| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2014 01:29:33 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
... You're basically accusing something of not being a photograph without providing any evidence beyond personal taste. ... |
Why does it need to be proven with "evidence"? I would venture that if you put this image/illustration in front of 100 people and asked them to choose between the options of "Photograph", "Illustration", or "Air-Brushed Painting" I would wager that the vast majority, if not all, would not choose "Photograph". |
And if you did such a study, at least you would have some evidence and then we could continue the argument. Right now, the evidence of your opinion is that you have the opinion and you assume that the vast majority also hold your opinion.
Telling me that a vast majority disagree with me is not a great argument, nor is it reflected in this discussion, nor is it reflected in gyaban's scores. |
In your opinion of course. :-) Thank you for that. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 01:42:34 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
These discussions are circular, they mean nothing and accomplish less. |
That's all very well and good, but when the detractors of whatever flavor of the day technique is being flogged, it's always presented with some kind of assumed authority on the subject.
Naturally, their *will* be responses along the lines of, "Really? Could you perhaps seriously look at what's going on and try to see the connection rather than just dismissing it out of hand?".
All a great portion of us want is the ability to see and be exposed to new and different approaches to photography. How else do we find out and learn if not from each other? If you decide you may not have any use for a technique, fine, DON'T use it......but if the guy/girl sitting next to you thinks it's the neatest thing since the folding paper napkin, then a photographer's growth has bee enabled. How, on any level, is that a bad thing regardless of the resulting image's appeal to you?
It's not very often a thread is started because someone creates a fantastic image and someone else wants to extol its virtues......it's always because a new creation or technique offends someone else's idea of what "photography really is".
And that's a load of crap.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2014 01:52:57 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Q: What is a "photograph"?
A: It's an image created on light-sensitive material. It doesn't have to be made with a camera, because there are many ways of creating images on light-sensitive material without cameras. |
Like this ... (click to read details) |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 03:02:37 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
All a great portion of us want is the ability to see and be exposed to new and different approaches to photography. How else do we find out and learn if not from each other? If you decide you may not have any use for a technique, fine, DON'T use it......but if the guy/girl sitting next to you thinks it's the neatest thing since the folding paper napkin, then a photographer's growth has bee enabled. How, on any level, is that a bad thing regardless of the resulting image's appeal to you? |
The conservative position, in general, is that new things are bad because they threaten established forms. In this case, the established form is "photography." I don't mind a conservative position in itself, but so often there is no demonstration of historical evidence. If you don't know the history of something, how can you know what is "established" or "traditional"? |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 03:09:49 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... how can you know what is "established" or "traditional"? |
Anything which has been on the internet since 2012? |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 03:14:41 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The problem is that you, Mariuca, glad2badad, et al are defending the term "photographic in nature" which suggests that there is some essence to photography that only you know.
Calling it an Illustration is begging the question. Photographs can illustrate. And why call it a painting when painting is obviously a completely different process of generating an image? Calling it "Digital art" also begs the question. Everything on this site is digital.
You're basically accusing something of not being a photograph without providing any evidence beyond personal taste. An issue of personal taste should not be controlling the semantics of what photography is. I am not  gyaban's biggest fan. But I will not limit the term "photography" just to knock photographs that I don't like. |
For me it’s not just semantics and my personal taste has really nothing to do with it eitherâ€Â¦. Maybe I don’t know enough about it, but.I truly don’t understand how it can it be a photograph if it’s been taken apart piece by piece and put back together? The light is manipulated.... people’s body parts are exchanged...fantasy worlds are created - not with the click of a camera button but with an imagination and the knowledge of how to manipulate. It’s how the results are obtained and the fact that the finished product is not “realty” that make these appear non-photographic to me.
Yes, all the images on DPC are digital but they are, for the most part, digital replicas of what was actually “seen” in real life. What I would refer to as “digital art” (and could compare to an illustration) involves more an expression of what the artist wants to present to us than what he/she actually saw/took a photo of. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 03:34:33 PM · #82 |
I posted this in the other thread, and I think it merits reposting here:
I'm also attempting to uncouple photographic style (the content of an image) from HOW a photograph was created (analog vs digital, single take vs composite).
For example, Violon d'Ingres - one of Man Ray's most famous - images is a "composite". He photographed the woman, developed the image, then (depending on where you read), either painted on the model during the shoot, burned in later in the darkroom and then reshot, or cut out and pasted the "f" holes on pieces of paper on the image, and reprinted it.
So, is it a photograph or not? It's been painted on or composited in some way. Are we talking about a matter of degrees? Percents? Who decides what those are?
I think it is interesting to note that Man Ray was "One of the world’s most original photographers, Ray was tireless experimenter. In fact, his work was so inventive that he eventually left the camera behind altogether, creating his surreal "Rayographs" entirely in the darkroom. "
He'd have been crucified on DPC.... |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 03:40:21 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
... You're basically accusing something of not being a photograph without providing any evidence beyond personal taste. ... |
Why does it need to be proven with "evidence"? I would venture that if you put this image/illustration in front of 100 people and asked them to choose between the options of "Photograph", "Illustration", or "Air-Brushed Painting" I would wager that the vast majority, if not all, would not choose "Photograph". |
and that is why it is so good! If you then told those 100 people afterwards that the image is totally made up of photo's they would be amazed.
I would also bet if those 100 people had knowledge beforehand that the image was made up totally of photos the majority would choose that it is "photograph" |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 03:43:27 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Q: Wouldn't we be better off if we just dropped that phrase from the rules, then? Let the voters just TELL us what they like? Which is what they do anyway?
A: Yup! That's my opinion, anyway. These discussions are circular, they mean nothing and accomplish less. |
That would be the perfect answer! You need to get together with the other SC and Langdon and sort this out once and for all! |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 05:33:04 PM · #85 |
| The composite images are as much a photograph as thisâ€Â¦fits every definition that's been throw out there. It started with a photograph and was transformed into wellâ€Â¦if you use the definition here on DPC, another photograph. Though I think Mr Close and just about everyone else outside DPC would call it a painting. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 07:22:41 PM · #86 |
Snapshot:  Mosaic with "tiles" made from a folder of my photographs: 
Indexed color (8-color adaptive gamut):  Grayscale (Green Channel Only):  |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 09:15:06 PM · #87 |
Nice composite work.
I don't think Chuck Close uses photographs in his paintings though he was called a photo realist - he uses the photograph as a subject, in effect making the mosaic into a copy of the photo.
As for Man Ray, IMO this would be like comparing apples and oranges. But his manipulated image and those taken without a camera would not have been accepted here. He knew that... he called them Rayograms. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 11:49:36 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Nice composite work.
I don't think Chuck Close uses photographs in his paintings though he was called a photo realist - he uses the photograph as a subject, in effect making the mosaic into a copy of the photo.
As for Man Ray, IMO this would be like comparing apples and oranges. But his manipulated image and those taken without a camera would not have been accepted here. He knew that... he called them Rayograms. |
Chuck Close uses photographs as much as the people making these composites use photographs. They are the source and the artist interprets and re-interprets them warping them into their final image.
The link I posted was not one of his photorealistic works.
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 23:59:26. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 01:33:54 AM · #89 |
| I'd be interested to see where everyone thinks someone like Thomas Barbey falls into this conversation considering he does all this in the darkroom and not photoshop? |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 08:43:07 AM · #90 |
well it's not digital art that's for sure.
Im usually good for good debate but i just don't see the point in debating this anymore, it serves no purpose than some people don't like it and some do and there aren't any good arguments for or against and the discussion regresses to personal arguments.
I'm with Robert's post a few back, summing it up, "who cares", remove the line from the ruleset and be done with it. surely we can find more interesting topic to discuss other than whether there too much photoshop used here.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:09:28 AM · #91 |
I couldn't give a flying flog where he does it - I love that stuff! |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:43:29 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by pamb:
I couldn't give a flying flog where he does it - I love that stuff! |
exactly |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:52:10 AM · #93 |
Someone on this site once said "There is nothing new under the sun".
The expert challenges change this. It's a chance to see something that was never seen before or in some cases never even imagined by some. This is a great opportunity to see something that was never seen before.
Why wouldn't you want to see that?
Do these people only watch reality T.V.?
No Star Wars, no Avavtar, no Terminator, no Matrix, etc.... Just Jersey shore :P
|
|
|
|
05/15/2014 12:05:52 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by nygold:
No Star Wars, no Avavtar, no Terminator, no Matrix, etc.... Just Jersey shore :P |
no, they watch Star wars, only episodes 4-6, 1-3 are digital special effect garbage to them. ;) |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 01:47:07 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by nygold:
No Star Wars, no Avavtar, no Terminator, no Matrix, etc.... Just Jersey shore :P |
no, they watch Star wars, only episodes 4-6, 1-3 are digital special effect garbage to them. ;) |
Some scenes in Kubrick's 2001 involved matting (compositing) up to 20+ different layers/images, for example a scene in the shuttle control room, where each window and "video screen" has its own segment of film dropped in behind the live action ... and this needed to be done for 24 frames for every second of running time .... |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 02:59:29 PM · #96 |
so its the same argument, composition in darkroom or in Photoshop.
the end product was great for its time and technology makes it better and easier to create fantastic stuff.
I love photography, does it really matter how its made? nope not to me.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2014 03:51:12 PM · #97 |
First some definitions. Photo means light. Graph means instrument that records something. Anything that records the photons by the very definition of optics and our terminology is necessarily photographic in nature, and the grass roots of everything here must be photographic in nature, otherwise it's disqualified. What I mean here is that we aren't permitted to create entries from a blank canvas. There is always light needed here. Whether the evolutionary influence of editing preserves this... not such an easy question, of course. Here is a rough skeleton of an argument that I had in my brainbox that lead to the conclusions I still hold to:
The question I asked myself was whether the "nature" (which is a deliciously vague word) of light is preserved after the light has been manipulated. In other words, can manipulation of the light betray the truth of the original scene? I always think to extremes, and figured that one could argue that even with zero editing this is already betrayed as the light is manipulated at the glass at the front of the lens, by every intermediate bit of glass within the lens whereupon it hits the sensor and is noisily approximated, saved to your SD card and finds its way to your editing pipeline for you to do as you will. It's nature is questionable far before this point! I didn't really see any difference between hardware and Photoshop manipulations, and as I don't like to live with known contradictions and inconsistencies I figured I had three options that would lead to happiness and self-consistency: 1) I could reject all forms of photography, 2) I could embrace all forms of editing or 3) I could choose arbitrary - but well defined - degrees of editing that were OK in my mind. #3 isn't deterministic, #1 would be unpleasant, so I choose #2 and accept supplementary editing as a subjective means of optimisation.
I see a lot of parallels between some parameter optimisation that I do at work (I work in AI trying to make skynet happen) and editing rules here. In short, its hard to satisfy all constraints so you end up ignore the ones you care less about. The caring less is the subjective part. Everyone cares about things differently, as evidenced by the existence of this thread. Until we have a collective mind this argument will persist. There is no right answer here, though I think we all feel that we bear it!
Would that Socrates had D600's or a 5D III and CS6 and 32 GB of RAM. I'm certain he would be on DPC if he had because he loved arguments! :-) "We are but pixels in the frame." Or was that Bill and Ted?
Also, a slight theme of irony in this thread: it's frequently said that "expert editers" (or enhanced as Mike suggested) understand and use light, perhaps, better than many of the others. Yet it is their expertise at capturing this is being shamelessly questioned at photographic or not. Makes me chuckle.
Message edited by author 2014-05-15 17:13:28. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 05:20:51 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
For me it’s not just semantics and my personal taste has really nothing to do with it eitherâ€Â¦. Maybe I don’t know enough about it, but.I truly don’t understand how it can it be a photograph if it’s been taken apart piece by piece and put back together? The light is manipulated.... people’s body parts are exchanged...fantasy worlds are created - not with the click of a camera button but with an imagination and the knowledge of how to manipulate. It’s how the results are obtained and the fact that the finished product is not “realty” that make these appear non-photographic to me.
Yes, all the images on DPC are digital but they are, for the most part, digital replicas of what was actually “seen” in real life. What I would refer to as “digital art” (and could compare to an illustration) involves more an expression of what the artist wants to present to us than what he/she actually saw/took a photo of. |
ok, so you define photography as....
- unmanipulated light
- not taken apart and put back together
- without imagination
- reality
- replicas of what was actually "seen" in real life.
I disagree. No art is real. Reality is real. Art is something else. Saying that the entire photograph must be created at the click of the shutter is extremely limiting. What Gyaban does is photography because it's nothing else. If you paint, you're a painter. If you write, you're a writer. If you take photographs, you're a photographer. Photography is the medium.
What you've given us is your ars poetica, not a definition. It works very well for you. It's great for an artist to have an ars poetica, but we don't need rules to restrict other people to it.
I would much rather call someone a bad photographer according to my taste, than to say someone is not a photographer. I don't like the implications of telling other people what they're doing or not doing. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 05:46:07 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
What Gyaban does is photography because it's nothing else. ... |
According to you ... to others, the following is NOT a photograph anymore.
 |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 06:14:49 PM · #100 |
| I don't care how the results are obtained, but the fantastical appearance of these composited "photographs" say Disneyification to me. |
|
