| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2004 06:49:28 PM · #1 |
Just curious how folks feel about a "photographer" or a "photograph" which employs such a technique.
I'm not talking about cloning one area of a photograph to another. I'm talking about creating something that wasn't there in the first place using a photo editor.
There is nothing specific in the rules which prohibits such a thing so long as the creation does not come from a different photograph, but it would seem to fly in the face of "maintaining photographic integrity."
Message edited by author 2004-04-12 18:51:12. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 06:55:44 PM · #2 |
| You mean taking out the Wacom and drawing something to include in a photo? |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:03:10 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
You mean taking out the Wacom and drawing something to include in a photo? |
Yes, something along those lines. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:04:12 PM · #4 |
Shari do you have an example or what you mean?
Cloning
Cut & Paste
Drawing
? |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:08:21 PM · #5 |
 
Done on paper then photographed, but not sure if anyone has drew anything digitally.
Message edited by author 2004-04-12 19:32:04. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:09:39 PM · #6 |
Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:11:04 PM · #7 |
I think he means adding things that aren't in the shot or from another shop, just entirely made up by photoshop to "enhance" the image. The best example I can think about is adding that sun glare.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:12:28 PM · #8 |
By the way, for a site like this, and in general really, I believe I would frown upon it. But hey, that's just one man's opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:16:56 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled. |
I was tricked into giving out a "10". That's not cool. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:20:58 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by Konador:
Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled. |
I was tricked into giving out a "10". That's not cool. |
Dude, you speak my language!
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:29:08 PM · #11 |
It goes back to 'what is art'? I have read that painting is adding things to a picture, photography is leaving things out.
I often see or do cloning to cover (remove) things (wires, poles, etc). I hav enot added anything, unless it is to move a bush to hide something.
Background blurring, can be done with the camera useing DOF, or in the computer using gaussian blur. Is the second method wrong?
Since one cannot photograph one's own artwork for an entry, would making a drawing in the picture be the same or not?
After much thought, i lean toward the 'do anything you can' school. I think some folks don't like this for two reasons - they are not skilled enough to do it themselves so feel they cannot compete, and have some belief that a photo has some documentary quality that dare not be messed with. A photo cannot capture reality - it only captures what the photographer wants it to, so the 'reality' is subjective to start. We all modify the image in an editor in some way (contrast, saturation, cropping, etc), so it becomes a personal decision on how far to go. A little this time, a little more next time, then as one's skills progress the 'line' not be crossed is moving every farther out the limb.
I consider my photography to be art ( i did not say fine art or even good art LOL), not news coverage or of other historical significance, so the only rules in art are those that are self-imposed.
chris
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:32:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
I consider my photography to be art |
I tend to agree with a lot of the things you've said, but the question I'm left with is that in the end, is it photography ? It might have started there, but by the end it is some sort of mixed media, computer generated art/ photography hybrid.
So yes - it is art, but is it photography ? and more relevantly, digital photography?
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:34:54 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by bestagents:
I consider my photography to be art |
I tend to agree with a lot of the things you've said, but the question I'm left with is that in the end, is it photography ? It might have started there, but by the end it is some sort of mixed media, computer generated art/ photography hybrid.
So yes - it is art, but is it photography ? and more relevantly, digital photography? |
I believe I take your position on this issue.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 07:41:50 PM · #14 |
Cut and pasted from here
"Is Digital Imaging Photography?
A photograph is an image produced on a light-sensitive surface by the action of light. The sensitive surface is affected by light either chemically or electronically. The essential criteria is the use of light in at least one step of the image forming process. A photograph modified in a computer is still a photograph, like a photograph modified in a darkroom. However, if a new image is created by assembling various components in the computer, the image is no longer a photograph because light is not used to form the new composition. Although some of the components may have been produced by a photographic process, the image thus created is an entirely new composition and not a modified photograph.
Photographic art without "photo" (light = photons) becomes graphic art. The boundary between photographic art and the graphic art is not sharp and depends on the significance light has in the image creating process. Photography may be considered to be one of the many graphic art forms, but the opposite is true only when the image is created by light. How well a graphic image that is not really a photograph is accepted in photographic contests and exhibitions depends entirely on the judges. This has been the criterion in the past and will be always the rule in the future.
Submitted by Erik Kissa, EPSA
Wilmington, DE
COPYRIGHT 2002 Photographic Society of America, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group"
Does that help? I can agree with it.
Message edited by author 2004-04-12 19:43:31.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 08:44:08 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. If I had known how this was created I would have given it a 1, but as it happens I was fooled. |
Ben,
This is exactly what I meant. And I agree with your assessment. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 08:44:47 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by goinskiing:
I think he means adding things that aren't in the shot or from another shop, just entirely made up by photoshop to "enhance" the image. The best example I can think about is adding that sun glare. |
That is exactly what SHE meant. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 09:34:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Technically it is legal but goes completly against the spirit of the rules. |
I disagree -- I think an element created on the computer constitutes "clip art" within the meaning of the rules. It makes no difference whether the art is rendered on a layer within the same file within the photo, or in a separate file and imported -- it is a distinct and separate element created digitally and not photographically. It is specifically NOT created from the same image by cloning, dodging, or burning. I don't see any way to consider it legal under our rules. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 10:00:23 PM · #18 |
i enjoy a good rendition of light in a digitally created image, but here ( at DPC ), i would have to say that the photograph itself is king, and though creating an image to fool the eye is a skill in itself, photographs are the overall theme here.
Repairing a photograph is alright, but creating a photograph digitally is not. props to labuda for the well done image. lets find a way to prevent the same sort of thing in the future possibly.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 10:49:16 PM · #19 |
| Anyone notice labuda did it again with his Bar Fight photo? I respect the photoshop ability and it doesn't bother me personally but I definetely agree that it is a blatant violation of the rules. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 10:51:14 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by JasonPR:
Anyone notice labuda did it again with his Bar Fight photo? I respect the photoshop ability and it doesn't bother me personally but I definetely agree that it is a blatant violation of the rules. |
The "Bar Fight" photo was created differently and is legal IMO. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 10:59:28 PM · #21 |
I am split on this issue. I can really see both sides quite well. Taken the art side, is does take an extreme amount of talent to fool most everyone here on the site, I mean, I know I can't, I have tried and failed. Then there is the photographic issue at hand (which I tend to lean moer towards), I believe cloning out most things is is still holding photographic integrity, I did this on my march free study shot. There was originally a big lightpost right in front of the tower and was destroying my picture. Like I said, I am pretty split on the issue.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 11:01:53 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JasonPR:
Anyone notice labuda did it again with his Bar Fight photo? I respect the photoshop ability and it doesn't bother me personally but I definetely agree that it is a blatant violation of the rules. |
The "Bar Fight" photo was created differently and is legal IMO. |
According to the details on the photo he digitially created glass shards. In the other image he digitally created a blade. What is the difference?
This does bring up another question, though. There is no rule to say what editing software is used to create an image. If you can digitally create elements then would 3d images et al also be allowed if the photograph and the elements were created in the same working space? That is if you can tell it was created on another layer and not another image imported in.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 11:07:10 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JasonPR:
Anyone notice labuda did it again with his Bar Fight photo? I respect the photoshop ability and it doesn't bother me personally but I definetely agree that it is a blatant violation of the rules. |
The "Bar Fight" photo was created differently and is legal IMO. |
Been staying on the sidelines here, but you made me curious--he did say he "digitally recreated" chunks of glass, which I read as not much different as digitally recreating the knife blade. |
|
|
|
04/12/2004 11:17:13 PM · #24 |
To me, it's no different than adding elements from a second photo. The parts of the image that were not part of the original photo would make it a multi-image composition, which is illegal.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2004 11:19:10 PM · #25 |
Your entry must come from a single photo, taken during the week of the challenge. No multi-image compositions, no layering of multiple exposures, no copying-and-pasting elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), etc.
What part of that is misunderstood here?
|
|
