| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2007 05:38:15 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process.
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 18:47:12. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 07:34:55 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process. |
No one was devaluing anything.
If the end result is all that matters then I agree, who cares how it was achieved.
However, if the intent is to learn something photographic then the line is in a different place than if the intent is to learn how to achieve the effect in post. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 07:42:05 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
However, if the intent is to learn something photographic then the line is in a different place than if the intent is to learn how to achieve the effect in post. |
If the goal is to make good photographs, then it seems that both camera and post-processing techniques would be useful to know, and to use in whatever relative proportions the particular shooting setting and desired end-result dictate. Learning "Photoshop tricks" doesn't mean one isn't interested in (or committed to using) good "camera technique" -- they are not mutally exclusive activities. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 07:43:15 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug. This can be done with film/darkroom techniques, albeit with more equipment and toxic chemicals than were needed here. |
If I build a house out of a stack of bricks, would you call the house a brick ? |
I call my house "the brick" because it's so #&*%&@# awseome.
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 19:44:06. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 07:54:05 PM · #55 |
FWIW, and as has already been communicated throughout this thread, photography skills and photoshop skills are not mutually exclusive, nor does the lack of one or the other really have any bearing on winning challenges consistently. I have decent photoshop skills, but until my photography started getting better, my images still sucked. And once in awhile I take some really good photos and the better I get at doing that, the less photoshopping I have to do. But to me, aside from completely changing reality (which has been done in film photography by things as simple as cropping), photoshop allows me to turn a simple snapshot into a pretty cool portrait.
Being a purist or playing semantics seems like a waste of time and energy to me. I am an "end result" kind of shooter. I am ok with chimping a photo and saying "good enough, I can make something cool out of that". I guess maybe photography traditionlists or purists are like bow hunters - you know, give the thing a sporting chance, make it more challenging, etc. I think that's fine - to each his own and it may not be as highly received or rewarded on this site, but then this site is hugely diverse - "a clique oriented cesspool of bitterness" as I recall one person put it - LOL - and you're not a prisoner here. ...like I am. :)
...the only thing that annoys me is putting disclaimers in titles: "Flight of the Bumblebee (shot handheld, full crop, straight from the camera, untouched by photoshop and uploaded straight to my uber-impressive true photographic portfolio)"
edit to add: GeneralE (or whatever his real identity) beat me to the "not mutually exclusive" point. ...but he's just trying to maintain his cover.
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 19:56:12. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 08:08:18 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...the only thing that annoys me is putting disclaimers in titles: "Flight of the Bumblebee (shot handheld, full crop, straight from the camera, untouched by photoshop and uploaded straight to my uber-impressive true photographic portfolio)" |
Wait a minute, you didn't say if that was a live bee captured in the wild. If this is staged it's getting a 1 from me you non-wildlife photographer hack! |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 08:21:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...the only thing that annoys me is putting disclaimers in titles: "Flight of the Bumblebee (shot handheld, full crop, straight from the camera, untouched by photoshop and uploaded straight to my uber-impressive true photographic portfolio)" |
Wait a minute, you didn't say if that was a live bee captured in the wild. If this is staged it's getting a 1 from me you non-wildlife photographer hack! |
Correction: "Flight of the Bumblebee (shot handheld, full crop, straight from the camera, untouched by photoshop and uploaded straight to my uber-impressive true photographic portfolio and the bee was shot in the wilderness and yes, that is REAL honey and the bee was not harmed during or after the shoot this time)" |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 08:39:25 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...the only thing that annoys me is putting disclaimers in titles: "Flight of the Bumblebee (shot handheld, full crop, straight from the camera, untouched by photoshop and uploaded straight to my uber-impressive true photographic portfolio)" |
Wait a minute, you didn't say if that was a live bee captured in the wild. If this is staged it's getting a 1 from me you non-wildlife photographer hack! |
Correction: "Flight of the Bumblebee (shot handheld, full crop, straight from the camera, untouched by photoshop and uploaded straight to my uber-impressive true photographic portfolio and the bee was shot in the wilderness and yes, that is REAL honey and the bee was not harmed during or after the shoot this time)" |
Ahh. Ok. Bumping it to a 5. Would be higher but I just remembered I hate bumblebees. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 08:50:14 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process. |
No one was devaluing anything.
If the end result is all that matters then I agree, who cares how it was achieved.
However, if the intent is to learn something photographic then the line is in a different place than if the intent is to learn how to achieve the effect in post. |
Yes, there will always be post processing. No question.
However, if an effect is achievable through camera technique why not learn that first then if that doesn't turn your crank learn the PS way.
It's like knowing the rules first before you break them. Not that doing it with the camera is a rule.
Just a thought. Which is really what the intended point of this thread was.
Anyway, I think the discussion has gone way off the rails so the thread should be locked. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 09:54:48 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Anyway, I think the discussion has gone way off the rails so the thread should be locked. |
I know you were pointing at me when you said that. :(
Why lock the thread. It should be an ongoing, perpetual discussion anyway. Although they should be numbered like the "Post your favorite pic..." etc. :) |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 09:58:29 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process. |
How did one go about doing something like this before photoshop? And, how frequent was it? Just a handful of magicians in film that could produce this?
IMO, this is beyond photography - it's crossed the line into graphic arts.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:01:12 PM · #62 |
...or, how about this? Is this still called photography? Looks like graphic art that should be a poster for a sci-fi book or movie.
You have a gift with photoshop for sure...but to the average citizen or even some in the "art" community, this is substantially beyond what most would call "photography".
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:09:33 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process. |
How did one go about doing something like this before photoshop? And, how frequent was it? Just a handful of magicians in film that could produce this?
IMO, this is beyond photography - it's crossed the line into graphic arts. |
I think that many things are possible in the darkroom given you spent tons of time on it. See Jerry Uelsmann's portfolio for some things that many would call digital art. It's not impossible. It just takes more time than we photoshop-junkies would like to spend in the darkroom. :) |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:27:29 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by daboardergirl:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process. |
How did one go about doing something like this before photoshop? And, how frequent was it? Just a handful of magicians in film that could produce this?
IMO, this is beyond photography - it's crossed the line into graphic arts. |
I think that many things are possible in the darkroom given you spent tons of time on it. See Jerry Uelsmann's portfolio for some things that many would call digital art. It's not impossible. It just takes more time than we photoshop-junkies would like to spend in the darkroom. :) |
Exactly. If I got into photography before photoshop this is exactly what I'd be trying to do with film. Photography have never been just about documenting events or serving a commercial purpose, it's also about art and self expression. No new ground has been broken with the advent of digital or photoshop. Just new tools serving the same old purposes.
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 23:32:35. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:40:01 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by daboardergirl:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It matters if your goal is to learn camera/photographic technique rather than which PS filter to use to try and achieve the same end. |
So you want to learn a camera/photographic technique rather than a digital darkroom/photographic technique. Great! I'm pretty sure one can learn new camera tricks and develop one's own style without having to devalue other techniques in the process. |
How did one go about doing something like this before photoshop? And, how frequent was it? Just a handful of magicians in film that could produce this?
IMO, this is beyond photography - it's crossed the line into graphic arts. |
I think that many things are possible in the darkroom given you spent tons of time on it. See Jerry Uelsmann's portfolio for some things that many would call digital art. It's not impossible. It just takes more time than we photoshop-junkies would like to spend in the darkroom. :) |
Exactly. If I got into photography before photoshop this is exactly what I'd be trying to do with film. Photography have never been just about documenting events or serving a commercial purpose, it's also about art and self expression. No new ground has been broken with the advent of digital or photoshop. Just new tools serving the same old purposes. |
Ok. I can see that, and kind of expected this response.
In the "old" days (pre photoshop era), this type of work would be an exception, yes?
Now, everybody and their brother is doing it. It's gotten to the point where when someone looks at a "real" photo of an exceptional scene that they automatically assume that it's been photoshopped. It can't possibly be "real", right?
That to me is a shame.
edit - typo.
Message edited by author 2007-09-18 06:01:39. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 11:30:41 PM · #66 |
That's true but people have faked photographs before photoshop. Sure there may be more of it now but that's only going to continue especially with the direction of technology and how more and more photoshop functionality is getting into cameras these days.
FWIW, it does bother me when the photographer uses any tool to purposely deceive whether it be photoshop or the camera. I like to think that the two examples you used doesn't do that. Now if I tried to make them more realistic and pass them off as photojournalistic then yeah I can see where the problem would occur. I wouldn't like that either if I came across it. Same goes for when people fake things like stop motion in a stop motion challenge or saying you shot a rare bird in the wild when you really didn't. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 11:31:34 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
It's gotten to the point where when someone looks at a "real" photo of an exceptional scene that they automatically assume that it's been photoshopped. It can't possibly be "real", right?
That to me is a shame. |
I really don't see this as a problem. The work is all that matters to me. Let them think what they want to think. I'll just keep pluggin' along.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2007 02:04:27 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
If you take it with your camera, it's a photo.
Photography is art. There should be no line drawn. |
art should be accessible to everyone regardless of age group.
say no to age discrimination! all people, regardless of age should have full access to porn! i mean, art! |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 07:41:06 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Yes, there will always be post processing. No question.
However, if an effect is achievable through camera technique why not learn that first then if that doesn't turn your crank learn the PS way.
It's like knowing the rules first before you break them. Not that doing it with the camera is a rule. |
Money and time. I don't have money to buy colored contacts to change the color of a models eyes. I don't have money to light areas that need to be more well lit, or the time to do it when I'm out and about. I don't have money for make-up. That's one reason for not doing it straight out of the camera with some shots and to achieve certain end results. I don't know how my wife would feel about me painting her roses all black and planting one red rose in the garden, instead of just desaturating the image and masking out the part I want red...just a thought.
As far as the 'knowing the rules first...' who has set those rules? There are no rules, except when it comes to the challenges. If you've decided the first rule of photography is to get good pictures straight from the camera, good on you. That's not my rule. I look at a scene, think "Hmmm...straight out of the camera would suck, but if I do this and that in photoshop, then I've got an image worth holding onto." |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 08:08:12 AM · #70 |
My 2 cents.
Since the advent of photography the photographer has used and developed whatever tools he has had at his disposal. There are far more people with cameras today, so there are more people involved in the development and implementation. So I suppose what I am trying to say is that this is just the evolution and refinement of photographic techniques. If you are wondering if it is digital art or a photograph then that is a good thing. The main thing is, does the result move you or appeal to you? DPC tries to keep it as level a playing field as it can but it will never please everyone. I for one have learned so much on this site which has helped me provide a better product for my client as this is how I earn my living, what is wrong with that? I dont take it to the extreme ... yet .... but if it produces a product that appeals to the person viewing it and they want to buy it, I am happy. You will never please everyone.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2007 08:09:20 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Yes, there will always be post processing. No question.
However, if an effect is achievable through camera technique why not learn that first then if that doesn't turn your crank learn the PS way.
It's like knowing the rules first before you break them. Not that doing it with the camera is a rule. |
... I look at a scene, think "Hmmm...straight out of the camera would suck, but if I do this and that in photoshop, then I've got an image worth holding onto." |
Cheater. :P |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 08:18:59 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by loriprophoto:
... I dont take it to the extreme ... yet .... but if it produces a product that appeals to the person viewing it and they want to buy it, I am happy. ... |
There's a difference between some tweaking of a photo, and creating something that doesn't resemble a photograph anymore. Then again, there is an audience/market for just about anything out there - so hey, if it (photography, digital art, graphics, etc...) works to provide a living for some - hooray for them.
This thread has strayed somewhat, I think, from the OP's initial thought; that being when does photoshop take a photograph beyond being a photo anymore?
Oh well, carry on - justify away. :D |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 08:31:17 AM · #73 |
Everyone is so busy saying it doesn't matter what category it's in so why not just call it what it is... digital art? If it didn't matter these categories wouldn't be around.
Of course it matters. Photography is more than the final image. It's the process of getting that final image. The time put in, the hours, days, weeks waiting for the perfect light. The research needed to find a location for the shot you have in mind. The sitting in a blind for 2 weeks waiting for that one chance to catch your subject. It's the culmination of all events.
We live in a society where all that matters in the final product and the applause that's lauded on us for a great image. It use to be about personal satisfaction. That has nothing to do with it these days.
Yeah, darkroom techniques like masking and using multiple negs have been around for ages but they weren't used in the art world that much, it was extremely frowned upon. Anyone who thinks different isn't old enough to remember the brow beating anyone who merged images use to take.
Photoshop is a great tool and that's all it should be. When it's used to take multiple mediocre shots and make 1 great shot it's digital art IMO. When the focus of the image is manipulated it's digital art. Still in the photography category, but under manipulations.
Photography is about clicking a shutter once, capturing what you labored over for a period of time then looking at the final result and saying, 'yeah, that works'. I know a guy who takes weeks to get one image of a bird. He waits for the right light, the right atmosphere and the right composition. Now some other person goes there at noon, shoots a bird for an hour, goes home and PS's it for 30 minutes and has a good looking shot. Which one is the photograph? If you think the guy who waited in the blind is a fool for doing so you're not a photographer at heart. He deserves the credit to be called a photographer not the other person. Like I said, photography is more than the image.
So you can all sit here and claim that categories don't matter. That art is art. No it's not. The people who pain over true photography deserve the credit to be called photographers. If it bothers you being called a 'digital artist' then go out and learn how to shoot images traditionally.
I've seen a few comments here that said 'learn photoshop'. I say 'learn photography'.
Just my take...
Dave |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 08:56:23 AM · #74 |
|
|
|
09/18/2007 09:58:51 AM · #75 |
When I was running my photo studio back in *gasp* the late 70's, I remember working my butt off getting and keeping the chemistry to just the right temperature, stockpiling the same lot number of required film in the 'fridge and cursing those "photographers" who heated their Dektol to push Tri-X to 3200 ASA or rubbed the back of Polaroids to get those fantastic colors.
I remember sweating in the dark to produce those wedding montages, one at a time. I remember the "zone Nazis" and the "grain Nazis" who populated the shows and open houses pompously expounding the obvious advantages of their belief. It bothered me at the time because I had an unbending comfort zone, or rather, my clients did (same thing when your making a living) to produce a product within a set of given characteristics, and secondly, because I didn't have the time to do it myself.
But over time, I did explore the corners. While I could never commercially present a grin filled image to a wedding client, I shot a key light with bounce fill nude of my 9 month pregnant wife with Tri-X pushed to some ungodly ASA and it remains a favorite image to this day.
Today we have the "Photoshop Nazis" who will tell me this is distracting or that is too noisy or the color saturation is this, that or the other and that is good, I want to hear how my photo is perceived, but, it doesn't necessarily reflect the value of the photo other than within this context.
Photography is about obtaining the results YOU (or your client) want or expect. Intolerance is the greatest problem with Photoshop and anyone who judges a work "too Photoshoped" needs to add the words "for me".
It's easy for me to serve this up; I don't make my living from photography, at least not the major portion of it, and I love the freedom it affords me. I laugh at my friend who now runs a successful studio but used to be my nemeses, the avant garde shooter. I was recently rejected for a gallery slot because I *OMG!!!* worked in C-O-L-O-R and, well you know, serious photographic art is Black and White. So here's three photographers turning out B$W art that sits in a tropical gallery showing vibrant color paintings. Go figure.
BTW; the most missed feature in digital cameras for me? Unable to double expose!!!! Any architecture photographer will tell you to click the shutter TWICE. And so it goes...
The line? When you say "That's too much" or That's not enough."
|
|
