Let's Talk - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/22/2004 05:13:00 PM · #1

I was thinking the other day, considering the new challenge rules, what my idea of "Photographic Integrity" is. Now let me say that I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I think there are a wide variety of opinions on the subject and would like some input from everyone willing to share.

I'll give two examples on dpc that I would and wouldn't consider keeping photographic integrity.

This one follows

This does not

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/22/2004 05:14:40 PM · #2

Based on these, i suppose photographic integrity doesn't bother me at all. All I really care about is what I see.

If you had not seen the originals of either of these, would you like the photo you did see?

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

01/22/2004 05:16:20 PM · #3

I agree with Jim. Why does the integrity of the shot change if it has been post processed? Isnt that one of the great things about digital photography?

01/22/2004 05:18:22 PM · #4

i really enjoyed crab's photo, but imo the tree shot was pretty mediocre based on the fact that the colors seem way too unnatural, and voila, it turns out it was, so that kinda irks me. and i'm not saying rcrawford is a bad photographer or anything, and i'm not saying i'm good, i would like to hear opinions on what people think is photographic integrity to them

01/22/2004 05:22:31 PM · #5

and i do think it's important to discuss this based on the wording of the advanced rules section.

kaycee

Olympus C-750UZ

01/22/2004 05:26:52 PM · #6

I'm a bit torn - I don't mind the post processing if it looks natural - but I dislike too much saturation. I actually have one sunset with no post processing which I can't decide whether I really like or not - I call it "Lake George on Fire"
//www.kayceespix.com/Galleries/Portfolio/pages/lakegeorgesunset.htm
because the color was so intense right out of the camera.

01/22/2004 05:29:23 PM · #7

I'm with Jim. I'd much rather look at the edited versions of these two photos. To my eye they're both much more beautiful. Photographic integrity I can understand for photojournalistic purposes, but not for creating a piece of art to hang on my wall. I'd love to be able to edit like that!!

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/22/2004 05:30:53 PM · #8

achiral, do you say the first one has integrity because it doesn't appear to be as edited as the second, compared to their originals? What are you basing your opinion upon?

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

01/22/2004 05:32:56 PM · #9

Originally posted by ahaze:

I'm with Jim.

Did you mean John? :-)

dg02

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

01/22/2004 05:34:44 PM · #10

If you are not going to take advantage of the tools available while working with digital, why not just shoot film? Photoagraphy is an art, so what difference does it make how the end result was accomplished? If you are speaking specifically regarding DPC, as long as it follows the contest rules, I don't see why it would matter how the end result was accomplished.

01/22/2004 05:35:42 PM · #11

Originally posted by ahaze:

achiral, do you say the first one has integrity because it doesn't appear to be as edited as the second, compared to their originals? What are you basing your opinion upon?

what i'm saying is the bird still looks pretty much the same but has been enhanced greatly by post processing. the tree start out incredibly drab and lifeless and jumped to out of this world over saturated colors. i guess i see the tree as the artist creating something that wasn't there with photoshop.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/22/2004 05:38:04 PM · #12

Originally posted by dg02:

yes i'm narrowing this down to dpc mentality and also photographic integrity is the main focus of the advanced editing rules so i think it is important how end results are gotten. outside of dpc of course, anything goes. what is the meaning of photographic integrity?

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 17:39:28.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/22/2004 05:39:01 PM · #13

When I see a photo in a gallery, I don't ask to see the original before I can decide if I like it or not. Just look at the photo, then decide if you like it from that.

Sure, if the tree photo were on the front page of the newspaper with the caption "This tree found with these colors behind it. Photo not manipulated," then maybe I would have issues. But it's art, so let the photographer be the artist, don't make the camera the artist. Sony/Canon/Olympus would never be considered "art" companies. But rcrawford, crabappl3, jmsetzler, and Rooster, now these are artists.

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 17:40:04.

Gringo

Nikon D2X

01/22/2004 05:39:36 PM · #14

I think these both have photographic integrity. I love playing with levels of color for different photos. I don't think it's appropriate for every photo I take, but I do it intentionally quite often.

As far as removing objects from the shot.... Where would you draw the line on integrity? I have removed everything from garbage cans, to insignificant specks of dust. Why would the fence be any different?

It's far more difficult to remove the fence than it is to have not had the fence there in the first place. I think it would be wrong for an artist to not consider what the picture can ultimately be once a few adjustments are made to it. It would be a shame to discourage them from taking the picture because the environment wasn't ideal when the opportunity presented itself.
My Motto:
Shoot first and ask questions later!

I think we would all miss out on some great works of art if the artists all waited for a sunnier day.

01/22/2004 05:40:42 PM · #15

Originally posted by tfaust:

Originally posted by ahaze:
I'm with Jim.

Did you mean John? :-)

D'oh! I did- and so did Rooster!! I know that's happened to John plenty of times before, so you think I'd know better. Sorry John :-)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/22/2004 05:40:58 PM · #16

so how do we take photographic integrity seriously as it says to in the rules

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/22/2004 05:43:01 PM · #17

Originally posted by achiral:

so how do we take photographic integrity seriously as it says to in the rules

If it looks like a photograph. That's all. Just so it looks like a photograph.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/22/2004 05:43:36 PM · #18

My personal opinion... A photograph is a capture of a scene. When you edit the photo to take out a fence, add some bushes, add unatural colors... it is no longer a capture of a scene. It is now a creation of your imagination, thus it is no longer a photograph.

I believe the intent of this site is photography and the use of a camera, not the use of photoshop. Am I wrong?

01/22/2004 05:44:50 PM · #19

Originally posted by Gringo:

so what would the options be with the tree shot if the person were shooting film?

and if that leads into "that's the good thing about digital photography", i would just have to ask where do we draw the photography/digital art line?

for instance am i wrong for saying the tree photo seems way too digital art considering the colors?

and would smoking a phatty help me become more liberal and accepting of these types of photos?

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 17:48:35.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/22/2004 05:46:39 PM · #20

Originally posted by louddog:

I believe the intent of this site is photography and the use of a camera, not the use of photoshop. Am I wrong?

To me the thing that sets digital photography apart from film photography is the post processing. This being a digital photography site, I see it as being a combination of taking a good photograph and making it even better through editing. But that's just me.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/22/2004 05:48:34 PM · #21

Originally posted by achiral:

and i do think it's important to discuss this based on the wording of the advanced rules section.

It's pretty simple. If you think a photograph has been manipulated beyond what you consider acceptable, you should vote it accordingly.

01/22/2004 05:48:56 PM · #22

Originally posted by achiral:

so what would the options be with the tree shot if the person were shooting film?

If a film shooter was to shoot the same tree, shooting it at sunrise or sunset would probably produce something more interesting than the original. But of course they could always scan it and PS it too :-)