| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2004 06:09:33 PM · #1 |
Wow, I return to DPC and see that the Digital Art argument is still as strong as ever.
I recall several times participating in long and heated debates about 'digital art' on DPC in the past - several of you will no doubt remember the debates.
For one, there seems to be a class systems (for want of a better word) developing over time on this site, that if you edit your pictures, then you photograph is less of value that a picture that didn't get edited as much or at all.
This in turn causes a snobbery of photography in my eyes, which kind of puts us back a step in the technology department.
Now I may be way of the mark here, but I am guessing that a lot of people have gotten into photography because of the technological advances in digital photography.
Having seen it with my own eyes, mums, dads, grandparents and children are now shooting photographs when before digital they would only ever use a camera on holiday or on a special occasion.
Thanks to cut down versions of software (such as Photoshop Elements) and even pirate copies, these people are now editing their pictures too, which results in lots of tacky effects and filters being used liberally and some truly shocking digital 'art' being created.
The skilful users however, do equal amounts of editing (I would actually go so far as to say they do a whole lot more editing) but because of their patience and grace, this goes largely unnoticed.
I think many people throwing in the 'digital art is bad' argument really fail to grasp two large points.
The first being that ever since photographs could be taken; people were finding ways to enhance what came out of the camera.
I have read many books by the worlds past and present top photographers and each and every one spends more time editing that they do taking the photograph.
Ansel, whom comes up a lot in these discussions - did so much post processing that he had to hire several finishers, touchers-up, and spot editors to finish his pictures for him. And all that was after the hours, days and weeks he spent burning, cropping and dodging (amongst other things)
He certainly never was accused of not being a true photographer so I fail to understand why this comes up now - unless it's from those that no little about photographic history.
My father - whom is a great photographer - learnt his skills in the dark room. He, along with his fellow photographers would invent many different ways to work in their darkroom to produce the desired results. And he finds that easier to be creative with than Photoshop.
Again he was never accused of not being a true photographer; on the contrary he was acclaimed for his photographic skills.
All this is feel comes as a surprise to many, because they have just got into digital photography and never read or bothered about film, they fail to understand that photographs have been edited highly in the past -and this creates the illusion that editing is something new, a new technology that is ruining traditional photography.
The second point worth mentioning goes back to the way things are edited. I have edited the hell out of some of my images, yet they have largely gone unoticed. Others have had no editing and have been subject to queries about the authenticity of it.
This creates a large pointless argument - picking out photographs that look edited and calling them digital art - when true digital art goes completely unnoticed.
Those same people will no doubt open a magazine and look in awe of the manipulated images or go to a top film photographers gallery and wish they could produce the same shots straight out of camera and set their false goals upon this.
Yet they do not understand that these images are the result of many peoples hard work and new technologies, lights & lighting crews, assistants and new receptive films, the photographer and his light meters, the man holding the brand new multicoated reflector, the makeup artists creating perfect skin, the editors stretching the developers whom push his film, the modern printers, the editors that stretch the photograph to give the appearance of taller legs, the retouchers whom smooth skin even more.
If you look a bit harder, a lot of the editing that goes on actually makes the image more like it appeared in real life to the eye. Most digital images benefit from a degree of sharpening for a start.
With Heida's shot, all she seemed to do was get around her cameras limitations with a secondary tool.
I do not have a graduated ND filter, so when I am faced with a bright sky I have 3 options. Expose for the sky and leave my lower subject black - expose for the lower subject and blow my sky out, or find a mid point and burn the sky to bring it back to how it actually was.
But if I used a ND filter - how many people would moan about digital art?
The true skill in photography comes when one can visualise an effective photograph. Stand up on a rock and say to himself - yes this can be a great shot. Then have the skill to create that shot. Be it in the darkroom, or with a piece of software.
Really, editing didn't start with Photoshop..
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 18:19:26.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:22:55 PM · #2 |
AMEN TO THAT! But I also think there is another reason behind that anti-photoshop movement. As some others say software is not yet something anyone can easily handle, some still see software alot harder to handle than it is, or it scares them or whatever, but they can't seem to deal with it, others can't aford a photoshop copy and there is a 3'rd category, I saw a few here who always have the money to buy the latest cameras, lenses filters lights and any equipment they need, so for them I think is a pride thing to say "it can be done without ps" this is probably the most snob cathegory. But you are right photographers enhance theyr images since the verry first days of photography and photoshop is just how all that has evolved in the new millenium. After all I think it's not how you do it, it's what you do, the final result that should mater.
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 18:24:11. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:26:41 PM · #3 |
Yup, all phtooshop has doen is brought the posibilities of editing to the masses.
Many of the tools in photshop have been developed from old techniques, and in time the inbuilt tools on digital cameras will blend in with those currently avaliable to photoshop users.
We may even see a digital film camera that can be edited to buggery via the camera itself.
Can't wait to see how people argue then.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:30:47 PM · #4 |
We all know I'm not the "artsy-fartsy" type, and know just enough about photoshop to be dangerous...but it sure helped me clean up this picture...and I would still call it a photograph because I didn't add anything to it that wasn't there...I cropped and cloned out distractions, tweaked the levels, burned some definition into the clouds...does it cross the line? Without those tools, the original would look pretty bad in a photo album to show the family.
original edited
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:30:53 PM · #5 |
Very well said jonpink!
I for instance saw a documentary about James Nachtwey the other day, (he is by the way the one of the worlds most known War Photographer) and from that you can clearly see that he´s got people doing excessive burning/dodging in the darkroom before he is actually satisfied with his work!
Does that make him any less talented?
I could name many other famous photographers that most surely edit the hell out of their work before it meets the eye of the consumer, but I´ll leave you guys to do you own homework.
I like to think people are here to learn more about photography and I think any working professional can tell you that retouching is probably more work than the actual shooting when all things are considered.
Photoshop is mearly a tool of the trade and those who despise it and refuse to make use of that tool will simply be left behind.
Can you imagine a Carpender refusing to use some particular tool of his trade, a saw for example?....nahhh dont think so.
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 18:47:03.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:40:35 PM · #6 |
| Thanks for the speech, Jon- very well put. It's worth noting that Photoshop's dodging and burning tools weren't the brainchild of some software engineer. They're modeled after traditional darkroom techniques that have been used since before any of the complainers were born. The debate is as pointlesss to me as arguing that it's not REALLY a photograph unless you're using film. Anything more advanced is just computer generated pixels! |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:47:56 PM · #7 |
If you like James Nachtwey try Don McCullin, another 'burner' and war photographer. Great stuff.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:54:29 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 09:28:02 AM · #9 |
Dodging, burning, cropping, and a whole host of other photograph correction tools are very generic film/digital elements. So I was a little surprised by the negative comments to Heida's work. Some are startled that what they find to be a mediocre initial capture could be processed to such stunning extent (I think the flat, low contrast image was likely intentional so Heida had enough detail in the highlights and lowlights to effectively dodge and burn, so I hesitate to call the initial capture mediocre - probably all within her intent/vision. The end result is certainly stunning).
But what about cloning out major elements, or adding in major elements that were not in the original picture? There are certainly some modern software based tools that seem to me less photographic and more computer generated art. Not bad per se, just different.
It seems to me that there is a spectrum along which these things fall. On the one hand, there is an unedited photograph. On the other hand, there is pure digital art - completely computer generated elements, no photographic elements at all. And there are an unlimited number of things in between. It seems personal to the viewer where a particular piece of art falls on that spectrum, or if any distinction should be drawn at all.
That's just my two cents. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:50:27 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
... We may even see a digital film camera that can be edited to buggery via the camera itself.
Can't wait to see how people argue then. |
I would argue it the same way I argue it now. A photograph is captured light. If the effect the image has on the viewer comes from the captured light, it is a photograph. If it comes from something other than the captured light; that something must have been added in post-processing, which makes it digital art.
It does not matter what tools are used (or how much they are used); burn, dodge, clone ... whatever, as much as you want. As long as it enhanced the light that was captured at the scene, it is a photograph; but the image stops being a just a photograph when the photograph becomes just a part of the image. When the effect comes from what was added (or taken away for that matter) -- at that point it has become digital art.
I have paid money to be a member of very few sights on the internet, but one of them was a digital art site. Nothing wrong with digital art, but it has no place in a photography contest.
David
/edit: I can't spell. :(
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 14:32:55.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:57:24 PM · #11 |
So which is the one and only approved ISO sensitivity to "capture light," since changing the sensitivity is really little different than applying tonal adjustments afterwards?
And I assume all analog photographs must be shot through a pinhole camera, to one one standard film, processed for a specified time in a standard chemical mix, and contact printed to some standard paper, in order to meet the "official photo" definition.
Anything else would be "post-processed" and therefore not a photograph. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:17:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So which is the one and only approved ISO sensitivity to "capture light," since changing the sensitivity is really little different than applying tonal adjustments afterwards?
And I assume all analog photographs must be shot through a pinhole camera, to one one standard film, processed for a specified time in a standard chemical mix, and contact printed to some standard paper, in order to meet the "official photo" definition.
Anything else would be "post-processed" and therefore not a photograph. |
Oh well ,now you are going extreme!
If I take Honda Civic and put 2 Wings and rotary engine ,who in the world will call it a "car" ? |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:17:40 PM · #13 |
My two cents here:
What britania penned here is quite right.
I come from the film era. Dodging and burning are the first technique one learns. The reason is simple. Consider the Zone system: the eye can pick up the info but the camera is a limited tool wherein very bright objects adjascent to datk ones spill the light over. This is something which digital cameras are more prone to. That is, the neighboring sensors that should remain at their exposed value are adversely affected by the light ones, especially those in the higher scenes. Burning simply tries to correct this imperfection. There is more to be added here, but suffice it to say, the camera falls short in the true enterpretation.
The sole object of basic editing techniques is to make the representation as true to life as possible. Whether done with film by using dodge, burn, fixing perpective by lifting one end of the enlarger easel or creating the unsharp mask, which was tedious, or using software equivalents, all this has always beem considered the craft, trade or artistic license to present the image.
Yes, adding elements, using distort filters and making photo composite is digital art. I am not too popular here, because a great part of my port consist of PS manipulations, yet I have not lost the basic ability to produce the regular or normal picture. Yet I am at a loss as to why dodging and burning are not included in basic editing yet the UM is. The Um is considered advance editing in film photography. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:19:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So which is the one and only approved ISO sensitivity to "capture light," since changing the sensitivity is really little different than applying tonal adjustments afterwards?
And I assume all analog photographs must be shot through a pinhole camera, to one one standard film, processed for a specified time in a standard chemical mix, and contact printed to some standard paper, in order to meet the "official photo" definition.
Anything else would be "post-processed" and therefore not a photograph. |
I assume this replies to David's post, but I do not see the connection. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:22:55 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
[I assume this replies to David's post, but I do not see the connection. |
I think I read a little more into his "restrictions" than there may actually be stated. Sorry.
I get frustrated when people try to draw a solid line where there now exists a gray area about eight miles wide ... I should just stay out of this kind of subjective photography argument and stick to politics ... :)
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 14:23:25. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:27:48 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So which is the one and only approved ISO sensitivity to "capture light," since changing the sensitivity is really little different than applying tonal adjustments afterwards?
And I assume all analog photographs must be shot through a pinhole camera, to one one standard film, processed for a specified time in a standard chemical mix, and contact printed to some standard paper, in order to meet the "official photo" definition.
Anything else would be "post-processed" and therefore not a photograph. |
Oh well ,now you are going extreme!
If I take Honda Civic and put 2 Wings and rotary engine ,who in the world will call it a "car" ? |
I think he is argueing just for the sake of argueing.
Either that, or he seriously misread my post (if indeed his was in reaponse to mine).
David
/edit: I see I am still a little slow today.
I am not trying to draw a solid line, just putting the grey area into perspective.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 14:31:36.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:33:46 PM · #17 |
My $.02...
PS is going to ruin photography.
Why wait all day for the right lighting? just photoshop it in.
Why create a nice compositon? You can move things around in PS.
Why look for the perfect flower? You can touch it up when you get home.
Take a picture of a mountain but you're not happy with the sky? Just swap out the sky from another photo. Add some lightening if you wish.
Why keep a dead bug in your freezer? Just photo it once and PS it into any picture you may want to use it in.
Landscape photo doesn't have enough trees? Don't worry, you can clone some more in. No need to walk a little further and find a better landscape.
Too lazy to get out of the car so you can avoid a fence in your picture? Don't worry, just clone it out when you get home, why get up?
Dirty lens? Don't bother cleaning it, PS can fix it.
PS is turning photographers into painters.
Just my $.02, flame away now. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:33:46 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
We may even see a digital film camera that can be edited to buggery via the camera itself. |
My laptop has an integrated camera and runs photoshop. It is a single unit, that I can capture, edit and upload the image - as such, it wouldn't be too hard to argue that it was all done 'in camera'
If that is too much of a system for you to think of a camera, then consider next generation camera phones, which will have a 1GHz processor, user programmable, in the data path between the camera sensor and the storage media.
Point is, these devices already exist - so where does 'in camera' lie ?
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:35:36 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
I am not trying to draw a solid line, just putting the grey area into perspective. |
And a valiant attempt it is too! If you can even narrow the gray area to a few hundred yards you'll have done better than most :) |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:41:17 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by louddog:
PS is turning photographers into painters. |
Some of us would have wanted to be painters, but lack the hand-eye corrdination, color-sense, and finances to do so. Cameras give people another tool for realizing an artistic vision. I have no problem with dividing photography into levels (e.g. photo-journalistic/fornsic vs portraiture), and I certainly consider some of my works to be "photographic art" and not just a photograph, but I think they are all legitimate forms of photography, and there is no firm boundary between genres. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:45:46 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I should just stay out of this kind of subjective photography argument and stick to politics ... :) |
Don't do that, I much prefer subjective photography discussions on this site (at least they seem more relevant to the site). :-)
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:46:52 PM · #22 |
My $.02...
PS is going to ruin photography.
Why wait all day for the right lighting? just photoshop it in.
Why create a nice compositon? You can move things around in PS.
Why look for the perfect flower? You can touch it up when you get home.
Take a picture of a mountain but you're not happy with the sky? Just swap out the sky from another photo. Add some lightening if you wish.
Why keep a dead bug in your freezer? Just photo it once and PS it into any picture you may want to use it in.
Landscape photo doesn't have enough trees? Don't worry, you can clone some more in. No need to walk a little further and find a better landscape.
Too lazy to get out of the car so you can avoid a fence in your picture? Don't worry, just clone it out when you get home, why get up?
Dirty lens? Don't bother cleaning it, PS can fix it.
PS is turning photographers into painters.
PS can be used to recreate the old darkroom with the basic editing such as explained in previous post or it can be used for advance image manipulations. It is simply a tool.
Because of the imperfection of the silver halide and sensors, editing is required and the better photographers are known for their skill in using these basic editing tool. The picture is only the first step in the long process.
The true object of using a camera is to study the meaning of light and the more time spent on this subject the better the photographer. It is all light and shadow.
PS will create a new generation of unique and novel approaches, but basic photography will always be with us, only its representation will simply do more justice to the image.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:54:02 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by louddog:
My $.02...
PS is going to ruin photography.
Why wait all day for the right lighting? just photoshop it in.
Why create a nice compositon? You can move things around in PS.
Why look for the perfect flower? You can touch it up when you get home.
Take a picture of a mountain but you're not happy with the sky? Just swap out the sky from another photo. Add some lightening if you wish.
Why keep a dead bug in your freezer? Just photo it once and PS it into any picture you may want to use it in.
Landscape photo doesn't have enough trees? Don't worry, you can clone some more in. No need to walk a little further and find a better landscape.
Too lazy to get out of the car so you can avoid a fence in your picture? Don't worry, just clone it out when you get home, why get up?
Dirty lens? Don't bother cleaning it, PS can fix it.
PS is turning photographers into painters.
Just my $.02, flame away now. |
This isn't a flame but it is part of the crux of the issue. It largely depends on what you feel the point of photography is. Some folk believe its a record of what they saw at the time they clicked the shutter. Others like it for the technology of capturing light on film. Other people want to use all the digital technology. Some others care more about how good the end result looks. Still others want an accurate, truthful rendition of the situation happening infront of the lens, and so on. There are a myriad of reasons someone might pick up a camera and they are all photography, in one form or another. The problem comes when you start trying to say one approach is photography and the other isn't.
Not everyone approaches photography for the same purposes. Missing this point leads to a lot of these debates.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:58:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by louddog:
My $.02...
PS is going to ruin photography.
Why wait all day for the right lighting? just photoshop it in.
Why create a nice compositon? You can move things around in PS.
Why look for the perfect flower? You can touch it up when you get home.
Take a picture of a mountain but you're not happy with the sky? Just swap out the sky from another photo. Add some lightening if you wish.
Why keep a dead bug in your freezer? Just photo it once and PS it into any picture you may want to use it in.
Landscape photo doesn't have enough trees? Don't worry, you can clone some more in. No need to walk a little further and find a better landscape.
Too lazy to get out of the car so you can avoid a fence in your picture? Don't worry, just clone it out when you get home, why get up?
Dirty lens? Don't bother cleaning it, PS can fix it.
PS is turning photographers into painters.
Just my $.02, flame away now. |
This isn't a flame but it is part of the crux of the issue. It largely depends on what you feel the point of photography is. Some folk believe its a record of what they saw at the time they clicked the shutter. Others like it for the technology of capturing light on film. Other people want to use all the digital technology. Some others care more about how good the end result looks. Still others want an accurate, truthful rendition of the situation happening infront of the lens, and so on. There are a myriad of reasons someone might pick up a camera and they are all photography, in one form or another. The problem comes when you start trying to say one approach is photography and the other isn't.
Not everyone approaches photography for the same purposes. Missing this point leads to a lot of these debates. |
Great point. We all have a different definition of what photography is and no one is right or wrong. |
|
|
|
07/20/2004 03:03:35 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Great point. We all have a different definition of what photography is and no one is right or wrong. |
It is hard to be right or wrong about something that is an artform.
Or you could be in the camp that doesn't think photography has anything to do with art, in which case I'm sure everything is wrong. or right.
I care more about the end result than the process used to achieve it. I feel that a whole lot of modern art gets hung up on how difficult it was to do something or how much the artist suffered - but ignores the fact that the end result is crap. There are also a lot of people who like photography for the cameras, the lenses and the process. I try to care more about the pictures.
I'd rather be passionate about something and take good pictures of that, than be a photographer that's passionate about photography and happens to take pictures of things. All of my favourite photographers create beautiful images of things they are passionate about. Other than trying to learn and improve my craft, I could care less how those images were created.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 15:07:12.
|
|
