Eric Meola article

[jjj]

You entirely missed the point of all 3 things of mine you quoted above.
And then you post this.....

Depends what you mean by "creative".

By creative I mean, the photographer sacrificed virginal albino stoats to Beelzebub in order to produce a photograph that so moving, it would melt the heart of long dead Stalin. After first bringing him back to life of course.  

On a related note, do not let Rob suck you into his semantic vortex, where he's the proverbial judge, jury and executioner (i.e., both creates definitions and then determines how they apply to various genres).

Looks like the vortex is exactly where you ended up.

This conversation is a brick wall, against which I have no further desire to batter my head.

[jjj]

I notice the word Sisyphean was used earlier, well this debate is a fantastic example of that kind of task as pushing a boulder uphill would be more productive than debating art with Rob.

or Issac it would seem.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Looks like the vortex is exactly where you ended up...

Huh!?

[OldRoy]

...Both are B+W and as we know the world is actually in colour so straight away they look quite different to real life.

"Real life is in colour, but black and white is more realistic"
Sam Fuller in Wim Wenders' little-seen "State of Things"

Not that I agree, but it's a great quote - apply as required.

Roy

[Isaac]

[... Looks like the vortex is exactly where you ended up...] -- Huh!?

jjj probably intended that your comment be applied to me, not you -- just read say what you mean as semantic vortex.

[Isaac]

Both are B+W and as we know the world is actually in colour so straight away they look quite different to real life.

afaik the world is actually awash in electromagnetic radiation across a wide spectrum of frequencies; a very small part of which we sense as visible light, a tiny part of which we sense as heat on our skin, and a tiny part of which we sense as sun burn.

"B+W" photography is no less a transcription from the world, because it does not differentiate frequencies in the visible spectrum.

Infrared photography is no less a transcription from the world, because it records EM radiation at a frequency we do not see.

What do I think demonstrates photographic creativity? It's like musical creativity, it expresses itself in different ways.

"However 'creative' a photographer may be, he is ultimately dependent upon what physically exists in the world: no filter made will transform a frog into a prince. On the other hand, music, as Stravinsky stated, expresses only itself -- its laws, its forms, its -- not the world's -- reality. Consequently, the composer is, in an absolute sense, 'freer' than the photographer; so, too, in the framework of picture making, is the traditional artist."

Paul Caponigro quoted in The Wise Silence p180.

[Isaac]

The landscape photographer may not be able to rearrange the elements in the composition at the stage of the initial concept, but he certainly can do so later in post-processing, without even offending the sensibilities of Alain Briot.  

Wouldn't that be photoshop creativity rather than photographic creativity ?

Wouldn't that be when the description changes to digital painting collage  rather than photograph?

In a similar vein -- "Now it is easier than ever to take your own photographs and digitally transform them into works of art that engage and mystify the viewer. The latest software programs on the market today are so sophisticated in their capabilities and so easy to use that anyone can be an artist and create their own style for their body of work." p7 The Art of Digital Photo Painting

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Wouldn't that be photoshop creativity rather than photographic creativity ?

I resolve that conundrum by calling myself a photoshoppographer™ 

[Ray]

Wouldn't that be photoshop creativity rather than photographic creativity ?

I prefer to use the original concept behind the term 'photography', a word which is based upon two Greek words, 'light' and 'draw' (or write). The process of Photography is sometimes described as 'painting with light'. Do we need to quibble over the words, paint, draw and write?

The original exposure using a lens and camera can be considered as a very detailed type of note-taking, more detailed in many respects than the extensive notes that some painters would make in the past when hiking in the mountains or countryside, but perhaps not as detailed in other respects. The camera may record the hues, shades and detail more precisely than a written record, but not necessarily the emotional experience felt at the time.

The creative process doesn't end until the final print, or processed electronic image, has been made. The role of Photoshop in the processing chain is just another tool, like the camera is a tool, or the pen or the paintbrush.

[LesPalenik]

Sometimes, you can end up with something completely different than what you expect or experience, and the final outcome can still be pleasing.

I remember one early morning in Northern Ontario when I was photographing a pair of trumpeter swans at a beaver lodge, surrounded by vibrant fall colours reflected in the still water (I used wide 6x17 format film camera and concentrated on the section with the beaver lodge), and after I got the film back from the lab, I discovered on the opposite shoreline two stately bucks with nice set of antlers looking in my direction. The swans were nice, but after I lightened slightly the deer in Photoshop, they definitely added the right ingredient to the scene.
 
Another time, I was paddling on a small creek, and noticed an upset adult beaver who didn't pay too much attention to me.
Anticipating that he was looking for his mate or a young one, I took out the camera from my waterproof case, only to discover a black bear saw with a cub behind the next bend who made a terrible racket behind the bushes just a few meters from my canoe. I suspect that the saw caught the young beaver, but rather than to investigate, I threw the camera back in the case, and started to paddle quite vigorously upstream.
 

[jjj]

afaik the world is actually awash in electromagnetic radiation across a wide spectrum of frequencies; a very small part of which we sense as visible light, a tiny part of which we sense as heat on our skin, and a tiny part of which we sense as sun burn.

"B+W" photography is no less a transcription from the world, because it does not differentiate frequencies in the visible spectrum.

Infrared photography is no less a transcription from the world, because it records EM radiation at a frequency we do not see.

Except that is of no relevance as you missed the point. Yet again.
We see in colour not B+W, not IR, nor any other par of EM spectrum. So by not shooting in a normal colour space you are changing how reality as seen by humans is depicted.
B+W is only accepted as 'real' as it came before colour photography and thus became accepted as the norm. However if it had been invented afterward colour, then it would possibly be along viewed with other looks such as HDR or hyper saturation as unreal and therefore not acceptable in photojournalism competitions.

"However 'creative' a photographer may be, he is ultimately dependent upon what physically exists in the world: no filter made will transform a frog into a prince. On the other hand, music, as Stravinsky stated, expresses only itself -- its laws, its forms, its -- not the world's -- reality. Consequently, the composer is, in an absolute sense, 'freer' than the photographer; so, too, in the framework of picture making, is the traditional artist."
John Caponigro quoted in The Wise Silence p180.

Oh yes, you're right people who write music can make up new notes and other  of music all the time. Oh wait they don't do that at all.
They use the same few notes and the majority of the time in contemporary music at least, they also use the same structure [4/4 time] on which to hang the notes. With the rare dabble into 3/4 or 5/4 time.
So composers are just as constrained, albeit in a different way.
Besides photographs can be expressed in other ways with their own laws and realities by such photographers as for example.....let me think, oh yes - John Caponigro with his gravity defying flying rocks. 

[jjj]

The creative process doesn't end until the final print, or processed electronic image, has been made. The role of Photoshop in the processing chain is just another tool, like the camera is a tool, or the pen or the paintbrush.

Absolutely.

All too often I've seen photographers criticise using Photoshop as cheating and not real photography, yet would happily accept artificial lighting, filters or cross processing.

 

[Isaac]

The camera may record the hues, shades and detail more precisely than a written record, but not necessarily the emotional experience felt at the time.

Choose an appropriate medium to express the emotional experience -- try poetry.

The role of Photoshop in the processing chain is just another tool, like the camera is a tool, or the pen or the paintbrush.

Thus -- photographing, drawing, painting; and now photoshopping1.
Hence -- photographer, drawer, painter; and now photoshopper2.

1,2 "The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun."

[Isaac]

We see in colour not B+W, not IR, nor any other par of EM spectrum. So by not shooting in a normal colour space you are changing how reality as seen by humans is depicted.

"To satisfy yourself that rods do not mediate color, get up on a dark moonlit night and look around. Although you can see shapes fairly well, colors are completely absent. Given the simplicity of this experiment it is remarkable how few people realize that they do without color vision in dim light."

Eye, Brain and Vision, Chapter 4 "Color Vision", page 7

(And then there's color constancy, and... By "shooting in a normal colour space you are changing how reality as seen by humans is depicted" because what cameras record is not what people see.)

B+W is only accepted as 'real' as it came before colour photography and thus became accepted as the norm.

March 1514 -- Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63 -- Charcoal+W

Oh yes, you're right people who write music can make up new notes and other  of music all the time. Oh wait they don't do that at all.

It wouldn't be me that was right or wrong -- it would be Stravinsky; and he didn't say "people who write music can make up notes" that's just a strawman you put in his mouth.

... by such photographers as for example.....let me think, oh yes - John Caponigro with his gravity defying flying rocks.  

To be charitable, you didn't notice my typo -- the quote was from the father not the son.

[Isaac]

If that is indeed creativity, then I do not really care much about it anymore.

Compared to the denial expressed by other responses, I think that's a sensible beginning.

Pete Turner (a photographer mentioned in Eric Meola's article) saw the difference between make and take, and did both; and pushed into fake (for want of a less perjorative term) long before Photoshop made it so so easy.

tl;dr make(+take) vs take vs (take+)fake

make(+take)

• Cigar Earring, Kenya, 1970 -- "Cigar Earring wears a tin cigar container that I got from Harold. I thought it would make an interesting shape. I guess I'm not a purist in terms of reality. I make pictures. They're a combination of made and found images."
• Flying Women, Dominica, 1976 -- "Composed and orchestrated on location specifically for this result. Viewing the photograph upside down, as it is reproduced here, makes the women seem to fly."
• Cannonball, Mozambique, 1980 -- "I realized that I had a circular, geometric shape in a fort that was all straight-line geometry. The textures were great and it was a beautiful time of day, so I started placing cannonballs around the fort."

take

• Ibiza Woman, Ibiza, 1961 -- "I waited until a woman crossed the street. When she hit the curb with her foot, the composition felt just right. This, in a sense, is as close as I ever came to doing reportage photography."
• The Old Man and the Sea, 1966, Nazaré -- "You don't make an image like this. You don't make a day with an incredible storm, graphic waves. I just managed to take a few frames before the man walked away."

fake(+take)

• Ayers Rock 1, Uluru National Park, 1983 -- "I had been impressed with photographs I'd seen of the rock reflected in pools of water. I created my version -- a perfect mirror image flopped and combined in the optical printer."

(Quotations from Pete Turner: Photographs.)


Let's say make is about what Rob C. means by creativity, and take is about acuity; then even though fake is not creative in that sense, it can still be imaginative. Eric Meola's article seems to make a stronger complaint -- current landscape photography is neither creative nor imaginative.

[AreBee]

Rob C,

...I consider still life a creative form of photographic art...

...if it consists of elements put together by the photographer in order to make a picture, then yes, it's a creative event...

Still life = epacsdnaL