| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2005 12:20:28 PM · #26 |
My camera chews up everything that comes out of it...if I don't spam curves and level adjustment and play with selective desat and stuff like that then everything comes out looking rather bland. I'd rather my picture look like Photoshop exploded all over it but have the impact that I want it to than have it look boring and grey.
Bad camera aside, I can't really get away with not post-processing an image anyway. I was a digital artist before I was a photographer. This is a 'digital' photography challenge, so of course the images are going to have a digital touch to them.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:20:34 PM · #27 |
I have never seen an artist paint something the exact way it 'looks;' their rendition is of what they see when they look.
As in art, or music, or dance, or any creative endeavor, there are different kinds or forms. And each different kind requires different skills. Some practitioners can cross between types and others cannot. To limit photography in such a way that excludes all forms but percieved realism is, well, ridiculous.
Abstract, Impressionism, Realism, Cubism, Surrealism, Modern, Portraiture, Landscape, Still Life, all exist in various other visual art forms. Cannot we consider photography a visual art open to the same array choices?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:25:28 PM · #28 |
Photography is an art form. From photo journalism to studio work it's all art, so as photographers we are artists. Our medium is pixels and rgb color instead of film. Our craft is to capture the essence of what we see, what we want to get across and represent that in our pixels. It's no different than film or paint or interpretive dance. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to get there.
Edit:
I type slow so I was last on the draw - but I guess great minds think a like because the last couple posts all had the same point ;)
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 12:27:48. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:38:24 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Uhm? huh? Photography IS an art! |
No, photography is not an art. It would be more accurately labeled a craft. But part of photography is art, and part of art is photography.
Some people choose to pursue art, others choose to pursue photography. Who's to say one is a higher pursuit than the other?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:43:12 PM · #30 |
I guess its the difference between a house painter and a painter of houses? ;)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:44:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
[Is it necessary to label a person as ignorant, or to laugh at them, just because they have a different approach to their photography than you do? or have a different philosophy about it? Doesn't help much if we are trying to have an intelligent discussion. |
Ignorance is not meant as insult, but literally as in the dictionary definition of ignorance, which means, "without knowledge". Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, but the more informed these philosophies are - whether you agree or disagree - the better for everyone. Personally speaking, I share some of that purist viewpoint. However, I think there's a difference between being a purist and being a "purist". This is why you're seeing the language being used as such. If I meant to insult, trust me, I'd be more blatant about it.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:45:44 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by idnic:
Uhm? huh? Photography IS an art! |
No, photography is not an art. It would be more accurately labeled a craft. But part of photography is art, and part of art is photography.
Some people choose to pursue art, others choose to pursue photography. Who's to say one is a higher pursuit than the other? |
Ummmm... no.
Photography is an art. Try looking up the word "art". What part of photography do you think declassifies it as art?
You will never goto trade school to learn photography, however you may goto art school. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:47:18 PM · #33 |
I spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom before the digital age and everything was post processed to some degree. I selected the type of paper, the amount of contrast, the exposure, and the crop to fit the paper. If I wanted a good print, I would spent time dodging and burning to bring out the image. Today my post processing pretty much mimics those same traditional printing processes, but with photoshop as my darkroom. I agree that you should not depend on post processing to fix a bad capture, but I don't think photography ends when the shutter has stopped moving. Printing, or rendering a final jpeg, is also part of the photographic process.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:49:27 PM · #34 |
Or perhaps photography is both a craft and an art. :) I don't see any reason for them to be mutually exclusive. There are many disciplines that can be considered craft and art without being both, or are indeed a combination of both. Architecture, engineering, graphics, industrial arts, sculpture, painting, etc.
I will say though, I think you can have craft without the art, but you can't have art without the craft.
Originally posted by megatherian:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by idnic:
Uhm? huh? Photography IS an art! |
No, photography is not an art. It would be more accurately labeled a craft. But part of photography is art, and part of art is photography.
Some people choose to pursue art, others choose to pursue photography. Who's to say one is a higher pursuit than the other? |
Ummmm... no.
Photography is an art. Try looking up the word "art". What part of photography do you think declassifies it as art?
You will never goto trade school to learn photography, however you may goto art school. |
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:49:47 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by idnic:
Uhm? huh? Photography IS an art! |
No, photography is not an art. It would be more accurately labeled a craft.
|
I have to disagree slightly here. I feel that photography is not necessarily art nor craft. Rather it is what each individual practitioner wants it to be. If one feels that it is art, then the full use of all tools available is surely legitimate in order to achieve the artistic vision. If one feels that it is a craft, then one would most likely restrict oneself to a certain range of adjustment options. There's room for photographers who subscribe to either view and all point in between. In the end, if one enjoys oneself and produces pictures to be proud of, isn't that enough?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:50:34 PM · #36 |
I think there's a disconnect running in this particular, often-repeated discussion. The "Pro PP" group think the "Anti PP" group are saying "there is virtue that cannot be equalled any other way in accepting an image as the camera gives it to you" and they perceive this as a misguided elitism and it rankles them. But that's not what I hear, mostly.
What I mostly hear is that the "antis" are saying that there is definite value in learning to set up your camera parameters, your lighting, your composition, everything, as perfectly as possible at the time of shooting. And I agree with this. I don't think any thoughtful photographer would argue this point.
There's a second, less-obvious value judgment being expressed by some (not all) of the "antis"; that "documentary", "photo-journalistic" values of "recording the world as is" as are in some way superior to "artistic interpretations" of the world-as-seen. This I do not agree with as a blanket statement, but it represents a personal value system and there's no arguing with that; to each his own.
Another disconnect, a technical one as it were, is that the "pros" hear the "antis" saying that ALL post-processing is "bad", and I don't think most of them are saying that. Again, I believe all knowledgeable photographers realize that camera-definable parameters can be equally well defined in post production without loss of putative photographic integrity. This is certainly the case in RAW processing, where the paramters MUST be adjusted in post production.
I think there are a lot of people that prefer to see "realistic" photographs over overtly manipulated ones, and this is certainly an aesthetic opinion to which they are entitled. I believe most of these people would react equally negatively to, say, a nude shot set up with blue gel filters over the lights and to the same shot post-production-adjusted to a blue tonality. Their "beef", such as it is, would be that "photography" is "meant" to capture reality, not build upon it. Or something like that...
Where we are running into a problem, it seems to me, is in the "pro PP" camp's assumption, usually unwarranted, that the "anti PP" people don't understand that the camera itself engages in processing of images. I don't think very many of our members, and certainly not our skilled members (such as coolhar) are unaware of this.
I wish people would kick the phrase "post production" right out of these discussions and replace it with "overt manipulation". I think the real issue here is manipulated vs unmanipulated images, NOT whether post production is a Good or a Bad thing.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 12:59:17 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
You will never goto trade school to learn photography, however you may goto art school. |
That's not completely true; Brooks Institute, in Santa Barbara, considers themselves to be a trade school for photography. The PPoA (Professional Photographers of America) run numerous seminars on the craft and business of photography. Any time you have an "art" that becomes a "business" you are dealing with a craft. The majority of portrait and wedding photographers are craftspeople, not artists, and I believe they woudl acknowledge this freely for the most part.
They may DO "art" on their own time, as it were, but their livelihood comes from exercising a craft for pay. In any craft, of course, it is possible for the finest practitioners to transcend the boudnaries of craft, and their work becomes recognized (at least by some) as art. You see it in furniture making, you see it in pottery, you see it in glass blowing, whatever. These are all crafts that can evolve into art udner the hands of an artist with a vision.
In this sense, photography most definitely is a craft. It happens to be a craft that actively embraces elevation to the level of art. It's a fact that Ansel thought of himself as a craftsman, not an artist. Nor did he care...
R. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:02:24 PM · #38 |
Well said bear_music.
I've worked at newspapers and at one of thae largest sports photography agencies in the world - just doing post processing. There wasn't a single short (taken digitally or with film) that didn't get at least some minor post processing (via Photoshop) before it went out.
I agree that "over-manipulation" is a better term for what I believe this discussion is really about. However I'm not sure it completely hits the mark either.
If you look at Joey Lawrence's photos on the site I don't think you'd get a whole lot of people complaining his photos are over-manipulated - given that he's one of the highest rated photographers on the site.
It's not so much the amount of post manipulation that goes into a photo that makes it look good or bad, it's the quality of the manipulation and whether or not it truely enhances the photo or not. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:05:01 PM · #39 |
| I feel post processing is needed in digital photography just like it was in film photography. I believe the real question is what amount of processing is needed and that is where a lot of people go to little or to much, including myself. But you can find many photographers here that seems to know when the post processing is at its peek and they turn out a great picture. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:10:09 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by megatherian:
You will never goto trade school to learn photography, however you may goto art school. |
That's not completely true; Brooks Institute, in Santa Barbara, considers themselves to be a trade school for photography. The PPoA (Professional Photographers of America) run numerous seminars on the craft and business of photography. Any time you have an "art" that becomes a "business" you are dealing with a craft. The majority of portrait and wedding photographers are craftspeople, not artists, and I believe they would acknowledge this freely for the most part.
They may DO "art" on their own time, as it were, but their livelihood comes from exercising a craft for pay. In any craft, of course, it is possible for the finest practitioners to transcend the boundaries of craft, and their work becomes recognized (at least by some) as art. You see it in furniture making, you see it in pottery, you see it in glass blowing, whatever. These are all crafts that can evolve into art under the hands of an artist with a vision.
In this sense, photography most definitely is a craft. It happens to be a craft that actively embraces elevation to the level of art. It's a fact that Ansel thought of himself as a craftsman, not an artist. Nor did he care...
R. |
I understand what you are saying but I think sometimes communities make new definitions for certain words to give them more power (and this isn't directed AT you bear_music, you just got me thinking). The word "art" in particular tends to be used as some mythical goal that common folk could only aspire to reach.
Definitions or "art" and "craft" according to Merriam Webster's dictionary:
Art
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination
Craft
2: an occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill
So I think it's safe to say photography is BOTH and no one or the other.
Edited for spelling
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 13:11:54. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:15:27 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
If you look at Joey Lawrence's photos on the site I don't think you'd get a whole lot of people complaining his photos are over-manipulated - given that he's one of the highest rated photographers on the site. |
Actually, Joey's perhaps the most often mentioned example of aggressive image manipulation on the site, currently, precisely because he IS so popular. He's kind of taken over Heida's slot, as it were. It's the fact that these people ARE so popular, that these sorts of images DO win ribbons with regularity, that seems to raise the hackles of the relatively small-but-vocal minority that call out for a return to basic photographic values.
IMO of course :-)
R. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:22:11 PM · #42 |
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is interesting to know the different point of view. Maybe the real question would have been: how can PP be 'harmful' to the original picture? I am sure there is probably a sense of wisdom in this place. Maybe I am probably more concerned with the over PP. Something interesting would be to compare original and pp versions together. The first example given by tfaust is probably not what I am looking for. Is there any more obvious samples? Of course, PP is also a matter of taste, what one likes, the other migh not.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:24:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is interesting to know the different point of view. Maybe the real question would have been: how can PP be 'harmful' to the original picture? I am sure there is probably a sense of wisdom in this place. Maybe I am probably more concerned with the over PP. Something interesting would be to compare original and pp versions together. The first example given by tfaust is probably not what I am looking for. Is there any more obvious samples? Of course, PP is also a matter of taste, what one likes, the other migh not. |
PP is harmful when it is over done. When is it over done? Everyone has their own line they draw for that one.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:26:00 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by megatherian:
If you look at Joey Lawrence's photos on the site I don't think you'd get a whole lot of people complaining his photos are over-manipulated - given that he's one of the highest rated photographers on the site. |
Actually, Joey's perhaps the most often mentioned example of aggressive image manipulation on the site, currently, precisely because he IS so popular. He's kind of taken over Heida's slot, as it were. It's the fact that these people ARE so popular, that these sorts of images DO win ribbons with regularity, that seems to raise the hackles of the relatively small-but-vocal minority that call out for a return to basic photographic values.
IMO of course :-)
R. |
So true bear. I notice the change in DPC photography as I was gathering stats on ribbon winners. If you go to 'Challenge Archives' under challenge menu and go to the bottom and look at the thumbnails of the ribbon winners you will see a change (or trend) as you scroll up. From very little editing, to extreme - from art to real time photography. You will see the changes.
-SDW |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:27:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Something interesting would be to compare original and pp versions together. |
I saw that as a recent challenge suggestion and think it's a great idea. Have one half be nothing more than basic editing (although less would be better) and the other half be advanced rules.
If the comments paid more attention to the exact PS steps I think we could all learn a lot from this process. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:36:44 PM · #46 |
here is one that I found (Joey's picture is a pure coincidence):
I wonder how the original looks like.
The skin of the zebra is strange, also the grass (cloning?). Not my type, but I do not want to offend people. I agree with robs, I am here to learn, so as many of us.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:39:50 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
here is one that I found (Joey's picture is a pure coincidence):
I wonder how the original looks like.
The skin of the zebra is strange, also the grass (cloning?). Not my type, but I do not want to offend people. I agree with robs, I am here to learn, so as many of us. |
While you can't see the Zebra, if you take a look at Joey taking the picture (this is him shooting the zebra) you can get a sense of what kind of processing was done, as this picture is much more raw.
edited for jibberish
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 13:40:53. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:45:03 PM · #48 |
| Post processing should always be used with great caution. There are many pitfalls that are not discovered until way later. In short, my advise is to use only what is necessary. Once you begin to push the envelope you will bring havoc by introducing noise, posterization, out of wack colors and their transitions and most ugly, the loss of tonal values between shades. Also remember when resorting to a graphical representation, that many voters will turn away as if insulted by being robbed of the tonal integrity. Always great caution is wise. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 01:47:08 PM · #49 |
Always watch the histogram when making your adjustments. This will help you avoid what graphicfunk is referring to.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:00:24 PM · #50 |
|
