How far do you go?

TerryO

TerryO

Messages
163
Name
Terence
Edit My Images
Yes
Was wondering how far any of you would go in the post processing with digital software.
In addition to my photography, I paint in oils and acrylics, have been using my art ideas in my photography for a while and what I tend to call, 'slashing n gashing' images. basically cutting bits out of images and combining them all together to make a new one.
A couple of examples...




The Comfort of Dreams lll by terryodee, on Flickr

Is it still photography?
 
Last edited:
No images to see I'm afraid.
 
Sorry but I never click on this type of link, just because of previous bad experiences, you have mentioned that these are on flickr so if you follow these instructions showing below this will allow you to post your images in thread (y)


Flickr Insert Image on Forum by mwhcvt, on Flickr

Try and post a minimum of 500px wide images as any smaller and it's not really possible to give valid C&C on a image if it's smaller

Matt
MWHCVT
 
I like the 2 images you have created, looks like a lot of work went into them - as to your question about whether it is photography I'm not sure..probably more art than photography but thats just how I see it.
 
PetethePrimate said:
... - as to your question about whether it is photography I'm not sure..probably more art than photography but thats just how I see it.
Click to expand...

I think that imagry in all its forms is a very personal thing. Not only to the creator of an image but to the individual viewer as well.
When I was at college, more years ago than I care to remember, a tutor said to me on my first day...
"Always remember the rules of art.
First rule.. look and see
Second rule.. there are no rules

As for art, photography is totally subjective. One see's apicture and instantly knows if you like it or loathe it.
I guess the biggest question is... Is photography an art form or simply a recorder of time?
 
MWHCVT said:
Sorry but I never click on this type of link, just because of previous bad experiences, you have mentioned that these are on flickr so if you follow these instructions showing below this will allow you to post your images in thread (y)


Flickr Insert Image on Forum by mwhcvt, on Flickr

Try and post a minimum of 500px wide images as any smaller and it's not really possible to give valid C&C on a image if it's smaller

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...
One thing wrong with this way is you got no EXIF need the URL of original I resize al my flickr pic to max 21024 so I can do it this way.
 
IMO, no it's not photography - it may be using photography to make art, but it's not photography. That's not to say that they aren't interesting, even clever ... but no, not photography.
 
I really like these (y) it's clear that a lot of work has gone into these :clap: but I see these more as digital art, if you've taken all the photographs that make up the image (y) great work :D but certainly I see this as more mainstream art than photography, but I also see photography as an art form in it's own right :D

Chaz Photos said:
One thing wrong with this way is you got no EXIF need the URL of original I resize al my flickr pic to max 21024 so I can do it this way.
Click to expand...

Indeed your right but the exif is still available if intact in to clicks :LOL: this is really designed only to help people having issues getting there images to show obviously the more experienced people have on the forum they will learn other things/ways to do things (y)

Matt
MWHCVT
 
MWHCVT said:
if you've taken all the photographs that make up the imageMWHCVT
Click to expand...
Yes I did, thanks for the compliment:)


MWHCVT said:
I also see photography as an art form in it's own right Matt MWHCVT
Click to expand...

Then, surely as an art form in its own right, we can take the manipulation of images to any extreme, even to the point of 'slash and gash' as I call it? In my case, I do take all the original images then combine them to produce another, as the the 'photog' creating the originals and the combined derivitives, can I call them a 'photo', and then by default, the process of producing them photography? As this is how and what they are made of.
 
Hi Terry,

Not quite sure where these sit on the line between photography and digital art, but TBH I'm not sure that it really matters what you call them.
It's clear that a lot of time and effort has been put into both pieces and the end results are very impressive. I also paint, but although I've created some photo composites I've never really combined painting and photography together - You've certainly given me food for thought for something new to try in the cold dark evenings.

The first one is fascinating in terms of content and you've got a good balance in the composition. However, I can't help thinking that it would benefit from a title to give it some meaning and TBH it's just (and only just) missing the mark for me as an overall image.
It still feels a bit too much like a composite of several different things rather than a cohesive whole.

I think my issue is the lighting. I can tell from the highlights on the composite pieces and the direction of the shadows that they're supposed to be illuminated by the moon . . . however, the moon doesn't appear to be giving any illumination to the hands (which would surely be positively glowing if the moon was bright enough to cast those sort of shadows)
Without that glow to give some context to the direction of lighting, the multi directional shadows just look a little odd and forced if you know what I mean.


The second one on the other hand is absolutely superb :clap:
I really cannot fault that in any way.
Inspired by Escher perhaps?
 
Hi Sarah
thanks for taking the time to give your thoughts. Escher is most definitely a big influence as is Dali. Among a host of other photographers and artists old and new that drive me insane with envy at their ability to see and do!!!

Lighting has and continues to be a real poser for me in this type of image. Particularly with instances when the moon is the light source and in close proximity to another object, in this instance, the hands, something I keep experimenting with and keep failing with.:bonk:

I too am of the opinion that what they are called in terms of photography or art is of little consequence, I used the two examples in extremous really.

In general terms, the kick start for my question, how far do you go? Is the increased use of photo-manipulation software when processing image files. A lot of us on here were raised on film and the need to get it right in the camera. Since the advent of digital, and I do it myself, we can rattle off fifty frames and not only pick and choose but then wind them through, photoshop for example, and produce a 'masterpiece' and it is still called a photograph.
BUT, is it still a photograph in terms of how much did the camera do and how much did the creator do in terms of post production, so, the question, How far do you go before the line is crossed between photography and art?
 
I hope you keep persevering with the lighting poser - I'd love to see the results when you manage to get it spot on.

As for the original question, I still don't know the answer.
If the images are composed of photographs then I'd still classify it as photography, but is the end product a photograph? Perhaps "photographic art" is a better definition.

I think the lines have always been blurred here. If we accept the camera obscura as the origin of photography, then it was originally utilised as an artist's aid. I wonder if purist painters looked down on artists using it as an aid in the same way that some purist photographers look down on digital manipulation today.

There's currently a thread running on this very subject if you haven't seen it yet.
 
yep that oversteps the photography boundary...........in my opinion.....

funnily enough i started a "debate" in OOF yesterday on "Can a photograph stop becoming a photograph?" - why not go and join in.

However, what you have done in the second one is quite nice, and i would love to know how you created the peeled head look. Wanna share the secrets?
 
Excellent work there Terry.
Ticks my boxes.
Like first best.
Think the cello (?) is a little close to the edge and not too keen on the faded head / eyes bit in bg and think it would be better without it.

2nd I have the same thought - feel just the cloud in bg would work better... but hell, what do I know :thinking:
 
Hi Terry, very creative images, im no expert, the second appeals more to me, too many components in the first for my taste. But thanks for sharing these, great post.
 
SarahLee said:
If we accept the camera obscura as the origin of photography, then it was originally utilised as an artist's aid. I wonder if purist painters looked down on artists using it as an aid in the same way that some purist photographers look down on digital manipulation today.
Click to expand...
When I was at college in the seventies a tale of two tutors...
Tutor 'A' was in his sixties, brilliant landscape painter but held in complete comtempt tutor 'B'. Young Miss Trendy Portrait painter who used a projector to outline the images on her canvas. So I guess we can assume that yes, the camera obscura users were viewed in a similar 'downward' aspect!

'Photographic art' is a comfortable balance perhaps. Am going to wander over to the thread you have highlighted with interest:)
 
Lynton said:
yep that oversteps the photography boundary...........in my opinion.....
Click to expand...
Hi Lynton, I think the last words above are the swinger here, "in my opinion" as that goes straight in to the subjective/objective nature of all imagry, be it photography or painting

Lynton said:
funnily enough i started a "debate" in OOF yesterday on "Can a photograph stop becoming a photograph?" - why not go and join in......
Click to expand...
Will be visiting shortly:D
Lynton said:
However, what you have done in the second one is quite nice, and i would love to know how you created the peeled head look. Wanna share the secrets?
Click to expand...
As for how I did the 'peeled head, I will PM you in the next twentyfour hours with the detail and, hopefully, I can upload some of the brokendown image to let you see it. Took me blooming days to get it from my 'ideas department' in to a real image, the next door cat almost bought it with the frustration too:bang:
 
Cuddy said:
Hi Terry, very creative images, im no expert, the second appeals more to me, too many components in the first for my taste. But thanks for sharing these, great post.
Click to expand...

Thank you Cuddy, I have done a few of these now all with varying numbers of objects in which have met with some interesting responses on my website. My personal favourite to date is one containing nothing but my head being held in my hand with a plain but gradient backdrop. So, though I do 'clutter' some of them, I do prefer the simpler ones myself :wacky:
 
Rockshifter said:
Excellent work there Terry.
Ticks my boxes.
Like first best.
Think the cello (?) is a little close to the edge and not too keen on the faded head / eyes bit in bg and think it would be better without it.

2nd I have the same thought - feel just the cloud in bg would work better... but hell, what do I know :thinking:
Click to expand...

Thank you Rockshifter, the idea of the 'instrument' against the very edge was to try and give the impression it was 'leaning in the corner', sadly, I think I failed with that pitifully :crying:
 
This is a fabulous thread with a great couple of images and valuable comments about where the line isndrawn between photography and digital art. Can't wait to get back to school to direct my students to this as it gets to the heart of the debate we are often having. Would you be OK with me sharing this with them?

As for me, I really like the images. I think they are kind of Magritte?esque and show some real talent in digital imaging.

Cheers

Spooks
 
I really like both images....but then I'm a big fan of surrealism in art generally.

As far as I'm concerned, yes it is art,and yes it is still photography. The media you used was photographic, the raw materials beign the images used were all photographs. Just because the final image does not reflect reality doesn't mean it was not achieved photographically.

that would almost be the same as comparing the art of one of the old masters such a Turner with his very realistic landscapes with a cubist image or abstract by Picasso, Miro or Mondrian and saying "Is it still painting?"

To me photography is just a tool to achieve an end result.
 
Spooky said:
This is a fabulous thread with a great couple of images and valuable comments about where the line is drawn between photography and digital art.
Click to expand...

Hi Spooky, (love the name by the way) thank you for the complements, very much appreciated. I think it is a debate that will run and run in many arenas. There is another thread running on a similar theme to which I added the below comment, which also has a place here me thinks although I guess the two themes are converging.
"What is it you set out with in your mind that a photograph YOU take is intended to be?
Meaning, do you pick up your camera to simply record a particular scene, ie, landscape, cityscape, or just a face in a protrait?
Or do you set out to capture a beautiful landscape to produce a piece of 'fine art photography?
Do you pose your sitter a step or two beyond a standard 'head and shoulders' shot?
If you want to use your camera as a recorder of time and place, simple photography in my view.
If you want to produce fine art photography then it is indeed, fine art and what you do to it in PP is a reasonable part of the image production process.
At its heart, it is a photograph and can not, surely, be given another name simply because the creator/owner, the photographer/artist chose to alter it to achieve their goal after the shutter has closed?"

I also think as time passes, the debate will vanish from 'photography' as technology develops, so will the acceptance of manipulation, as even now, some cameras have in-built image manipulation in varying degrees, image sharpening, white balance, image stablization (okay that is mainly lenses), maybe in the future it will even incorporate elements akin to photoshop?

Spooky said:
Can't wait to get back to school to direct my students to this as it gets to the heart of the debate we are often having. Would you be OK with me sharing this with them?
Click to expand...

Yes, share with whom you see appropriate spooky. Wish I could hear some of the debating too! No, not a hint for an invite, wrong country!!
 
CrazyJay said:
As far as I'm concerned, yes it is art,and yes it is still photography. The media you used was photographic, the raw materials beign the images used were all photographs. Just because the final image does not reflect reality doesn't mean it was not achieved photographically.
To me photography is just a tool to achieve an end result.
Click to expand...

Hi CrazyJay, very well put view point and I am in total agreement with your point of view. Thank you for liking my work too.
 
Not surprised this has provoked some controversy!! I like a heated debate.

I agree generally that it's not photography (or should I say, photography as we know it?!), however I like what you've done with number 2. I can't say I quite get the meaning behind number 1...
 
teddyt72 said:
I agree generally that it's not photography (or should I say, photography as we know it?)
Click to expand...

Photography as we know it is the essence of it all me thinks. When I started out it was film only.
When my father started out, it was film and only black & white film.
I didn't get my first digital camera until 2001, I couldn;t come to terms with such a dramatic change in the way we capture images, in fact, I only got one AFTER my old dad bought one!! Wow, he is in his eighties now and was far more forward thinking than me.
Only two years ago, I was telling a trainee that, 'you have to get it right with the camera, post processing was not an option'.
I still believe it has to be got right with the camera, still believe one should take time to consider the shot, the angle, the light etc, etc. However, post processing has a place. as said previously, it is what the image creator wants to achieve that is key, the above images are constructed with my own photographs, I combined them from multiple photos to make a single... what would you call it?
 
SarahLee said:
I think my issue is the lighting. I can tell from the highlights on the composite pieces and the direction of the shadows that they're supposed to be illuminated by the moon . . . however, the moon doesn't appear to be giving any illumination to the hands (which would surely be positively glowing if the moon was bright enough to cast those sort of shadows)
Without that glow to give some context to the direction of lighting, the multi directional shadows just look a little odd and forced if you know what I mean.
QUOTE]

Have taken on-board your observation and had a 'tinker' with the lighting on the hands. If I take it any further than this, it tends to fuse the hands and moon together.

6291364691_9cbb4887b4.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top