| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2004 08:38:52 AM · #1 |
Luminous Landscape article on where do you draw the line.
Covers most of the points that have been raised at one time or another on the rambling threads here too :)
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 08:51:20 AM · #2 |
Good timely article. To me the key phrase for us is at the end where "...I believe that photography is about subtraction, while painting is about addition. A painter starts with a blank canvas, and adds what he or she wants us to see. A photographer starts with the physical world, and though the use of composition, lens selection and the like decides what we, the viewer, are to see."
The interesting analogy for DPC is:
Supposed the next challenge is Bears. Someone takes a beautiful wooded landscape, but alas, there's only a soda can in the scene and no bear. Is it appropriate to use dodging, burning, etc. to add a bear to your scene instead of the soda can (equiv. to choice #10).
Of course not.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:35:20 AM · #3 |
Notice though, that the whole point of the article was 'its up to you'
His own personal feelings were that it was about subtraction - not that that should be your own.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:30:28 AM · #4 |
That's an excellent article. It spins around all the 'scenarios' of why you would or woulnd't include the can in the photograph.
The only 'answer' to the question is the one the photographer chooses.
"It seems to me that we are debating the question of art and esthetics vs. evidence."
This is the key quote in that article, IMO. What the photographer chooses to do with the original photograph must simply meet his own expectations of what the final image should look like. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:33:18 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:36:04 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This is the key quote in that article, IMO. What the photographer chooses to do with the original photograph must simply meet his own expectations of what the final image should look like. |
I don't have time to get to the article right now, but it seems obvious to me that the above quote does not precisely cover the situation of the photographer having been given an assignment/challenge. For anything the artist creates on their own, I would completely agree that ultimately the "correct" editing is that which yields something closest to the artist's vision of what it should look like. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:38:02 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This is the key quote in that article, IMO. What the photographer chooses to do with the original photograph must simply meet his own expectations of what the final image should look like. |
I don't have time to get to the article right now, but it seems obvious to me that the above quote does not precisely cover the situation of the photographer having been given an assignment/challenge. |
This is correct. Assignment/Theme photography must always meet the guidelines and expectations of the group/person/site making the assignment.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:57:34 AM · #8 |
Gordon:
Thanks for the link to a great article, one that should be a reading assignment to the members of DPC.
Each of us will get something different from it. There were a couple of example questions that I felt were very topical to the very involved discussion that has been going on here,
What is the viewerâs expectation?
What is our promise to the viewer, either implicit or explicit?
When one decides to enter a challenge, or basically accept the assignment, I feel he/she should ask themselves those questions each time.
Dick
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:04:17 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by autool:
When one decides to enter a challenge, or basically accept the assignment... |
Entering a challenge, here, and accepting an assignment are not the same thing at all. An assignment does not afford the same liberties and, more often than not, involves a mercantile aspect.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:14:09 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by autool:
When one decides to enter a challenge, or basically accept the assignment... |
Entering a challenge, here, and accepting an assignment are not the same thing at all. An assignment does not afford the same liberties and, more often than not, involves a mercantile aspect. |
An entry here in Serendiptiy vs a wedding 'job' will have limitations on editing but more freedom to interpret the concept. Both (in theory) share the same goal - to please the target audience - one for money the other for glory/fame/score/ego. So they are very similar.
Shooting for your own pleasure (pure art?) vs anyshot with any audience are not comparable, but a challange, class assignement or job are all very similar in intent.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:44:24 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by autool:
When one decides to enter a challenge, or basically accept the assignment... |
Entering a challenge, here, and accepting an assignment are not the same thing at all. An assignment does not afford the same liberties and, more often than not, involves a mercantile aspect. |
An entry here in Serendiptiy vs a wedding 'job' will have limitations on editing but more freedom to interpret the concept. Both (in theory) share the same goal - to please the target audience - one for money the other for glory/fame/score/ego. So they are very similar.
Shooting for your own pleasure (pure art?) vs anyshot with any audience are not comparable, but a challange, class assignement or job are all very similar in intent. |
Thanks for the input, that is what I was trying to say.
Dick |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:51:27 PM · #12 |
As timely as this article is, the issue is about cloning out a small aspect of the composition. Notice his tenth choice, about the addition of a polar bear, was put in "just for laughs". Cloning out a blemish/soda can that takes up 1%, if that, of the image and rendering a major aspect of the photo are horses of a different color. (And both horses are getting quite a beating here.)
It is my belief that if you are creating graphic art/digital art, the rendering of objects in your image is perfectly acceptable, however, this has no place in photography.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:52:14 PM · #13 |
I'd kick the damn can out of my composition.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 04:41:52 PM · #14 |
Art Wolfe Interview in PhotoMedia Magazine
By making conscious choices about which subjects to shoot and how to present his images, Wolfe has also attracted a fair amount of controversy in his career. Almost a decade after sparking a heated international debate in nature photography, Wolfe looks back on âMigrations,â his book about the migratory patterns of animals.
Inspired by artist M.C. Escher, Wolfe published âMigrationsâ in 1994 at the dawn of the digital revolution, with some photos that had been digitally enhanced. The focus of the dispute was a photo of a zebra herd in which Wolfe had added some animals at the top and bottom of the photo to fill the frame. An introduction in the book clearly stated that some photos had been altered, but critics claimed that Wolfe was presenting a falsehood.
At the time, Wolfe was surprised by the vehement reaction. âWhat I was trying to say was that itâs not going to alter photography,â he explains. âItâs not like this is the beginning of the end of photography, as a lot of people were assuming. I just thought that if they had any kind of historical perspective, theyâd realize that any time a new medium or new glitch in the continuum of photography would occur, there was always hysterical and controversial reaction. It happened when black and white saw color come into the fray. People literally said the same thing about painting when photography came along, that no one will ever buy paintings.â
|
|
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: 09/22/2025 11:57:38 PM EDT.
