Just astonishing works of art.
-
You are broady correct, Ali, but it's really difficult to know whether that's an assumption based on what we look at rather than of what exists: we only manage to see a small percentage of what is out there, and there is always the danger that getting into an Internet stream just leads us to more material of the same kind - it's something that the people who run the Internet seem to think is what we want.
I certainly believe that fashion photography, since the advent of digital, has suffered from too much manipulation to the point that photographers have become almost identical today - they are copies of each other. This may actually be because the people who take over the process after the picture has been shot are all educated in the same kind of ethic. When it was about wet printing, you still had the handwriting of the photographer come shining through; the most they could do to his pictures was bleach out highlights and give us very white faces. Today, they remove the skin from the models and replace it with plastic wrapping. Then they go ahead and disfigure them on the rack. It used to be normal to recognize the girls and know their names after a while; now, I have no idea who is who. The death of Peter Lindbergh may mark the end of the photographer of influence who believes in the idea of showing the woman.
As most know, I am not a huge fan of landscape, and even less so when it's in colour. I believe that landscape too often depends on just being there at the right time and/or season. Okay, you do need still to be able to shape a pleasing shape in your viewfinder, but folks then go on to accentuate too much, as if thinking, deep down, that there is really nothing there in the picture, so they had jolly well better turn it into a Technicolor display of digital computer pyrotechnics. I believe that was the purpose behind Velvia film, so it isn't really something altogether new...
Rob
-
You are broady correct, Ali, but it's really difficult to know whether that's an assumption based on what we look at rather than of what exists: we only manage to see a small percentage of what is out there, and there is always the danger that getting into an Internet stream just leads us to more material of the same kind - it's something that the people who run the Internet seem to think is what we want.
I certainly believe that fashion photography, since the advent of digital, has suffered from too much manipulation to the point that photographers have become almost identical today - they are copies of each other. This may actually be because the people who take over the process after the picture has been shot are all educated in the same kind of ethic. When it was about wet printing, you still had the handwriting of the photographer come shining through; the most they could do to his pictures was bleach out highlights and give us very white faces. Today, they remove the skin from the models and replace it with plastic wrapping. Then they go ahead and disfigure them on the rack. It used to be normal to recognize the girls and know their names after a while; now, I have no idea who is who. The death of Peter Lindbergh may mark the end of the photographer of influence who believes in the idea of showing the woman.
As most know, I am not a huge fan of landscape, and even less so when it's in colour. I believe that landscape too often depends on just being there at the right time and/or season. Okay, you do need still to be able to shape a pleasing shape in your viewfinder, but folks then go on to accentuate too much, as if thinking, deep down, that there is really nothing there in the picture, so they had jolly well better turn it into a Technicolor display of digital computer pyrotechnics. I believe that was the purpose behind Velvia film, so it isn't really something altogether new...
Rob
I see the same thinking in many monochromatic treatments, subjects of little or no interest being converted to B&W in the vain hope of adding a modicum of interest.
-
As for PP, I'm not sure how much is too much.
The idea of photography is IMO that of creating an image that conveys the intention of the artist.
How he does it shouldn't matter. Today we call it (AOT) photoshop. Some time ago we chose the kind of photographic paper, toned it, made masks to burn in or dodge, used maybe different materials (silver, platinum, whatever)
For me the goal ist the end product, in my case the print. How to achieve it is secondary if I am satisfied with the result and of course I'm very happy if other people like it as well.
As an example: Last week I went to an exhibition of W. Turner's sea and alpine landscapes.
He had a vision and he conveyed it with his technique. I'd say pure "PP" ;)
As a confessed ignoramus in matters of art I must say that I don't see any philosophy or "meaning" there.
Just astonishing works of art.
To the extent that you are happy to use the tools available to the wet printer, I tend to agree - to a point. That said, I never did like using a variety of papers - I always went for WSG with the best glaze I could give it. Why? Because that way, I got the best range of tones available on paper. Apart from the tones, I just loved the clean look. To this day I dislike flat papers, even though I did my digital printing on it because it worked with pigment inks; the saving grace was that once I put the things behind glass or within an archival polyester sleeve, I couldn't swear they looked any different to glazed wet prints... the end justified the means, in that case.
I think the worst case of photographic abuse is putting photographic work onto canvas papers in the hope of them looking like paintings.
Regarding Turner: I noted the smiley, but you have the cart before the horse. Indeed astonishing works of art, but art because he did it by hand and with great skill and vision. Why should there be meaning there; isn't skill and form enough? Meaning etc. are constructs of the advertising, religious, gallerist and curator world; it gives those people an industry-agreed platform for pontifiction and the projection of the myth that they know more about the "meaning and value of art" than does the client with the fat wallet unless they are also that client. They create added value to the transaction: their added value. All they can truthfully tell you - if they want to - is who painted what and who bought it last time it was up for sale and, perhaps, for how much.
-
I see the same thinking in many monochromatic treatments, subjects of little or no interest being converted to B&W in the vain hope of adding a modicum of interest.
Agreed: I do it all the time - fills the day and gives me a buzz if I convince myself!
It's the second, unpublished part of Donovan's law on the troubles of the amateur photographer.
Remove that, and there is simply no point to amateur photography.
-
For Keith: minimal post, minimal anything, but personally satisfying.
:-)
-
For Keith: minimal post, minimal anything, but personally satisfying.
:-)
Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.
;-)
-
Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.
;-)
+1.
-
Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.
;-)
It's also why I have lost any enthusiasm for sunshine photos.
Looking back on the career, such as it was, I realised even at the time that much of the desire was beyond photography, but closer to a love of travel. By the time I was sixteen I'd lived in four very different countries; travel held no fears at all and certainly little sense of it being unusual for the period, though I was soon to discover, on finally returning to the UK, that it was not the normal life at all.
There were quiet periods of my pro life where I'd look up at a passing jet and feel almost physically ill for lack of somewhere definite to go. I guess that's partly why I dedicated so much time to fixing foreign shoots, even though they were not always essential for the gig. Except for a brief period of a few months, I always had my own studio; I gave up the first one because travel shoots had replaced studio work that had practically died. Of course, soon after having none, that paper roll work came back, and so we built a studio at home.
Yet, it, too, became little but another room to add to the house description when we decided to pack it up and move to Spain. That was '81. I soon discovered that other, larger, and GP studios in Glasgow had closed the doors for one last time. So much for being GP providing safety. And come digital, ditto the several E6 labs. It was a helluva tough time for commercial photography during the later part of the 80s. I have no idea about later, for I stopped having either personal interest or contact.
Occasionally, I Google knitwear manufacturers in Scotland, and most of the famous brands, insofar as being up in Scotland anymore, have turned into dust and specialised memory. Yet, there are still new photographers listed; what in hell do they find to do besides hatches, matches and despatches?
But hey, though I write that colour doesn't excite me, don't lose sight of the fact that one of my favourite photographers of all time is Hans Feurer, master of colour and simplification within the commercial zone. As with many things, it depends on the application. I love his colour.
Rob
-
Rob, I'd say that doing colour well is one of the most difficult aspects of photography.
Happily much of your colour calendar work was done extremely well.
-
Rob, I'd say that doing colour well is one of the most difficult aspects of photography.
Happily much of your colour calendar work was done extremely well.
Hey, thank you very much, Keith!
Rob
-
I agree with Ali 100%. The problem is that there's a whole library of books out there that tell people how to do "amazing" things with Photoshop. They can't resist trying those things, often to "improve" a crappy shot whose problem is beyond a PP fix.
-
I see the same thinking in many monochromatic treatments, subjects of little or no interest being converted to B&W in the vain hope of adding a modicum of interest.
And the idee fix that some kind of graphical exaggerating makes something out of nothing.
-
Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.
;-)
Yes, one question remains: why annoying other peoples with our amateur contraptions?
(Posting on Lula is perfectly acceptable, back padding and virtual BFF Mechanics is the raison d’être of this site)
:-X
-
Yes, one question remains: why annoying other peoples with our amateur contraptions?
(Posting on Lula is perfectly acceptable, back padding and virtual BFF Mechanics is the raison d’être of this site)
:-X
Ivo, I'm unsure what you mean here.
What I will say is my use of the word "amateur" in regards to Rob's non-pro work here on LuLa is merely to define those periods in Rob's life, which I believe is the same phraseology that Rob himself uses.
I see no disgrace in being an amateur anything.
-
Right on, Keith. The word "amateur" contains a Latin root that goes back a bit: "amor." And its real meaning has nothing to do with "amatuerish." From Chambers: "A person who practises something for the love of it."
-
Regarding Turner: I noted the smiley, but you have the cart before the horse. Indeed astonishing works of art, but art because he did it by hand and with great skill and vision. Why should there be meaning there; isn't skill and form enough? Meaning etc. are constructs of the advertising, religious, gallerist and curator world; it gives those people an industry-agreed platform for pontifiction and the projection of the myth that they know more about the "meaning and value of art" than does the client with the fat wallet unless they are also that client. They create added value to the transaction: their added value. All they can truthfully tell you - if they want to - is who painted what and who bought it last time it was up for sale and, perhaps, for how much.
I could put my signature on that.
Maybe it was my poor English? I'll try harder :)
-
Ivo, I'm unsure what you mean here.
What I will say is my use of the word "amateur" in regards to Rob's non-pro work here on LuLa is merely to define those periods in Rob's life, which I believe is the same phraseology that Rob himself uses.
I see no disgrace in being an amateur anything.
There is no disgrace of being amateur, of course not.
[ironic]
The problem lies in the attitude of a fair number of amateurs who believe they can put themselves on the same level as some professionals, just because they can produce something decent under optimal conditions. And the misery starts when they believe those well meant craft-works should be exhibited till eternity. [\ironic]
-
Ivo, I'm unsure what you mean here.
What I will say is my use of the word "amateur" in regards to Rob's non-pro work here on LuLa is merely to define those periods in Rob's life, which I believe is the same phraseology that Rob himself uses.
I see no disgrace in being an amateur anything.
That is indeed the correct understanding, Keith.
Everything I have done since the paid work stopped is my "amateur" period. When I was working, all I ever did was paid work, model tests and the building up of the pro portfolio. Ironically, the work for the portfolio got me more work, but very rarely was I allowed to go in the same direction as the book for clients. There was an urgency to "showing the stitching" much of the time, except for some gigs where it was all about selling an atmosphere for some boutique or another. Those jobs followed the lead of the portfolio, which was nice. I really shot nothing other than model pix for pleasure and for work when it happened. I was unashamedly unidirectional.
Only when I thought about stock did other themes begin to cross my mind. I'm now happy that I didn't spend much money on such delights!
Rob
-
There is no disgrace of being amateur, of course not.
[ironic]
The problem lies in the attitude of a fair number of amateurs who believe they can put themselves on the same level as some professionals, just because they can produce something decent under optimal conditions. And the misery starts when they believe those well meant craft-works should be exhibited till eternity. [\ironic]
Many amateurs who believe they can put themselves on the same level as most “professionals,” or even above that level, are absolutely right, Ivo, at least in terms of originality and quality. What does “professional” mean? It means you do it for money. It also means that unless you’re doing the kind of thing Rob used to do, where you select your subjects and your surroundings, you’re forced to do exactly what your “client” wants. I’ve seen some wonderful work by professionals and I’ve seen some incredibly crappy work by professionals. If you walk through a couple small towns and look at what’s in the windows of the “professional studios,” you’ll realize that the term “professional” doesn’t say anything about originality or quality of work, unless you measure quality in terms of what fits the current fads. Yes, there are plenty of amateurs who vastly overestimate the value of their work. There also are plenty of “professionals” who vastly overestimate the value of their work. I think one interesting thing about photojournalism is that it’s competitive. Doesn’t matter whether or not you think you’re good. The people who make the decisions for you will determine whether you are or not. If not, you’d better find a different line of work. Not so with most “professional” photographers.
-
Many amateurs who believe they can put themselves on the same level as most “professionals,” or even above that level, are absolutely right, Ivo, at least in terms of originality and quality. What does “professional” mean? It means you do it for money. It also means that unless you’re doing the kind of thing Rob used to do, where you select your subjects and your surroundings, you’re forced to do exactly what your “client” wants. I’ve seen some wonderful work by professionals and I’ve seen some incredibly crappy work by professionals. If you walk through a couple small towns and look at what’s in the windows of the “professional studios,” you’ll realize that the term “professional” doesn’t say anything about originality or quality of work, unless you measure quality in terms of what fits the current fads. Yes, there are plenty of amateurs who vastly overestimate the value of their work. There also are plenty of “professionals” who vastly overestimate the value of their work. I think one interesting thing about photojournalism is that it’s competitive. Doesn’t matter whether or not you think you’re good. The people who make the decisions for you will determine whether you are or not. If not, you’d better find a different line of work. Not so with most “professional” photographers.
There is one little extra thing that makes the difference between a pro and an amateur: timing and accountability.
An amateur can deliver what and when he wants. A professional needs to deliver on clients schedule and request.
A small, but immense difference.
-
There is one little extra thing that makes the difference between a pro and an amateur: timing and accountability.
An amateur can deliver what and when he wants. A professional needs to deliver on clients schedule and request.
A small, but immense difference.
And today, you better carry plenty of good insurance! Anybody who can sue you will!
-
And today, you better carry plenty of good insurance! Anybody who can sue you will!
In today’s #metoo climate, I wouldn’t like to operate in your former specialism, Rob.
-
Many amateurs who believe they can put themselves on the same level as most “professionals,” or even above that level, are absolutely right, Ivo, at least in terms of originality and quality. What does “professional” mean? It means you do it for money. It also means that unless you’re doing the kind of thing Rob used to do, where you select your subjects and your surroundings, you’re forced to do exactly what your “client” wants. I’ve seen some wonderful work by professionals and I’ve seen some incredibly crappy work by professionals. If you walk through a couple small towns and look at what’s in the windows of the “professional studios,” you’ll realize that the term “professional” doesn’t say anything about originality or quality of work, unless you measure quality in terms of what fits the current fads. Yes, there are plenty of amateurs who vastly overestimate the value of their work. There also are plenty of “professionals” who vastly overestimate the value of their work. I think one interesting thing about photojournalism is that it’s competitive. Doesn’t matter whether or not you think you’re good. The people who make the decisions for you will determine whether you are or not. If not, you’d better find a different line of work. Not so with most “professional” photographers.
Hear Hear!
-
There is one little extra thing that makes the difference between a pro and an amateur: timing and accountability.
An amateur can deliver what and when he wants. A professional needs to deliver on clients schedule and request.
A small, but immense difference.
Exactly what I said, Ivo. The professional is required to do it his client's way. You're right. it's a big difference.
-
In today’s #metoo climate, I wouldn’t like to operate in your former specialism, Rob.
Both my daughter and my neighbour's wife told me that same thing about five years ago, when I mentioned wanting to find some local girls to model for me - not skin stuff, just straight location people shots.
If I get back to civilization, then I will work in the street with them; that never hurt me before, and it offers lots of windows... ;-)
Rob
-
I have a whole bunch of different photographic categories in my head -- amateur, professional, artist, student, enthusiast, etc. They're all different. For example, I'd classify a good astro photographer as an enthusiast; what he or she is doing, most professionals would be unable to duplicate without some serious, intensive study, because astro photography is so specialized, and requires knowledge (of the heavens) outside the ken of most pro photographers. At the same time, such enthusiast pursuits, as brilliant as the final products may be, provide little, if any, money. They're not less good than a pro product, but they're different.
My problem with this whole subject (which I think is kind of important, as people struggle to figure out what they want to do) is that I consider some photography as a niche art form (when it's intended as an art form) that MUST be reality-based. That means if it's run through though Photoshop or Lightroom or some other post-processing, the only really legitimate uses for those techniques **as it applies to photographs** is to push the photograph toward a keener expression of that external reality. Once you begin more serious manipulations, we arrive at something resembling a painting without requiring the skills that painting requires. What do you call that? I really don't know -- I think a new word has to be invented here -- but I wouldn't call it a photograph. It's a visual image unmoored from anything other than an unknowable individual's personal psychology. He is saying, "I'm going to take a basic image of an external reality and make it into something different" just as a sculptor may stay, "I'm going to take this pile of bronze and make it into something different." Does the manipulated photograph quality as art? Well, maybe, but it's no longer really a photograph. It couldn't be duplicated by going out into the world and taking another photograph. So, we need that new word. Mimage? (Manipulated image?) Moto? (Manipulated photo?)
Why is this important, instead of some kind of mental jerking-off? It's because post-processing manipulation can be, and *very* often is, a form of dishonesty. It doesn't have to be, but it very commonly is, to the point where people now often reject legit photos as something that were faked. "This is what I saw" is too often a lie. How many pictures of slot canyons have you seen that don't look like any slot canyons you've ever actually experienced, because the colors have been punched? If you called your image a Moto or something else like it, it would be a notification that we're no longer looking at a representation of reality, but rather something that the artist created beginning with a photograph (just as a painting is something an artist created beginning with tubes of paint.)
IMHO
-
I have a whole bunch of different photographic categories in my head -- amateur, professional, artist, student, enthusiast, etc. They're all different. For example, I'd classify a good astro photographer as an enthusiast; what he or she is doing, most professionals would be unable to duplicate without some serious, intensive study, because astro photography is so specialized, and requires knowledge (of the heavens) outside the ken of most pro photographers. At the same time, such enthusiast pursuits, as brilliant as the final products may be, provide little, if any, money. They're not less good than a pro product, but they're different.
My problem with this whole subject (which I think is kind of important, as people struggle to figure out what they want to do) is that I consider some photography as a niche art form (when it's intended as an art form) that MUST be reality-based. That means if it's run through though Photoshop or Lightroom or some other post-processing, the only really legitimate uses for those techniques **as it applies to photographs** is to push the photograph toward a keener expression of that external reality. Once you begin more serious manipulations, we arrive at something resembling a painting without requiring the skills that painting requires. What do you call that? I really don't know -- I think a new word has to be invented here -- but I wouldn't call it a photograph. It's a visual image unmoored from anything other than an unknowable individual's personal psychology. He is saying, "I'm going to take a basic image of an external reality and make it into something different" just as a sculptor may stay, "I'm going to take this pile of bronze and make it into something different." Does the manipulated photograph quality as art? Well, maybe, but it's no longer really a photograph. It couldn't be duplicated by going out into the world and taking another photograph. So, we need that new word. Mimage? (Manipulated image?) Moto? (Manipulated photo?)
Why is this important, instead of some kind of mental jerking-off? It's because post-processing manipulation can be, and *very* often is, a form of dishonesty. It doesn't have to be, but it very commonly is, to the point where people now often reject legit photos as something that were faked. "This is what I saw" is too often a lie. How many pictures of slot canyons have you seen that don't look like any slot canyons you've ever actually experienced, because the colors have been punched? If you called your image a Moto or something else like it, it would be a notification that we're no longer looking at a representation of reality, but rather something that the artist created beginning with a photograph (just as a painting is something an artist created beginning with tubes of paint.)
IMHO
I think we're pretty much there already, John, regarding digital photography and neologisms crying out for invention. We have "digital images" which I think, as an expression, already distances digital pictures from film and wet printing pictures.
In fact, though I really don't feel there is any moral difference between the cameras as hardware, there sure is a gulf between what was possible in the darkroom and what is on the computer.
Even a scanned film that gets printed out through the computer/printer marriage is already different, especially in terms of mass production and how closely one such print will resemble the next, at least when put through the same computer and printer.
There is also the artistic penalty that the photographer pays, assuming he did his own printing before the advent of digital. The satisfaction levels are far from the same: doing it in a dish made you feel you were involved at every step, and actually exercising some learned and developed skill, and you really were. Now, once you work it out and make the print as you want it, future prints present no personal challenge beyond pressing the button. Your art now resides in the cogs of the machine.
Of course, there is a another dimension at play here: colour or black/white.
When one hypes up colours, the effect is a tendency to the ugly, if only because Nature usually has it about right; with b/white, you can play more because you are into the land of elsewhere right from the start. Credibility, I think, has been ruled out already, not so much because of the means to the end, to the print, but because belief in anything these past three or four years has been stretched beyond the natural limits of human elasticity. From politics to the shape of naked women, your eyes can no longer be relied upon to tell you the truth: you really need to taste before you buy, by which time it's already too late.
-
Why is this important, instead of some kind of mental jerking-off? It's because post-processing manipulation can be, and *very* often is, a form of dishonesty. It doesn't have to be, but it very commonly is, to the point where people now often reject legit photos as something that were faked. "This is what I saw" is too often a lie.
Any photo you see has some manipulation. Already converting a scene into RGB is "manipulation"
It is NEVER what the photographer saw.
And it is not dishonest per se. The photographer takes what he can with the means at his disposition and converts the result into "what he saw and felt". Or what he feels at the moment he translates his file into an image. Or just what he wants.
He doesn't make a register of reality but a translation of it, filtering it with his mind, his feelings or whatever.
Photography is not an "art", it is a medium.
Like painting, music, poetry, cooking.
How good one is at it depends above all upon whether you are satisfied with what you do and, in a lesser measure, what people whose opinion you appreciate think about it.
Just MHO
-
Exactly, Rab. Every photo you see IS a manipulation. Neither film nor digital records the real world. Both record an image that's been processed according to the peculiarities of the film or in the case of digital according to the decisions made by the manufacturer of the camera and the sensor.
-
For me a photo may have nothing to do with reality. 'ceci n'est pas un pipe...'
The idea that a photo must be 'true' is only necessary for a certain type of photography; press - photo as evidence...
For instance i like to make photographs on a tripod at various times and combine the images...
Is that untrue?
Is it less true than a 30 seconds exposure shot? The ones we see on this forum so often?
Is a 360 panorama less true than a 45 degrees photograph?
-
I have many friends who are amateur photographers.Some amazing talents. Not all of course. The big difference really is professionals must work to a clients brief. Today Im shooting luggage and boxes of dog treats. Yesterday I did work for a clothing catalogue coordinating with client, makeup, two stylists and two models. Monday I shot short videos of pop up desk power sockets. Tuesday was clothing again but more location based and for social media. Tomorrow Im shooting an executive jet. All of those shoots are aimed at selling a particular product or service to a particular market. Thats what professionals do. It's not about beautiful images for me, it's about clearing warehouses of stuff. If a client sells the stuff I photographed for them they will hire me to photograph the next batch of stuff they need to sell. Simple really
I would never use the term amateur to denigrate a persons skills or images. Nor would I use the term pro to praise a persons images. It's a whole different thing.
-
Any photo you see has some manipulation. Already converting a scene into RGB is "manipulation"
It is NEVER what the photographer saw.
And it is not dishonest per se. The photographer takes what he can with the means at his disposition and converts the result into "what he saw and felt". Or what he feels at the moment he translates his file into an image. Or just what he wants.
He doesn't make a register of reality but a translation of it, filtering it with his mind, his feelings or whatever.
Photography is not an "art", it is a medium.
Like painting, music, poetry, cooking.
How good one is at it depends above all upon whether you are satisfied with what you do and, in a lesser measure, what people whose opinion you appreciate think about it.
Just MHO
I completely disagree. Translating to RGB isn't a manipulation, it's a capture, or a recording. A person ten years from now can look at a camera capture and say, "This is what it looked like, given the limitations of the recording device." It has, at the capture stage, no human involvement other than what it took to create a sensor, etc. Then, a photographer may work over the photo. As I noted in my original post, if this is done to push the photo closer to the visual reality, I would perhaps call it "enhanced." If you make photos on a tripod and combine images, that is what you're doing -- as long as you don't remove or replace or alter objects in the image. The same is true when you stack images to increase depth of field.
Of course manipulation is not dishonest per se -- as long as the creator doesn't represent it as a pure capture. And they usually don't. I use slot canyons as an example, but you can see unmentioned manipulations everywhere in the "photo art" world, and especially in landscapes. I think I have yet to see a slot canyon picture that actually looks like a slot canyon -- the color is always pushed, and the pushing is never mentioned.
Once you get into the realm of what the photographer "feels," you are departing the realm of photography and going to something different...but in most cases, the photographer presents the image as something external, rather than internal. "This is what it looked like," rather than"this is what I felt." If you present a landscape photo as the latter, I doubt many people would purchase it, because they want to know what the landscape looked like, not what some photographer, who they don't know, felt. (There are exceptions in the art world, of course: Moonrise and Running White Deer are classic examples in which manipulations produced an artistic image -- but neither hid the manipulations.)
Exactly, Rab. Every photo you see IS a manipulation. Neither film nor digital records the real world. Both record an image that's been processed according to the peculiarities of the film or in the case of digital according to the decisions made by the manufacturer of the camera and the sensor.
I think this is the same sophomoric argument that many, well, sophomores make while passing the joint -- everything is relative, everything is subjective. If film or a sensor isn't recording the real world, what is it recording? It is, of course, a recording, it's not the actual world, but it is a recording of *something,* and the recording is real, and if a group of people look at a recording of a face, they can all agree that it's a recording of a face. The fact that they see it was a recording not only of a face, but a particular face, separate from all the other ten billion faces on earth, and immediately recognizable as such, should suggest that the decisions made by the manufacturer are of no particular importance. If the manufacturer produced a machine that *didn't* do faithful recordings, few people would buy it. (And there are cameras that do that, and they are bought by few people.)
I almost entirely agree with Martin, but not quite entirely. There are pro-product images that hover very closely to the definition of fine art. Just because a photographer has a client does not necessarily mean that everything he produces must be a basic, pragmatic image designed to sell something. It could also be an artistic image (meant to sell something.) Richard Avedon was a person who often did this.
-
I completely disagree. Translating to RGB isn't a manipulation, it's a capture, or a recording. A person ten years from now can look at a camera capture and say, "This is what it looked like, given the limitations of the recording device." It has, at the capture stage, no human involvement other than what it took to create a sensor, etc. Then, a photographer may work over the photo. As I noted in my original post, if this is done to push the photo closer to the visual reality, I would perhaps call it "enhanced." If you make photos on a tripod and combine images, that is what you're doing -- as long as you don't remove or replace or alter objects in the image. The same is true when you stack images to increase depth of field.
As far as my poor knowledge goes, RGB is a device-dependent color model: different devices detect or reproduce a given RGB value differently, since the color elements (such as phosphors or dyes) and their response to the individual R, G, and B levels vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, or even in the same device over time.
This I would call "manipulation", but let's blame it to my poor English
You do not always get the same - let alone represent - "reality"
I had to google "sophomoric". Well...
-
I think this is the same sophomoric argument that many, well, sophomores make while passing the joint ...
I'd luv to see the look on his face the first time RSL reads this ...
-
RGB is a device-dependent color model: different devices detect or reproduce a given RGB value differently ...
The same could be said for each individual's perception of colour. Very few of us 'see' colour identically.
-
I think this is the same sophomoric argument that many, well, sophomores make while passing the joint -- everything is relative, everything is subjective. If film or a sensor isn't recording the real world, what is it recording? It is, of course, a recording, it's not the actual world, but it is a recording of *something,* and the recording is real, and if a group of people look at a recording of a face, they can all agree that it's a recording of a face. The fact that they see it was a recording not only of a face, but a particular face, separate from all the other ten billion faces on earth, and immediately recognizable as such, should suggest that the decisions made by the manufacturer are of no particular importance. If the manufacturer produced a machine that *didn't* do faithful recordings, few people would buy it. (And there are cameras that do that, and they are bought by few people.)
John, Before you jump to any more sophomoric conclusions you probably need to read https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/
-
A lot of processing was done in the past too, by the masters. Even today, you just have to look say at the Genesis project of Salgado, to see the amount of post done. Shoot in colour, convert to B&W, make a negative, and print from it.
Back in the 1990's, Velvia 50 hit the market by storm with its bold colours. Anything that makes my work look different from others, and that people buy and like, is fair game.
the fact that I might like it, or not, or what my opinion is, is not relevant.
-
A lot of processing was done in the past too, by the masters. Even today, you just have to look say at the Genesis project of Salgado, to see the amount of post done. Shoot in colour, convert to B&W, make a negative, and print from it.
Back in the 1990's, Velvia 50 hit the market by storm with its bold colours. Anything that makes my work look different from others, and that people buy and like, is fair game.
the fact that I might like it, or not, or what my opinion is, is not relevant.
But Paulo, pre-Phopshop stuff can't begin to be anything as powerful as Photoshop in its abitilty to distort, improve, make worse, exaggerate and otherwise to fib. And worse yet, it's easy to do and available to all. Democratizing of the weapons of vandalism, then.
-
And worse yet, it's easy to do and available to all. Democratizing of the weapons of vandalism, then.
The AK47 of photography... 8)
But not that accessible IMHO ($$$). And complex
-
But Paulo, pre-Phopshop stuff can't begin to be anything as powerful as Photoshop in its abitilty to distort, improve, make worse, exaggerate and otherwise to fib. And worse yet, it's easy to do and available to all. Democratizing of the weapons of vandalism, then.
The Genesis project is well after PS. I mentioned Velvia's introduction as a form of manipulation of reality to deliver a new look at the time, that was quite successful. So fashions come and go. The original topic was about "what is too much of post".
For sure today it is a lot easier to do than in the past, but in essence it is the same thing. It is also the same thing in movies and music - technology moves on and is democratized. Who are we to pass judgment? Unless you need the photo to fulfill a specific legal role, since when has photography been a faithful representation of reality?
Just look at the work of Alain Briot and see how much he processes some of his images, for example.
-
The Genesis project is well after PS. I mentioned Velvia's introduction as a form of manipulation of reality to deliver a new look at the time, that was quite successful. So fashions come and go. The original topic was about "what is too much of post".
For sure today it is a lot easier to do than in the past, but in essence it is the same thing. It is also the same thing in movies and music - technology moves on and is democratized. Who are we to pass judgment? Unless you need the photo to fulfill a specific legal role, since when has photography been a faithful representation of reality?
Just look at the work of Alain Briot and see how much he processes some of his images, for example.
I thank the Gods I'm not a crime scene photographer.
-
It is fine if you don't like much postprocessing on images, but don't tell other people what to do or how they should take pictures. If you want a faithful representation of reality take your own pictures or hire a photographer that follows your instructions.
In regards to believing or not what is being presented, I apply the criteria that I need to see at least three coincident pieces of information from unrelated sources. Until then I will not take it as a fact, no matter who says it.
-
It is fine if you don't like much postprocessing on images, but don't tell other people what to do or how they should take pictures. If you want a faithful representation of reality take your own pictures or hire a photographer that follows your instructions.
In regards to believing or not what is being presented, I apply the criteria that I need to see at least three coincident pieces of information from unrelated sources. Until then I will not take it as a fact, no matter who says it.
So where will I find the corroborative evidence that that's really your view?
;-)
-
If I understand the first posit the logical conclusion would be that all painters suffer from mild to severe PP ?