The Art or Science of Butterflies

05/21/2003 05:51:17 PM · #51

My image was photoshopped, it is unnatural.:) But the flower is real, i didn't misplace the flower, did I? :) it's not a nature shot, any viewer can tell that. There is no misrepresentation there, it's pretty obvious that the image is done by adding noises (if i had grainy effects with FILM, then i'd use the higher ISOs, but it doesn't do that).

Does your opinion matter to me? No :)

Originally posted by mavrik:

a) I read it and you didn't reply to the fact that your image is photoshopped, which is unnatural.

b) I jumped in quite early (before you even replied to this thread).

c) Yes, this is my style. So I happen to prefer pointing out the obvious. A flaw, I know, but one I can't help. Isn't it my opinion whether or not your shot is 'fake'? Aren't I entitled to the opinion that you couldn't find coherency with two hands?

M

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

05/21/2003 05:52:16 PM · #52

And there goes any reason left for nature photography.

Originally posted by Morgan:

All photography is a misrepresentation of reality. It is simply an attempt to capture a moment in time. And, time does not stop, not even for a moment.

Kodak learned this in a series of papers that they offered in the early 1900s - light, perspective, colour, etc. They are a great learning experience on the subject of reality in photography.

For my two cents worth (or about 1.35 cents Canadian), it was a great image. Here is a copy of the comments that I posted...

What a wonderful picture. I wish that I took it. It is vivid, expressive, and fun. It is almost unreal. Are the butterflies real? Is it Photoshop? Wonderful work, regardless. 10 Morgan

...I may not have been as sharp as some of you to instantly decide that it was staged, so I asked. But, my grade was for a great image that jumped right off my screen. I find this debate rather silly when you consider how many images at the DPC site are staged.

blemt

Nikon D70

05/21/2003 06:06:49 PM · #53

So just to veirfy that I'm understanding you. Matthew Brady's Civil War photographs are not worth while because many of them were staged images. It's well documented that he regularly moved bodies around because he wanted more powerful images. So we need to go and toss his work right on out the window because it's not real. While we are at it, a nice chunk of Ansel Adams needs to go since he actually cut down branches that were interrupting his nature shots. Shall we go through the works of the major photographers in the world and post disclaimers stating their works were altered in the darkroom to remove unsavory elements? What about saying they actually brought items in or out of the scene? Any thoughts as to how many nature photographers would end up with disclaimers?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/21/2003 07:06:25 PM · #54

I didn't complain about "staged" shots.

Geez, people stop putting words to my mouth :)
I complained about putting ELEMENTS into a photo that wasn't there before. Misrepresentation of nature.

Ansel Adams shot some of his scenes with trees being cut down, i don't relaly agree that method he uses either. Then again, none of you have shot with largeformat cameras which are not exactly easy to use and quite bulky at the time (35 mm cameras you can shoot any scene you want without having to do so). I don't agree that method either. But moving lense around an object or through thick branches of a tree and captures an image is a lot different than putting elements into an image that wasn't there or misrepresent those elements. That's my comment in the original poster's image. That's all there is.

Originally posted by blemt:

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/21/2003 07:23:50 PM · #55

Originally posted by paganini:

The voters voted it high because they believe it is real ...

This whole thread is out of hand over this assumption. Unless there has been a recent survey of voters, this is an unprovable and probably unwarranted assumption.

Everyone has made many valid points over the issues of realism and integrity in modern photography, but I also think this is not the photo or challenge to use as a paradigm ( I knew I'd get that word into a post sometime, even if not precisely correctly!).

blemt

Nikon D70

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

05/21/2003 07:29:39 PM · #56

Moving a body that wasn't there before isn't introducing an element into a photo? Cool.

As for the large format photography- I actually do shoot 4x5. It's my prefered method of photography.

:)

Originally posted by paganini:

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

05/21/2003 09:34:28 PM · #57

Originally posted by paganini:

The voters voted it high because they believe it is real ...

Actually, I voted it high because
a) I like the deep rich colors
b) I thought he had met the challenge in a creative way,
c) I thought the composition was strong
d) I thought the grass was really cool looking.

I did NOT vote it high because I believed it was real. (Refers back to earlier post)

STEINR

Canon EOS-7D

05/21/2003 09:55:48 PM · #58

to me it was obvious the butterflies were not real, but i gave it a high score because it was a well done photo.