Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"  (Read 41744 times)

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« on: April 02, 2015, 03:56:45 am »

Hehehehe, I am sorry, but I could not resist:

Courtesy of "Take a View":
http://www.take-a-view.co.uk

Quote
12th November 2012
The former winning image of the Landscape Photographer of the Year Awards 2012, by David Byrne, was subsequently disqualified due to the extent of digital manipulation used, along with two further images. The book was prepared and printed by the publisher before this announcement was made and therefore the current version of the hardback book on sale contains the disqualified images....

ROFLMAO :D

Good Lord, I am astonished that Mr. Waite did not arrange for some students to cut out by hand the offending pages prior to going on sale, or stamp over it by hand "SKIP PAGE, DISQUALIFIED ARTWORK!"

David Byrne should have raised the price on this piece significantly and straight away into a limited print run. Rare chance to aquire a unique piece of disqualified artwork. What I mean by that is that he could have taken advantage of such potential reputation damage caused by the disqualification and turn that thing around.

 ;)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 04:08:43 am by laughingbear »
Logged

HSway

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
    • Sunwaysite
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2015, 12:36:59 pm »

Excellent article from Alain Briot. A few remarks from me.

Competitions have their own rules as in any field.


Fifty five people

I saw fifty five people standing on the top of a wooded ridge. They were of different age, sex, from different countries and different centuries, or millenniums.
Or maybe they were just from the village they were looking at.

As they looked on I climbed the hill to get to them. On the top I looked down and saw the little village sitting in the valley and the countryside. I then asked every one of them about what they exactly saw and we talked in great detail about it. After a few hours they went after their business. When I was alone again I turned and for the last time looked down into the valley.

But the village I saw before wasn’t there. All I saw were fifty five people’s eyes glowing from below back at me. I then looked again. And again, trying to find the village I saw and remembered but the village I found changed forever.

-

Of course the photography can be art. Let’s get this out of the way. There are two key facts about art that no one will change. These are often closely related aspects but it is good to keep them separately for this debate.

- Any activity of man can be done as art.

- Anything can be presented as art.

I would say that covers questions regarding art and photography in full.

-

As those fifty five people taught me that day there is no reality to record with our own eyes. Let alone with some poor recorder. By the way, what does it actually mean 'recording'? It sounds like using a tape measure kind of activity. I reckon even house can be built using it. Or will downright be necessary for it. But when the house stands the figures and measurements take on a different meaning. When someone fails to distinguish (nature of) mechanical act

its end purpose and implications

and also boundaries of its effects

the limits lie elsewhere.

It is possible that a person with this limited view and perception will not understand other views and will even feel threatened by them in some way or the other views will be causing him discomfort of a sort. That wouldn’t be the first instance when a crucial limitation found within one’s own mental world leads one to apply simplified approaches and definitions vigorously in attempt to contain something that feels unstable, unknown, beyond reach and therefore dangerous.

-

So what is art and what is photograph

1) Even photographing everything using a single preset set by someone on some machine without virtually entering the process of the capture can lead to art when done like that - when that sort of connection occurred. Or when presented as art (in which case the connection is inevitable and you may not even be the author - creator). How successful and what is the scope of success in art with all its purity and fallacy is another chapter.

2) Art can also be other approaches that process the photo using wider gamut of available data, capture potential and wide range of tools.


3) Manipulations altering the capture beyond the usual scope and based on the photograph (photography-based Art) then unsurprisingly continue to have its art potential but stop being a photograph.
The manipulations can be deliberately and carefully chosen steps to alter the capture adding one’s own creativity into the process rather than following lines of the capture itself as the critical and overriding guideline. Because of varied taste (and often poor or superficial), skills and the widespread use of the digital capture among the people today it is not always easy to distinguish between deliberate manipulations with a goal in mind and random manipulations caused by pure chance. This area has got quite wide transition zones and is very beneficial when deliberate approaches to processing are shared and disclosures made as a routine part of the practice. As the digital technology mature and establishes more in our lives it is possible to see signs of progress in this respect. It seems to be part of natural process  and it is not as complicated as it sounds and photographers can orientate themselves quite easily.

4) Manipulations that extend to moving and merging content of the photo/image and working particular elements in the photo the way that changes basic philosophy of taking photographs demand disclosure and putting the particular work into adequate perspective for others. Anything other can be basically classified as a con.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2015, 01:42:42 pm »

Quote
Alain Briot: "I assume that this contest was open only to non-manipulated photographs, otherwise why take away his award?"

Quote
Ex-winner, 2012: "I have to inform you after a conversation with Charlie Waite I have been disqualified from the Landscape Photographer of the year awards, unfortunately I didn’t read the regulations and certain editing like adding clouds and cloning out small details are not allowed, while I don’t think what I have done to the photo is wrong in any way, I do understand it’s against the regulations so accept the decision whole heartily.

I have never passed off my photographs as record shots and the only reason this has come about has been due to my openness about how and what I do to my images. The changes I made were not major and if you go to the locations you will see everything is there as presented."



Quote
Declan O’Neill : "What is extraordinary is that Mr. Byrne should have won such a prestigious title as Landscape Photographer of the Year."

Not really --

Quote
[1857-59] "Le Gray innovated by successively printing parts of two negatives onto the same proof: a landscape and the sky of his choice, photographed elsewhere. He applied this technique to his marines in particular, taking advantage of the flat horizon line that eased the joining of two negatives, thereby emphasizing the horizon's presence and strengthening the force of the resultant image. The effect is stunning... The critics sang his praises, and his photographs of the sea were often exhibited and sought after." page 50

Reproducing Reality: Landscape photography of the 1850s and 1860s in relation to the paintings of Gustave Courbet, Dominique de Font-Réaulx.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2780
    • Pieter Kers
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2015, 06:21:02 pm »

I already noticed color was missing...
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13099
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2015, 07:50:34 pm »

I wonder if stitches would have qualified.

Cheers,
Bernard

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2015, 08:05:52 pm »

"High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging techniques & stitched panoramas are allowed in all categories"
Logged

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2015, 12:45:47 am »

Well said, Alain.  Thank you.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4641
    • My photography site
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2015, 03:33:49 am »

Although Isaac's link shows the amended post-Byrnegate rules, the terms were already pretty clear and I've always felt his explanation was convenient. Black and white, stitching and HDR are fine in the general categories - compositing isn't. You can develop or correct the photo in Lightroom or Capture One, but if Photoshop is the only way you could produce that result, then it belongs in the separate category for latter-day Rejlanders. Fess up and be judged on that basis.

graubaer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2015, 03:43:02 am »

I usually do not take part in this discussion as I think that everything has been said, but this opinion asks for a reply. Photography means painting with light and it implies that the sceen pictured is at it has been at the time. The art of the photographer is to choose bw or color, open or closed aperture, short or long exposure time, in and out of focus, short or long lens and finally high or low contrast, which is linked to the aperture off cause. All these parameters have to be applied so the look on paper or screen still matches the real world scene. That's it! Not more! If this is not enough for you to express yourself you have to choose a different medium. Think of Mr Turner! If you excuse your manipulations with the argument that you are an artist and that you are therefore not tighed to the real scene, than you have to create a new word for your products. Pixel painting starts with a photo, but the end product is something different. So you should be honest and not call it photography. Call it pixelpainting, pixpai, pixpaint, pixpo etc..
If you do not make this clear on any of your creations, you are simply lying, because everybody looking at the photograph thinks that the real world scene was as shown.

HDR is inbetween, because no human eye and brain pictures the world in this way. The vast majority of those images look like drawings anyhow, especially bw images. I simply cannot understand that many people have lost the sense for what a photo means to the person looking at it.

I think that because you have to develop your raw files and because of the almost unlimited options you have people have lost contacts to the reality. If you have a slide or a negative in your hand you  have the proof and the starting point of your optimisations and you can always compare the outcome with the original.
People like to have this kind of assurance, that they are standing on solid ground. I think this is why people who have grown up with digital photography fall in love with analog (!) once they hold their first negatives or slides in their hands. Those who haven't done this yet, go out and do it at least for two rolls, one in bw and one in color (slide!).

By the way I am using a point and shoot digital to have a camera with me all the time (Lumix LF1). Most of the time I use bw and if color makes thei image I use slide. Scanning is not the biggest fun, but I also do not want to have to develop every image with a raw processor. I admit that I am thinking about the a7s, in part because of this, but mostly because of the high iso, the only real advantage of digital recordings (thank you lula for your review and comments, other reviewers seem to have sunglasses on all the time).

Yours , Graubaer
Logged

Paul Gessler

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2015, 06:58:20 am »

The art of the photographer is to choose bw or color, open or closed aperture, short or long exposure time, in and out of focus, short or long lens and finally high or low contrast, which is linked to the aperture off cause. All these parameters have to be applied so the look on paper or screen still matches the real world scene. That's it! Not more!

Just a few things to think about here; what about

  • warming/cooling filters or (for digital) white balance adjustment,
  • neutral density filters,
  • graduated ND filters, and
  • soft focus filters?

These are all creative effects that can be done either in-camera at the time of the shot or (with varying degrees of efficacy) after the fact with post-processing (in some cases these could be achieved with either film processing or digital image processing). Do any of these filters/adjustments have more cachet when applied at the time of the shot than when applied after the fact? Or, if they are applied after the fact, is there anything that makes film processing adjustments more "acceptable to the art" than digitally-applied adjustments?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 07:05:59 am by Paul Gessler »
Logged

bartjeej

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2015, 07:37:58 am »

Quote
. The answer to the question what is art ? can be many things. Here is one answer, as said by James Johnson, a friend and student:

What is art to the photographer?  For me it is capturing a moment, one that moves me from within.  That spirit inside that almost makes you cry that it is so beautiful and captivating.  The artist can only see with his heart.  The French writer Antoine de St Exupery said in best in “The Little Prince”, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye”.  If there is no manipulation, to bring out what is in the heart then it is not art.  Anyone can make a snapshot!

And on this statement I will end this essay. 

Aren't the last two lines in that statement at least as narrowminded as the article that prompted this essay?
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2780
    • Pieter Kers
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2015, 07:49:33 am »

....All these parameters have to be applied so the look on paper or screen still matches the real world scene. That's it! Not more! If this is not enough for you to express yourself you have to choose a different medium. ....

....HDR is inbetween, because no human eye and brain pictures the world in this way.....

I think different...
for instance:
We have adjusted to BW photos just because in the past just because we had no way we could do color. Otherwise BW photography probably would have been a niche.
But instead we had a tradition of many decades of photography in the past were we all learned to look at BW as real.
Only BW-photographers may see a scene in BW because they want to make a BW photograph and have learned to see in contrast and form rather than in color.

Many (landscape) photographers are not trying to match the realworld - they are looking for something else. Something personal.
The result might be photograph taken in daylight but looking so dark it resembles the night. That would have been accepted in the contest.
Is a 10 minutes exposure resembling something real? Yes i think so, but have never seen it until i look at the photo i have made...
In landscape photography i see nowadays such strong saturated colours you cannot believe your eyes.  That is accepted.

I think we are at a point - like we have had with paintings in the past- that digital photography in this case- with all its new possibillities changes the playground in a more radical way.
You can make the rules for a contest, but do not say that these rules divide real photography from fake. They are just rules.
If that cloud was there 10 minutes ago and the photographer put it in his photo - it is not that far from the truth ; there is just some time difference.
After all- we see through our mind- not through our eyes.
Logged

nickjohnson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2015, 01:07:02 pm »

Much to ponder here.

First, please excuse my poor written English. Second, I should declare an interest. I've been a passing acquaintance of David Byrne via a now moribund forum. Also, until very recently, I lived close to the location of his disqualified picture and have photographed there on several occasions. When David announced his win – and prior to disqualification – I warmly congratulated him on his achievement. I knew well the scope and style of his work and had no idea about the competition rules. At the time it felt churlish and mean to point out that his winning picture was obviously (to me) manipulated – my thinking being that it was only my local knowledge that made it so obvious. Then came the disqualification – I had nothing constructive to say – so remained silent.

As to the broader issues discuses in Alain's essay. IMHO most viewers of our work have their expectation conditioned by the wonders of the human vision system. What the human eye sees and what our cameras capture are quite close, but both are very different to that which our vision system shows us. Couple that with the very limited dynamic range of common photographic processes (in comparison with the real world around us) and you might take the view that practically all photographs are necessarily manipulated in some way or another.  Thus the problem for competition organisers is where to draw the line for what is and is not acceptable. FWIW I can enjoy the results achieved by combining elements of different images into a single end product, and I much admire the skill and application of the authors – but it is not photography. Rather, it is an art (?) form that uses photographs as a source material.

Art and photography ….. well.... Since we use photography as a means of documenting much of human activity it follows that much (most?) photography cannot be art. Artistic passport photo anyone – I think not. So can photography be art? Lets make the working assumption of “Yes”. IMHO that gives us a bit of a problem since most art (painting drawing some sculpture) is an additive process. One starts with a blank sheet of paper and we then add stuff in. With photography our camera gives us everything – often rather too much – so we embark on a subtractive process to get what we want.  Ah, manipulation – again! My current thinking is that photography is most likely to be art when it shows us something that we are unlikely to see from another art form. This might happen in a number of ways, but I'm thinking at the moment that the time domain might be a fruitful place to explore.

Right then, tin foil hat, coat, door.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2015, 01:12:36 pm »

… and I've always felt his explanation was convenient.

Of course; otoh over the last month, I've been watching photos accumulate for a local photo competition and it continues to surprise me that many people obviously don' t read the rules.


… latter-day Rejlanders …

That would be a different genre; Le Gray, same genre, same idea.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2015, 01:26:29 pm »

Right then, tin foil hat, coat, door.

Pour a cognac and pull the comfy chair closer to log fire :-)


Since we use photography as a means of documenting much of human activity it follows that much (most?) photography cannot be art. Artistic passport photo anyone – I think not.

What do you think we used as a means of documenting human activity before photography? Drawing and painting, so shall we say drawings and paintings cannot be art?

Artistic passport photo? "In an age where kings would make marriage decisions based on the beauty of a portrait, artists had real political power "
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2015, 01:41:31 pm »

…you have to create a new word for your products. … So you should be honest and not call it photography.

Words change their meaning over time or become archaic. Each generation makes meanings useful to their lives and will pay no heed to the demand that things should stay the same.


We have adjusted to BW photos just because in the past just because we had no way we could do color. … But instead we had a tradition of many decades of photography in the past were we all learned to look at BW as real.

We also have thousands of years of monochrome drawing and painting.

We also see in monochrome, unless there's enough available light to see in colour.
Logged

Greg D

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2015, 02:29:50 pm »


As to the broader issues discuses in Alain's essay. IMHO most viewers of our work have their expectation conditioned by the wonders of the human vision system. What the human eye sees and what our cameras capture are quite close, but both are very different to that which our vision system shows us. Couple that with the very limited dynamic range of common photographic processes (in comparison with the real world around us) and you might take the view that practically all photographs are necessarily manipulated in some way or another. 


+1.  As photographers we know that our eyes, brains, and cameras all see differently.  But the general public doesn't seem to realize this.  Some seem to regard cameras as lie detectors, recorders of absolute truth.  People need to be educated on this point, regardless of what our varying opinions of where the line between "optimization" and "manipulation" lies.
Regarding that line, I found it odd that in Mr. O'Neill's essay he states "Removing power lines from a landscape is one thing. Changing the colour of the sky from grey to orange quite another."  So he feels that changing the color of the sky to what it might have been at another hour is unforgiveable, but removing a physical object that will be there anytime of day or night is okay??
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2015, 04:28:43 pm »

Amusingly the question of whether "sky from one shot, land from another" is OK is the basis of a very early feud. PH Emerson and HP Robinson went at it hammer and tongs in the 1880s over pretty much exactly that.

Emerson was right ;)
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: AB:"Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography"
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2015, 04:42:51 pm »

PH Emerson and HP Robinson went at it hammer and tongs in the 1880s…

That gives Photoshop an alibi.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Up