| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2006 12:22:54 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Photography is a form of art. Artistic manipulation of a photo is thus no less a photograph than a straight snapshot. A manupulated photograph perhaps, but still a photograph. It's like saying you can't call something a painting because it was enhanced on a computer with Painter. |
The problem is that the word "photograph" is overloaded here. We use it as a technical term to designate an image, obtained with a photographic equipment. We also use it to designate an item belonging to a genre of visual arts. So, in response to your argument, I say that a manipuated photograph is the former, but not the latter. |
Would you also say that a hand-painted photograph (with paint, not a computer) is not a photograph? How about a color slide that is printed onto B&W paper? Both are a form of manipulation.
By your definition of "overloaded terms" (as I percieve it), the only TRUE photograph would be an image captured directly on color transparency film.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:44:00 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
ALL digital photos are manipulated, either in-camera or in the computer. How much manipulation is reasonable is a totally subjective call. |
Reasonable for what? To create an appealing digital image? Then, I would say, go wild, there is *nothing* wrong with it. To develop a photograph without losing its integrity as a photograph? Then, it is subjective, but to a point. Passing that point, you lose the photograph. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:45:42 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
By your definition of "overloaded terms" (as I percieve it), the only TRUE photograph would be an image captured directly on color transparency film. |
You completely misunderstand me. Please reread the whole thing. The technology does not matter at all. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:45:56 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by scalvert:
ALL digital photos are manipulated, either in-camera or in the computer. How much manipulation is reasonable is a totally subjective call. |
Reasonable for what? To create an appealing digital image? Then, I would say, go wild, there is *nothing* wrong with it. To develop a photograph without losing its integrity as a photograph? Then, it is subjective, but to a point. Passing that point, you lose the photograph. |
one value for this distinction is that artists like to put themselves right on such edges, i.e., explore just how far they can go with the integrity of a photography.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:50:18 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
To develop a photograph without losing its integrity as a photograph? |
But that, too, is subjective... and almost arbitrary. There are images that have been manipulated to death yet look like photographs straight from a camera, and there are others that really ARE straight from a camera, but look more like paintings or digital manipulations. How can you possibly define which is a photograph?
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 12:52:56. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:51:21 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
one value for this distinction is that artists like to put themselves right on such edges, i.e., explore just how far they can go with the integrity of a photography. |
Being right on the edge of the real and the figurative is the whole excitement of photo art. You need to have both, and you can't lose either.
I accept *any* means of manipulation, as long as you don't lose either of the two ingredients. Being on the edge is interesting. In the case of Ursula's image, for instance, I don't think that connection to the real world was lost. And it's full of symbolism at the same time. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:56:29 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
But that, too, is subjective... and almost arbitrary. There are images that have been manipulated to death that look like photographs straight from a camera, and there are others that really ARE straight from a camera, but look more like paintings or digital manipulations. How can you possibly define which is a photograph? |
This is not a definition. You can't define anything, even simple things such as "chair".
This is meant as a guide line for the author. The author needs to be honest with himself, and, to the best of his subjective opinion, stay within the guideline. This is also meant as a guide line for the viewer, who is also going to use his subjective judgement. And, definitely, there have always been and will be disagreements. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:23:48 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
You completely misunderstand me. Please reread the whole thing. The technology does not matter at all. |
Oh, I read it and my edjumacashun is journalism (sepcifically photojournalism), so I know there are times when photos should have "limited" alterations.
But, from what I get from reading your posts is that any form of manipulation turns a photo into something it is not. Along those lines, I submit that choosing any photographic media other than color transparency film results in some manipulation of the photo.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:28:21 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
But, from what I get from reading your posts is that any form of manipulation turns a photo into something it is not. |
You are reading it wrong. Perhaps, try again? On the contrary, I think that any form of manipulation is acceptable, *as long as* it doesn't turn a photograph into a digital painting (or something else). |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:34:28 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
But, from what I get from reading your posts is that any form of manipulation turns a photo into something it is not. |
You are reading it wrong. Perhaps, try again? On the contrary, I think that any form of manipulation is acceptable, *as long as* it doesn't turn a photograph into a digital painting (or something else). |
Ahhh, ok... guess I was reading "manipulation" a bit too strongly. Anyway, I really should get back to editing photos... LOL Got some clients that are getting antsy.
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 13:35:11.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 08:40:16 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
... I think that any form of manipulation is acceptable, *as long as* it doesn't turn a photograph into a digital painting (or something else). |
but who is to decide that? who is the arbiter of photgraphic 'purity'?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 08:45:12 AM · #137 |
The ol digital darkroom is a pure joy!
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 09:36:26 AM · #138 |
I think I read most of the posts....Good stuff....I have seen most of these arguments over the years but it still is interesting to see peoples passion about where they draw their lines.
One statement I MUST disagree with
The problem is that Photography is dying: it is being replaced by other forms of arts: PhotoDesign, PhotoPainting, PhotoDrama, PhotoLiterature, etc. At this rate, the art of photography, as practiced by the classics we all rever, will be gone. To me photography is the art of the stopped moment.
Everybody is free to practice any form of visual art. Just don't call the result of a digitally manipulated beyond recognition image a *photograph*, and I will take it seriously!
Wrong....as a matter of fact...Photography has seen a resurgence thanks in large part to digital cameras and computers.
I'm not talking a resurgence in digital manipulation. I am talking straight out the camera stuff too. The only decline is at the professional labs. A lot of the photographic development people had done at the corner drugstore or "Quik-Photo" has moved to the home which has led to an increase in the hobby and traditional photographers, not a decline. I work in the industry and have to suffer through a lot of industry forum discussions at conferences and this is pretty much accepted.
As a result of this upswing in bringing the power of the darkroom to the people we have seen an increase in the other forms of photo manipulation.
Photo manipulation has always been with us. We are not creating anything new. It is just the way we do this manipulation that has changed. Now we push pixels rather than chemicals or clipping with exactos or doing mixed media with glue and paint or whatever.
But, anyone who thinks hobby or traditional photography is dying off and thinks there has been a shift in the traditional desire of people to manipulate photographic images simply hasn't been paying attention in the last 20 years.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 09:39:17. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 09:49:56 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by agenkin:
... I think that any form of manipulation is acceptable, *as long as* it doesn't turn a photograph into a digital painting (or something else). |
but who is to decide that? who is the arbiter of photgraphic 'purity'? |
That would be me. I make these decisions.
I haven't followed the thread but you got to love the title. "not pickin' on anyone but" You know right away that someone is about to be picked on. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 09:53:04 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Wrong....as a matter of fact...Photography has seen a resurgence thanks in large part to digital cameras and computers. |
You are missing the whole point. Digital cameras and computers make photography as a *craft* more popular, but they also result hordes of dilettantes who call snapshots and pretty pictures photography. But they are "fixators", most of the time, not photographer-artists.
When I said that photography is dying I did not mean the process of image capturing through the lens onto a light-sensitive surface. I meant photography as an art of the stopped moment, art of anticipation of the decisive moment.
It saddens me that people don't understand this basic thing. Note: I am not saying "that the people disagree with this basic thing" - everyone chooses a path for himself. But to make understood the distinction that I am talking about - is all that I'm hoping for.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 09:56:46. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 09:56:25 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by xianart:
but who is to decide that? who is the arbiter of photgraphic 'purity'? |
Naturally, there can be no final arbiter. The author and the viewer all make their own subjective decision, based on their personally accepted guidelines. Does this change anything? I don't think so. :) |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 09:56:46 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by hokie:
Wrong....as a matter of fact...Photography has seen a resurgence thanks in large part to digital cameras and computers. |
You are missing the whole point point. Digital cameras and computers make photography as a *craft* more popular, but they also result hordes of dilettantes who call snapshots and pretty pictures photography. But they are "fixators", most of the time, not photographer-artists.
When I said that photography is dying I did not mean the process of image capturing through the lens onto a light-sensitive surface. I meant photography as an art of the stopped moment, art of anticipation of the decisive moment.
It saddens me that people don't understand this basic thing. Note: I am not saying "that the people disagree with this basic thing" - everyone chooses a path for himself. But to make understood the distinction that I am talking about - is all that I'm hoping for. |
just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:01:13 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. |
This is a true statement, but inapplicable to the post to which you replied. Hokie spoke about darkrooms and technology, while my main point was that this is *not* about technology. I am not lamenting decline of the traditional chemical-based method of developing a photograph. I am lamenting that the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:08:17 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. |
This is a true statement, but inapplicable to the post to which you replied. Hokie spoke about darkrooms and technology, while my main point was that this is *not* about technology. I am not lamenting decline of the traditional chemical-based method of developing a photograph. I am lamenting that the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time. |
I understand and others have commented that they don't agree but you seem to just feel that you are right and no one is goign to change your mind. I am not sure why you keep arguing the point.
I for one also don't agree that photography is dying. sure the technollogy has made it eaiser for many to manipulate photos so you may be seeing more of it. But I will say that I have personally seen many mroe people gettign into photography that do not alter photos. they may start off as snapshots but many are trying to learn to do better at real photograpy skills. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:18:40 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
I am lamenting that the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time. |
Looks to me like you were complaining about extensively retouched images, which may have little or nothing to do with the moment or realism. Even with a manipulated photo, the decisive moment generally still has to be captured in-camera as the base of the image, and major retouching is often necessary to bridge the gap between the human eye and an electronic sensor. Complaints over images that no longer look like "real" photos is a favorite dead horse pinata around here, but such manipulations were possible even with film photography and lots of Photoshop work does not necessarily mean photographic integrity has been compromised. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:24:53 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. |
ah, but so much disagreement in the world is a result of not understanding!
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:40:15 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
This is a true statement, but inapplicable to the post to which you replied. Hokie spoke about darkrooms and technology, while my main point was that this is *not* about technology. I am not lamenting decline of the traditional chemical-based method of developing a photograph. I am lamenting that the photography, gradually, is losing one of its most distinctive component - its touch with the real world and the real time. |
I understood your premise....I simply know you are wrong.
The numbers cited in industry reports, the expositions by photographers, the growth of the photographic industry in all respects, the amount of professionals at my disposal for publication in advertising and editorial work, and the opinions of people who make it their business to know such things all point to one thing.....more photographers of all ilks..including the photographers who specialize in capturing the real world in real time.
I'm only involved in disputing this statement for 2 reasons...I know personally you are wrong...and...these kinds of mistatements lead to a false sense of the state of the art.
But...to end my post on a positive. I like the idea that people are concerned about preserving any aspect of photography enough to post about it :-)
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 10:41:20. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:52:05 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
I understand and others have commented that they don't agree but you seem to just feel that you are right and no one is goign to change your mind. I am not sure why you keep arguing the point. |
I don't keep *arguing* the point, I keep *explaining* the point because I feel that the people are not getting it. I was not expecting everybody (or even anybody) to agree with me. My father had an aquiantance who said this about arguing: It is not important to me that my opponent agrees with my point of view, but it is very important to me that he understands my argument.
This is what I am doing here - explaining a thought that is a little deeper than "the colour needs a little push in this image for it to ribbon".
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
But I will say that I have personally seen many mroe people gettign into photography that do not alter photos. they may start off as snapshots but many are trying to learn to do better at real photograpy skills. |
Lack of alteration is only one side of the thing. The other side of the thing is having some symbolism, some semantics. We were concentrating on altering images in this thread too much, so I guess that the second part was forgotten. Please read the other thread, referenced above, for discussion of the two components of photographic art.
So many people have one, but not the other in their works (I, too, am often guilty of that in my images). It often seems easier to sacrifice one to get the other.
As for the benefit of availability of photography and digital darkroom to the masses, as a farm to grow future photographers... One of the problems is that those newly equipped photographers come to sites like this, where pretty pictures often (but not always) rule over real photographs. I am afraid that they will be brough up on this primitive material, easy techniques to achieve visual appeal in their shots. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:59:47 AM · #149 |
| That is also I notice if you are not good in post processing and if you dont have good software editor you're done. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 11:04:54 AM · #150 |
IMO, post processing is about knowing whats possible so that when shooting an image you already can see the final product in your mind. This development of the eye takes years of experience and knowledge of what is possible. In Ansel Adams book The Negative, he even states that the original scene would look nothing like the final photo.
Photography is about capturing a feeling or emotion with light. Capturing a moment in time is easy, but making that moment have a certain emotion is not.
|
|
