Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: wolfnowl on October 12, 2011, 11:59:54 am
-
Hang on a second while I get my flame-proof underwear on...
Okay, then: http://www.wolfnowl.com/2011/10/do-you-manipulate-your-images/
Mike.
-
I always thought this was a rather obvious question, or should I say the answer should be obvious.
Photography is the art of manipulating the available variables to achieve a neg/file/print. The variables include but are not limited to the film/sensor, lens, filters, aux lighting, camera placement, time of day, weather, focal length, focal distance, lens orientation, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and hence the exposure. More, once we have the neg/file/print.. we manipulate further.
The thing is, we can't help ourselves. The vision is in our mind and we want to bring it to life in our work. We'll do anything to achieve the vision. It might or might not be reality, though I maintain learning to capture reality with consistency is a prerequisite to learning to manipulate reality to better effect.
Perhaps the measure is.. does it look manipulated and if so, in a bad way. Highly interpretative..
-
The thing is, we can't help ourselves.
And moreover, why would we? I'm not creating courtroom evidence......
-
I work my images in any way I see fit to get what I want. Everything from removing a single bird in the sky to replacing the entire sky with one I shot earlier. In a sense most of my work are composites ranging from one or two layers to over 300 layers.
-
Even when we look at a scene with our eyes, we often "see" something entirely different from the person standing next to us. Our minds interpret the information that our eyes send to our brains. So, individual perception of a scene creates a description, or memory, that is a manipulation of reality.
-
Nice article Mike.
I think the issue of manipulating images can become important in Nature Photography versus Fine Art Photography.
If your goal is to take accurate photographs of nature's creatures, in their natural settings, then image manipulation should be kept to a bare minimum with the only goal being to render the image as accurately and close as possible to "what you saw." In this case, you are not manipulating the image to change it in any way, but rather to have the image look UNchanged from how you saw it live. In fact, in the forthcoming National Geographic Photography contest (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/2011), they even have a direct message from the Executive Editor of the magazine, that the goal of all images submitted is to keep it real (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice), and there should be NO "extra" image manipulation at all, besides minor sharpening, etc.
By contrast, if your goal as a photographer is to creat a Work of Art, then IMO you pretty much have poetic license to do whatever you want to do that pleases you: sepia tones, composites, color filters, etc. And that goes for pre- or post-process.
To show an example of this distinction, I recently made my own blog post about digitally-repairing a butterfly's wing (http://johnkoerner.org/Blog/2011/10/06/tutorial-repairing-damaged-butterflies). And if I wanted to sell this digitally-manipulated print as a Fine Art Image, there would be nothing wrong with this, because I can pretty much do whatever I want to do as an artist. However, this digitally-manipulated image I used as an example would not qualify for the National Geographic Photo Contest, and IMO it would also be unethical to place my manipulated image in a "nature book" as if it were a shot taken in nature. It wasn't.
So, while I agree with you that there is a world of possibility in manipulating images for the Fine Art Photographer, a straight Nature Photographer has much less leeway was to what is considered "acceptable" manipulation IMO.
Cheers,
Jack
.
-
Hang on a second while I get my flame-proof underwear on...
Okay, then: http://www.wolfnowl.com/2011/10/do-you-manipulate-your-images/
Mike.
As I have many times repeated I am a fun of Bresson's saying that "the photographer should vision the photograph before he even captures it". If by "manipulate" you mean that I redirect the picture from my intention when capturing it, the answer is "never", If you mean that I follow the process to achieve what was intended when capturing, the answer is "always". Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I will also repeat that "a photograph is only the printed image in paper" that means that for the photographer to vision the photograph before capture he has the whole process in mind, right to the final print, he has even pre-decided the type of paper for his final print, he doesn't have to look at the screen (if he is using digital) either! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I will also repeat that "a photograph is only the printed image in paper" that means that for the photographer to vision the photograph before capture he has the whole process in mind, right to the final print, he has even pre-decided the type of paper for his final print, he doesn't have to look at the screen (if he is using digital) either! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Utter nonsense.
-
I agree Jeremy. Absolute horse-hockey.
-
Utter nonsense.
;D Unless you back this up with reasoning, it can only refer to your self. ;) It seems that you confused your screen with your ....mirror! 8) Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
To get back to the original question, the only reasonable answer, IMHO, is "Yes. I'm a photographer."
Eric
-
"Do You Manipulate Your Images"
I wasn't aware I had a choice.
-
"Do You Manipulate Your Images"
I wasn't aware I had a choice.
You don't, if you are a photographer (or painter, or...)
-
You don't, if you are a photographer (or painter, or...)
I was being facetious, of course.
-
>>> "Utter Nonsense"
;D Unless you back this up with reasoning, it can only refer to your self. ;) It seems that you confused your screen with your ....mirror! 8) Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
1) A photograph - in today's context - does not have to be printed on a piece of paper. Your opinion is not shared by most people who have made the transition from the 20th century to the 21st century. It is your opinion and not a fact.
2) The rest of your nonsense hangs on the notion that a photograph must be printed to be a photograph.
3) If you ALWAYS know exactly what your final output will be before you click - good for you ... but I call BULLSHIT and assert that this notion of a required 'pre-visualization' is a bunch of pretensious hooey. Sometimes art is a happy accident. The perfect example is the birds in flight that I captured on Saturday morning. Totally accidental capture ... totally cool.
-
>>> "Utter Nonsense"
1) A photograph - in today's context - does not have to be printed on a piece of paper. Your opinion is not shared by most people who have made the transition from the 20th century to the 21st century. It is your opinion and not a fact.
2) The rest of your nonsense hangs on the notion that a photograph must be printed to be a photograph.
3) If you ALWAYS know exactly what your final output will be before you click - good for you ... but I call BULLSHIT and assert that this notion of a required 'pre-visualization' is a bunch of pretensious hooey. Sometimes art is a happy accident. The perfect example is the birds in flight that I captured on Saturday morning. Totally accidental capture ... totally cool.
Utter nonsense, a non photographers quote. An insult to ALL GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS that defined the photographer as an artist that should visualize the photograph, exactly like a painter visualizes the paint before he paints it, the musician his music, the author his story or any other artist his art. But then again you don't have to be a photographer to use a camera, just a naive ignorant like many, that are trying to create a world without values. 8) Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
"An insult to ALL GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS that defined the photographer as an artist that should visualize the photograph, exactly like a painter visualizes the paint before he paints it, the musician his music, the author his story or any other artist his art. But then again you don't have to be a photographer to use a camera, just a naive ignorant like many, that are trying to create a world without values."
It's not a question of values or not but simply whose.
Chill out and stop being so absolute and pedantic about it.
It might surprise you to find that there may be more than one path to a great image.
-
>>> If you ALWAYS know exactly what your final output will be before you click - good for you ... but I call BULLSHIT and assert that this notion of a required 'pre-visualization' is a bunch of pretensious hooey. Sometimes art is a happy accident. The perfect example is the birds in flight that I captured on Saturday morning. Totally accidental capture ... totally cool.
You may have noticed I didn't comment on your pictures that you asked for critique... I was not going to because it was your pictures, although I usually do say my opinion (I don't on you and ...some others), but since you called the blurred birds ART that you ...accidentally captured(!) (You that captured it call it art, nobody else), I have to ask you what is the important message that you find in that CRAP that you thing it makes it important to others so that they will also call it art! By all means I would also like to ask you (the person that insulted Bresson, Koudelka, Kertesz, etc..), ...as to enlighten us (the rest of us ignorants) of what art is. In your own words please..., please..., will you do that for us you great ...accidental artist! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
"An insult to ALL GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS that defined the photographer as an artist that should visualize the photograph, exactly like a painter visualizes the paint before he paints it, the musician his music, the author his story or any other artist his art. But then again you don't have to be a photographer to use a camera, just a naive ignorant like many, that are trying to create a world without values."
It's not a question of values or not but simply whose.
Chill out and stop being so absolute and pedantic about it.
It might surprise you to find that there may be more than one path to a great image.
Surprise me then... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I will also repeat that "a photograph is only the printed image in paper" that means that for the photographer to vision the photograph before capture he has the whole process in mind, right to the final print, he has even pre-decided the type of paper for his final print, he doesn't have to look at the screen (if he is using digital) either! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
For me this level of detailed visualisation is utopic and not required to appreciate something as art.
Both serendipity as well as continued development of the object (photo or other) during the process can result in art.
Btw, I do manipulate my images and sometimes in directions I had not thought of when taking the shot, but granted I do not create art ;)
-
For me this level of detailed visualisation is utopic and not required to appreciate something as art.
Both serendipity as well as continued development of the object (photo or other) during the process can result in art.
Btw, I do manipulate my images and sometimes in directions I had not thought of when taking the shot, but granted I do not create art ;)
Q.E.D! I hope you understand that my intention is not to dictate what artistic approach should be, but rather to express my opinion on it. This creates discussion and can initiate concern in the approach which may be very beneficial, I find your quote honest and in my view in line with mine, the later is because you state "but granted I don't create art" at the end of it, I know that are many people that enjoy taking pictures and they are right in doing so..., but this is totally different than trying to diminish photography as an art completely and dictate to others to do the same. Regards,theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
..., but this is totally different than trying to diminish photography as an art completely and dictate to others to do the same. Regards,theodoros.
Thanks Theodoros, but I don't see anybody doing that here, but merely objecting (including myself) to the notion that a complete detailed visualisation to the level you're describing is an absolute requirement for photography to be art. For me it's just one way of many different ways art can be created.
-
Thanks Theodoros, but I don't see anybody doing that here, but merely objecting (including myself) to the notion that a complete detailed visualisation to the level you're describing is an absolute requirement for photography to be art. For me it's just one way of many different ways art can be created.
But then you have to suggest those additional ways, isn't it? I mean I can have a discussion and be prepared to even accept (or not accept), if somebody would say that he discovered something later in one of his photographs that didn't work the way he originally intended (as i suspect you suggest that can happen, correct me if I'm wrong), but again, he will have to have a new visualization of a result, won't he? Anyway, it's different to have such a discussion which at least takes the visualization of the result as fundamental (for any kind of art) and suggests additional methods, than have to argue with people that, don't even take serious the statements of great artists about that fundamental. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
... Sometimes art is a happy accident ...
In retrospect, I think I used the wrong word. I think spontaneous is a better word than accident.
I intended to capture that shot - but the time between that intention and the execution was less than a second. I heard the geese honking as I was setting up the other shot and looked up to see them cruising towards the pond from my right. I quickly loosened my tripod head and panned to grab the shot - I knew I would get an interesting assortment of shots as I had bracketing on for 5 shots 1EV apart.
I defend that process. I still don't know what size or paper I will print this image on, perhaps metallic, perhaps a face-mounted luster. That doesn't mean it isn't valid piece of work.
-
But then you have to suggest those additional ways, isn't it?
I did, read reply #20 in this thread above.
Obviously these steps also involve "seeing something" (visualisation) that you did not notice before.
And Jeremy, I agree with you. The difference between serendipity and split second visualization is mainly semantic ;). I admire people who can "see" something and react almost instantaneously and then perfect it later when finishing it.
-
I intended to capture that shot - but the time between that intention and the execution was less than a second.
Great reaction...........well done!
Rich
-
I just now realized that I never answered the original question:
"Do You Manipulate Your Images?"
Yes.
To me the final image is everything and the means to that end irrelevant - at least when speaking in aesthetic terms.
To put it another way - if any given image was taken by an auto surveillance camera at a Walmart parking lot or by Ansel Adams in the high Sierras in either case you are stuck with judging it on it's own merits without reference to anything beyond the image its self...
.....Is it "art" or just another random snapshot of a pretty bird? Or maybe, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.....
-
I just now realized that I never answered the original question:
"Do You Manipulate Your Images?"
Yes.
To me the final image is everything and the means to that end irrelevant - at least when speaking in aesthetic terms.
To put it another way - if any given image was taken by an auto surveillance camera at a Walmart parking lot or by Ansel Adams in the high Sierras in either case you are stuck with judging it on it's own merits without reference to anything beyond the image its self...
.....Is it "art" or just another random snapshot of a pretty bird? Or maybe, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.....
I think that the conversation has gone beyond that, I mean "the final image is everything" is to your opinion a process that should be predetermined by the photographer before shooting as I say and the great masters also said, or is it unrelated to capturing? In other words isn't the capturing process (framing, dof control, exposure, prespective etc) a crucial process that the photographer should pre-decide to achieve the result and if yes is the (obvious) answer..., to do this doesn't he have to visualize the result? I believe that nobody can argue with the above fundamental to photography! Now if something different appears in the process (as Pegelli suggested may happen) and if this is still photography, its a completely different discussion which I have no objection to have (it can only be beneficial) but I am not prepared to consider somebody as being a photographer who questions the above fundamental, to me is like saying 1+1= ...11! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I am not prepared to consider somebody as being a photographer who questions the above fundamental,
In the context of this community, to publicly reject someone as 'a photographer' is pretty provocative and is a fundamentally rude position to take.
We are all photographers here - aspiring, amateur, professional, accomplished, talented, not so talented ...
.. to try and start declaring who is and who is not a photographer in this manner is fundamentally unacceptable behavior.
I wish you would keep some of these feelings to yourself.
-
In the context of this community, to publicly reject someone as 'a photographer' is pretty provocative and is a fundamentally rude position to take.
We are all photographers here - aspiring, amateur, professional, accomplished, talented, not so talented ...
.. to try and start declaring who is and who is not a photographer in this manner is fundamentally unacceptable behavior.
I wish you would keep some of these feelings to yourself.
When did I say "REJECT"? "CONSIDER" is the word.. and the conversation now is "photographer as an artist", so photographer refers to that only. It's pretty much obvious... Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
-
I don't know why but you seem to be constantly picking a fight. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You shouldn't take things so personally. :)
-
I will also repeat that "a photograph is only the printed image in paper" that means that for the photographer to vision the photograph before capture he has the whole process in mind, right to the final print, he has even pre-decided the type of paper for his final print, he doesn't have to look at the screen (if he is using digital) either! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
What happens when he/she gets home and discovers that the type of paper that he/she envisaged has been eaten by the dog or there isn't any left. Does that mean you have to shoot the image again or hopefully buy some more? ;) :)
-
I don't know why but you seem to be constantly picking a fight. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You shouldn't take things so personally. :)
Opinion exists if its backed up with reasoning, otherwise its not an opinion its an attack and attacks can be defended with reasoning. The reasoning of your quote? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
What happens when he/she gets home and discovers that the type of paper that he/she envisaged has been eaten by the dog or there isn't any left. Does that mean you have to shoot the image again or hopefully buy some more? ;) :)
You kill the dog?... just a question on your logic (which of course kills the subject). 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
... attack ...
Guy ... you are the one attacking.
You called my work 'CRAP'. You called me a 'naive ignorant'. You don't 'consider' me a photographer.
Change your behavior and you will be a welcome member of the community ... continue to behave in this manner and you will be challenged.
-
C'mon guys, it seems we're having a bad spell in the coffee corner and maybe we should all look at W. Walkers post in the other thread that got a bit heated: see here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58565.msg474478#msg474478). Even though I did not participate there it gave me a big smile when I read it this morning ;D
Btw Jeremy, I agree with you again. Well said!
-
Now if something different appears in the process (as Pegelli suggested may happen) and if this is still photography, its a completely different discussion which I have no objection to have (it can only be beneficial) but I am not prepared to consider somebody as being a photographer who questions the above fundamental
Theodoros, I think you misunderstood what I said. My reasoning is that these other processes can also result in fine art photography, so I do question these very (in my opinion narrow-minded) principles and I consider many products produced by broader processes both photography and art, so therefore I also consider the people who produce them artists and photographers. For me that is as clear as 1 + 1 = 2.
-
Guy ... you are the one attacking.
You called my work 'CRAP'. You called me a 'naive ignorant'. You don't 'consider' me a photographer.
Change your behavior and you will be a welcome member of the community ... continue to behave in this manner and you will be challenged.
Jesus! Please tell me mr Payne, am I the one that follows you from one thread to another challenging you? (no its you). Am I the one that makes comments like "Utter nonsense" or "Bullshit" without reasoning? (no its you). Have I ever answered to anyone without reasoning my quote? Am I the one that isolates phrases from the rest of the quote just to differentiate the meaning for the purpose of quoting back? (no its you). I would suggest you read "THE CAMERA" by "MR. ANSEL ADAMS", you don't have to read the whole book, ...the FIRST CHAPTER will do! It's called "VISUALIZATION" and I read it when I was very young... It really helps if you take advanced knowledge into account when you find you have a passion on something (like photography for example). After all are you the one that will question who is a welcome member in a community? Are you some kind of police here that will abandon anybody that will question your unreasonable and unjustified statements? You are welcome to challenge me anytime, just do it with reasoning! You may benefit from it as I am sure you have from the start of this thread. Regards,Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Theodoros, I think you misunderstood what I said. My reasoning is that these other processes can also result in fine art photography, so I do question these very (in my opinion narrow-minded) principles and I consider many products produced by broader processes both photography and art, so therefore I also consider the people who produce them artists and photographers. For me that is as clear as 1 + 1 = 2.
"these other processes can result in fine art photography" I think you have to be more specific of the processes. I repeat, "those principles" are not mine (well they are, ...but didn't originate them, I am only quoting them, following them and discussing them), They are the principles of the people that created "photography"..., not "picture taking". The later one is a different subject which if we mix up we will end up with a ...salad, ...not a conversation. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. I don't think its rightful for you to call principles of the masters of photography "narrow-minded".
-
I would suggest you read "THE CAMERA" by "MR. ANSEL ADAMS", you don't have to read the whole book, ...the FIRST CHAPTER will do! It's called "VISUALIZATION" and I read it when I was very young... It really helps if you take advanced knowledge into account when you find you have a passion on something (like photography for example).
I don't think its rightful for you to call principles of the masters of photography "narrow-minded".
Just because Ansel Adams worked in a certain way does not make it a principle. It's nothing more than a methodology that suited him and his subject matter. Though you can certainly learn a lot about photography by studying his work processes.
As you for statement saying an artist should pre-visualise an image completely before taking the shot to be art is such a really daft statement. In fact I'd I'd say that may be useful advice for beginners to consider [as a learning tool], but once you know what you are doing you can shoot in many, very different ways.
When I used film I carried two cameras, one with B+W and one with colour and I knew what I'd get when I shot with either as the options after developing were quite limiting compared to toady's way of working. Now with experience I can take a shot as I simply know there is a good image there or simply work quite spontaneously, but it is not until I get back to my computer do I then draw the image out of the RAW file and how it ends up may well depend on my mood that day and when I revisit it, I may do a very different image again.
One of my favourite images works well as a B&W or as several very different types of colour shot. I captured this image by without over thinking things and only did this particular shoot as an aside and after getting a shot I had pre-visualized, which is why I was in that location and decided to make the most of it and so shot someone else too.
I don't have to preplan what I'm doing when riding my bike over rough terrain as I'm well practiced, same goes for photography as with experience your skills need less conscious thought.
BTW an awful lot of art and creativity comes from happy accidents. The artistic skill lies in being able to recognise when a mistake is gold to be mined.
-
Just because Ansel Adams worked in a certain way does not make it a principle. It's nothing more than a methodology that suited him and his subject matter. Though you can certainly learn a lot about photography by studying his work processes.
As you for statement saying an artist should pre-visualise an image completely before taking the shot to be art is such a really daft statement. In fact I'd I'd say that may be useful advice for beginners to consider [as a learning tool], but once you know what you are doing you can shoot in many, very different ways.
When I used film I carried two cameras, one with B+W and one with colour and I knew what I'd get when I shot with either as the options after developing were quite limiting compared to toady's way of working. Now with experience I can take a shot as I simply know there is a good image there or simply work quite spontaneously, but it is not until I get back to my computer do I then draw the image out of the RAW file and how it ends up may well depend on my mood that day and when I revisit it, I may do a very different image again.
One of my favourite images works well as a B&W or as several very different types of colour shot. I captured this image by without over thinking things and only did this particular shoot as an aside and after getting a shot I had pre-visualized, which is why I was in that location and decided to make the most of it and so shot someone else too.
I don't have to preplan what I'm doing when riding my bike over rough terrain as I'm well practiced, same goes for photography as with experience your skills need less conscious thought.
BTW an awful lot of art and creativity comes from happy accidents. The artistic skill lies in being able to recognise when a mistake is gold to be mined.
In the chapter "visualization" Mr. Adams, doesn't speak about his process or his work as you quote, he develops a philosophy of how photography should be approached, you will find an identical philosophy from any other master of photography that ever commented on the subject.... I think you should quote on things that you know... All the rest is your opinion, I don't share it and I don't have to either..., but you certainly are entitled to quote it, just don't refer to things you don't know about, otherwise you end up twisting them. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I think you have to be more specific of the processes. ......
P.S. I don't think its rightful for you to call principles of the masters of photography "narrow-minded".
I did, see post # 20 (this is a repeat comment)
And secondly, let me be more precise, I meant to say I find your devine and critiqueless following of these principles to the letter very "narrow minded". You are constantly asking for a "discussion" about them but you ridicule, attack and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with your mindless adoration of them.
So I'm done with this discussion and will follow Mr Walkers advice I linked to before.
-
I did, see post # 20 (this is a repeat comment)
And secondly, let me be more precise, I meant to say I find your devine and critiqueless following of these principles to the letter very "narrow minded". You are constantly asking for a "discussion" about them but you ridicule, attack and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with your mindless adoration of them.
So I'm done with this discussion and will follow Mr Walkers advice I linked to before.
In reply No 20, there is nothing about any process. There is some "serendipity and continued development.. can lead to..." but no explanation of why and what process (no reasoning). In your other quotes you accept "visualization as well as other methods..." now (by "critiqueless") you say I should criticize a fundamental, which of all applies? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Just because Ansel Adams worked in a certain way does not make it a principle. It's nothing more than a methodology that suited him and his subject matter. Though you can certainly learn a lot about photography by studying his work processes.
As you for statement saying an artist should pre-visualise an image completely before taking the shot to be art is such a really daft statement. In fact I'd I'd say that may be useful advice for beginners to consider [as a learning tool], but once you know what you are doing you can shoot in many, very different ways.
When I used film I carried two cameras, one with B+W and one with colour and I knew what I'd get when I shot with either as the options after developing were quite limiting compared to toady's way of working. Now with experience I can take a shot as I simply know there is a good image there or simply work quite spontaneously, but it is not until I get back to my computer do I then draw the image out of the RAW file and how it ends up may well depend on my mood that day and when I revisit it, I may do a very different image again.
One of my favourite images works well as a B&W or as several very different types of colour shot. I captured this image by without over thinking things and only did this particular shoot as an aside and after getting a shot I had pre-visualized, which is why I was in that location and decided to make the most of it and so shot someone else too.
I don't have to preplan what I'm doing when riding my bike over rough terrain as I'm well practiced, same goes for photography as with experience your skills need less conscious thought.
BTW an awful lot of art and creativity comes from happy accidents. The artistic skill lies in being able to recognise when a mistake is gold to be mined.
Thank you, jjj. You put the issue very well, IMHO.
Eric
-
just don't refer to things you don't know about, otherwise you end up twisting them.
Take your own advice, put THAT in your pipe, light and inhale deeply.
-
Take your own advice, put THAT in your pipe, light and inhale deeply.
Very clever... if one is out of reasoning (or never being in), he things of alternatives to prove himself clever! ;) Funny too... ;D In your sense of humor ::) Respectfully and totally yours, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Take your own advice, put THAT in your pipe, light and inhale deeply.
No need for that advice Jeremy, I think he has had plenty of that by the looks of his "reasoning" and "logic". Let's stop feeding the troll, otherwise he will never go away ;)
And Mike, sorry for taking your thread so far off topic, and I do support the statement on your blog. Every image is manipulated, only the extend to which and how concious the decision by the photographer varies.
-
I don't think Theo's problem is so much the content of his posts but
rather the tone.
His idea of visualization is presented as if it was some kind of divine
revelation in which he can speak ex cathedra and pontificate on what is
and what is not the one true path to art. He does not express an opinion
but asserts a dogma. He says he wants a dialogue but his whole stance
precludes this from the beginning. He even has his inner circle of
apostles which he consults with - his "Great Masters". I think this is
what most grates on the nerves of most of us on this forum.
So far as I can make out he is on some kind of holy war to save art
photography from the great unwashed mass of pathetic struggling
snapshooters out there.
He may have something of value to say on these issues but, speaking for
myself, I don't need to get it from some self-appointed photographic messiah.
-
I have nothing against photo manipulation or editing, it really depends on the purpose of the picture or the subject itself.
Thanks sstarr for that refreshingly sane and reasonable opinion.
-
I don't think Theo's problem is so much the content of his posts but
rather the tone.
His idea of visualization is presented as if it was some kind of divine
revelation in which he can speak ex cathedra and pontificate on what is
and what is not the one true path to art. He does not express an opinion
but asserts a dogma. He says he wants a dialogue but his whole stance
precludes this from the beginning. He even has his inner circle of
apostles which he consults with - his "Great Masters". I think this is
what most grates on the nerves of most of us on this forum.
So far as I can make out he is on some kind of holy war to save art
photography from the great unwashed mass of pathetic struggling
snapshooters out there.
He may have something of value to say on these issues but, speaking for
myself, I don't need to get it from some self-appointed photographic messiah.
A fundamental is dogmatic by definition, there is nothing to discuss there, its a fundamental! Art can not be created if there is no vision of the result and this is not my opinion or approach, is the opinion of all artists of any kind of art. An artist visualizes first, then decides the technique to use for his art to have the impact intended and finally executes his art! What can be discussed is if a new visualization appears during executing the project that leads the artist to change his path..., if this is still art or not, but again visualization and artistic approach can't be disconnected. What makes art "great" or "poor" is of course the result, which can be poor even if it was correctly executed but the "codes" used have nothing, or little or even useless result for society. This is another topic that can be discussed along with how perception of art changes with society's values. As such, anything that is presented as art but in reality is a creation made to impress is false. This false can take advantage of the inability of the receiver (or group or receivers) to decode it and pass as art while in reality is ...fraud. The later is also under discussion to some extend. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
What is art is ultimately decided by recipients, not creators. The recipients neither know, nor care, whether visualization was involved or not. Ergo, for something to be considered art, visualization is totally irrelevant.
-
...
Interesting. Now you are telling us what we are allowed to discuss.
There's nothing really left to say except ... you are entitled to your religious beliefs and opinions.
-
For those of us who are skeptical of Theo's claims to be the ultimate arbiter of Art and/or Photography, I suggest checking his website, as I did.
I found nothing that contradicted his stated views under the "Gallery" link. What do others think?
Eric
-
I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
-
I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
Very good, majority and minority aesthetics..., majority and minority... very old discussion..., but personal? I don't get it, saying what the masters of art are saying is now personal?... I was also looking to other peoples sites.... Now I know. Regards,Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Art was never in history of man kind for majorities.
-
I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
Nothing I ever quoted was my view. What is your ...view? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
For those of us who are skeptical of Theo's claims to be the ultimate arbiter of Art and/or Photography, I suggest checking his website, as I did.
I found nothing that contradicted his stated views under the "Gallery" link. What do others think?
Eric
Thanks.
-
I don't think the issue was whether he was a hypocrite, but whether his views represented anything other than his personal idiosyncratic aesthetic.
"Was" is past tense! ...as well as "represented", ....so fundamentals of art is now past tense! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Life can continue with these values, to make some happy, ....is present tense... 8)
-
there is nothing to discuss
I rest my case.
-
Interesting. Now you are telling us what we are allowed to discuss.
There's nothing really left to say except ... you are entitled to your religious beliefs and opinions.
... 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Reasoning..., remember?
-
What is art is ultimately decided by recipients, not creators. The recipients neither know, nor care, whether visualization was involved or not. Ergo, for something to be considered art, visualization is totally irrelevant.
Correct, but this is only economical and doesn't apply through time. History has been proved not to make mistakes. Of course its the values of history which have been taught to US, that WE don't accept.... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Correct, but this is only economical and doesn't apply through time. History has been proved not to make mistakes. Of course its the values of history which have been taught to US, that WE don't accept.... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
What!?
Is this a Google translation? In any case, it's all Greek to me.
-
... 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Reasoning..., remember?
Why don't you give us your reasoning first Theo.
"Because the old masters said so" is not reasoning, that's just playing lemming.
-
What!?
Is this a Google translation? In any case, it's all Greek to me.
;D
-
So far as I can make out he is on some kind of holy war to save art
photography from the great unwashed mass of pathetic struggling
snapshooters out there.
A fundamentalist photographic jihad of some kind it would seem. Though he does seem to be struggling to recruit acolytes....
-
If you go into your profile you can block users, I've already blocked this troll who has been working his way through the entire forum putting peoples teeth on edge.
-
If you go into your profile you can block users, I've already blocked this troll who has been working his way through the entire forum putting peoples teeth on edge.
I only see a way to block personal messages from a user. I wish that I could block certain people's posts from being visible.
-
If you put users names in that box it blocks their posts as well.
-
After all of the rhetoric and digression, the issue of manipulating images boils down to intent.
Everyone has to "manipulate" his images in order to perfect the look of them. This effort might be more properly called "perfecting" the image, rather than "manipulating" it.
To truly manipulate an image, you are distorting or changing the image to be something different from what you originally saw.
To merely "perfect" the image, you are attempting to make the necessary adjustments to best reflect what you DID see that prompted you to take the photograph in the first place.
Thus it all boils down to the distinction I posted on the first page:
If your goal is to take accurate photographs of nature's creatures, in their natural settings, then image manipulation should be kept to a bare minimum with the only goal being to render the image as accurately and close as possible to "what you saw." In this case, you are not manipulating the image to change it in any way, but rather to have the image look UNchanged from how you saw it live. In fact, in the forthcoming National Geographic Photography contest (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/2011), they even have a direct message from the Executive Editor of the magazine, that the goal of all images submitted is to keep it real (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice), and there should be NO "extra" image manipulation at all, besides minor sharpening, etc.
By contrast, if your goal as a photographer is to creat a Work of Art, then IMO you pretty much have poetic license to do whatever you want to do that pleases you: sepia tones, composites, color filters, etc. And that goes for pre- or post-process.
And that's pretty much all there is to it.
Jack
.
-
If you put users names in that box it blocks their posts as well.
The trouble is, it doesn't block quotes from their ignorant rants which others use in their replies. There's no solution to that, unfortunately. I just look at the poster's name and if it's on my memorised "ignore" list, scroll past it; sometimes, I have to scroll quite a long way to get past just a single post.
Jeremy
-
... To truly manipulate an image, you are distorting or changing the image to be something different from what you originally saw.
To merely "perfect" the image, you are attempting to make the necessary adjustments to best reflect what you DID see that prompted you to take the photograph in the first place...
In a (rare) agreement with Jack, may I suggest the National Geographic's stance (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/) on the subject, and in particular (emphases mine):
"... Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs (beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness). If you have digitally added or removed anything, please don't submit the shot. We look at every photo to see if it's authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we'll disqualify it..."
I am sure this is further going to inflame the debate, particularly among the pedants on the forum with philosophical inclinations (or sheepskins), into the direction of "what the definition of 'is' is", i.e., the meaning behind the words "enhance", "alter", "authentic", "deceptive", etc. To them, I offer my favorite quote, by the supreme authority on the subject (paraphrased): "Like love and pornography, hard to define, but you'll know it when you see it."
P.S. The first person to divert the discussion toward the placement of punctuation marks above shall forever be exiled to Dante's fifth circle ;)
-
If you put users names in that box it blocks their posts as well.
works like a charm! thanks
-
In a (rare) agreement with Jack, may I suggest the National Geographic's stance (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/) on the subject, and in particular (emphases mine):
"... Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs (beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness). If you have digitally added or removed anything, please don't submit the shot. We look at every photo to see if it's authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we'll disqualify it..."
I am sure this is further going to inflame the debate, particularly among the pedants on the forum with philosophical inclinations (or sheepskins), into the direction of "what the definition of 'is' is", i.e., the meaning behind the words "enhance", "alter", "authentic", "deceptive", etc. To them, I offer my favorite quote, by the supreme authority on the subject (paraphrased): "Like love and pornography, hard to define, but you'll know it when you see it."
P.S. The first person to divert the discussion toward the placement of punctuation marks above shall forever be exiled to Dante's fifth circle ;)
You know, Slobodan, you could have rephrased by saying, "In a rare moment of clarity, I agree with Jack's point." (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
As far as your quoting National Geographic goes, I already had a link to it, but thanks for copying it here so that those who don't click links can read it (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Glad we can agree on something!
Jack
PS: Oh, and to take your bait on the punctuation issue, and risk Purgatory, the red-highlighted commas should be inside the quotation marks, since you do not have the British excuse for leaving them outside (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
.
-
Anyone thinking about posting on ..... Do You Manipulate Your Images ..... please hurry. Thread locked soon. ;D
-
Anyone thinking about posting on ..... Do You Manipulate Your Images ..... please hurry. Thread locked soon. ;D
Hey Stamper!
;D Funny! (First chuckle I've had here in a while. ;D)
William