View Full Version : A Noob's Views - Controversial??
Ok here we go and I suspect that some of you may want to hunt me down and do nasty things after this but this post isn`t intended to offend or cause an argument merely a debate.
Right I`m VERY new to photography and I freely admit I know nothing, but I`m learning. The thing I`ve noticed is obviously we have all these fab technological computer programs to play about with pics (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro or MS Paint if you`re me :P ) Now I fail to see how a photo can be praised if it has been modified in a program such as this? Respect IMO is using your camera to the best of your ability and choosing the setting, getting the timing right, lighting etc etc and combining all this to get the "perfect" shot. If however a poor shot is made to look better using one of these technologically advanced computer programs then surely the skill involved is not as a photographer but more as an expert of these programs?
For example I am slowly beginning to realise the skill, care and pure expertise involved in taking really good photographs and I do not believe that it is a skill easily gained, indeed years of practice may still not produce a "skilled" phtographer. Conversely these modifying programs would only take around a month to master? Perhaps slightly longer. The point being there are manuals and tutorials and given the required amount of time and dedication one could become a master of these and thereby produce "good" photographs from poor shots - basically involving no skill as a photographer but more as an expert of Photoshop. Conversely the same amount of time and effort will not necessarily produce a top quality photographer.
Like I say this is only my UNEDUCATED opinion and this may change as I learn more. Feel free to educate me :P
And if you`re still awake after all that....respect! 8)
Edit: Just to say that I have a HUGE amount of respect for the people that have mastered these programs as I know they are hugely difficult to learn. It just seems to me they are two different areas of expertise and should be treated as such :?:
there is an old saying Mark, you cant polish a turd!
You could call photoshopped pictures 'images' rather than photographs, though some photoshop techniques are based on darkroom techniques, i dont know to what extent though as i have never done any darkroom stuff.
A little shopping now and then can really resue an image, simply lightening an image could be called photoshopping it, where do we draw the line??
I have seen a good few shots that have been taken with absolutely no skill at all(mainly on my camera, lol)that have been shopped, but ultimately, they are still rubbish!
Liberalis
19-02-2005, 23:47
No-one will hunt you down mate, this question is probally being asked by many of film photographers as well as new starters.
My personal belief is that I try to get everything right at the time of taking the shot, my intention is to do NO editing at all when I get the shot back to the computer, other than maybe turning a colour image into black and white.
I never used film all that much, but I hear that many of the effects used on the computer now-a-days were also used in the developing stage of film processing. For example, Filters, colour correction, or exposure corrections.
I dont believe that anyone with in interest in photography thinks about post editing at the time of taking a shot, I certainly dont, if an image needs editing, I will do it, and learn from the corrections needed for next time.
The saying "You cant make a silk purse from a sow's ear" comes to mind.
You are absolutely correct and totally wrong at the same time..its fun isn’t it?
Lets see if we cant help you see the wood for the trees..photography is a art, its also a hobby and a lot of fun too, at least its meant to be but at times its more frustrating and very difficult. Working at your photography skill and camera craft will give you the best “out of camera” results and a great starting point. Generally most people are happy with the best results obtained at this point but for the professionals, they take it to the next stage. This has always been the case and even with conventional photography they would dodge and burn the prints in the darkroom during the processing stage. In modern photography (digital) the likes of Photoshop becomes the digital user’s darkroom and now offer many features and effects.
This opens a whole new world to the layman and is regarded as another tool to enhance the end result. Sure you can use them to mask mistakes and make a reasonable picture from a poor attempt, but the best results and show stopping pictures where always that, they are great photos to start with that are mostly improved and enhanced by select, skilled Photoshop work.
Everything is subjective though, from who likes what to how the post production is applied and weather it improves, distracts or mealy just offers a different take on the same image. Hence is it cheating or just making use of all tools that are available?
Liberalis
19-02-2005, 23:55
I would aslo like to add:
From a viewers point, does it matter what editing has been done, is it not the final image that matters.
Thanks for the replies guys, like I say my opinion is based from a relatively un-educated standpoint so not very well informed as it`s good to hear views form more experienced people.
I would aslo like to add:
From a viewers point, does it matter what editing has been done, is it not the final image that matters.
I see your point there m8 as well, I think that "personally" I`m a purist (anally retentive?) in the respect that I prefer natural shots with they`re flaws. Take for example a supermodel being photographed. To me it is far more rewarding to see the flaws and imperfections rather than a photo-shopped image that is nowhere near reality. (Hence why I`m a buyer of Readers Wives rather then Playboy :lol: )
Good to hear all sides *** and I appreciate the input!! [smilie=s: [smilie=s:
I would aslo like to add:
From a viewers point, does it matter what editing has been done, is it not the final image that matters.
very true!
would the blue rose have the same impact if i hadnt shopped it?
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/matty/blueblack.jpg
To keep this interesting topic going...
How do you feel about unobtrusive Photoshop work? If there is some work applied during post processing but that work isn’t the obvious and unless you have been directed or informed of it, would you be bothered by that or would you see it at respectable use of tools and equipment available?
i think if used correctly PS can produce stunning results, my rose is a good example of what you can do easily, its still the same image, but with one colour channel altered to show a different colour.
To keep this interesting topic going...
How do you feel about unobtrusive Photoshop work? If there is some work applied during post processing but that work isn’t the obvious and unless you have been directed or informed of it, would you be bothered by that or would you see it at respectable use of tools and equipment available?
Good question. I still think that ANY photo-editing is cheating if the image is being presented as a photo. HOWEVER, I know very little about photo processing, darkroom techniques etc etc so if I did not know it was there then I probably would have mixed responses. Firstly respect that the person has skillfully manipulated the image so subtly and ****ed off that I didnt spot it lol.
Re. the blue rose, I admire the time, effort and skill that has gone into that image and it is a very striking image. However on a personal basis I prefer unadulterated shots with no editing. Again with very little knowledge of darkroom techiniques and how they transfer to the digital arena it is extremely difficult to know where to draw the line.
I suppose part of my attitude towards this is that I have no access (at the moment) to photo editing suites and must rely purely on my "skills" as a photographer. I expect when I have access to these programs my opinion will change somewhat.
This is very interesting, If you don't mind indulging me...I am curious, not wanting to test you but apart from the borders how do you view these images in terms of “purity”
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/Steves-photos/IMG_4036_001.jpg
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/Steves-photos/dm1v1small.jpg
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/Steves-photos/concordeb_w.jpg
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/Steves-photos/CRW_3848.jpg
Hmmm ok.
Image 1 - clearly not a photograph, not my cup of tea but very well done
Image 2 - I "think" this is an actual photograph and bloody well taken too!
Image 3 - Same as above and I think it looks tremendous in black and white
Image 4 - Looks photoshopped to me and a bit fake.
I`m probably wrong with most of these and this is probably due to a lack of experience and expertise. I can only give my honest opinion.
Again the purpose of this post was not to have a go at photoshopping, quite the opposite. I`ve requested numerous photos of my own to be photoshopped and have been very pleased with the results. I think in essence what I am saying is that once an image has been photoshopped, beyond what could have been achieved with film in a darkroom, it's at this stage it becomes a "cheat" if you`re trying to pass it off as an actual photo. If it's being presented as an image then fine, all credit to ya and more!!
Digital SPG
20-02-2005, 00:58
I think your right that there are two different terms to be used. An Image and a Photograph.
However, A camera is only one part of the photographers tool kit. Where do you draw the line at being pure? If you start adding filters are you being pure? If you ytart playing with different lenses is that not changing the image that your eyes are seeing.
A camera on its own can only do a finite number of things. A darkroom is an extention of that to allow the photographer to be more creative, correct minor errors and so on. Photoshop and digital photography are just an extention of that concept. It is called progress.
It is not cheating. A program like Photoshop is an incredibly complex piece of software and requires far more skill to use properly than the camera a photo was taken with.
It is an interesting point though. I can't help feeling that the real purists dont like digital because they don't understand it and don't realise how much more creative it can let you be.
Ps, all of Steves shots are photographs imho. :D
Thank you for your honest opinion..
I understand you are not having a go at anyone or anything but you did raise a very good topic which I wanted to expand on and see where it went. I have been a little sly here with the four shots I have chosen and I honestly doubt that anyone would have been able to get all four correct. In fact the second shot has fooled many so called experts ;)
The first one is totally original and apart from the border has had nothing done to it. It’s as it came from the camera but took a lot of trial and error to perfect.
The second one is altered, the original of this shot had the right hand plane blurred slightly so I copied the left, flipped it in Photoshop, altered the shadows under the wings to match the angle from the light and then replaced the original. This I do regard as cheating but it demonstrates a great point in this thread.
The third shot is not original either, discounting the colour to B&W conversion which I personally believe to be acceptable, I have removed a set of boarding ladders that were leading up to the right hand side of Concorde as you look at it, I replaced the sky that they were masking manually using others shot at the same time as a guide. I also removed some runway markings and a plane from the background. This focuses the attention onto the plane and allowed me a “perfect” finished image that in any other circumstances simply would not be possible. The Photoshop work applied here I would regard as advanced but totally unobtrusive and backs up the good starting point theory I presented at the start of this thread. Without the work I applied here (which took over 6 hours) this image would not be in the same league.
The last shot is again totally original and the effects seen there are from the use of filters at the shooting stage. A combination of circular polarizer, Neutral density graduated filter and a tobacco filter to add to the sunset where all used.
Where`s the "round of applause" smiley when u need it. Image 1 - WOW!! Didn't think you could get effects like that with a camera! I knew there was something odd about image 2 but couldn't quite place my finger on it. Image 3 had me totally fooled and looks very natural, very well done. Image 4 IMO looks like a painting or something done on a graphics tablet so again I didn't even realise these sort of things were achievable.
I`ve had my opinion swayed slightly through this topic and I would say that any effects done at the point of shot filters etc (not even sure what these do but I`ll learn) are all acceptable to a "purist" I just can`t get my head around an "image" that has been altered in photoshop "post-shot" as it were being presented as a photograph. A photograph IMO is something unaltered after the shot is taken, anything altered is an image.
Again this comes down to a number of factors, my lack of knowledge of photo editing processes albeit darkroom or digital and a lack of experience. This topic has been very informative and I hope to learn more as I`m sure other members will have their say in it.
As for the 4 images that were presented----------SUCKERED!! Big time! :lol:
Not suckered at all Mark, I just chose those shots due to their unusual nature in as much as the ones that look unedited where actually post processed heavily and the others that look manufactured where created naturally.
I suppose part of my attitude towards this is that I have no access (at the moment) to photo editing suites and must rely purely on my "skills" as a photographer. I expect when I have access to these programs my opinion will change somewhat.
If you are on a fast internet connection you can give the trial versions a go if you wish. Most of them are fully functional and free to use for 30days. I have listed the three main ones here but there are others available also.
Adobe Photoshop and Photoshop Elements (http://www.adobe.com/products/tryadobe/main.jsp)
Jasc Paint Shop Pro (http://www.jasc.com/en/products/default.asp?locid=30)
Also check out the covers of the monthly Photography mags as they sometimes give away the slightly older versions of Paint Shop Pro and demo/trial versions of Photoshop.
Hope that helps a little and thanks for indulging me :)
silkstone
20-02-2005, 12:02
Late entry to this discussion :) , and I don't know if I can add much (but that won't stop me trying!).
Steve has said it all really - post-processing is the digital equivalent of old 'wet' darkroom techniques which were (and are) considered to be photographically legitimate to achieve effects and enhancements that cannot be captured at Stage 1. If you look at the Tutorials forum, you'll see how PS and PSP can be used to blend images in order to obtain the correct exposure for both the sky and the foreground. In Ye Olde Days the same thing could be done by physical masks in the darkroom.
The availability of post-processing does not relieve the photographer of the obligation to get the best results possible from the camera, but it also opens up new possibilities. As Steve's photos show, it is often difficult to distinguish between images where clever filtering has been used at the time of shooting, and those which have been altered in post-processing. IMO these techniques are justified if the finished result is aesthetically appealing.
I'll throw another pic into the ring....
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/silkstone/photos/geese3.jpg
In the original, the head of the right hand goose was hidden behind the wing of the left one, so I moved RH goose and stitched on the head/neck of the first one. That's a complete cheat, of course, but can you tell and does it matter? It would have been better to have shot the photo without the overlap, but unfortunately my skills at goose choreography are abysmal! :D
there is an old saying
" The camera never lies "
well thats about the biggest load of c**p goin, since photography was invented, every, and i mean every processed image has been adjusted to meet certain criteria, either by hand or in the lab, even down to the strength of chemical mixtures to the temeperature of them, the paper used the duration for exposure for prints, and even the quality of the equipment used.
i feel that its the final result that should be judged for what it is trying to say, possibly with the knowlege of what has been altered for the effect , *** this shouldnt detract from your impresion of the image,
at the end of the day, nothing can reproduce an image as you see it with your eye, your brain is the most pwerfull post processing tool you have, the other things just help you get closer to what you think you want
MyPix
I seriously doubt that there is any professional photographer or famous photographer who does not or has not worked on a print to get it right. In fact there really is no such thing as a pure image in respect of not being worked on to some degree.
I've used the example of Ansell Adams before in this context, a man whos' photography inspired me to take up the hobby many years ago. He wrote a series of books on how to produce the best image, starting with taking the shot, then developing the negative then making the final print. At the start he decides what he wants the final print to look like and then adapts each part of the process to bring about that end. The choice of lens and film, the different choice of chemicals in the development process, dodging and burning, adjusting the angle of the enlarger lens to affect DoF when exposing the print then the choice of chemicals to develop the print, then fixing possible problems with dust marks. Then doing it all again to create a different effect. All of that was time consuming and in effect no different to you or I using a graphics program to 'develop' a digital print.
Remember too that while you may think you are taking a photograph that needs no work, there's a fair bit of processing done by the camera before it saves the final image. If you take a shot on film and send it away for development the person doing the developing makes decisions about how the final print will look.
a fascinating thread! MarkyG i suggest you get yourself some cds and some water and get shooting, trying all differnt things, you can get stricking results!
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/matty/6_G.jpg
http://www.thephotographyforums.com/albums/matty/7_G.jpg
Steve, had me on most of them too, except concorde cos i saw that one before!!
Now I fail to see how a photo can be praised if it has been modified in a program such as this? Respect IMO is using your camera to the best of your ability and choosing the setting, getting the timing right, lighting etc etc and combining all this to get the "perfect" shot. If however a poor shot is made to look better using one of these technologically advanced computer programs then surely the skill involved is not as a photographer but more as an expert of these programs?
Hmm.. and what if the thing you're trying to shoot doesn't exist, or you have in your mind something that's technically impossible? Maybe just too problematical to setup?
What if I wanted to shoot an army of cloned, female warriors running across a beach? What then? I could A) dismiss the idea as impossible, and just decide that to use digital manipulation is cheating, give up, and let an idea pass, or B) Use Photoshop.
You're saying option B is cheating.
Well, first of all... it's only the program doing the work if you just click on a filter, sure, but what if you are genuinely skilled in photo-manipulation? Is that not just the same as manipulating the image in a darkroom? After all, would you call Ansel Adams a cheat, or unskilled? What, with the use of the zone system, N+/- development, printing techniques, paper and exposure manipulation.... NON of his prints are "real" or "honest". Look at his picture Moonrise Hernandez".. you think that's real??? Since when has the sky been black when the sun is shining? No.. it's not real... NON of his prints are real.. they're ALL manipulated.
Ok.. so back to the original scenario:
http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/charmbattle.jpg
That's cheating is it? If so, why? You tell me what Photoshop did to aid me photographically there. The only thing it did, was provide the impossible - 40 or so identical twins. I still had to shoot each individual image before I put them together. And... you talk of using photoshop as if it isn't a skill in itself!!! Can you TELL it's been made in photoshop? I'll post a hi-res version if you want, and i defy anyone to tell. Other than the fact that the women are identical, every shadow, every clump of sand kicked up by feet.. every angle.. perfect. All airbrushing is done by hand.. no filters used... How is that less skilled than if I did emulsion lifts or some other old school technique?
Photography is about the image you get at the end of it, not what you do to achieve it.
For example I am slowly beginning to realise the skill, care and pure expertise involved in taking really good photographs and I do not believe that it is a skill easily gained, indeed years of practice may still not produce a "skilled" phtographer.
I'm sorry, but learning to use a camera is easy.. photography ain't rocket science :lol: You could train a Chimp to take a sharp, well exposed photo. It's not about cameras, and technical things... these are an aside... it's about images.. it's about what you take a picture OF... not how you take it.
Conversely these modifying programs would only take around a month to master?
I'm sorry mate, but you're just wrong, and showing your naivity now. I've been using Photoshop since version 4, and I'm still learning every day. If you think you've "mastered" photoshop in a month, be prepared to get a right royal raping when you go out there and try to get a job that entails using it in any professional capacity. It takes years, or even decades to master Photoshop. If anyone tells you they're an expert, they're also a liar.
Also... at this point... I'd like to point out that I use Photoshop only when I can't do it any other way. If it's easier to do in camera, then it will be done in camera, and I can acheive effecst every bit as good, and fantastical as using PS.
http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/death.jpg
See that? All in camera... not even teh darkroom.. IN CAMERA. Don't believe me? Well.. tough.. you're welcome to see the negs... my contact details are on my website. It's a time exposure... the model sat still for 10 minutes!!! Lighting was just candles, and me walking around with a mag-lite. The red on the crucifix and and the "blood" is my light painting with a laser. The "ghost" in the background is also me. Why didn't I do that is PS?? Cos it would have been more difficult, that's why. Is what I've done here more skillful cos I did it old-school??? I think not.
The point being there are manuals and tutorials and given the required amount of time and dedication one could become a master of these and thereby produce "good" photographs from poor shots - basically involving no skill as a photographer but more as an expert of Photoshop. Conversely the same amount of time and effort will not necessarily produce a top quality photographer.
Rubbish... you can not make a good photograph from a bad one.. sorry. You can't fool me.. I can tell a desperate attempt to correct mistakes from 50 feet away, and anyone who knows what they're doing can as well.
Like I say this is only my UNEDUCATED opinion and this may change as I learn more. Feel free to educate me :P
Then why post inflammatory comments when you admit to not knowing what you're talking about? Photoshop is a tool.. just like a lens, or a meter, or... a camera. I could show you work that is heavily manipulated, and you'd never even know it. THAT'S when photoshop is well used. Not to rescue a shot, but to create the impossible.. because it CAN'T be done in camera. So.. what's wrong with that? After all, isn't creating imagery about giving vent to your imagination? What you suggest is that we curb that imagination, for fear of not earning the respect of photographer who feel it's somehow less skillful? Well.. usually, the type of photographer than thinks that, is usually rubbish anyway, and just photographs steam trains in his local camera club, so A) who cares, and B) you're a dinosaur if you feel that because out there in teh real world matey, no one uses film anymore, and everything you see has been through photoshop. You try and actually work in teh industry with your attitude, and you will simply be laughed at. You're out of date. Photoshop, whilst it CAN be used by skill free hacks to try and improve things, is now a firmly established tool of the trade and skill in it's use is ESSENTIAL if you ever want to work in this field. Those that have resisted, or refuse it, are now paying the price, panicking, or retiring... good riddance to them, as they're holding back progress.
If Ansel Adams was still alive, he'd be loving it, because in one of the last things he every wrote, he was very excited about the prospect of digital imaging... I wonder if you would have called him a cheat?
If you're interested, I wrote a dissertation on this subject - the subject of people thinking digital imaging is somehow a "Lesser" art.
If you're interested, or anyone else... there's a link to it below. It's a 2.5Mb word file ***, so not 56k friendly. However... read it MarkyG, and you'll realise, "There's no such thing as digital imaging"
It can be found here http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/dissertation.doc
And if you`re still awake after all that....respect! 8)
Still awake.
Edit: Just to say that I have a HUGE amount of respect for the people that have mastered these programs as I know they are hugely difficult to learn. It just seems to me they are two different areas of expertise and should be treated as such :?:
Wrong... they're not.. why make that distinction? It's all photography. take a look at my website at http://www.david-gregory.co.uk Everything you see on there, apart from the woman with the iron, the guy snorting the Pot noodle, and the woman in white in teh padded cell, plus the one I've already shown you.. the death one.. apart from those 4 images, everything is MASSIVELY manipulated... in fact.. the ones that are location shots.. aren't. The vulcan bomber one? The woman holding the crystal ball? How about the woman on the bench? Nope... not location shots. The models were in a studio against a white backdrop.. the locations were shot seperately. Cheating? No.. I still have to take all the same thiungs into account. I still have to match lighting, exposure, and understand the physics behind it. You think it's easy to shoot someone indoors then paste them into a shot outdoors? Try it... LOL. No.. it takes not only skill in Photoshop, but skill as a photographer, because in order to "cheat" at photography, you have to be a master of photography, just as someone who cheats at cards, is usually a master card player.
SOrry, but no time to spell check that, and besides.... as your opening line suggests, I, or my work, is not worthy of respect :lol:
How about putting your money where your mouth is? May we see your work?
I'm not angry at your comments, nor bothered by them, and welcome to the forum. It would just be interesting to see what you deem to be skilled work compared to what you consider unskilled... what you consider to be real photography vs. cheating.
Please read my paper... it's a bit weighty, but meticulously researched, unbiased, and honest. I used to feel the same as you until I researched the subject. It's now rare that I don't manipulate my images in some way... there's a reason for that: I've learned that when used properly, photoshop is just the 21st century darkroom, nothing more. Photographers have been "cheating" for over 150 years... but for some reason, you feel that cheating in a dark room with chemicals is more honest. I wonder why.
Seriously m8 get a grip. All throughout this thread I have never made any inflammatory comments merely stating my opinion as I see it. Rightly or wrongly those are my opinions. If this is the kind of gestapo response that every newbie gets to this forum then it`s not going to last long. I came here to try and learn about photography in all it`s mediums. Never once have I said I know what I am talking about.
"How about putting your money where your mouth is? May we see your work? "
Work? What work I don`t have any work. I`ve taken a few photos, none of which I deem to be particulary good or impressive as I am only just starting out.
I think your response is petty, full of it and bloody ignorant IMO. Going through the thread to pick up every single little thing I have said and then to go on and critisise me for it. Did you actually take anything from my posts? I AM NEW TO PHOTOGRAPHY. I KNOW VERY LITTLE EVEN NOTHING ABOUT IT. It`s called LEARNING!!
"Don't believe me? Well.. tough.. "
Good argument there :roll:
"Then why post inflammatory comments when you admit to not knowing what you're talking about"
Nothing I have said was meant to be inflammatory and no-one else who has responded to this thread has thought so. If I have upset anyone by my comments I apologise, that was not my intent.
"I used to feel the same as you until I researched the subject"
So what you`re saying is that when you were in my position you felt the same way, but now with all your experience this gives you the right to dismiss my comments? Have you read my sig? I suggest you do before making anymore insulting comments.
Just as an aside I have learned from your post and I intend to read the dissertation as it`s obvious that you have a great deal of expertise in this area. I would suggest trying to remember back to when you were in my position before making a reply that was both insulting and arrogant IMO.
Liberalis
22-02-2005, 17:19
so, is this the forums first scrap ?
http://home.no/femma/smilies/duel.gif
so, is this the forums first scrap ?
http://home.no/femma/smilies/duel.gif
hmmm could be....now the question is...shall i get the big red letters out, or ban them both, or delete the thread, or edit it heavily......or just say..
chill out guys, Pook was obviously piqued by something there, Markyg is going to read the dissertation and gain some knowledge from it. we are all here to learn and share, marky is more of a n00b then most of us, so lets not be too harsh on what is a valid question, Pook has raised some valid points in his reply also, though Harsh, he has put across another point of view!
anyway...
carry on, but no throwing things please [smilie=b:
Liberalis
22-02-2005, 18:20
Well said mate.
Well said mate.
well i have had a lot of practice!! [smilie=t:
Ah the age old discussion. The problem is that people don't realise what year it is. Its 2005, the Digital Age. People are still treating digital cameras like film cameras. Taking the shot, and then "developing" it by copying it to their PC. People are forgetting that a Photoshop like application is running on your camera to process the results. If I used my Canon A70 on sepia mode and did no other editing to it would that still be cheating? It has been digitally edited but on the camera. It just goes to show how the lines have blurred. Another example. Infrared photography. I put the IR filter on my 10D and take the shot. I get a red tinted picture. It then has to be "developed" in Photoshop by adjusting levels and swapping channels. The composition of the photo hasn't changed at all, only the colour of the entire image has. If you can adjust the aperature, ISO, shutter speed, white balance or metering to create the effect you want, then why not other things in Photoshop? Using RAW files you have no choice but to digitally edit them, so anyone with a decent SLR is "cheating".
I would also like to point out that learning Photoshop does not take a few months :) I've been using it for 6 years and still have lots to learn, just as I do with photography.
digitalfailure
22-02-2005, 20:47
I think mark has raises some important issues and his self confessed limited photographic experience highlights what a great many people STILL think about digital photography, just have a read through Ametuer photographer or one of the mags aimed at seasoned snappers. infact...... I was put off joining a foto club because of the old school attitude to the digital age.
I think by now Mark has also seen the more powerful side of image manipulation and i'm sure his opinion of "shopping" has been changed, with use i'm sure he'll begin to wonder how he ever managed without it.
I'm all for heated threads and healthy discussion on most topics, but they won't be allowed to decline into insults and public bickering, so lets all keep it real and maybe we'll all learn something new. :)
so, is this the forums first scrap ?
http://home.no/femma/smilies/duel.gif
Banning? Deleting? Wow.... I thought we were having a debate. None of us are going to move forward if we just become a bunch of yes men who just say nice thing sto each other all the time. My response was meant to provoke a debate..... not a fight. I'm sure the original poster's attitude is due to not fully realising what digital imaging is really about, and probably been brainwashed by Amateur Photographer, and other such third rate journalistic abortions that pretend to be photography magazines. The prevailing attitude to digital imaging in such publications is greatly damaging, and when you think about it, stupid: Digital camera sales FAR outstrip film cameras now. Until recently, this was only in the consumer market, but now it's in the professional market as well. NO one shoots film anymore, with the exception of architechture, who still use large format for the movements they offer, but even these are now starting to use digital backs on their Sinars and Linhoffs.
To suggest that Photoshop is somehow a negative thing, used to rescue bad shots, and championed by those of limited skills is as ridiculous as saying that using a computer to design a car is cheating, cos in the old days we had REAL designers, who used a pencil and a set of French curves!! It's called progress... the computer is a tool, nothing more. Whilst there will be a minority who use it to try and disguise a poor shot, the reality is, it ddoesn't work, and the only people they'll fool are people equally as inept.
Quite simply.. Digital imaging is here... and here to stay. It's popularity will continue to increase, and film will become a thing of the past. It is already becoming a thing of the past. Chemical darkroom work is almost non existent, and to highlight this, the only London lab that refused to go digital has now gone bust... Joe's Basement... there own fault for being an ostrich with it's head in teh sand.
People said these things about the demise of steam trains: It's the end of an era, and things will never be the same. Well, yes, it was an end of an era... so what?? You want to stay still forever, and never make progress?
To put it in it's simplest terms - if you deny the power of digital imaging, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. No one is going to think you're work is more pure, or skillful... in fact, the opposite. You'll just never be able to keep up. There will be things that you will simply not be able to acheive chemically. It's not that to do these things digitally is cheating, it;'s just that things previously thought of as impossible, or too problematical, are now accessible. This was true for when previous advances were introduced. WHen 35mm was introduced, the Old School possie were whining about it being a "toy" format, that will only be used by amateurs, and has no real use for professionals. I wonder if they had a nice side salad with their words?
Same thing... same argument. The future is here... embrace it, or become extinct.. your choice :lol:
I'm all for heated threads and healthy discussion on most topics, but they won't be allowed to decline into insults and public bickering, so lets all keep it real and maybe we'll all learn something new. :)
No one has insulted anyone, and no one is bickering. It's just about time we put this old debate to bed I think... it was valid 5 years ago.. just.. but it's just stupid for someone to still be decrying digital as some sort of lesser relation to "real" photography. Shall we enter into a debate as to whether the world is flat? It would be just as redundant. :lol:
Liberalis
22-02-2005, 23:40
On a lighter note, dont you just love these fella's ? LOL
http://home.no/femma/smilies/duel.gif
"chill out guys, Pook was obviously piqued by something there"
To be honest, yes... you're right. I was probably what you would call an "early adopter" into digital... and as a result, I've had to fight like a demon to gain acceptance in a world that until recently was very anti-digital. Only in the past handful of years has it become almost mainstream. It still irks me that newcomers to the hobby/profession are still being brainwashed by idiots like the talentless, small-minded fools who work for publications like AP. Mark's belief didn't just spring out of thin air.. it was put there by someone or something. Left to his own devices with no external input, he'd have probably just got on with it and assumed that digital imaging was the most natural thing on earth. All supposition on my part, granted, but I'd put money on it.
Why are people still so doggedly determined to hang on to the past, and do nothing but slag off anything digital as crap? Sometimes, I just want to shake these people, and shout at them... much teh same way I wish to do the same to people who buy Vauxhall Corsas... "Why?? Do you not see?".... well.. probably not.
Banning? Deleting? Wow.... I thought we were having a debate. None of us are going to move forward if we just become a bunch of yes men who just say nice thing sto each other all the time. My response was meant to provoke a debate..... not a fight.
We were having a debate and hopefully it will continue, however it is obvious that your direct posting style is completely different to Markyg’s. The only issue as I see it is that your response above is directed at Marks lack of experience rather than his point of view. That does not make his opinion any less valid or important, nor does it make it right.
Both of you are entitled to put across your views as others already have. Debating the issue civilly will not only be interesting but also mean a lot of useful information will get shared by everyone. Nobody here wants anyone to be a yes man and we like to encourage sharing of ideas, opinions and experiences.
Please remember that we are a new forum, we are finding our feet and our style, we will not single out or isolate any members. Every single member here has the same rights to their opinion regardless of their experience; we value beginners in the same light as experts and equally offer both a home.
One last thing to remember, it’s far easier to get people to understand and be open to your point of view if you don’t get their back up in the first place. ;)
Enjoy the forums and continue to share ideas and opinions..
Wow can of worms! Tbh I have never read a photography magazine, nor any articles on photography. My only experience with cameras prior to this was my mum's old crappy 35mm with a flash that worked about half the time. My interest really started on another website which has it`s own Photoshop section, I believe there are a few members of both forums on here as well. Seeing the images that were posted and viewing the results created by image manipulation really started to get me interested in photography. Alas MS paint was not sufficient to allow me ta partake in the competitions :D
I have to admit my opinion towards image manipuation tools has been changed quite dramatically purely from reading the repsonses in this thread - which at the end of the day was my original point. I`m here to learn and progress my knowledge using the forum. I suspect that I will be posting other questions that would probably seem quite simple to those with any experience in photography so I apolgise in advance if my views seem nieve, although case in point - they ARE!
Anyway onward and upward!
would that have been my Photoshop competition i ran marky? if it was, then im pleased that you were inspired, that was the idea!!!!
would that have been my Photoshop competition i ran marky? if it was, then im pleased that you were inspired, that was the idea!!!!
Twas indeed m8y!! Made a few attempts in Paint but not even worth looking at!!! :lol:
Twas indeed m8y!! Made a few attempts in Paint but not even worth looking at!!! :lol:
Did you see my post with the links for the free trials of PS, Elements and Paint Shop Pro or are you not on broadband?
I think all the experienced users of this forum will be able to help you along m8!
If you want to know how to do something, just ask! im sure that we all have different methods to reach teh final goal, we would all learn something if we all share our methods.
Twas indeed m8y!! Made a few attempts in Paint but not even worth looking at!!! :lol:
Did you see my post with the links for the free trials of PS, Elements and Paint Shop Pro or are you not on broadband?
I did indeed m8!! Not on broadband but I`m in the process of sorting something out so I can give it a shot!!
NB I revise my earlier opinion of taking a month to master!! 8)
Twas indeed m8y!! Made a few attempts in Paint but not even worth looking at!!! :lol:
Did you see my post with the links for the free trials of PS, Elements and Paint Shop Pro or are you not on broadband?
I did indeed m8!! Not on broadband but I`m in the process of sorting something out so I can give it a shot!!
NB I revise my earlier opinion of taking a month to master!! 8)
i think maybe Arkady was pming you on MEG? Has he done that?
I did indeed m8!! Not on broadband but I`m in the process of sorting something out so I can give it a shot!!
NB I revise my earlier opinion of taking a month to master!! 8)
Don’t forget that trials are very regularly included on Photography Magazine cover discs. If that’s not an option and you are still not sorted by the end of next weekend, drop me a PM with your details and I will download a couple of the trials and burn them to a CD for you.
There is no point dropping me a line before next Friday though as I am away from home for the whole of next week.
Hope that helps
Yeah Arkady PM'd me and is sorting me out!! Thanks for all the help people!! Much appreciated!
Yeah Arkady PM'd me and is sorting me out!! Thanks for all the help people!! Much appreciated!
Pm him and remind him we are here! [smilie=t:
Twas indeed m8y!! Made a few attempts in Paint but not even worth looking at!!! :lol:
Look out for trial versions of PS on magazines, and also, Photoshop LE is not to be sneezed at either. That is often given away with printers etc. Ask around your friends, colleagues etc.. I bet you someone, somewhere has a copy of LE that they've never bothered to use.
As for learning how to use PS, then I can recommend the "Photoshop for Photographers" series of books by Martin Evening. Well worth a read.
No substitue for getting in there and using it ***, and using a forum like this to ask for help. The tutorial section is coming along nicely, and I expect it will continue to grow as the forum does.
I'm sorry if you thought jy reply was personal... it's not as such. I'm glad you haven't been got at by the purist mob. The fact that your opinions are your own add more credence to them. However... take the time to really learn how to use the tools you now have at hand, and you'll see that it won't help you take better photos, now disguise your bad ones... but will just add more amunition to your photographic arsenal.. so to speak.
Twas indeed m8y!! Made a few attempts in Paint but not even worth looking at!!! :lol:
Look out for trial versions of PS on magazines, and also, Photoshop LE is not to be sneezed at either. That is often given away with printers etc. Ask around your friends, colleagues etc.. I bet you someone, somewhere has a copy of LE that they've never bothered to use.
As for learning how to use PS, then I can recommend the "Photoshop for Photographers" series of books by Martin Evening. Well worth a read.
No substitue for getting in there and using it ***, and using a forum like this to ask for help. The tutorial section is coming along nicely, and I expect it will continue to grow as the forum does.
I'm sorry if you thought jy reply was personal... it's not as such. I'm glad you haven't been got at by the purist mob. The fact that your opinions are your own add more credence to them. However... take the time to really learn how to use the tools you now have at hand, and you'll see that it won't help you take better photos, now disguise your bad ones... but will just add more amunition to your photographic arsenal.. so to speak.
I`ll check out those books cheers for the recommendation. Here to learn so all opinions and comments welcome!!
Thanks again all!
Here we go again.
As a professional in this field I have to say that there's a massive gulf between 'enhancing' images in Photoshop and 'manipulating' them.
In my work images I am required by law to declare any manipulation other than what we call 'normal darkroom practices' - take this to mean lightening/darkening (levels or curves), dodging and burning and basic colour correction (filters etc) plus a bit of sharpening to account for the anti-aliasing bypass filters - I leave mine off in-camera and do all sharpening in Photoshop.
The File info or image name must give an indication to this.
for example, RAW images are labelled (for example):
IMG_0001R.NEF
an enhanced image will be
IMG_0001E.tif/jpg
and a manipulated image will be
IMG_0001M.tif/jpg
People have been manipulating images for as long as there have been cameras - Nadar did it as did many of his contempories. Edward Steichen did it, so did Ed Weston and Bill Brandt.
As long as it's not the purpose to decieve the viewer there's no harm done. All the photographer is doing is making the most of the tools at his disposal to create the vision he/she had when first visualising the image.
News photography is the only exception and is vigorously policed - we all remember the Washington Post/NY Times photographer who was sacked for his manipulation of an image during the Gulf War (moving a background figure to present a more balanced composition - of two images the soldier in the forground had a better expression in his second image, but a civilian in the background was looking away - he cloned one to another and was fired when it was discovered, even though all figures were present in both images).
As regards all other forms of photography, it's a free-for all the only limitation should be your imagination.
Liberalis
24-02-2005, 17:56
An interesting and well exlained post Arkady, cheers
It's much the same for wildlife photographers now. As you said ***, manipulation is nothing new at all. It's the word "digital" that frightens people I think. Like I said in an earlier post, Ansel Adams did nothing but manipulate his images, and he gained a reputation for the ultimate realist, especially earlier on in his career when he and his contemporaries formed the f64 club and decried pictorialism.. despite this.. there is little real in his images.
Photographers in Soviet Russia were commissioned to alter the truth in political propaganda, knowing full well that people trusted photographs, so would believe whatever was printed using that medium.
No.. manipulation, as you say, is as old as photography itself... it's nothing new. I think people are worried that ANYONE could do this, but as we all know, it takes a skilled retoucher to REALLY fool people, and the average guy in the street hasn't a chance of fooling anyone other than his mates down the pub, who probably know as little as he does.
verosatus
10-03-2005, 06:33
I like straight photography that showcases a photographer's skill in creating the image before it hits paper or a computer monitor. However, there's nothing wrong with altering either a film exposure or a digitally stored set of bits representing what you aimed your lens at. It's all still photography but some of it is going to be more altered, manipulated, or corrected than others.
There's an article on a glamour photographer where he speaks of not wanting to use too much Photoshop to enhance his images, so he doesn't get a fake look to the models See article (http://www.thephotoplanet.com). But some digital airbrusing is certainly in use with any published work of this type. This instead of taking a piece of nylon hoisery over the lens or using some other softening trick "pre" process.
The point is that when you present your work for someone else to see, it should be represented as what it is. If it's a nice photography made with film and paper, say it is. If it's a nice photograph heavily altered in Photoshop, say it is. You'll get a reaction for the job you did. No one cheated or lied.
Photography, like any art, is only going to have its tools and techniques limited by self-imposed restrictions of wanting to achive a certain goal, using specific criteria. Sometimes a painter says, "I will only use oils for this" and sometimes he says, "I will use whatever comes to mind."[/url]
I don't see any difference between a photograph manipulated on paper or a photograph manipulated in a computer - look at Man Ray's images - all done on 'wet' process and minipulated so much you can sometimes barely make out what it started life as.
I think some people (verosatus - that's you I'm talking to here) need to get out and look at some more photographer's work before they start harping on about this 'purist' approach - it never happened - it's a bloody myth.
Go to the museums and galleries - it's all there waiting to be seen.
I don't see any difference between a photograph manipulated on paper or a photograph manipulated in a computer - look at Man Ray's images - all done on 'wet' process and minipulated so much you can sometimes barely make out what it started life as.
I think some people (verosatus - that's you I'm talking to here) need to get out and look at some more photographer's work before they start harping on about this 'purist' approach - it never happened - it's a bloody myth.
Go to the museums and galleries - it's all there waiting to be seen.
i agree 100% with what has been said above,
as for the ' straight photograph ' there is no such thing, as camera, lens, and film choice all start the ' editing ' process , and the only way to see a picture ( apart from slides i suppose , and even those are manupulated to a certain degree by the type and strength of chemicals used to process ) is to print on paper or put onto a computer monitor,
so by what ** saying these ' pure ' pictures would never see the light of day ???
i bet you dont think that autofocusing is cheating ?? or maybe you do ??
just accept images seen anywhere for what they are ment to be, images that either make you think, or dont,
i for one think this is the end of the aurgument regarding this matter, both sides have had a say, so its time more peeps concentrated on taking pics and showing em rather than talking about it
MyPix 8)
and in 2 hours i'm of to Australia for a month to take as many pictures as possible :P
I think you'll both find that verosatus didn't harp, he stated his preference and also made it clear that other ways were perfectly acceptable as well, but he also said that you should let the viewer know what's been done to an image so they know what they're looking at.
I'll repeat my view as well, I'm of the opinion that you do whatever it takes to make the image you want to make say what you want it to say.
St.P
No-one's accusing anyone of harping, but it's an often heard argument that only film and paper ('wet' process) constitutes 'proper' photography and that digital somehow isn't as 'worthy'.
It's just hackneyed and ill-educated and can be easily rectified by people opening their eyes to what's been done in the past.
I'm of the opinion that nothing is sacrosanct and all opinions are equally valid, but I just wish people would stop repeating stuff they've heard and form an opinion for themselves.
The litmus test is this: is it a good image - yes or no.
End of story since it's the image, not how it was arrived at that's important.
Do you think this is a new argument?
Dageurrotype versus calotype versus ambrotype versus wet collodion, it's all been said before - oh and photography versus painting? That one rages on still!
Let's leave it at this: do you take photos or do you make them?
The litmus test is this: is it a good image - yes or no.
End of story since
That pretty much sums it up, yes.
Why state whether it's a wet process image, or digital? Why make a distinction? Personally, I never put any details with my work at all. People who give you a list of aperture, shutter speed, lens used etc are just too obsessed with equipment. I can't even REMEMBER what I used.. does it matter? If I wanted to take teh same shot again, the numbers would be different anyway, so why bother writing them down, or downloading them?
It's all about the image... how you got there is completely irrelevant.
As a late entrant to this thread I'd like to add my 2 cents...
I think there are two ways to present an image/photograph - honestly or dishonestly. Honestly means it's been developed and processed either in a darkroom or with software to obtain an image that's not meant to deceive. That can mean that a photograph can be heavily manipulated, or not, just as long as no-one's in any doubt about what's been done. Dishonestly is when an image has been manipulated and presented as not having been.
As a late entrant to this thread I'd like to add my 2 cents...
I think there are two ways to present an image/photograph - honestly or dishonestly. Honestly means it's been developed and processed either in a darkroom or with software to obtain an image that's not meant to deceive. That can mean that a photograph can be heavily manipulated, or not, just as long as no-one's in any doubt about what's been done. Dishonestly is when an image has been manipulated and presented as not having been.
Either way its still an image though and one that has been captured, edited and made to be the best it can to follow the photographer's vision? Ther is no dishonesty there, just niavity.
LOL. I haven't read all the thread so forgive me if I'm repeating anything. These 'purist' arguments make me smile. Ansell Adams the American landscape photographer, who conceived the zone metering system to try to achieve perfection in his work, was as pedantic as it gets, but he still spent many many hours dodging, burning and manipulating various areas of his prints in the darkroom to achieve the results he wanted. The man is quite rightly revered as a landscape artist, but I'd bet my last cent that if he was still around today he'd be using Photoshop and loving it. Beethoven and Bach, I'm quite certain, would have a modern synthesiser, recognizing at once their potential for creativity.
Photoshop, PSP etc, are quite simply digital darkrooms, which now give the photographer a creative freedom he could never have dreamed of just a relatively few years ago. Whether you love or hate their work, there's no doubting that Cartier-Bresson, David Bailey and others possessed an ability given to few of us in being able to choose that 'decisive' moment and having the 'eye' to see the shot. I long ago reconciled myself to the fact that I don't have it, so I'll take all the help I can get.
It's the print we look at in the end, and many of those have hitherto owed as much to manipulation on the enlarger baseboard or in the developing tray, as they have to the photographer's choices at the time of capture. If you have a digital camera and you aren't getting to grips with one of the better photo editing packages, you are severely restricted in your ability to produce good work. You should certainly strive to produce the best pictures you can from your camera, but to consider them a finished work at that stage with the tools now at your disposal denies you a great deal of the creatvity and control now available, which is why you went digital inthe first place. :D
As a late entrant to this thread I'd like to add my 2 cents...
I think there are two ways to present an image/photograph - honestly or dishonestly. Honestly means it's been developed and processed either in a darkroom or with software to obtain an image that's not meant to deceive. That can mean that a photograph can be heavily manipulated, or not, just as long as no-one's in any doubt about what's been done. Dishonestly is when an image has been manipulated and presented as not having been.
I disagree. I often shoot the model in the studio, and then add a previously shot background. Why is this cheating? It's actually more difficult! I have to re-create whatever lighting was present at the time of shooting the background, and get everything to match.
I do this because it's cheaper than getting the model to travel to the location, which is often remote, or difficult to access. I would also have to pay to get the make-up artist and stylist there too. It's a financial reasonong, nothing more.
Is THIS cheating?
http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/greenhouse-crop.jpg
Just one of many of the images currently on my website that are a digital composite.
If if is cheating in your mind.. what for? It's just a girl lying on a bench... why would I bother to shoot her seperately from the background unless I had no choice? It's not deceiving anyone... it's not like I have tried to lie about shooting a captive animal in the wild or anything. Furthermore, what I've done there requires more skill than shooting it straight... not only in Photoshop, but in camera as well, as it requires a huge understanding of lighting for me to accurately re-create the lighting in the studio that EXACTLY matches the available light in the background. In what way would it be MORE skillful to just have her there at the time, and get her to lie on the bench? Don't you think if I had that option I would have done so? I promise you it would have been FIFTY times easier.
Cheating? Oh I think not. :o
I've found this a fascinating thread and have been keeping an eye on it as it's grown.
When I first started digital photography I was loathe to alter the picture in any way because I felt it reflected badly on my picture taking - if I needed to alter it then I was taking poor pictures, and all that. It didn't take me long to discover that PSP and the other photo tools really can help make even good pictures (not that I take very many of them, lol) that little bit better. I don't know the half of what PSP can do, and I'm certainly not in Pook's league, but I like having PSP and I wouldn't be scared of trying it out on photos, even just for fun.
As a late entrant to this thread I'd like to add my 2 cents...
I think there are two ways to present an image/photograph - honestly or dishonestly. Honestly means it's been developed and processed either in a darkroom or with software to obtain an image that's not meant to deceive. That can mean that a photograph can be heavily manipulated, or not, just as long as no-one's in any doubt about what's been done. Dishonestly is when an image has been manipulated and presented as not having been.
I disagree. I often shoot the model in the studio, and then add a previously shot background. Why is this cheating? It's actually more difficult! I have to re-create whatever lighting was present at the time of shooting the background, and get everything to match.
I do this because it's cheaper than getting the model to travel to the location, which is often remote, or difficult to access. I would also have to pay to get the make-up artist and stylist there too. It's a financial reasonong, nothing more.
Is THIS cheating?
http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/greenhouse-crop.jpg
Just one of many of the images currently on my website that are a digital composite.
If if is cheating in your mind.. what for? It's just a girl lying on a bench... why would I bother to shoot her seperately from the background unless I had no choice? It's not deceiving anyone... it's not like I have tried to lie about shooting a captive animal in the wild or anything. Furthermore, what I've done there requires more skill than shooting it straight... not only in Photoshop, but in camera as well, as it requires a huge understanding of lighting for me to accurately re-create the lighting in the studio that EXACTLY matches the available light in the background. In what way would it be MORE skillful to just have her there at the time, and get her to lie on the bench? Don't you think if I had that option I would have done so? I promise you it would have been FIFTY times easier.
Cheating? Oh I think not. :o
I think you've missed my point entirely :) - You've created an image - honestly. How you did that is irrelevant but to me that's an honest studio image. To my mind, a dishonest image is where the photographer/artist deliberately sets out to misrepresent the image - a good example is your own - photographing captive animals and then claiming the shoot was done in the wild. As my post said, "a photograph can be heavily manipulated, or not, just as long as no-one's in any doubt about what's been done" and in the case of your photograph, if you hadn't told me it was a studio composite, I don't think that I would have thought it was anything but. We all see hundreds of very cleverly manipulated images every day, in print or on screen and I don't think any of them are dishonest (other than those depicting food perhaps). What I don't like to see are images that are being presented as photographs which represent a real event or moment in time, that have significant features added or removed (such as a full moon).
I disagree. I often shoot the model in the studio, and then add a previously shot background. Why is this cheating? It's actually more difficult! I have to re-create whatever lighting was present at the time of shooting the background, and get everything to match.
I get this a lot with my restoration stuff.
Often it's a lot easier for me to shoot a new background for a badly damaged picture, than spend hours laboriously pushing pixels around trying to restore a background which is too far gone. Damaged hands, feet etc can often be cloned from other pics to save a valued family treasure which is near to disintegration, and which would otherwise be lost. I also get asked to remove people from photos or clone people in for a variety of reasons.
I recently was asked to remove a groom from his first wedding shot of the bride and groom and place him into his more recent 2nd wedding photo, because he liked tthe suit he was wearing in the first one! :shock: :lol:
It's never easy just dropping people into backgrounds, the direction and quality of light, not to mention grain structure, has to be the same in each shot, and even then it usually involves a lot of tedious work to make the finished result believable.
I think you've missed my point entirely :) - You've created an image - honestly. How you did that is irrelevant but to me that's an honest studio image. To my mind, a dishonest image is where the photographer/artist deliberately sets out to misrepresent the image - a good example is your own - photographing captive animals and then claiming the shoot was done in the wild. As my post said, "a photograph can be heavily manipulated, or not, just as long as no-one's in any doubt about what's been done" and in the case of your photograph, if you hadn't told me it was a studio composite, I don't think that I would have thought it was anything but. We all see hundreds of very cleverly manipulated images every day, in print or on screen and I don't think any of them are dishonest (other than those depicting food perhaps). What I don't like to see are images that are being presented as photographs which represent a real event or moment in time, that have significant features added or removed (such as a full moon).
Ok fair point.... and I do have a history of flying off the handle whenever this crops up. Fact is ***, there are people out there... LOTS of them, that still think that way. The fact is, things move on... we're all, almost exclusively digital now. With that comes the ability to do things that would otherwise be impossible, or at best, very troublesome. Sure, this can open up the floodgates for forgeries, and dishonest work, but when it comes to art, what's honest anyway? Ever seen a sunset as wonderful as those in a Monet painting? Nope.. me neither.. they don't exist. Do we call Monet a cheat? Do we buggery. Why are photographers who manipuilate cheats? Answer: They're not. They're just creating an image. SOmeone cited Mann Ray as an example earlier... and that pleased me, because what he did was not exactly "honest" either, nor was what Edward Weston did, and as I've said elsewhere in this thread.. Ansel Adams himself... the ultimate cheat! Still a damned fine photographer, and printer, despite the fact that all his images are more manipulated than mine are!! and THAT'S saying something.
The fact is, so long as all the hard work is done in camera, and your just joining things together, then it's hardly new.. it's called Photomontage, and it's been around as long as photography has. It's no more honest if you use pieces of paper and glue you know! :lol:
No one disputes that LYING in photo journalism and wildlife etc is wrong... of course it is.. but this has always been the case, not just now we're digital.
Art is art.. images are images.. and so long as the truth isn't important (news, reportage etc) then how honest an image is, is completely imaterial.
Too tired to spell check... just done a 12 hour day... shattered!
There was a photo on the front of one of the photo mags years ago, I think it was AP, of a silhouetted cheetah in a tree, standing over the also sihouetted body of a dead gazelle hanging from a branch. Behind the silhouette was one of those huge Moons which showed it had been shot through a very long tele lens, probably 1000mm or more. It was a very impressive and striking picture. When you actually considered the logistics of lining up that shot and the distances involved, not to mention getting the cheetah to arrive on cue with a dead gazelle, drag it into the tree and pose nicely, you wondered instantly about it's authenticity. I dismissed it as a montage, but one that had been rather well done.
The letters began of course questioning the shot, and eventually the author stated he'd nailed the gazelle up in the tree to bait the cheetah and that the shot was otherwise not manipulated in any way. I don't think he'd ever lied about the shot, he'd simply not been asked.
Was he cheating?
I love this shot, it's really well thought out.
http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/death.jpg
I'm a little intrigued by the bottle in the foreground. Did you light it separately towards the end of the exposure?
Was he cheating?
No - he had just carefully planned and executed a difficult set-up shot.
I love this shot, it's really well thought out.
I'm a little intrigued by the bottle in the foreground. Did you light it separately towards the end of the exposure?
If I remember, it was lit by waving a 3 cell maglite at it mid exposure... LOL Not very scientific, I know... but after a while, you get used to knowing how much light something needs during a ling exposure. Light meters are useless past a few seconds anyway, and as that was a 10 minute exposure (yes.. Maria, the model really DID stay ROCK still for 10 minutes) it was all a matter of experience, and of course, bracketing.. shooting C41 helped as well, as slide film would have been too much of a pain. The neg was slightly thin, but perfectly scannable.
LOL Logistical nightmare - but very satisfying to pull off a shot like that.
LOL Logistical nightmare - but very satisfying to pull off a shot like that.
Damned right... main light source.. A CANDLE... don;t come much more low-tech than THAT! :lol:
wow.
What a large and intresting post here!
Thanks all, there is a lot of different point of views, and this is great so we all can learn!
best regards
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.