Is this photography still?

Marcus Geezer · 14 Apr 2012

This year I've been working on my own 52 and have been dynamic about what to do week by week rather than set themes etc. My only rule is that every week it must be a push and to learn something new, whether it be a lighting technique, post processing technique, a different style of shot, anything different.

My 52 is contained here if you are at all interested....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21500730@N04/sets/72157628713958675/

After 14 weeks of some very intensive on-line research, paid on-line training, a two-day course, lots of hours playing with lighting, camera-work and photoshop time, I've taken my knowledge and expressed it in a progressive 14 images of which my current drive is to perfect different styles of composite work.

I've been applying the many different techniques learnt, some I've ditched as overly cumbersome or not in line with my style, and some images are possibly a tad over the top, but I'm happy that it is indeed a progression even if possibly the output doesn't meet everyone's taste.

My latest work has had a very fair comment which asks, is it still a photo. Thread here..... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4576215#post4576215

The question is it still photography? Should I forget C&C in the People and Portraits section and post in the Creative area, if at all?

joxby · 14 Apr 2012

Marcus Geezer said:
The question is it still photography?

Yes its still photography because it could not have been created without a photograph.
I think the question should be, is it still a photograph.
Imo, its not.

Marcus Geezer said:
Should I forget C&C in the People and Portraits section and post in the Creative area if at all?

Nope, its all about opinions, if you think its a photograph (and there will be plenty of peeps that think it is too), it fits anywhere..

onona · 15 Apr 2012

I think the more important issue you should be focusing on is not wondering how to classify your work, but rather working to improve it. The image you chose for your background has entirely different lighting and mood to your foreground subject. You can't just stick an element from a photo onto a totally random background - it's very disconcerting the way the background is lit from a completely different angle and at a totally different intensity to your subject. I work in film visual effects, and one of the most crucial stages of a VFX production is to ensure that the CGI models are lit to match the background plate. You need to do the same. I think if your subject matched your background better, you wouldn't really have to worry about the "is it photography." question, because your image wouldn't have that strange, unrealistic look to it in the first place.

Marcus Geezer · 15 Apr 2012

joxby said:
Yes its still photography because it could not have been created without a photograph.
I think the question should be, is it still a photograph.
Imo, its not.

Nope, its all about opinions, if you think its a photograph (and there will be plenty of peeps that think it is too), it fits anywhere..

Thanks and I share your opinion on this, and was wondering if others did too.

onona said:
I think the more important issue you should be focusing on is not wondering how to classify your work, but rather working to improve it. The image you chose for your background has entirely different lighting and mood to your foreground subject. You can't just stick an element from a photo onto a totally random background - it's very disconcerting the way the background is lit from a completely different angle and at a totally different intensity to your subject. I work in film visual effects, and one of the most crucial stages of a VFX production is to ensure that the CGI models are lit to match the background plate. You need to do the same. I think if your subject matched your background better, you wouldn't really have to worry about the "is it photography." question, because your image wouldn't have that strange, unrealistic look to it in the first place.

Completely agree with your post and my goal always is to improve, hence why I post images up for C&C. I'd have welcomed these comments in the C&C thread.

The more I try and blend composites the more I am in awe of the how part or full graphics in moving pictures achieve this goal, so if this is your line of work and you do it well then I take my hat off to you sir. This portrait was shot before the background was selected, but yes if I was to do it again, then I would have moved the lighting to match the background light sources reviewing lighting intensity as you say. A learning point to take away for future work. Thank you.

I've researched a lot of composite work, ranging from very basic work like mine, magazines, pro's and importantly lots of commercial work, and it has shown a real mix of styles and 'realistic' results. As an example of an incorrect light source I've seen some work produced by a pro and published in a pro photoshop magazine as a good example of a composite, and at first glance it looks seamless, but if you analyse the light source on the subject against the background its on the wrong side. A quick flip of the subject or background would have corrected, but that was the image and apparently used for advertising being highly complimented?

I think it goes to show that although we should always strive to perfect the blend and lighting, there are a lot of pro images around which do not hit this ideal?

Anyway, still photography. Yes I think, but just not very classic.

POAH · 15 Apr 2012

is it photography in my eyes, hell no - its a digitally created composite

Marcus Geezer said:
This year I've been working on my own 52 and have been dynamic about what to do week by week rather than set themes etc. My only rule is that every week it must be a push and to learn something new, whether it be a lighting technique, post processing technique, a different style of shot, anything different.

My 52 is contained here if you are at all interested....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21500730@N04/sets/72157628713958675/

After 14 weeks of some very intensive on-line research, paid on-line training, a two-day course, lots of hours playing with lighting, camera-work and photoshop time, I've taken my knowledge and expressed it in a progressive 14 images of which my current drive is to perfect different styles of composite work.

I've been applying the many different techniques learnt, some I've ditched as overly cumbersome or not in line with my style, and some images are possibly a tad over the top, but I'm happy that it is indeed a progression even if possibly the output doesn't meet everyone's taste.

My latest work has had a very fair comment which asks, is it still a photo. Thread here..... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4576215#post4576215

The question is it still photography? Should I forget C&C in the People and Portraits section and post in the Creative area, if at all?

Noah_ · 15 Apr 2012

Of course it's still photography, just not a "photograph", more a "photocomposite". Could be known as a photomontage aswell.

simonblue · 15 Apr 2012

POAH said:
is it photography in my eyes, hell no - its a digitally created composite

Would have to Adgreed

mrjames · 15 Apr 2012

Marcus Geezer said:
I think it goes to show that although we should always strive to perfect the blend and lighting, there are a lot of pro images around which do not hit this ideal?

think of it like knowing the rules before you have the freedom to break them, you have to have an english degree from cambridge before you can talk like 'Ali-G' and not sound like a fool

when you've been doing it professionally for a few years you'll just know how to break the rules a little

Marcus Geezer · 15 Apr 2012

mrjames said:
think of it like knowing the rules before you have the freedom to break them, you have to have an english degree from cambridge before you can talk like 'Ali-G' and not sound like a fool

when you've been doing it professionally for a few years you'll just know how to break the rules a little

Please define 'doing it professionally'.

onona · 15 Apr 2012

Marcus Geezer said:
The more I try and blend composites the more I am in awe of the how part or full graphics in moving pictures achieve this goal, so if this is your line of work and you do it well then I take my hat off to you sir. This portrait was shot before the background was selected, but yes if I was to do it again, then I would have moved the lighting to match the background light sources reviewing lighting intensity as you say. A learning point to take away for future work. Thank you.

Not sir, I'm a madam! But yeah, if you keep at this, you'll get better. All it takes is planning and practice. In my line of work, everything is planned down to the last detail, and when it comes to us doing our work, it's a long process of matching what was shot and then adding to it. It's not, as many people in the public seem to think, a matter of pushing a button that says ADD MONSTER or CREATE COOL EFFECTS. It takes months of work by large teams of people. So don't be too hard on yourself! Just plan your work, pick your background before shooting your subject, and then light it to match. Good luck!

onona · 15 Apr 2012

mrjames said:
when you've been doing it professionally for a few years you'll just know how to break the rules a little

You don't have to be getting paid to do something in order to master it.

Daryl · 15 Apr 2012

is it photography in my eyes, hell no - its a digitally created composite

Begining to think you would not know a good photograph if it came up and bites you in the arse. do you ev3r say anything positive? Can you see fuirther than than your nose? Thought not!

Free market you keep telling me.

think of it like knowing the rules before you have the freedom to break them, you have to have an english degree from cambridge before you can talk like 'Ali-G' and not sound like a fool

Marcus is a bloody good Photographer and knows what he is doing... Rules? you are kidding right?

Marcus Geezer · 15 Apr 2012

onona said:
Not sir, I'm a madam! But yeah, if you keep at this, you'll get better. All it takes is planning and practice. In my line of work, everything is planned down to the last detail, and when it comes to us doing our work, it's a long process of matching what was shot and then adding to it. It's not, as many people in the public seem to think, a matter of pushing a button that says ADD MONSTER or CREATE COOL EFFECTS. It takes months of work by large teams of people. So don't be too hard on yourself! Just plan your work, pick your background before shooting your subject, and then light it to match. Good luck!

First and foremost I would like to apologise about calling you a sir. Sorry! I've learnt a lot from your post and also I must commend you on your website (very informative) and your flickr work. And thanks.

onona said:
You don't have to be getting paid to do something in order to master it.

I'm not even sure I want to get involved in that kind of debate. My philosophy is.... everyday is a school day no matter how clever or experienced you think you are.

DemiLion · 15 Apr 2012

mrjames said:
think of it like knowing the rules before you have the freedom to break them, you have to have an english degree from cambridge before you can talk like 'Ali-G' and not sound like a fool

Or possibly even a History degree?

Ste Manns · 15 Apr 2012

Marcus,

I wouldn't worry about whether it's still photography or not. Fact is this sort of image is where it's at these days, everywhere you look you will see products, films, books etc advertised with images like this (look at Sky's website for a start) and those who can master it (you're well on your way in my opinion) will make a lot of money. So, my response to your question, really, is 'who cares, keep doing it!' If a purist comes along and criticises your work 'cos it's not a photo anymore' well just wave the wads of cash at them and say 'so what'...

Marcus Geezer · 15 Apr 2012

Ste Manns said:
Marcus,

I wouldn't worry about whether it's still photography or not. Fact is this sort of image is where it's at these days, everywhere you look you will see products, films, books etc advertised with images like this (look at Sky's website for a start) and those who can master it (you're well on your way in my opinion) will make a lot of money. So, my response to your question, really, is 'who cares, keep doing it!' If a purist comes along and criticises your work 'cos it's not a photo anymore' well just wave the wads of cash at them and say 'so what'...

My only worry is that I'm posting photo's on TP for C&C and they are not right for this forum, as based upon a few previous composites/heavy PP'd images which I think were at least ok I got very minimal comment. People seemed generally to love the archer image which is great, but future work may be anything from family/baby portraits to futuristic babes on a space station. I should feel free to post up anything on TP for C&C but can't help but feel some of my latest work isn't suitable?

DemiLion · 15 Apr 2012

Marcus Geezer said:
My only worry is that I'm posting photo's on TP for C&C and they are not right for this forum, as based upon a few previous composites/heavy PP'd images which I think were at least ok I got very minimal comment. People seemed generally to love the archer image which is great, but future work may be anything from family/baby portraits to futuristic babes on a space station. I should feel free to post up anything on TP for C&C but can't help but feel some of my latest work isn't suitable?

Surely that's exactly what the 'creative' section was set up fo?

As for babies on space stations, they're still[sic] portraits aren't they, no matter what the backdrop. If you've developed a talent for a particular area of photography, then go for it!