| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2005 02:43:18 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Blurring of the line might make some more comfortable. IMHO, saying things like "we are all artists" or that there is no digital art in our challenges are self-defeating in their shortsightedness. There is a large part of photography that is not art, and does try to show what the real world looks like. Try to respect the practitioners of that part of photography as you destroy their temple.
|
I agree a large part of photography does show the "real world" and is not art... but I don't think that is what this site is about, what we have here are challenges that in many of the description ask you to be creative. We have set rules that are in place, a pretty clear line in the sand has already been drawn so we all know those rules and play by the same rules.
I'm also not wanting to offend but I think you may be at the wrong place to crusade for saving purist photography this site is not about that.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Recently every new Challenge most of the top 10 shots are brutally over-processed digital arts.
|
and all I can say about this is... that it is inaccurate and offensive to the wonderfully talented photographers who were voted by us and finished in the top ten. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:08:02 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Harvey,
For the record, I am always trying to show "what the real world looks like" in my landscapes, and I shoot a LOT of very mundane objects in an entirely unromantic manner trying to show what HEY look like as well. It is my contention that the referenced shot above DOES show "what the real world looks like" in a much more satisfactory and revealing manner than the straight-from-camera original does. It's not, to me, a matter of "art" vs "non-art", it's a matter of seeing clearly and well.
I have consistently praised just such photography as you seem to be referring to when it is posted and is well-done. I habe no problem whatsoever with documentary photography, photojournalism, neo-realist work, whatever form photography may take. I take it all on its own terms and love it all at one level or another.
It seems to me, however, that those who take the position you are so articulately advancing do many of us a disservice. You seem to dismiss out of hand our best efforts as somehow less-than-worthy simply because we DO Have a vision and attempt to fulfill it in our own way. I realize this is an oversimplification, but that tone exists in what you say.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't understand why you preach that "we" should respect the practitioners of these "other parts" of photography whiule seeming NOT to respect what it is that "we" do. And yet "we" are very much a part of the mainstream of photography, and fully partake of its history.
Robt.
Here's a ribbon winner from almost exactly 3 years ago: 
This would be right at home hanging next to my landscape on the wall of shame for photographers who dare to see more fiercely what is "there". |
Geez Robert, I don't know how to respond to all the points you have raised. After the first couple of paragraphs I was ready to ask you to sit on this bench beside me.
Your landscapes, and Karen's beautiful Panache, are just ever-so-slightly into the world of digital art as to be totally excused because they are so good. The editing is there but it doesn't distract attention from the subject matter much at all. Can you say that about any of the ribboners in Wooden?
I never understand it very well when people talk about their "vision" of how they want a photograph to look, or the "vision" of the image they had in their head when they pressed the shutter button. My vision, if I have one, is what my eye sees in front of the camera. That's what I seek to portray for anyone who is kind enough to look at my shots. The camera can come close to reproducing it, and I can usually get it just a little bit closer with minimal post processing. Maybe I'm not taking the right medications but I never see those images that are a donut of d&b, or an eyeball in the palm of my hand, either in front of my camera, or in my mind, so why should I make my photos look that way?
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 03:11:57.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:47:21 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
... I agree a large part of photography does show the "real world" and is not art... but I don't think that is what this site is about, what we have here are challenges that in many of the description ask you to be creative. We have set rules that are in place, a pretty clear line in the sand has already been drawn so we all know those rules and play by the same rules.
I'm also not wanting to offend but I think you may be at the wrong place to crusade for saving purist photography this site is not about that. |
I would never use the dpc rules to define the boundary of digital art. If that definition were acceptable we would never have any posts like what pitsaman said to start this thread. You may say that he exaggerated but please don't use that as an excuse to ignore the sentiment he has tried to express. It is legitimate.
Some of us are content to play by the rules while others among us seem to think the the challenge is to find "workarounds", ways to defeat the intent of the rules.
This site is supposed to be about photography when it is a choice between that and digital art.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 04:07:45 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by rikki11:
Which brings us to the BIG question. Are we in fact photographers or "digital artists"? Just thought I would throw this in the mix since we're at it :) |
I would like to think that others would call me a photographer, and that they would call my works photographs. I would be ambivalent if they called one of my shots a work of art. I would be offended if they called me a digital artist. And I would consider one of my shots a failure if people thought of it as digital art.
I would say that Ken, kpriest, is a photographer as well as an accomplished digital artist. Hope that doesn't offend him.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 04:12:05 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by keegbow:
... I agree a large part of photography does show the "real world" and is not art... but I don't think that is what this site is about, what we have here are challenges that in many of the description ask you to be creative. We have set rules that are in place, a pretty clear line in the sand has already been drawn so we all know those rules and play by the same rules.
I'm also not wanting to offend but I think you may be at the wrong place to crusade for saving purist photography this site is not about that. |
I would never use the dpc rules to define the boundary of digital art. If that definition were acceptable we would never have any posts like what pitsaman said to start this thread. You may say that he exaggerated but please don't use that as an excuse to ignore the sentiment he has tried to express. It is legitimate.
Some of us are content to play by the rules while others among us seem to think the the challenge is to find "workarounds", ways to defeat the intent of the rules.
This site is supposed to be about photography when it is a choice between that and digital art. |
I do consider the sentiment and can understand the frustration.
What I'm trying to say is...if an image finishes in the top ten... well this is the type of image we as a majority like to see and we collectively must have a higher tolerance then pitsaman and yourself to over-processed shots (as you call it).
Without trying to sound rude... but maybe you should spend more time accepting this then trying to influence the group on what you think the sites acceptance levels should be. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 04:17:56 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I never understand it very well when people talk about their "vision" of how they want a photograph to look, or the "vision" of the image they had in their head when they pressed the shutter button. My vision, if I have one, is what my eye sees in front of the camera. That's what I seek to portray for anyone who is kind enough to look at my shots. The camera can come close to reproducing it, and I can usually get it just a little bit closer with minimal post processing. Maybe I'm not taking the right medications but I never see those images that are a donut of d&b, or an eyeball in the palm of my hand, either in front of my camera, or in my mind, so why should I make my photos look that way? |
In that case - what about black and white or long exposures - things done in the camera that effect the way the image is captured. I've never seen a landscape in B&W in real life - yet they look great like that in a photo. Also - many of the processing done in PS - could be done before in the darkroom, but not as many people had access to those. At the end of the day its still a photo and you either like it or you don't, just becuase its not to your taste doesn't mean that its a bad photo. Some processing can be done very badly and look awful - but then, some photos can look just as bad if they are taken wrong.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 04:19:00.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 04:29:12 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Recently every new Challenge most of the top 10 shots are brutally over-processed digital arts.
What is going on here,people are getting impressed by PS techniques because they can't do that ? Does anyone care about classic photography,the way your eyes see the real world? |
I hate to bring this up, but since this thread is obviously not going away anytime soon - what do you mean? I can't help but look through your portfolio and compare some of the techniques that were used in these shots (or possibly even less, for basic editing challenges) to some of the techniques that you use in many of yours. "Storm Coming", "Painted Sky" and "Chicago Sunset" all appear to have pushed the boundaries of reality.
Don't get me wrong - I love your shots.. but at the same time, I wonder what makes you decide that the winners here are overprocessed whereas some of your shots are not? Looking at the top 10 in the recent Tools of the Trade challenge, I can't pick out 1 that I would consider heavily processed.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 04:29:30 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I would say that Ken, kpriest, is a photographer as well as an accomplished digital artist. Hope that doesn't offend him. |
I would say that kpriest is a tired man in an unusually fiesty, pot-stirring mood today --er, yesterday, I mean. I'm not offended. I am tired, done and outta here for today. ...maybe a couple days.
You guys let me know when the issue is resolved or the last man is standing. ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 05:12:37 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I would say that Ken, kpriest, is a photographer as well as an accomplished digital artist. Hope that doesn't offend him. |
I would say that kpriest is a tired man in an unusually fiesty, pot-stirring mood today --er, yesterday, I mean. I'm not offended. I am tired, done and outta here for today. ...maybe a couple days.
You guys let me know when the issue is resolved or the last man is standing. ;-) |
Sorry to say Ken it will never be resolved it's all about personal taste. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 05:57:41 AM · #35 |
While in college I knew two painters; each a true artist by their own declaration. The one, by the name of Robert, was a part of my circle of friends. The other, named Daniel, was my neighbor. The style of each was as different from the other as they could be -- and would have nothing to do with each other as a result. I learned much from both of them.
I remember Robert's painting best from one in particular. It was an oil paint on a black canvas -- a man sleeping on a bed, obviously naked under a sheet with a translucent woman half laying on, half floating above him. All of which floating in the blackness anchored only by a blue to red horizon line that cut across in the waveform of dreams as it passed thru his head and changed to a pulsing heartbeat as it passed thru her heart. It was probably the first time I saw that an image can mean more than just something to look at. Unfortunately, when he asked me what I thought of it, the only thing I could think to tell him about was the unnatural perspective of one of her legs. It was distracting and pulled my attention from the image, so I told him about it. He got upset, told me I didn't know what I was talking about and never mentioned the image to me again. It was months later before I saw it again, in his room -- with the leg fixed. Not wanting to offend him further I said nothing. But because of this he doesn't know how much I actually liked that image.
Daniel sold his paintings on the street, at fairs and anywhere else he could set them out for a few hours. He painted what Robert dismissed as 'Happy Tree' paintings. He painted landscapes and rural architecture. What I learned from him is best expressed by my visiting him one day while he started a new painting. I had never seen him start a painting before and it was not what I expected. He also painted in oil, but at the start he looked more like a draftsman drawing a blueprint. Ruler, compass, triangles and various other tools of the trade where put to use as needed. Robert would have never touched them -- the only thing that touched his canvas was paint and brush, and later only paint as he moved to the air brush. But Daniel would use whatever tool he could find to help him get the painting done. He was often stopping to take pictures of cloud formations so he could look at the print while painting skies -- that sort of thing.
I wasn't interested in painting -- the different methods meant nothing to me. The final image was all I was interested in, and I liked them both equally in their own field. And they would both equally dislike my saying that. But regardless of their dislike of it, I learned a lot from both of them about what is considered 'art'. I have never considered myself an artist, but without having known these two I probably wouldn't be here trying to learn to take photographs that are better than 'just representations of what I see' and to use the avialable tools to get it there. But in the end, it is photography I am interested in, not painting -- even if the painting is done in PhotoShop.
Even though the voters on this site have the interest in photography, most are (very?) new to it and simply don't have the knowledge to distinquish technique from the final image. Indeed the voting process is designed to divorce the image from the process of creating it -- and I feel produces a similar attitude to my indifference to how the two painters I knew created their images. For this reason, arguing the photographic pedigree of an image based on the voters seems silly to me.
I wasn't interested in painting, but I am interested in photography. As such, it is the photographic process that interests me -- not the finished image. Yes I like looking at the finished images, no matter how they are created, but it is my interest in the photographic process of making them that brought me to this site. For this reason I don't care for the overly processed images in the challenges -- as images in their own right I have many I think very highly of, but that is not the point. The point is the process of creating them. Yes that process includes post-processing, and at times that processing can be extensive -- but if the result of the post-processing didn't start with the click of the shutter, what is the point of calling it photography?
Silk flowers take a great deal of talent and skill to create -- at least when they are created well. Their appearance can rival that of natures own. But should they be allowed in the local botanical clubs annual contest? Even if the design and textures of the creation were patterned after an actual flower, the creation of the display took as long or longer than the growing of an actual flower and even though all natural plants require pruning and are carefully arranged just as skillfully as any silk flower could be -- submitting a silk flower to a botanical contest kind of misses the point. Don't you think? How about someone who entered a real flower they grew themselves, but airbrushed better color onto it before the contest? They kind of miss the point as well. Don't you think?
David
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 09:26:19 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Sorry to say Ken it will never be resolved it's all about personal taste. |
It may never be resolved but it is more than a matter of personal taste. There can be images that are so manipulated that no one would deny them the label of digital art but that are done well and liked by a wide cross section of the community. To like a shot, to find it pleasing, is not the same as saying that it is, or is not, digital art; or is or is not an accurate representation of what was before the camera.
pitsaman and myself have referred to recent ribboners as examples of over processed shots. I have twice spoken about how the editing is the thing that makes the strongest first impression of them. Anyone else care to take up the discussion in those terms rather than wide ranging generalities?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 09:35:35 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Sorry to say Ken it will never be resolved it's all about personal taste. |
It may never be resolved but it is more than a matter of personal taste. There can be images that are so manipulated that no one would deny them the label of digital art but that are done well and liked by a wide cross section of the community. To like a shot, to find it pleasing, is not the same as saying that it is, or is not, digital art; or is or is not an accurate representation of what was before the camera.
pitsaman and myself have referred to recent ribboners as examples of over processed shots. I have twice spoken about how the editing is the thing that makes the strongest first impression of them. Anyone else care to take up the discussion in those terms rather than wide ranging generalities? |
I already did, back at the beginning, by saying I didn't see ANY overmanipulation in the top 3 of the last 10 challenges, except possibly for the infrared shots by Marbro, which arguably may be close to what came out of his camera anyway...
It would help if you named some specific examples of what you consider overprocessing among the top finishers recently.
Robt.
Note: I'm referring to the top 10 in the "archives" list. Not including "tools" and "wooden", which are on the main page right now.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 09:40:03.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 09:45:07 AM · #38 |
Thank you David for that long and well thought out post. It raises a question in my mind.
Originally posted by Britannica:
... I have never considered myself an artist, but without having known these two I probably wouldn't be here trying to learn to take photographs that are better than 'just representations of what I see' and to use the avialable tools to get it there. But in the end, it is photography I am interested in, not painting -- even if the painting is done in PhotoShop. |
I am not sure of what you mean by "better than 'just representations of what I see'". Would it be accurate to parse that to "better representations of what I see"? Or are you trying to learn to produce something different than, and of a higher quality than, what you see?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 09:45:41 AM · #39 |
I am also new to photography and I love PS, but I have not seen a lot of winners I would call over edited. I mean isn't that why we have basic editing and advanced editing challenges so that we can see both views. And the editing rules help us not over process. To me the diffrence between what the eye sees and what the mind sees is the diffrence between a snapshot and a phtograph. Photography is an art. We do no photo muniplulation in challenges and I think that would be over processed, but is still art. There are many diffrent levels to artistic styles even in photography and this site allows us to learn those and express our styles. I notice that alot of kosta's images seem highly processed but beautiful and for some even they would seem over processed, though not to me and obviously not to kosta. The editing rules are very clear, so as far as this site goes as long as it meets challenge rules it's not over done. I have been on other sites where the editing we do here is nothing, and some sites where the editing we do here is way over done. I like the the fact that here we are challenged in a way to create both types of editing.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 09:56:54.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 09:58:13 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... It would help if you named some specific examples of what you consider overprocessing among the top finishers recently.
Robt. ... |
What about the top 3 in Wooden? My opinion is that their editing techniques make a more striking impression than the subject matter, and that is what earned them high scores from the voters.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 10:34:24 AM · #41 |
anyone can take a snapshot. The eyes, the camera, and the heart have to work together to take a photograph. If you don't feel anything in your shot, then no one else will. If they use photoshop to enhance that feeling let them. Like you said they earned high scores.
"that is what earned them high scores" |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:05:57 AM · #42 |
As illustrated by Ansel Adams, the only "pure" photography is probably Polaroids. My eye doesn't see infrared, long exposures, or double exposures (though I suppose that's possible with sufficient drugs or alcohol). The purpose of this site is to learn digital photography, but the purpose of photography is to produce a pleasing image- not merely learning how to make a machine work. The camera is just a tool used to achieve the goal of an appealing image, not the goal itself. Photoshop and trick photography are also tools, and it makes no sense to dismiss the use of whatever tools are legally available for use.
When Fuji came out with Velvia film, it was a huge success because the colors were better than real life. That's what people wanted- images that lived up to the enhanced saturation of their mind's eye. It should come as no surprise then that Heida has become totally dominant in both ribbons and favorites. Her photos are usually heavily processed, but the dark, often gloomy images trigger a deep sense of emotion that obviously appeals to most people (a fact that Joey Lawrence has exploited as well). A perfect exposure of the same scenes with no processing might make a nice photo, but nice photos are a dime a dozen. As long as the techniques are legal, I would rather see an extraordinary image dragged kicking and screaming from an average capture than the most real-life scenes faithfully reproduced as-is. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:09:24 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
... It would help if you named some specific examples of what you consider overprocessing among the top finishers recently.
Robt. ... |
What about the top 3 in Wooden? My opinion is that their editing techniques make a more striking impression than the subject matter, and that is what earned them high scores from the voters. |
As I said, I'm referring to the most recent 10 archived challenges. The wooden challenge is somewhat of an anomaly in that context. I would agree that Heida's shot is dramatically enhanced, though I wouldn't call it overprocessed; this seems within normal photographic parameters to me. The musician, obviously, uses selective desaturation to emphasize the glowing heart of the image.
Joey's "midnight cedar", I don't know how "processed" that is; it is a "created" shot for sure, but depending on how skilfully he lit & exposed it there may be minimal post processing in it. Certainly, to my mind it comes across as extremely dramatic, but I don't say "Hey, whoa, some 'shopping dude!" We used to make shots liek that all the itme in the studio, we had a fog machine, banks of lights, a huge fan, etc etc.
Let me ask you something; is it your position that ANY dramatic, manufactured shot, be it created entirely in-camera or achieved in post production, is getting away from "what DPC is all about"?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:31:15 AM · #44 |
Isn't photography "capturing the light" mr Bear ?
Or it is PS made light added to the image... |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:35:49 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Recently every new Challenge most of the top 10 shots are brutally over-processed digital arts.
What is going on here,people are getting impressed by PS techniques because they can't do that ? Does anyone care about classic photography,the way your eyes see the real world? |
I'm late to post... BUT this question can be looked at in reverse... are you so opposed to it because you don't master PP?
this is 2005 and photography and PP are indiscociable. when was the last time a image in a magazine was not retouched heavily? This is the reality of photogrphy and to me, a normal evolution.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 11:38:20. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:37:44 AM · #46 |
For those who consider many of the pictures here to be digital art, then I guess you consider much of what is available in such highly esteemed periodicals such as National Geographic and other fine publications as digital art. I think the contributing photographers would beg to differ.
There is photography skill involved.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:38:17 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Recently every new Challenge most of the top 10 shots are brutally over-processed digital arts.
What is going on here,people are getting impressed by PS techniques because they can't do that ? Does anyone care about classic photography,the way your eyes see the real world? |
I'm late to post... BUT this question can be looked at in reverse... are you so opposed to it because you don't master PP?
this is 2005 and photography and PP are indiscociable. |
In 1905 as well, the PP was just different. The line is, how far do you go with PP? That line has always been there.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:43:14 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Recently every new Challenge most of the top 10 shots are brutally over-processed digital arts.
What is going on here,people are getting impressed by PS techniques because they can't do that ? Does anyone care about classic photography,the way your eyes see the real world? |
I'm late to post... BUT this question can be looked at in reverse... are you so opposed to it because you don't master PP?
this is 2005 and photography and PP are indiscociable. |
In 1905 as well, the PP was just different. The line is, how far do you go with PP? That line has always been there. |
exactly... the tools are there, let's use them.
This whole argument that "only a pristine shot" is really tired. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 11:54:42 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Let me ask you something; is it your position that ANY dramatic, manufactured shot, be it created entirely in-camera or achieved in post production, is getting away from "what DPC is all about"?
Robt. |
Not exactly, but something along those lines. Because we rarely know whether it is done completely in-camera, in post processing, or a combination of the two, I am, for this discussion, concentrating on the results. If my impression when I first look at an image is either "wow, what great effect the editing has given this picture" or "this may have been a good shot but the manner in which it has been edited destroyed it's impact", then the image falls into the digital art category. If my first impression is "what a beautiful sunrise at this fantastic beach, I want to go there" or "what a grubby place, cloning out some of the trash would have made it look a lot better" then those ones will fall into the straight photo (for lack of a better term) category.
Now I know that I can often be fooled. Maybe the photog didn't schlep his kit down to the beach at the crack of dawn, but what he is trying to protray is something that could have occurred in nature, not something that his mind has made up because it may appeal to him, the masses, or both. That is how the top three in Wooden strike me, they couldn't have occurred in nature but have been stroked and tweaked so as to appeal to the voters. And that's why I would tend to call them digital art instead of straight photography.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 12:01:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
...that's why I would tend to call them digital art instead of straight photography. |
So would I... right before I scored them a 9 or 10. Good thing this isn't Digital Straight Photo Challenge (DSPChallenge). ;-) |
|
