Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on September 14, 2011, 05:36:40 am
-
I am moving house very soon, to setup my photography Tuition/Holiday business, and so have not been able to get out with my camera much, as I have been packing boxes and sorting out solicitors and estate agents and a multitude of other things instead. But the surprising spin-off benefit, is that when I do get a spare minute in the evenings, it has allowed me the chance to go through some of my old stock and have a look at images I would have never normally had the chance to get around to, and last night I came up with this.
Hope you like.
all the best.
Dave (UK)
-
A composite?
-
A composite?
I was wondering about that, too.
-
If it were not a composite I'd expect to see some of those sky colors around the statue's edges and more of the reddish tones tinting over the green.
-
^ Yep but it's a heck of a fine shot, not matter how processed
-
A composite?
Yes Slobodan, of course it is a composite, it was never meant to deceive anyone, just a quick idea thrown together in less than an hour the other night.
I also thought to myself before I posted it, that I should have spent a little more time to get the glow from the clouds to envelop the statue more realistically, which is easily done, but it was just an exercise done to keep me going until I can get out with my camera again in the real world and away from all this packing and box shifting – it’s amazing how much cr*p you collect over the years, it really is.
The final version that I suppose I was working towards, which I did last night and is the one below, is simply a mono conversion of the colour image with a bit more of a vignette added.
So even though I am not trying to hide anything and freely admit it is a composite, I suppose it does throw up that age old question of 'image integrity' and the acceptability or otherwise of replacing skies and cloning out/in street furniture or stray branches etc. But if we agree that photography is 'Art' or at the least an art form, and I for one truly believe it is, then I say why hold back, why not use artistic license to enhance an image, just as a painter does and who more often than not paints what they want to see, or an idealistic version of reality and not what they are actually seeing. They add, we subtract…. and I think there is nothing wrong if we occasionally add a bit back again as well. :) :D ;D
All the best
Dave (UK)
-
Dave,
absolutely right on! I also freely adapt any part of any image(s) to any other to make the vision I have. Thank goodness there are fewer and fewer so-called purists that decry those visions as somehow violating some tenet of "classical" photography. I treasure going through old images and finding new uses, singly or in combination. Quite exciting. Your b/w version is striking but I'd love to see what your final color version would be.
-
^Agreed.
A camera is a tool. With the advent of the digital age, a camera and post processing becomes a collection of tools. The belief that one must or must not do *anything* is right up there with someone who would willingly opt into a handicap due to a not well thought out sense of dogma.
Btw it looks waaaaaaaay better in color.
-
I don't agree with Justan on this one. I think the colors in the color version approach the Marlboro ad level of oversaturation, and the color contrasts are hokey. The B&W version, on the other hand, is powerful, if a bit over-dramatic. Interesting stuff, Dave.
-
^I dunno about the “power” or “drama.” The B&W is yet another tedious take on a standard subject. The color edition shines.
-
Photography is either documenting or interpreting reality. Compositing is altering reality. Big difference. One is photography, the other is illustration.
Assuming you are an illustrator, and your editor asked you to illustrate an article on, say, a nuclear attack on New York (God forbid!) or alien invasion, then you did a splendid job.
I guess by now you've figured out that I am not great fan of compositing ;)
My take on the same subject (one file, aggressive post-processing)... not to compete with yours, not to say one is better than the other, but just to illustrate (pardon the pun) the point:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2426/3573716689_132738ca42.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/3573716689/)
Lady Liberty (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/3573716689/) by Slobodan Blagojevic (http://www.flickr.com/people/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
-
> My take on the same subject (one file, aggressive post-processing)... not to compete with yours, not to say one is better than the other, but just to illustrate (pardon the pun) the point:
You suggest that altering an image you captured to your personal preference is okay but for someone else altering an image they captured to their personal preference is not? To each their own, even if it amounts to silly hypocrisy.
-
You suggest that altering an image you captured to your personal preference is okay but for someone else altering an image they captured to their personal preference is not? To each their own, even if it amounts to silly hypocrisy.
I guess you missed the part in which I made a clear distinction between interpreting reality and altering reality?
Also, in the latter case, it was not one image, but two (hence the composite). In the case of my image, everything was already there (i.e., I did not add or subtract elements), I just used post-processing for emphasis. You, of course, are entitled to think that interpreting and altering are the same. I do not.
-
Apart from it being a photograph, it's a striking image. As a photograph, it looks fake. And now we know why.
-
Yes, I think there is a difference between "digital art" and a photograph.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with digital art at all, some of it is quite striking, but it should be represented as "digital art" from the outset ... and not called a "photograph" ...
Jack
.
-
>I guess you missed the part in which I made a clear distinction between interpreting reality and altering reality?
I didn’t miss anything. I reject your distinction as hair split by a rationalization of convenience.
A rational response would be that when you (or anyone) produces something with a camera the production is an alteration of the original scene. As such the image made by the camera has little to do with “reality.”
The very technological process of creating digital or film based image media amounts to an accepted means or fabricating a representation of reality. This acceptance of fabrication is why a 1 megapixel image will generally suck compared with a 10 megapixel image, which sucks compared to the top dslr image, which sucks compared to the top MF image, which sucks compared to an image from an 8x10 film view camera, which sucks ever so slightly compared to actually being there. Well… maybe not in that case.
Anyway, to further alter the fabrication in the name of improving it, we dodge, we burn, now-a-days we learn to use Photoshop and other similar tools. At the point Photoshop enters the picture (like the pun?) the degree of fabrication is all a slippery slope.
But put that aside for a moment. As two simple specifics, in your image. 1) Was it B&W day Ellis Island when you captured the image above? 2) Was there a big gradient between you and the bottom part of the statue? If the answer to either of these are no, you have added things not in the original scene. You have altered it to your preference. You have in fact created a composite. Your so-called interpretation is an alteration that’s far removed from any sense of integrity with the subject.
> You, of course, are entitled to think that interpreting and altering are the same. I do not.
Thank you. You, of course, are entitled to think that rationalizations are the same as being rational, etc.
-
Hi all,
My take on this whole photographic integrity conundrum is quite simple - I feel no guilt whatsoever in doing anything and everything within my power, to make what I believe to be a better, more complete or more striking image. My goal is the result not the means.
all the best ;)
Dave
-
My take on this whole photographic integrity conundrum is quite simple - I feel no guilt whatsoever in doing anything and everything within my power, to make what I believe to be a better, more complete or more striking image. My goal is the result not the means.
Not being a photojournalist, +1.
Jeremy
-
Hi all,
My take on this whole photographic integrity conundrum is quite simple - I feel no guilt whatsoever in doing anything and everything within my power, to make what I believe to be a better, more complete or more striking image. My goal is the result not the means.
I agree that an artist has the right to use all the tools as their disposal to make the most compelling images possible. Painters don't usually have to worry about people questioning their integrity for the way they produced a painting. Where it becomes an issue in photography is a presumption by the viewer that a photograph is a single image taken by a photographer and is in some sense a representation of what the photographer saw when they released the shutter. That image may be enhanced by post-processing, but essentially it's a straight shot.
Technically, your image isn't a photograph, it's a photographic collage. Its really two photographs that have been combined to make a single image. There's nothing wrong with that, per se. Where it can become a question of integrity is when it's offered up as something it isn't. What makes one a great art photographer, as opposed to your average Joe with a camera, is to see same scene as they do, but whereas Joe would take a snapshot, an artist would make art. Making an effective collage, on the other hand, doesn't require one to be a particularly good photographer, just a good collage artist.
I think your image is striking, and I don't think you were trying to deceive anyone. But let's also not pretend that your image is the result of anything more than the ability to skillfully combine two pretty average photographs into one interesting collage.
-
I hope that eventually the issue of what is a photograph and what is a composite will die out much like the difference between film-based and digital-based images. To me it's like calling a painter a composite artist when he uses oils and acrylics on the same canvas.
When I show a landscape of the Superstition Mountains to locals, one version with houses, telephone poles, etc. and another version of the same shot with no trace of habitation and a different sky entirely I have never been questioned as to how or why. Both versions sell about the same. I know there are still those who think I've sinned against the gods of photography. That doesn't bother me at all. I'm happy that folks like and buy my work no matter how many mediocre images I combined to make it.
-
... I'm happy that folks like and buy my work no matter how many mediocre images I combined to make it.
Do those folks know you did it?
-
I hope that eventually the issue of what is a photograph and what is a composite will die out much like the difference between film-based and digital-based images. To me it's like calling a painter a composite artist when he uses oils and acrylics on the same canvas.
You analogy doesn't apply. It's not a question of technology, like the advent of digital over film. It's the recognition of an art form for what it is. A photograph is not the same thing as photographic collage. Neither is a watercolor the same thing as an oil painting. And there's no reason why they should be considered so and there's also no reason why they both can't be considered fine art. I'm sure you're a very fine artist whether your work is a photograph or a photographic collage. You're working in two different art mediums and there's no reason why both shouldn't sell.
-
I don't agree with Justan on this one. I think the colors in the color version approach the Marlboro ad level of oversaturation, and the color contrasts are hokey. The B&W version, on the other hand, is powerful, if a bit over-dramatic. Interesting stuff, Dave.
Yep.
-
I hope that eventually the issue of what is a photograph and what is a composite will die out much like the difference between film-based and digital-based images. To me it's like calling a painter a composite artist when he uses oils and acrylics on the same canvas.
I do not believe this is an accurate analogy.
Everyone on earth understands that painting = NOT real.
However, many people have the expectation that photography = a capture of reality. When the composite is an attempt to capture "more" of reality than a single capture can get, this does not have to be for "artsy" reasons but can in fact be for scientific reasons.
Not all photography is art or for artistic sales. In fact, most photography is NOT for these reasons ...
When I show a landscape of the Superstition Mountains to locals, one version with houses, telephone poles, etc. and another version of the same shot with no trace of habitation and a different sky entirely I have never been questioned as to how or why. Both versions sell about the same. I know there are still those who think I've sinned against the gods of photography. That doesn't bother me at all. I'm happy that folks like and buy my work no matter how many mediocre images I combined to make it.
When you put photos together for artistic reasons, you have an open license to create and amend as you please, to the tune of "whatever sells" and pays the bills, so long as the buyer knows it's a composite/alteration.
This is especially true when photographs are not taken for artistic reasons. For example, if I put together a pictorial "wildlife" book, and I represent that these photos were taken by me in a rainforest (while in fact the photos were of "pets" I paid to be able to take shots of 50 miles from my house), this is fraudulent. It doesn't matter that the photos are "nice," or even of real animals, by not actually taking the photos in a wild rainforest I am defrauding the public.
Another example: if I put out a pictorial book on "tornadoes" ... and all I did was tweak and Photoshop some "cloudy day' shots into looking like tornadoes, I am again defrauding the public. And, even as an "artist," if I sell these things as "tornado" fine art prints, unless I clearly make this known I am again defrauding the public.
So I do not at all agree that "painting" and photography are in the same class artistically, because everyone on earth understands that a painting of a tornado is "fake" ... while most people would believe that a photograph of a tornado is "real." Again, I don't think that there is anything wrong with Photoshopping a tornado into a photograph and calling it "art" ... but the buyer should be aware of this for it to be an ethical sale IMO.
Jack
.
-
I've been thinking of putting the following disclaimer on the back of each of my prints and on my website:
"This image (like all other photographs, paintings, symphonies, etc.) is a work of fiction. It was constructed from one or more images, some or all of which may have used certain mechanical devices (such as cameras, computers, paint brushes, pencils, software, etc.) in their production. Any similarity between the content of this image and any aspect of reality is coincidental and probably, like beauty, exists only in the mind of the viewer."
No, I am definitely not a photojournalist.
Eric
-
...anything more than the ability to skillfully combine two pretty average photographs into one interesting collage.
Thanks for that Popnfresh, that is very much appreciated and yes I agree, it is very much a skill, but also quite easy to do when you know how. But having said that, I am also more than happy to proclaim that it is something I very rarely do, because the ultimate satisfaction for me is to capture reality, genuinely and truthfully as it appears before me. Getting up several hours before dawn, to take shots of what I hope to be a fantastic landscape shot with fantastic light, really is what it is all about for me, irrespective of success or failure and is what drives me, day after day, week after week and month after month, I would gain no pleasure just slapping two pretty average images together and having a lay in bed till noon, because that was all I was capable of. And maybe it is this drive that has made me want to learn all there is (or at least all I can find) about photography, imaging and also manipulation techniques. So yes I seem to have got reasonably good at this thing called 'Photography', but for me compositing images is a rarely used skill, that I can do quite well if and when the fancy takes me. ;D
Dave (UK)
-
Dave, you've demonstrated on several occasions that you have considerable talent. I look forward to seeing more of your work here.
-
Thank you. You, of course, are entitled to think that rationalizations are the same as being rational, etc.
Brilliant. ;D
And good argument about how a B+W image is not representative of reality.
-
Brilliant. ;D
And good argument about how a B+W image is not representative of reality.
It is if one is colorblind. ;D
-
Dave, you've demonstrated on several occasions that you have considerable talent. I look forward to seeing more of your work here.
I am humbled, thank you very much indeed.
Dave (UK)
-
... And good argument about how a B+W image is not representative of reality.
-
^Funny, I remember STTNG being in color. . . . . . . . . .. [wink]
-
^Funny, I remember STTNG being in color. . . . . . . . . .. [wink]
Indeed. But you still got the message, didn't you, in spite of the lack of color. Because the reality of the message, the very essence of it, was in the gesture, not color. If anything, by eliminating color as distracting, the message got clearer (or the reality more real, i.e., obvious, clear). For the same reason as Lightroom's Amount slider in the Detail panel turns black and white, so that you can better/easier judge the reality of the sharpening effect.
B&W photography exists much longer than color. Does it mean that all the photography before color was not representative of reality, was fake? Does it mean the D-day photos were fake, just because they were b&w? There are photographers who even today shoot b&w (Sebastiao Salgado comes to mind). Does it mean that the plight of the refugees of the world he shoots is less real?
And if you want to engage in a semantic hairsplitting, the likes of "what is reality" or "what the definition of 'is' is", I suggest you study the following philosophical piece first: ;)
-
Slabodian,
First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I can tell by the comments that you put some effort into the reply.
Either you feel I deserve some kind of patronizing and dismissive retort, or you are evading while being confused about what it is you’re trying to evade.
Anyway, I hope the retort was good for you. While it did score points on the smug scale, it wanted so badly for substance that the delivery was, well, kinda under-exposed. Heh.
You’re usually a rational guy and so I’ll re-state the question. Are you ready? Here we go…
The question is, in your opinion, when exactly does “interpretation” become “composite” to use your terms.
Is it when you put a ND filter in front of the lens? Is it when you convert the image to B&W? Is it when you use an adjustment layer? When? To put the same question another way: When exactly, in your opinion, has an image become a composite - something that it wasn’t, when it was first recorded?
I'm saying it’s a verrrrrrry slippery slope, and in fact, if one is logical, the process or “composite” starts somewhere between the point of composition and the time the image is worked on in ACR, PS or whatever the equivalent sw of choice may be.
You opened the door. If you don’t want to respond, that’s okay. Some find it easier to tap dance and patronize than to make an honest reply to a reasonable question.
> And [if] you want to engage in a semantic hairsplitting, the likes of "what is reality" or "what the definition of 'is' is", I suggest you study the following philosophical piece first:
Golly, well played, sir! I couldn’t agree more. Ya know, I spent 8 of my 10 years in college at a state university. Sure it was only a public school, but in my time there I earned an embarrassment of sheep skins. Some of those degrees were in fields that in part studied the fellas you mentioned and many others, over many years and in great depth. By about the end of my time at the U my career path was leaning towards teaching a college kids a field called intellectual history.
But I digress. I believe I'm up to your stated level of qualifications. If you feel up to chatting about “is” I'm sure your account would be as entertaining as your post above.
But, sigh, I have to do my own face palm at this point, and hold it there for too a long moment. Because, you see, your little rant amounted to another deflection and is not the topic at hand.
Really, I'm after Slabodian’s opinion on when an image is an interpretation and when it is a composite. If you can do that without further song and dance or going all weak in the knees that would actually be useful to the conversation at hand.
I’ll be happy to discuss the other topics as time permits.