| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2003 02:09:31 AM · #1 |
Photographs have been manipulated since the beginning of photography. Early Dageurrotypes that were presented factual representations of events were often staged.
Many civil war and other early war photos were staged and altered by moving bodies, discarded weapons and other items. They were not presented as staged.
Alteration of photographs has been going on for a very long time and it is not going to stop. If you don't like it, don't do it. Personally, I look at it much the same way I did the darkroom. It's where I put the final image together to fit my vision.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2003 02:01:43 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by DavidLevin:
but there are those photographers who have genuine talent and don't need editing or proccesing to make their photos intersting and appealing. |
Could you name one? |
Cartier-Bresson was notorious for printing his images full frame with minimal darkroom manipulation other than what could be achieved by changing paper contrast and print developer time. |
|
|
|
09/12/2003 12:42:53 AM · #3 |
I will admit, I am fairly new to this site. But, I am not new to photography...film or digital.
Personally, I believe it has nothing to do with the technology or the ability or inability to edit, spot edit, or what have you. However, it does have everything to do with the user of that technology. I myself own a 2 mp camera. When I was working with a larger format, "better resolution" camera, I found I was not as pleased with my images. Conclusion, user error. But, if you can't look out the lense of your camera and be happy with what you see, why are you wasting the time taking the photo to being with?
The last time I checked this was the Digital Photo Challenge, not the Digital Manipulation Challenge. Some editing I can handle, like converting color to black and white, blurring focus to create soft focus effect, etc. But these are all things that can be done inside most digital cameras or in the hands of a skilled user. Converting to black and white is no different than throwing a roll of B&W film in your camera. Removing trees, power lines, buildings, people...doesn't that take away from the spirit of the challenge? Is it really still a photograph when there is nothing original left untouched?
Thank you for letting me have a place to voice my concerns. It is greatly appreciated. :)
//www.angelfire.com/blog/observant/Observant/
Message edited by author 2003-09-12 00:59:25. |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 09:19:47 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by GarrickStaggs:
I think altering a photo is perfectly ok. In my opinon its the final image that counts. I am forever taking images of locations or simple objects and placing them into a much grander image. It's not that I took a piss-poor photo the first time around and felt I needed to make it better, it was that in my minds eye I saw something MORE. I have taken many photo's of clouds and combined them with other real world elements simply because I could sit in that one spot for years and never get that same shot...the one I saw through my lense and in my mind. |
Eagle/Mountain/Cloud  |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 08:33:24 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by DavidLevin:
but there are those photographers who have genuine talent and don't need editing or proccesing to make their photos intersting and appealing. |
Could you name one? |
this is one of Jim Brockman's freakin awesome bubble photos.
No digital manipulation, no digital camera, no photshop.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2003 07:48:00 PM · #6 |
this should be a permanent thread on this site.
I do agree that the same techniques are used--- but man are easy on Photoshop. On Pshop, anyone can do it- and when they do it, everyone does it exactly the same. That is, there is no skill to acquire, once you know where to click on the function. Having said that, I no longer regard this as cheating. I think it is great that now everyone can do it-- without having the resources of the darkroom that (in my case these days) are not always there.
Be weary of antiquarians (spelling?) who are purists about normal film, larger formats, etc-- I think when they attack modern developments which make photography easier, they are really trying say "only I can do it, back off, its mine" |
|
|
|
07/12/2003 06:31:53 PM · #7 |
| I think altering a photo is perfectly ok. In my opinon its the final image that counts. I am forever taking images of locations or simple objects and placing them into a much grander image. It's not that I took a piss-poor photo the first time around and felt I needed to make it better, it was that in my minds eye I saw something MORE. I have taken many photo's of clouds and combined them with other real world elements simply because I could sit in that one spot for years and never get that same shot...the one I saw through my lense and in my mind. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 07:51:57 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DavidLevin:
Wow, this is still going, I didnt know posting a forum like this could create such chaos. I guess this will probably be the last one. Firstly, i'd like to thank everyone.
I posted this forum up with an opinion of mine, which was wrong of me in the first place considering that I dont know all that much about editing. But looking back at all the comments I don't regret doing so because I have learned so much from just this one forum. After all, we're all here to further our knowledge in photography. Thanks once again. |
David,
This is an on going discussion and will continue to be one for some time.
As cliche as it is - "You can please some of the people all of the time or you can please all of the people some of the time but you can't clone out time stamps on DCP."
Bob
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 06:47:19 PM · #9 |
it's ok. you didnt create any chaos. this is just what it looks like when people have a conversation :).
Originally posted by DavidLevin:
Wow, this is still going, I didnt know posting a forum like this could create such chaos. I guess this will probably be the last one. Firstly, i'd like to say thank you.
I posted this forum up with an opinion of mine, which was wrong of me in the first place considering that I dont know all that much about editing. But looking back at all the comments I don't regret doing so because I have learned so much from just this one forum. After all, we're all here to further our knowledge in photography. Thanks once again. |
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 06:42:27 PM · #10 |
Wow, this is still going, I didnt know posting a forum like this could create such chaos. I guess this will probably be the last one. Firstly, i'd like to thank everyone.
I posted this forum up with an opinion of mine, which was wrong of me in the first place considering that I dont know all that much about editing. But looking back at all the comments I don't regret doing so because I have learned so much from just this one forum. After all, we're all here to further our knowledge in photography. Thanks once again.
Message edited by author 2003-07-03 18:51:17.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 06:19:17 PM · #11 |
I want to get on my soapbox and advocate unlimited editing for these challenges. If you, as a voter, don't like the image quality or it does not meet the challenge vote it down.
I personally want to learn more from folks on this site that extend their photographic abilities through the use of the digital darkroom... And I can't if we don't allow unlimited editing.
If the ability to edit were unlimited then there would be no discussions concerning the legality of the image.
I have been here long enough to know that contest winners with amazing photographs have been disqualified because slight noise was added to resemble grain, date/time was cloned out because the photographer forgot to change the camera settings, and most recently a beautiful image was disqualified because of simple dodging and burning. These images were not edited to destroy the spirit of the original image but to enhance it.
I personally believe one is not truly a photographer until one understands, appreciates, and utilizes the darkroom side of the craft.
So if you want, lay this dead beast down beside the other carcasses and beat it vigorously, but if we allow open editing it will ultimately make us better photographers.
Bob
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 03:51:25 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Here's a thought too...
Relaxed editing rules would not REQUIRE that anyone actually take advantage of them. Just because someone has a tool available doesn't mean they have to use it.
This being the case, I wonder why it makes such a difference to some to have relaxed rules? |
At last someone has spelt it out, this is a discussion about the relaxing of the rules not the reversal. No one is going to be forced to edit a picture because it is allowed.
What are people afraid of? Is it that they feel they don't have as much editing experience as others? Do they feel they'll be at a disadvantage in the challenges and 'unfairly' beaten?
Look at the ongoing thread about how people vote, it isn't necessarily the 'perfect' image which gets the votes.
The reason for using techniques/tools in the dark/lightroom is to give you a choice. I guess that most people here have never used a darkroom (myself included) and their involvement with the photographic process used to end when they handed the film over. We all now have, in the lightrooms most basic form, a Polaroid camera, if you have a image editing package you have a darkroom in a box, but without the smell of the chemicals, loss of space, cost of equipment, etc.
If you want to post a 'raw' image that's what you'd do, you wanted to replicate standard darkroom techniques you'd do that, and hopefully they'd be a few of us who'd produce something new and give people ideas.
Can a 'bad' picture be turning into a 'great' picture by editing? I don't think so. Can a 'great' picture be ruined? Definitely.
End of ramble...
...more ramble
If more editing were to be allowed I would hope that details describing what was done would be available during the voting phase, that way if there was, for example, a 'Speed' challenge you would know who captured or who added a motion blur.
Message edited by author 2003-07-03 15:57:12. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 02:34:19 PM · #13 |
[quote=jmsetzler]
The casual photographer doesn't seem to care much for expanding editing rules. The photos that they make don't require any/much editing to produce satisfactory results for the photographer who made them.
I agree with this but I would like to add some thoughts. Growing up as an artist I would considered myself to have always been pretty detail conscious. I always wanted my images to look as good as I was able to make them. As I moved into photography I still fealt the same way and, as with my artwork, I didn't know just what I could accomplish at first. Of course I was also limited from doing much photographic editing anyways. I would just send the negatives in to some place and get prints back and would except them as final. I would just blame myself for all the screwups. As I learned more about photography I realized what photographers were able to accomplish behind the camera and in the darkroom beyond the original image. I was years away from producing much that was any good but at least I was becoming more aware of what could be accomplished. So, in my case, I don't think I was much less serious about the quality of my photographs I was simply and naturally ignorant to much of the photographic processes. This is why proper education is so important and through discussions like this we can share many of the possibilities and techniques involved with photography. Of course, how you chosse to use that knowledge is up to you.
T
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 12:19:00 PM · #14 |
ever seen any fashion or men's magazine?
those images go through tons of airbrushing and blurring and painting to make the models look 'perfect' - whether it's a dark circle, a mole, a sunburn, even shadows caused by slightly off lighting. sometimes a shot will be the great but there will a shadow that's in just the wrong place or too dark, so they fix that stuff, too, rather than throw away the whole pic. :)
Message edited by author 2003-07-03 12:20:41.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 11:43:55 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
Ok I am on the "Let us edit our Photos" side but I have one question. This is serious and I am not being a smart ass by asking. How was cloning used in the orginal darkroom? I'm clueless. |
When people are talking about cloning for photo finishing, typically it is for spot touch-ups. In the traditional darkroom this is done with pens/ paint and brushes and knives to touch up the negative, cover spots, or scrape off spots. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 11:40:56 AM · #16 |
Here's a thought too...
Relaxed editing rules would not REQUIRE that anyone actually take advantage of them. Just because someone has a tool available doesn't mean they have to use it.
This being the case, I wonder why it makes such a difference to some to have relaxed rules?
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:33:18 AM · #17 |
Ok I am on the "Let us edit our Photos" side but I have one question. This is serious and I am not being a smart ass by asking. How was cloning used in the orginal darkroom? I'm clueless.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:21:04 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by blemt:
One key advantage to the editing rules as they stand is that people with all types of cameras have a fairly level playing field. Even someone with a 2MP camera can compete against someone with a 6+MP camera and have a good chance at winning. Not everyone can afford Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. I'm sure there are people here using basic imaging software. Is it fair to compromise their ability to compete so that a select few can push their photography to the next level.
|
Is there any chance that we can stop trotting out this untruth every time this thread emerges ? |
And the megapixel myth. 2MP cameras are more than capable of producing very good photos. This particular shot needed absolutely no post-processing beyong resize & USM - which is more than can be said for most of my entries!
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:15:41 AM · #19 |
I believe that there may be some rhyme and reason to why there is such a division in the for/against editing groups...
Evaluate yourself as a photographer... what are your personal goals as a photographer? Do you simply shoot for fun? Do you shoot for the purpose of hanging photos of your kids and pets on your refrigerator? Do you shoot hoping to come up with something that you can decorate the walls of your home with? Do you shoot hoping to win widespread appreciation of your photo? Win a contest?
As I have read through these debates on editing, I believe that I can see some division in the types of photos being produced that seem to match up with the level of editing that people are willing to allow and support.
The casual photographer doesn't seem to care much for expanding editing rules. The photos that they make don't require any/much editing to produce satisfactory results for the photographer who made them.
The serious photographer seems to be supportive of more leniency on editing restrictions. This group of photographers seem to care a lot more about the finer detail in their photos. The would like to be able to present better than average work to these challenges.
The photographic artists want to have any necessary tools to create a finished work of art. A work that is flawless... something that is perfect in every way (in the eyes of the artist).
When these three groups of people converge into a competition where all groups are competing together, the 'rules' don't seem to work well for any specific group.
This is one of the reasons that I suggested earlier that the challenges be broken into some sort of 'levels' where you can participate in whatever group seems to suit your own style and taste. With this idea, you could limit yourself to whatever level of photographic 'purity' that you like. Everyone who believes that a photograph is not ethical when it is edited could participate in a challenge where no or very minimal editing is allowed. Those who like to work to create something that fits some artistic vision would be able to participate with a group who shares similar interests.
Breaking up into groups based on 'rules' was suggested by someone in an earlier thread in response to my 'levels of accomplishment' post. I think this is an excellent idea. This could also be used to introduce a 'digital art' category to the site as well.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:08:42 AM · #20 |
| Yet, I understand where you and others might think this way, cuz when one mentions "digital photography", the receiver generally interprets that as "digital art" like montages and what not. That is because they are less experienced, and don't understand that montages, multiple image composites, etc have been done already with film. This is not the direction here, and never will be. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 10:06:33 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by pcgaz:
Regarding the ethics of contest competition - follow to the letter the rules of your chosen contest, if you don't agree with the rules, choose another contest.
|
Cuz it isn't the same as "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen" .. that's why. No one wants to "change" things, so much as "evolve".
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 09:51:29 AM · #22 |
ok, here's yet another flogger bellying up to the corpse of this remnant of a poor beast of (our) burden ...
I am simply a peron who feels the need to express myself through what I like to think is my art ... operative here folks - "my art" - there are at least two planes of discussion here - contest rules, and the ethics of creativity.
IMO the creative debate can be put to bed right now, because it is ART, and there are no rules - Do we really have the audacity to imagine that we can judge the validity of the ethics of an Adams, or a Picasso, or that they would give a rat's @#$ what we think of their process? Do we dare to question the validity of how each instant in time or emotion was captured, and had the feel or flavor that told them it was mature? There is only one person who can say when a work is finished and how that end should be arrived at, and that is the artist - period.
Regarding the ethics of contest competition - follow to the letter the rules of your chosen contest, if you don't agree with the rules, choose another contest.
Again, all in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2003 09:48:32 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by blemt:
One key advantage to the editing rules as they stand is that people with all types of cameras have a fairly level playing field. Even someone with a 2MP camera can compete against someone with a 6+MP camera and have a good chance at winning. Not everyone can afford Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. I'm sure there are people here using basic imaging software. Is it fair to compromise their ability to compete so that a select few can push their photography to the next level.
|
Is there any chance that we can stop trotting out this untruth every time this thread emerges ? Last time it started, over 16 free, fully featured alternatives were proposed, for Windows, Mac and Linux. It is simply untrue to say that equivalently powerful tools are not available.
There are features missing in those tools compared to say photoshop, but they are not relevant features for this discussion (print separation for printing, colour management, etc). So any chance we can bury this strawman next to the flogged horse ? |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 09:00:15 AM · #24 |
| I have entered two challenges thus far---- and with no editing. this makes me holy. |
|
|
|
07/03/2003 08:49:21 AM · #25 |
the only flaw in your explanation blemt is that you dont need to buy any software (lots of free good ones out there..).. so no one is really left out.. we wouldn't be comprimising anyone into competing, unless they choose not to edit, and i probably wont even use these editing tools for every pic so it's not like it's a "if you dont edit you'll lose" kinda deal (granted i havn't "won" yet :P)...
And say what you will, but you have to be pretty good to win with a 1.2 mp cam :) (it's been done.. but most pics out of those cams are notoriously fuzzy and low quality..2mp is on the edge, and most of the time you cant crop it without damaging the quality of the final image..while a 6mp can be cropped alot and still keep it's quality).. Ever since i got my 717 i can feel the difference it's making in my shots.. the DOF, the crispness.. the zoom.. i'm getting shots i'd never be able to get with my kodak... in a way it gives me an advantage, but no one's about to penalise me for that..
|
|
