Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: marvpelkey on November 01, 2012, 11:00:35 pm
-
As a bit of a lead-in, my photographic roots are in traditional photography (film, with virtually no manipulation beyond that done at the lab). However, some time after moving to digital photography, I dabbled in post-processing techniques. I, eventually, after witnessing the various techniques being more readily accepted, started using more drastic measures, all while struggling with the question of what's "too much". So, I offer an image for comment/opinion, with the following proviso - nothing has been done to this image that has not been done routinely in both the traditional darkroom and/or photoshop. The only real difference is where some techniques were done at +1, I pushed the same to perhaps +6. This includes: motion blur, compositing and cloning, colour and tone dodging and burning, saturation boost, colour change (no diff than sepia, selenium toning etc). This image is a composite of, I believe, 4 different photographs, plus the above manipulations. So, is this still a photograph or does the degree of traditional "massaging" have a bearing on it's status? Comments? Opinions?
Marv
-
So, is this still a photograph or does the degree of traditional "massaging" have a bearing on it's status? Comments? Opinions?
If it's a composition I would just refer to it as an "image" rather than a photograph. But does it really matter? Unless you want to enter a wildlife photography contest you can do to your photograph whatever you want.
But then again I also don't understand why you are stressing that you restricted the processing to sort of what one would have been able to to in the darkroom. I often hear people emphasize this as if it would guarantee some special quality which otherwise is lost. IMHO photographer tend to think too much inside the box, i.e. solely in terms of photography. If you have a clear idea of what you want to show, why not simply go for it without worrying if it's still photography?
Sorry, if that sounded like a rant. Wasn't meant to be. I just didn't have my yet coffee this morning. ;)
-
Marv - have you considered adding ICM (intentional camera movement) to the mix? That fits in with your philosophy of stuff that can be done in the darkroom and often gives more interesting results that post-processing blur, which can be rather sterile vs the organic (but unpredictable) ICM blur..
As for this - it started in camera so it's a photo. Period.
However, the disjoint between the blurred waves and the sharper foreground (and to a lesser extent, the birds) is less convincing.
-
Sorry, if that sounded like a rant. Wasn't meant to be. I just didn't have my yet coffee this morning.
Not even slightly like a rant ;-)
-
... is this still a photograph...
I like it, regardless of how one classifies it.
If one needs to resort to a label, say for the purpose of a photographic competition, it would be probably "digital art," "fine art," or similar. Often photographic competitions have categories, one of which would be as stated. But it would still be a part of a photographic competition. Some competitions would outright state that compositing and heavy post-processing is allowed, regardless of category. Other photographic competitions would not accept it at all, e.g., National Geographic. All fair enough.
The bottom line being: do what you have to do to express yourself. Worry about labeling only if you are entering a competition.
-
Look at this guys work-it runs the gamut from "stright" photography to "constructed" images. He refers to his work as "photographic arts", which in my mid is perfectly appropriate. http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF000313%2018x24 (http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF000313%2018x24)
-
Way too much angst about "true" photography definitions. Use the camera as a tool to express your ideas no matter who likes it or doesn't.
Extreme Example Warning: The worst example of all this purist garbage came from a photographer who was trying to sell horribly printed photographs at an art show. When I asked why there were so many blown highlights and mud filled shadows the answer was that that was what the film caught and thus was "true" photography. The photographer then went on to pooh pooh all things digital and that even the use of a light meter was unauthentic photography. Yes, there are still a few of this type out there.
-
But then again I also don't understand why you are stressing that you restricted the processing to sort of what one would have been able to to in the darkroom. I often hear people emphasize this as if it would guarantee some special quality which otherwise is lost. IMHO photographer tend to think too much inside the box, i.e. solely in terms of photography.
It's a bit like getting a flying car but not using it because commuter traffic is what true driving is all about.
-
That's a very nice analogy! :D
-
Good comments, all.
Perhaps my use of the word "struggling" caused some confusion. I, certainly, have no angst over this issue. As I noted, I started out in traditional film photography and due to more exposure (no pun intended) to some "purists", I maintained a close relationship to the philosophy of as little manipulation as possible. As digital came around, I became aware of, and started using, digital manipulation. In fact, I currently market some of my work that is quite similar to the example I posted (funny enough the market is home decor, like one can get from IKEA - as mentioned in another thread I participated in).
Another image, also similar to the example, I attempted to enter in a local photo contest (with few rules on any restrictions) and the image was rejected.
I am comfortable with my personal view on "photography" but was merely offering the post to spark conversation and see where others stood, considering the proliferation of digital altering tools that now make it so easy to alter a photograph.
Marv
-
I like it, regardless of how one classifies it.
If one needs to resort to a label, say for the purpose of a photographic competition, it would be probably "digital art," "fine art," or similar. Often photographic competitions have categories, one of which would be as stated. But it would still be a part of a photographic competition. Some competitions would outright state that compositing and heavy post-processing is allowed, regardless of category. Other photographic competitions would not accept it at all, e.g., National Geographic. All fair enough.
The bottom line being: do what you have to do to express yourself. Worry about labeling only if you are entering a competition.
What he said... me too! ;D
Mike.
-
+1
-
As for this - it started in camera so it's a photo. Period.
I'd like to pose an extreme example based on that premise. More a thought experiment than anything.
This image began as a photograph of a lupine growing out of a sand dune. I then isolated the profile of the plant to use as my logo. The blade etch could be considered a monochromatic photographic print. Later, I modified the silhouette in Photoshop to a simpler, more shapely form.
The first image is definitely a photo. Is the first etch a "photographic print" on steel? If so, what about the final image? I definitely started with a photo, and I only used standard photo editing techniques. At what point does it cease to be a photo?
Phillip
-
Is the first etch a "photographic print" on steel? If so, what about the final image? I definitely started with a photo, and I only used standard photo editing techniques. At what point does it cease to be a photo?
That's a difficult one - as with all extremes, sometimes the answer is obvious and sometimes it isn't. The first 2 are I think - prints on metal (and glass, and ...) were common in past times, after all.
When you have turned a photographic silhouette into a graphic by moving pixels about* then I am not so sure - "standard editing techniques" for a photographer and a graphic designer might be different?
* So, if I took a photo and used one of those squizz-type filters that pushes the image about - is that still a photo? And you can do the same with a fresh polaroid too... ???
I guess the answer is, it all depends - on the image, and the reaction of the person looking at it.
Do you see the image that started this thread as a photograph?
-
I would say that a "photograph" should represent the content captured by a camera. A photograph requires a lens, a camera (box), and a light sensitive plane. It does not require a darkroom or a computer. The purpose of processing is to improve the photograph and make it a useable format. You don't create a photograph in the darkroom.
If the meaning of the original content is lost, it ceases to be a photo. This alteration could be done in a darkroom using "traditional" techniques or in a computer. For Example: using scissors to superimpose your Nessie toy onto a negative of your local lake completely changes the content from what the camera created. Now it's a photographic composite. I think that the image in the OP's post is in the same category.
There's a weird loophole in this definition:, in-camera compositing. If compositing occurs in-camera, before processing, it still fits the definition of a photograph. Double exposures on film are a good example. The question then is: what about digital? The term "before processing" gives us the answer. Digital cameras also contain mini-darkrooms of sorts, so it's tough to tell if the image was created by the lens/box/sensor combo, or in processing. If you could double-expose a single RAW file, it would fit the same definition as double exposure on film.
I also think that when an artist washes photographic prints in strange chemicals causing the colors to bleed and create abstract patterns, that he is creating "visual art". The image created by the camera is completely lost in abstraction.
I had never thought of my blade logos as photos, despite the fact that I started with a photo. Though, by a broad definition, the first logo does qualify as a photographic print. I have no experience in graphic design, so in both logos, I had to use the same photoshop commands I use editing photographs.
As far as our art goes, this definition doesn't matter. But it does affect our perception. That's why we have words like, "photograph", "painting", "rendering", and "drawing". The visual results could be identical, but the way we arrive at that result matters. It says something about the artist. Take a look at the reactions a photo-realistic painting gets. It would would have been easier just to take a photo, in fact, the artist probably started with a photo as reference. It's the time and skill that the artist applied to the painting that really impresses, even if the finished image is identical to a photograph.
-
Maybe we should go completely back to the roots. The word photograph is made up of photo (light) and graph (drawing, writing), so it is "an image created by light", regardless of whether a camera, darkroom, computer, etc has been involved in the creation. As such, I think the OP's image is a photograph.
-
Maybe we should go completely back to the roots. The word photograph is made up of photo (light) and graph (drawing, writing), so it is "an image created by light", regardless of whether a camera, darkroom, computer, etc has been involved in the creation. As such, I think the OP's image is a photograph.
Agreed.
Peter
-
It is very much a photograph .
-
I think we get caught up worrying about the HOW of making imagees instead of worrying about whether the work is a faithful rendering of the real world or an interpretive rendering of a fantasy.
In this case, you have a very well done composite that is a fantasy. That's okay. I love it and as long as you are honest about what it is, i see no problem making and selling these images.
As for whether the technique is done in darkroom, camera, or photoshop, it doesn't matter. Extremee motion blur in camera is not a particularly faithful rendering of the real world, but somehow people consider it an realistic form of photographic expression. It is not, despite the fact that it can be beautiful.
Worry about honestly representing your work (whether it is an interpretive composite or an image that adheres to photo-journalistic ethics), the technical methods are irrelevant to that categorization.
-
Nice work!
:) :) :)
-
This is one of those who cares? things. If the image speaks to you, then does it matter what it is?
I remember in the films days there were those who claimed that anything that wasn't contact printed wasn't are real photograph.
Bottom line for me is if the image speaks to me, then I don't care what it's called. If the image doesn't speak to me, then it really doesn't matter.
Les
-
"does the degree of traditional "massaging" have a bearing on it's status?"
Only if you think so.
It's a trivial question.
Any image is a visual dialogue - does it say something or not? All else is just noise.
I like your image and that's all I really need to know.
-
Random thoughts fomr somebody who has not had enough coffee yet this morning. :)
- I like your work, the image you posted, I think you did a good job;
- no, IMO, it is not a photograph, it is a work of art. At some point - I don't know where - it passed from photograph to a work of art. But what is wrong with that?
- art is art, be it images created with oil paints or photoshop. IMO, this kind of thread mocks the old belief many people used to have that photography could never be art. :)
- it is important to define the difference between art and photography. I do a lot of historical research, and trying to keep to some kind of standard is very important for accurate recording of history. However the real issues come to play when you have digital photographs of a crime scene. How much "image processing", if any, should police be allowed to do of digital images after the fact? So just saying, it's more than just an figurative arguement in some cases.
Back to my "art is art" comment, one thing I don't think people realize, is while anybody with a computer and credit card can buy and use Photoshop, it still takes real artistic talent to do a good job in photoshop or any image editing software. Even if you are the kind of person who cannot draw with pencil or paint with watercolours, but you are good in photoshop, IMO, you are still an artist. Some people are no good drawing but they are fantastic wood carvers. Is that wood carver not an artist because they cannot draw? I have seen people do amazing work in pottery and ceramics, but cannot draw. Do we say those people are not artists?
so bottom line for me is your talent, not the tools or the medium. if you know how to make a wonderful image in photoshop, and people like your work, more power to you, and I will think of you as an artist.
-
I think questions about how it was done are less important than questions about why it was done. The truth of a photograph is found in the photographer's intentions about these truths.
Example - If wiggling the camera or something is part of your truth, then it is an essential element in the photograph. When it is seen, the photograph will be an honest representation of the photographer. If wiggling is just a random idea to make the photograph look different, there might not be much truth in that, and the photograph would be incorporating a gimmick for no reason.
Of course I am not referring to commercial photographs, I am referring to art created by photographer. I guess a shorter answer is that the photographer is usually driving toward a "why" and the "how" isn't of much import.
-
The truth of a photograph is found in the photographer's intentions about these truths.
#88 Understand the implications of the "intentional fallacy"
Once your work leaves your studio, it will be judged on what viewers find there. If your intention is not manifested in the body of work itself, it is of little consequence. You will not be present to explain it and defend it. Viewers, and posterity, have the last word on a work's meaning.
-
Viewers of course make any judgments they so choose. This has no impact on the cause of the art, which belongs only to the artist. I hope no artist is naive to the point of thinking they can control the viewers. That would miss the point. The cause of any piece of art is the artist's intent, not the viewers would be reception. The odds might be very small indeed that any particular viewer see's the artist's intent behind any particular work.
Grab a random photograph off the internet's billions of photographs. Try to determine if that photograph was born of an accidental release of the shutter, or is the product of sweat and pain over some need for expressing something in "just this way."
When work is anonymous, everything is fair game for meaning. When an artist becomes somehow recognized, there is some attempt to first learn the motivation and then educate the viewers. Even if that is simply an "artist profile". e.g. Art History.
-
Has anyone considered the truth that many, if not most, artists have good days and bad days; days when they have something driving their spirits to arms, and others when they simply have to get out and do it, just to earn a buck?
Can you simply split that into good art and bad art, or are we looking at 'artworks' that are art and others that are just product, devoid of art and redolent only of technical ability, even from the same person's hand?
I note the reference about the great PS operator and how that makes him an artist. Really? I don't think so. It makes him a good technician. A woodworker? Yes, perhaps, depending on what he's producing. If he's making wood sculpture to his own design, then artist; if only a chair, then technician. If following another person's design, then I`d call him technician.
Being capable of doing something well isn't enough. Obviously, anyone who can do something well would probably enjoy the conceit of thinking himself artist, but that's something else: desire, not reality. Thing is, not every photographer wants to or thinks of himself as an artist. Most of my life I thought of myself as a photographer. Period. It's a relativey new concept, other than for those old guys in New Mexico who always imagined themselves stars in another firmament. In my memory, it dates back not much further than the late 60s to early 70s; after that, anyone making a print might consider himself a possible artist, especially if he couldn't print. You have the NY and LA and probably San Fran galleries to thank for the commercial birth and promotion of that idea. Paris isn't without blame, either! Democratization of art? Read making of money.
Rob C
-
@ Rob
In the earliest days of photography, 1840s and 1850s, it was thought of as both a revolution in science and a revolution in art. So, some artists create with photography, and some photographers are artists.
The most magnificent thing about photography changing art, is that it eliminates the need for some particular motor skills** in favor of the more important idea of just where to point the camera and why. Making a picture from the intellect is surely as artistic as making one from the mechanics.
**pencil drawing requires a certain purely physical eye-hand coordination that is not found in every person. The camera releases that mundane physical necessity from the requirements of the artist. That which was physical based can become intellectually based.
-
@ Rob
In the earliest days of photography, 1840s and 1850s, it was thought of as both a revolution in science and a revolution in art. So, some artists create with photography, and some photographers are artists.
The most magnificent thing about photography changing art, is that it eliminates the need for some particular motor skills** in favor of the more important idea of just where to point the camera and why. Making a picture from the intellect is surely as artistic as making one from the mechanics.
**pencil drawing requires a certain purely physical eye-hand coordination that is not found in every person. The camera releases that mundane physical necessity from the requirements of the artist. That which was physical based can become intellectually based.
Right, and that's why not every person (and most certainly not every photgrapher!) is an artist. Taking your justification to its absurdity level, if only to illustrate the point, you could say that anyone with any imagination at all can click onto a website, stick two images together (they wouldn't even have to be his), and then, by dint of having had the thought, he's an artist. Really? You undermine and devalue the artist. Art is a mixture of many real abilities, gifts and senses, not simply the ability of thought. Even a dog can think in its own way.
Rob C
-
Right, and that's why not every person (and most certainly not every photgrapher!) is an artist. Taking your justification to its absurdity level, if only to illustrate the point, you could say that anyone with any imagination at all can click onto a website, stick two images together (they wouldn't even have to be his), and then, by dint of having had the thought, he's an artist. Really? You undermine and devalue the artist. Art is a mixture of many real abilities, gifts and senses, not simply the ability of thought. Even a dog can think in its own way.
Rob C
I made no such justification at all. Where did I talk about using the work of others? I think you misunderstood. The revolutionary aspect of photography is that the primary instrument of completion is now the intellect and not the mechanical dexterity of moving a brush around. This is taking an impediment off the list of barriers to creating art. In no way am I undermining artists. Knowing where to point a camera is every bit a "real ability, gift and sense" as any other undertaking of an artist. e.g cutting a stone, painting and so on. The "art" doesn't lie in the virtue of the 'mechanical clockworks' of the endeavor (that's craft), it lies in the intellectual content of the process of conception.
A thought is not synonymous with intellect. Intellect is the faculty of reasoning - it is a process. A thought is simply a mental event in time. Art requires intellect. Sorry, your dog example escapes me completely as to any relevance here.
But here's what might be relevant as a way to further the explanation. Let's suppose a person with very serious disease like ALS. And they have no useful motor movement. But let's assume this is also a brilliant person with a massive intellect and much to "express" about their life, but with no means of doing it. We say they had a great artistic impulse. Now arrange a camera on their electric wheelchair and the whole affair is guided by their eye movement on the computer screen. Is there any reason this person couldn't produce wonderful photographs? Photographs that say even "art critics" would gush over? No, of course there is no reason. And yet, no dexterity was involved or needed. And that is actually what the camera does for anyone who chooses it for expressing their art. NO! It doesn't follow that anyone with a camera is an artist. It just means anyone with a camera COULD be an artist, and they are no longer bound by "hammer and chisel."
-
If this is an actual photograph then I can no words to describe how beautiful this is. :) :) :)
And if it is not an actual photograph, is it any less beautiful in your view?
-h
-
You're asking others to define your ethical standards. That never works. You have to be true to yourself.
-
Yes still a photo. Would not call it a painting, drawing or pasted collage.
-
A noobs 2 cents...
It's VERY good digital art and that's perfectly fine since it's a very pleasing image. I like to think of a photo as something I go out and "capture". I may do some cloning and other manipulation to streamline an image to better convey the emotion/experience of "being there" but the basic integrity of the original capture remains in the DNA.
If someone green screens a bikini model in a studio in Cleveland and puts in a background of Hawaii it my look like a photo but it's really digital art. That model was never "there" to be captured. It's an illusion.
But really, so what. If it's good enough, the audience won't know and won't really care. shrug...
-
It's photo art since no one would mistaken it to be representative of something they would actually see in nature. I think that is fine. What disappoints me is when the "messaging" is not seen and the photo looks real but isn't.
-
If Jerry Uelsmann can do it in the darkroom, then I can do it on the computer.
-
IMO, if it ain't 3D and if it ain't exactly life-sized, then it's been manipulated. These kinds of arguments are what we call in Russia "shearing a pig... lots of squealing, little wool".
-
All imagery is manipulation. By definition and however else you care to dissect it.
Peter