| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2004 05:30:43 PM · #26 |
Just curious how anyone would consider this photo. It looks like a painting right? It started out as a digital image, I then transferred it to Polaroid Time Zero film. The picture is not manipulated on the computer. It is done on the actual Polaroid print using a small wooden tool by smooshing the chemicals around under the plastic layer of the Polaroid. This effect surely could be done on the computer, but it was done by hand on the actual Polaroid, is it no longer a photograph? Thoughts or comments ?
|
|
|
|
07/20/2004 05:40:37 PM · #27 |
It's true, we have discussed this a lot already but I think that is a good thing. I think it is good to put a lot of thought and discussion into the things we are passionate about.
Above all else I believe it is important to be honest about what you are doing. In this case, being honest about how you are creating your photographic images. In photography there is not much worse then people who try to mislead people or outright lie about their photographs. I don't agree that it is just about the final image because I think the context surrounding the image is just as important. There are acceptable parameters for photojournalism and there are acceptable parameters for photographic art. They are separate but still valid forms of photography. Photographers should have a certain amount of responsibilty to those who view the photos. If you can help it you should try to make it clear to viewers what type of photography they are looking at. This isn't to say that you should attach lengthy paragraphs that explain all the editing techniques you applied but you should be ready to provide a little bit of information if asked. Usually the way the photo is used is enough for viewers to understand what type of photography they are looking at. Tools are just tools and it is up to the users to use them appropriately.
Photography is one thing that I, almost, solely do for my own enjoyment so I don't have any good reason to mislead anyone with it. In fact, I enjoy explaining what editing steps go into my photos. I find that people enjoy understanding the editing techniques and it makes me more credible when I display a popular image that has minimal editing applied. While I am fairly advanced in my editing skills I find it the most rewarding when I can start off with the best original image as possible.
As far as what amount of editing is allowed for the different photgraphic categories. I think it is somewhat subject but not to a large degree. I think a photo becomes digital art or photographic art when you begin adding new elements and/or start distorting reality to a large degree. Cleaning up noise or other small imperfections and removing small distracting elements is still fine for a photograph. These are bascially my views and I could get more specific if I wanted to take the time. I usualy prefer to do less editing rather than more especially when I feel I am entering any gray areas than could be seen as objectionable to some within a certain category.
I agree that dodging and burning should be allowed in the basic editing rules but other than that I think that the rules are spelled out pretty well. I'm sure we will be reviewing these rules from time to time and be considering any new editing tools.
T
|
|
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: 08/28/2025 10:54:22 PM EDT.
