advanced photo editing kills the art in some ways

01/09/2005 10:00:14 PM · #76

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by coolhar:

ursala- would you call that one natural? And if so, please help us by sharing your thoughts on the definition.

Do you mean, do I call "Fantasia" natural? I don't know. If I understand what you're saying, a "natural" picture for you is something that could be seen by the eye? And, since Fantasia is a time exposure, it wouldn't work for that definition, right?

Right.

Originally posted by ursala:

I guess I don't think about pictures in that way. I don't think of them as natural or not, and even though I try to think about the idea behind a picture, the emotion that goes with the picture, usually I just enjoy them for their sense of beauty. Does that make sense to you?

Makes perfect sense. Isn't everybody's very first impression to any photo either "I like this" or "I don't like this"; then you look a little more and think about things like "it's well done even if it uses a technique I don't care for too much".

Originally posted by ursala:

If I were forced to define "natural picture" what comes to mind is people and NeatImage. And here I'm doing a reverse definition by saying what I think a "natural picture" is not. A young, beautiful girl with her skin all plastified from NI would be "not natural". Sort of like Kosmik's example,

This, on the other hand, would be "natural" to me (even though it is a relatively long exposure, and has movement):

But, as I started out saying, that is NOT the way I think about pictures.

Hope this helps :)

Kozmik probably didn't intend his to look real natural, and he acheived his intention. To me, Shelter is natural but made to look less natural for effect.

Kylie

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

01/09/2005 10:00:31 PM · #77

Originally posted by Alecia:

Originally posted by coolhar:

Alecia- to me, whether an outcome can be produced from film isn't very important in determining it's definition, or it's value. Just as the woman in the show was ignorant of what you could do with your digicam I am ignorant about film. Sorry, but I just don't know much about film.

i mentioned film specifically because you said *digital art and eye candy* in the same sentence. i assumed that you meant if it wasn't digital, then you must mean film--and i was speaking of in-camera techniques v/s editing of any sort. i suppose i see where you are coming from in the naturalist point of view, but i also find that a bit confining...limiting our world to what is literally right in front of our faces, and giving no credit to the infinite possibilities of imagination. and anyway, just because you can't specifically see it, doesn't mean it isn't real--they did eventually figure out that crazy idea that the world isn't flat, afterall. ;)

The personal fine line I find myself walking is that there are two real areas of exploration: The "natural world and its light" to learn to photograph, and the endless possibilities of what can be "created". I think (sorry if I am dead wrong on this) Coolhar and I are both wanting to devote our learning curve and passion at the moment to photographing the "real" world and what we can do with that. I love the digital art created by the great minds here, but it isn't what I am trying to evolve my skills as much right now. There is no right or wrong, but maybe just the need to acknowledge that there are TWO pursuits, equally valid, but not always the same. I know that editing is REQUIRED to some degree to bring out the image, but after that, you have so many choices and preferences.

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

01/09/2005 10:16:16 PM · #78

Originally posted by Kylie:

hm, maybe i got off track with my last post? i should wait until i can just sit down--i'm terrible at multitasking. :) my entire point to coolhar was that gordon's fantasia was completely not digital art--so it isn't a point of trying to evolve skills in digital art, but rather trying to accomplish with your camera, what you see in your mind. but i do understand what you mean about wanting to photograph only what you can physically see. nothing remotely wrong with that at all. :)

Kylie

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

01/09/2005 10:21:39 PM · #79

No, Alecia, it is probably me not communicating very well, trying to do too many things at the same time! I am not commenring on any specific image, but more just my take on the whole idea and what my particular issue or struggle is.

01/09/2005 10:36:58 PM · #80

I think perhaps if you replace the word 'natural' with 'literal' then that might start making more sense. It also then excludes a huge amount of fairly standard aspects of photography - telephoto lenses, wide angle lenses, any shutter speed other than 1/60s or so, any other aperture than about f5.6, no macro, nothing with adjusted saturation.

I can certainly see how some people might want to just shoot things like that, but it doesn't have much to do with it being 'digital art' or not. Its just a fairly restricted subset of photographic technique. Nor does it have much to do with photoshop being used or not. My confusion stems from the idea that the advanced rules promote or encourage this sort of photography, as all of the examples given are standard camera technique. To me at least, digital art describes something that never existed in front of a camera and is created artifically in a computer - which we seem to have stopped talking about about a page ago.

As to if Fantasia was natural or not - I saw it well before I took it. It was all in front of the lens while the shutter was open. In much the same way, the neon zoom shot was all in front of the lens while the shutter was open. They were both recorded by the sensor.

I do take issue with the idea that a camera ever sees like an eye does. They simply don't.

Message edited by author 2005-01-09 22:58:47.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

01/09/2005 10:40:55 PM · #81

I think we are all three on the same wavelenght but having trouble finding words that we all understand the same way.

Photography has two genres to it, the utilitarian (which records what we see) and the artistic (which gives an outlet for creativity and imagination). I really like what I see in nature, in people, everywhere I look; and want to be able to record it in a technically competent fashion to show others what I like so much. When I feel I can do that consistently I may want to add a little artistic flair, or "my own style", to my shots. Right now my two areas of concentration are wildlife and sports (pretty mundane for beginning photographers) so I'm definitely working in the utilitarian, and could be criticised as not being very creative, lacking imagination. I sometimes dabble at what I call digital art, and sometimes people praise what I do there, but it just doesn't appeal to my tastes. It's not as much fun for me.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me about things that come down to taste. I have never been very sympathetic when I see praise showered upon people for accomplishments which I think I, (or most people for that matter) could have done equally well, or better, if I had wanted to do that. And that's not just in photography. Exceptions go to the young who achieve beyond their years; and to people who overcome some form of handicap be it physical or cultural. However there are many non-utilitarian images that I really like. I admire (and thank) the photographers that create them.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 00:29:27.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

01/09/2005 10:48:14 PM · #82

I don't really see though why it is necessary to "label" things, especially when these labels tend to be "0/1" or "utilitarian/artistic" or "literal/not so". Most things are just not that easily divided in these either/or groups. And I don't know why you would want to do that. It seems to me that life is so much more fun if you don't put so many labels on stuff.

But maybe that thought is just product of being tired after another long day. What do I know.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

01/09/2005 11:04:58 PM · #83

Originally posted by Gordon:

I think perhaps if you replace the word 'natural' with 'literal' then that might start making more sense. It also then excludes a huge amount of fairly standard aspects of photography - telephoto lenses, wide angle lenses, any shutter speed other than 1/60s or so, any other aperture than about f5.6, no macro, nothing with adjusted saturation.

I can certainly see how some people might want to just shoot things like that, but it doesn't have much to do with it being 'digital art' or not. Its just a fairly restricted subset of photographic technique. Nor does it have much to do with photoshop being used or not. After all your camera does the equivalent of levels, curves, colour and sharpening too.

As to if Fantasia was natural or not - I saw it well before I took it. It was all in front of the lens while the shutter was open. In much the same way, the neon zoom shot was all in front of the lens while the shutter was open. They were both recorded by the sensor.

I do take issue with the idea that a camera ever sees like an eye does. They simply don't.

You need to stop trying to apply your definitions to other people's ideas. I am not thinking literal, and I am not thinking about a restricted subset of techniques. My natural includes a lot more than your literal and is not nearly as limited. And I didn't say that sensors see like eyes. What gave you that idea?

You may have had a vision in your head of what you wanted to put into your image but yours eyes did not see it as it came out, unless of course you are the one taking drugs. We are talking about a still picture here, one frame, not a video clip. Could a person standing next to you have seen it like you thought you did? No.

blemt

Nikon D70

01/09/2005 11:10:35 PM · #84

Harvey- can you help us out a bit with some examples of what you call "natural".

Clara

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

01/09/2005 11:21:17 PM · #85

Originally posted by ursula:

I agree completely. I was trying to allude to that fact earlier as well. We have such a tendency to take an either/or approach to subjects when it isn't necessary. However, at some point I feel a photograph should be categorized when it is displayed for the public but this categorization should be done by the photographer because they know more then anyone else the intent and details of their photo. If it is obvious that the photo is about abstraction or overly emphasizing a particular aspect then it is fair to categorize it by others as creative art. Then there are the photojournalistic photos that do need to adhere to a set of standards and how they are edited is extremely important. I label just about everything else simple as photography whether it is digital or film-based and it has little to do with how it was edited.

One of the reasons I will boost color and contrast as well as many other adjustments is to help the photo achieve the impact that it had on me when I was seeing the scene in person. I think it is an acceptable method that many photographers use to help compensate for the differences between real life and a 2 dimensional image. So to me a photo can be saturated and enhanced to some degee and still feel very natural.

T

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/09/2005 11:33:42 PM · #86

Originally posted by blemt:

Harvey- can you help us out a bit with some examples of what you call "natural".

Clara

This may sound a little vain, but almost everything in my portfolio would fit my definition of natural. I'd love to hear your opinion, and your definition. Or else could someone besides me say what they think the originator of this thread meant by natural the way it is used in the first post. I'm interested in hearing how you took his intent there.

nsbca7

01/09/2005 11:39:54 PM · #87

If natural is being what a person sees when they are looking at something, and I will assume you don't include what animals see as being natural, because I would hate to imagine what the world looks like through the eyes of a chemeleon, then I would think that any type of photography was out of the question as being natural.

Film, digital, B&W, color, edited, unedited, wide angle, tele, PS, it doesn't matter, they are all a distortion to a lesser or greater extent of what the human eye sees. Who is to be the judge of what is natural and what is not.

Is the image pleasing to the eye or is it not. That should be the only two schools. Some of you all sound like some of the people who swear digital is for snapshots and and film is for artists.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2005 11:57:19 PM · #88

At the extreme, if you're going to work on defining what's "natural", you really need to eliminate wide-angle and telephoto lenses from your arsenal. Ditto extreme macro. Just a thought...

Robt.

01/10/2005 12:22:33 AM · #89

I'd say a very wide angle that distorts, like a fisheye, would not fit my definition of a natural.

01/10/2005 12:23:52 AM · #90

Originally posted by coolhar:

Well, to quote you from earlier:

By natural, I tend to mean that which tries to achieve a reproduction of what was in front of the lens at the time the shutter was opened. What the photographer's eye saw.

So to me - I'm still hearing you say that it is a natural photograph if it is what you can see with your eye. So that's nothing high speed, like most sports photography. After all - long exposures are out, so it would seem clear that very short exposures are out too. If I'm wrong, feel free to explain what the difference is between the two.

Nor is it anything with a telephoto lens, unless you've got a zoom built in. I can't see the majority of wild life shots that I take with a long lens - and I certainly don't see life compressed the way a telephoto does. Nor do I see with a wide angle lens - in fact I find that one of the hardest aspects of wide angle composition - I just don't see that way - I have to look through the lens and have it distort reality enough that I can compose.

Now, if you just mean 'things you see when you look through a lens' then I can zoom and pan while looking through the lens - so I still find your boundaries rather undefined and still nothing whatsoever to do with 'digital art'

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 00:25:06.

01/10/2005 12:25:38 AM · #91

Originally posted by coolhar:

I'd say a very wide angle that distorts, like a fisheye, would not fit my definition of a natural.

does the same go for a telephoto that distorts too ? How would the 500mm chickadee photo (which is very nice example of its kind) fit a definition of something you could see, or the person standing beside you see ? Sure you could see that way looking through a lens, but it isn't something you would naturally see otherwise - same with a wide angle.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 00:27:34.

01/10/2005 12:46:54 AM · #92

No Gordon, to say that the telephoto (chikadee) didn't fit my definition would be a distoration. I couldn't see it like that with my naked eye, but Ted Williams might have been able to. But when it is magnified for me it looks the same, relatively, as if I had been a lot closer to it. That isn't so with the fisheyed wide angle shot.

I don't claim that to be a great shot, I put it up kind of quickly to illiutrate bokeh, and to show how clear the lens can be under the right conditions. Actually it is one of my less natural shots in a way because I cloned in an element absent in the original. It's eye was a blank black space and I added the catchlight from another shot taken at the same time. Blow it up and you'll see it isn't that great of a clone job, more time or better skills could have made it look better.

01/10/2005 12:48:45 AM · #93

Originally posted by coolhar:

But when it is magnified for me it looks the same, relatively, as if I had been a lot closer to it.

See that's the problem I have - it wouldn't. Telephoto lenses, just like a wide angle, distort. One of the reasons to use a telephoto, rather than move closer, is the way they compress a scene and also the impact the lens has on depth of field. If you shot that bird from a couple of inches away, with a 50mm lens, you wouldn't be able to get the same shot.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

01/10/2005 01:14:42 AM · #94

Originally posted by Gordon:

Long exposures where something changes over time are not in my definition, but long exposures of static subjects (night shots) are ok. So are the fast shutter speed shots of sports action because what they show was actually there for that instant.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Now, if you just mean 'things you see when you look through a lens' then I can zoom and pan while looking through the lens - so I still find your boundaries rather undefined and still nothing whatsoever to do with 'digital art'

I don't think that is what I said, only when you look thru a lens. Pan for motion blurred bg would be borderline. Zoom would be out, I've never seen anything like that with my eyes, lens or not.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 01:39:13.

blemt

Nikon D70

01/10/2005 07:15:50 AM · #95

So by your definition any image up to say....1929 (give or take a bit) is not natural. Buy that I mean those images were typically taken using long exposures, resulted in soft, grainy images, and showed serious ghosting if someone sneezed. And let's not even start on the whole "world is not black and white" argument. ;)

Again, this isn't an attempt to be belligerant, this is me trying to gain a better understanding.

I can understand the initial concept. There is a very good point being made in pro circles that digital gives people too many options not to take the right shot the first time, then they go back and fix it later. The ability to shoot in RAW and go back and tweak your white balance later is no excuse for not knowing how to set it correctly in the first place. Same with understanding exposure.

Being able to undo some of the damage in PS is no excuse for not doing it right in the first place. At the same time, part of photography is showing others what you saw. Not a single human on the planet sees the same way others do. The challenge is in showing them what you see.

I'll actually be very interested to see how your view on this changes with the addition of the 20D to your shooting list.

Clara

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/10/2005 09:36:01 AM · #96

I was of the mind that over-digital editing and "digital art" kills the photographic "art." But now I think that opinion is small minded. The art of painting was not "ruined" by picasoo, dali, pollock or warhol, not too mention many more, just because there was a shift from classical realism or representationalism. Who wants an art form that is chained to black and white, out of the camera or darkroom shots with unflinching stubborness?

So, really the argument should be
"I prefer traditional Photography too photgraphic digital art"
or
"Photography as an art form is not done a service by digital post processing."

take this example as well- is fine art drawing diluted by comics and cartoons?

Is classical music diluted by jazz?

and on an on.

Personally, I thinking photography could use new ways to post process, and a more modern art style approach.

Brock

Canon PowerShot Pro1

01/10/2005 10:21:32 AM · #97

I am new here for all practical definitions...and have not yet entered my first CHALLENGE either though I did vote on a couple.

One thing I see as an outsider with a purely film background until I got my Pro1....is that I do think this site and the challenges are more geared toward those that are gifted or skilled Photoshop editors. Instead of seeing quite a few challenges where little to no manipulation is allowed other than filters or using what is built into the camera...I see mostly ADVANCED EDITING where nearly anything is allowed to make up for poor exposure, focus, depth of field, etc.

I hope I do not offend anyone...but my editing skills are non-existent other than what I have had to learn in Gimp to resize and unsharp mask. I have no idea about dodging, burning, layers, etc. I guess I will be buying a book and learning some....but I just personally at this point of the game do not desire to manipulate my images significantly. Maybe I will never score above a 2 with my images...but that is okay because I shoot for my own eye and what I think is appealing.

I can see where the editing comes in useful though...I took a series of photos of my inlaws home at various angles for a real estate ad...bright sun but a heavy shadow over one portion from a large live oak. Rest of home is bright, clear and sharp but a dark shadow over one end. If I knew how to ligten the shadows without losing contrast and sharpness then that would have saved me days of trying to get it right. I like film...so maybe that is why my images are still taken like I am shooting film with little to no editing...and also why I likely will never do well in a challenge when I do start to enter them.

But I still love this site....dont get me wrong. Just seeing other portfolio's and reading comments is an education in itself...
Thanks for all the information and support....

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 14:01:29.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

01/10/2005 10:34:53 AM · #98

For me this argument is about extremes. Conventional techniques are essential (dodge & burn being one) but it's when they almost completely change an original shot that I think it goes too far.

I don't know if I'm alone here, but when I see a shot I love and then find that it's been heavily edited beyond recognition of it's original I'm immeditely underwhelmed from a photography point of view, unimpressed and I lose interest to some extent.

cghubbell

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

01/10/2005 10:56:45 AM · #99

Is there really so much conversation to be had around which is natural? Is there really such a difficult line between photographic art and pure photography? (by pure I mean in the sense of being distilled, not being clean, and not meaning good OR bad).

I don't think that the amount of time spent on editing is relevant. In most cases, the techniques aren't either. You can spend hours removing scratches and restoring faded color to a negative, or you can create a digital high-key effect in a few seconds which bears no resemblance to reality. So, I don't think time or style of editing is relevant. To take it a step further, anyone who's done darkroom, or read Adam's series knows that there many things done after the fact in film. Chemicals or pixels... It's not much different.

Gordon, you're dead-on about telephotos creating distortion and DOF effects. And you're right that a 50mm up close isn't the same as a 500mm from a distance. But I experience depth of field effects with my eyes when I focus on something. The effects from that telephoto don't distract from the realness of the subject. I would argue that in fantasia, the subject is more the trail than the brush. As stated earlier, without chemical imbalances it's tough to experience that.

What matters is the final output. In my admittedly short life span I have never experienced anything which remotely resembles Fantasia. That being said, it's visually appealing, creative, and cool. But it's not realistic. I call that photographic art. The chickadee is real. I've experienced it. I see nothing in that image which makes me think it's anything but real. I consider that pure photography. It's not about better or worse. It's not about techniques. It's about whether or not the final product is something that accurately represents what someone could experience.

Note I say experience... I've zoned out while watching waterfalls and experienced motion blur (although not as much as most photos). I've experienced the sharp darting movement of a bird. The feel of which is not betrayed by high shutter speeds. I've been overwhelmed by panoramas, the feel of which is not betrayed by wide angles (although I agree with coolhar on fisheye breaking the bound). I've felt a tall pine forest looming above me, which is preserved in a wide angle. Even duotones preserve a reality in their subject despite their dismissal of color.

But I've never seen a psychodelic paint brush outside of my computer's monitor.