| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2002 07:53:05 AM · #26 |
if we followed all of this reasoning to its conclusion, i.e. "the end result is the only thing, and the means are unimportant", then why do we have rules on this site against spot editing and image manipulation?
why DON'T we allow people to enter 3D renders, if they are indistinguishable from reality?
could it be because something extraordinary that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, does in fact have more value than something fake? And that we look to editorial photography (not decorative photography, not computer art) to bring us those things from the world that can still amaze and awaken our tired and jaded minds and souls?
I.E. wouldnt an photo of an actual siamese twin joined at the head carry more emotional impact, pathos, empathy, than a digital one? To me, it would.
My 3 shekels...
|
|
|
|
12/19/2002 09:09:34 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
if we followed all of this reasoning to its conclusion, i.e. "the end result is the only thing, and the means are unimportant", then why do we have rules on this site against spot editing and image manipulation?
why DON'T we allow people to enter 3D renders, if they are indistinguishable from reality?
could it be because something extraordinary that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, does in fact have more value than something fake? And that we look to editorial photography (not decorative photography, not computer art) to bring us those things from the world that can still amaze and awaken our tired and jaded minds and souls?
I.E. wouldnt an photo of an actual siamese twin joined at the head carry more emotional impact, pathos, empathy, than a digital one? To me, it would.
My 3 shekels... |
What if you couldn't tell the difference ? Would you feel cheated ? Why ?
As to pointing to the site rules for justification, they are pretty arbitary on what changes are or are not allowed, as we often see in the long running discussions on them. It isn't trying to hold up some pseudojournalistic standard of ethics. The main aim of the rules is to attempt to level the playing field for people who may not have as much experience with photoshop as others. I still find it odd to have such restricted rules. Like entering a black and white print making competition but being forced to use a one-hour photo lab for the prints.
I doubt Drew/Langdon were really concerned about ethical concerns over manipulation when they decided to exclude most commonly used editing tools. Spot editing is a fact of life for most photographic work. We may want to be aiming for 'realistic' looking pictures, but isn't that the issue under debate here, not the tools used to achieve it ? |
|
|
|
12/19/2002 11:26:15 AM · #28 |
actually, i was doing the reverse :) i.e. pointing to the underlying ethos as justification for the site rules, rather than the opposite.
the level playing field rationale is only one of many that is held up in the discussions about image-editing.
seems to me like the main one is that people seem to have a desire to keep it 'pure' .. more about the camera than the computer: the photographer's quest to 'see' and record what has been seen by controlling the camera skillfully and evocatively.
Which comes back to your question 'if you didnt know would it matter ...' It would matter if it was part of a story, or documentation. Just on its own, independent of any context, then it probably doesnt. |
|
|
|
12/19/2002 03:54:40 PM · #29 |
Gordon, I think that if the rules were simply arbitrary then we would not have had all of the discussion on them. They clearly were intensely thought out to arrive out the decisions that were made. One of the problems that I believe is trying to be prevented is that lots of people will take an effect or tool too far. There is an obvious level of 'pureness' to the spirit of the rules here on this site but since many people will always be trying to push the limits of the rules it makes it necessary to carefully consider what those rules are. I personally am in favor of dodging/burning but I can also understand how it could be misused by a number of people. Is that reason enough to disallow everyone to use it? I don't think so, but I understand that lines have to be drawn somewhere and I accept that.
T
|
|
|
|
12/19/2002 10:26:30 PM · #30 |
Do you (all, but especially Jak, who thinks it's only the result which is important) remember the photo of the portrait of a girl made of sugar? Lisae had it in her series Art Appreciation 5. I think that's a great example that the process how a piece of art was created _does_ matter. The look of the resulting photo could be done easily with an image editor filter or maybe even only by camera control (lots of grain, overexposure etc.). But it (IMHO) definitively has more impact the way it was done.
I don't say that creating a photo the one way or the other is better or more pure or whatever. It's just more... well, "art" to me if the portrait was done with sugar and I personally appreciate it more.
Now regarding the question why not to allow all kind of modifications on the photos here on DPC? Well, in my opinion this site is dedicated to help people improving their skills how to work with their _camera_ and not with their image editor. You can/should/will use both skills to make photos you're satisfied with, but you can't submit them here on DPC. There are other sites out there for that.
Stephan
P.S.: really interesting discussion :-)
|
|
|
|
12/22/2002 01:01:30 PM · #31 |
Consider this: which do you think would be more ethical in a landscape photograph. If there was a tree limb in the composition which you thought messed things up - would you be better to rip the tree down and take the picture, or take the picture and remove the branch later in photoshop ?
In the past some well known photographers have picked the less enironmentally friendly option and removed the offending branches in real life. Is it better or worse that we can do it digitally now ? Does it make the picture truer or not ? |
|
|
|
12/22/2002 01:05:33 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Gordon, I think that if the rules were simply arbitrary then we would not have had all of the discussion on them. They clearly were intensely thought out to arrive out the decisions that were made. One of the problems that I believe is trying to be prevented is that lots of people will take an effect or tool too far. There is an obvious level of 'pureness' to the spirit of the rules here on this site but since many people will always be trying to push the limits of the rules it makes it necessary to carefully consider what those rules are. I personally am in favor of dodging/burning but I can also understand how it could be misused by a number of people. Is that reason enough to disallow everyone to use it? I don't think so, but I understand that lines have to be drawn somewhere and I accept that.
T |
There has been a lot of discussion, but still the allowed and disallowed tools fall on fairly arbitary boundaries. Many of the features more commonly found in a black and white film darkroom are banned for entries here for example, while wilder colour manipulation options more comparable to cross processing are allowed. The intention underlying it I think is to promote 'realistic' photographic representations. However, I think that aim is a different issue than the tools used to achieve it.
To be clear : I think the competition aim or goal or underlying ethos is actually distinct to the tools used to achieve it. You can make really unrealistic looking pictures with the current rules. You can make really realistic looking pictures with all the features that photoshop has to offer. The tools don't force entries to look 'realistic', though that was the aim - to force people to enter straight from the camera as much as possible. |
|
|
|
12/22/2002 01:19:35 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Consider this: which do you think would be more ethical in a landscape photograph. If there was a tree limb in the composition which you thought messed things up - would you be better to rip the tree down and take the picture, or take the picture and remove the branch later in photoshop ?
In the past some well known photographers have picked the less enironmentally friendly option and removed the offending branches in real life. Is it better or worse that we can do it digitally now ? Does it make the picture truer or not ? |
It depends if the intent is to document the time/place for the viewer, or to compose a lovely piece of landscape art independent of context. If the former, I don't think removing the branch is appropriate at all. If the latter, I'd obviously prefer it be cloned out, unless the branch is diseased and needs to be removed for the health of the tree.
I guess there's a difference between "a landscape" and "landscape art" to me. I'm ready to appreciate the latter, but want it labelled as a work of (partial) fiction. |
|
|
|
12/22/2002 01:38:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by stephan:
Do you (all, but especially Jak, who thinks it's only the result which is important) remember the photo of the portrait of a girl made of sugar? Lisae had it in her series Art Appreciation 5. I think that's a great example that the process how a piece of art was created _does_ matter. The look of the resulting photo could be done easily with an image editor filter or maybe even only by camera control (lots of grain, overexposure etc.). But it (IMHO) definitively has more impact the way it was done. |
But looking at the piece does NOT tell you that story; from the viewer's POV, the piece could have been created by a machine to exactly the same effect.
The viewer can only know the story behind the picture with a lot of added text -- and a photo with a lot of text is no more "natural" or "pure" than any other machine-produced image, is it?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2002 06:40:21 PM · #35 |
>>The first photo is actually on the cover of the magazine, as well, and shows two baby birds on a branch being attracted to a bug on a leaf. It sounds simple enough until you read the caption about how it was done. The photographer actually baited the birds by attaching the insect to the twig and holding it above their nest.
If indeed, the photographer lured the birds out of their nest, then I would consider it an unacceptable practice in "wildlife" photography. This could lead the birds to harm. Perhaps they weren't ready to leave the nest? We don't know. Does the photographer know or does he just carelessly go around looking for a good shot? The ethics of photographers should firstly include "do no harm".
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 02:24:51 PM · #36 |
for me, whether it's photography, film, painting, drawing, writing, etc. it's got to be about more than just the end result. the process itself, at least for me, plays a big part in the love of doing it as well as the end result. i guess for everyone it's different though. like me, i look at photography as an unaltered(or as close as you can get) moment in time, it's a hobby and i like fiddling with the camera(s)-(not just digital cams) and trying to achieve that "perfect" shot, but i have nothing on the line when shooting. it doesn't mean though i do not want a terrific end result.
where someone making a living, shooting for a paycheck with his/her butt on the line might look at it as, this is the composition i need for this cover, page, ad; however i get it doesn't matter. as long as i get there. which is wrong, which is right? people that do it day in and day out maybe become desensitized to the process and just look at the end result. i'm sure there are still plenty of professionals out there who still consider the process as a great adventure and it not just being solely about the "end result".
it's not photography, but i remember watching an interview of martin scorsese on "gangs of new york". he was talking about pre production when they were building sets. part of the set included a big ship at the dock with people getting off and walking to and from it. he said one day george lucas was there and asked him, why wouldn't you let us take care of all this for you? we could do the ship, docks and people all on the computer". his reply was that, "it's great what you guys can do with the computer, but that just isn't me." going on in the interview saying that for him, it takes something away from the impact.
as you can see both ways are successful, i think it's really personal taste and values that come into play.
so as an art, i think one should be open-minded to all ways.
Message edited by author 2002-12-24 14:27:25.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 01:39:18 PM EDT.
