| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2003 05:59:40 PM · #1 |
| Just to add some background on layers ... in college I took a film class where we studied Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. In some of the scenes they composited/matted together as many as 21 separate photographic images, frame after frame after ... 100% true photography on really expensive film. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 05:40:44 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
...People who can use Photoshop and use it well tend to get lazy with their phototaking abilities... |
I don't think this generalization is useful here. Photoshop has replaced the darkroom for me and I believe it's easier on the environment and wallet while not taking up as much valuable space. Yes it is easier to manipulate a photo in photoshop, but that doesn't mean that everybody with photoshop is manipulating their photos. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 12:44:15 PM · #3 |
Yes I am agreeing with you.
How this got to be a debate about challenges and who is doing the complaining is a mystery to me. This is just about different skills and what we now define as photography. I did not say that I don't or won't manipulate my photos. I was merely bringing up a point that I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with and some who are photographers that have no PC/MAC skills and where does that leave them. No more no less.
This has nothing to do with the challenges on here or the people who supply the photos for them.
And just for the record I think that some editing should be allowed. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 12:37:59 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
My natural preference is for freedom with no rules - just enjoying the artform itself, however impure. However, on this site I prefer rules (except in portfolio entries), because I think it makes this game more fun and separates those who have vision, skill and imagination from those who do not.
You say "separates those who have vision, skill and imagination from those who do not." However, I have a problem with that thought process. Some people are very good photographers but have no PC/MAC skills whatsoever. |
Sonny, I think you misunderstood me. The attribute I was referring to relate to photographs with the usual standard DPC rules (ie, no spot-editing, etc.) - not Photoshop comps - thus you're agreeing with me. I think!?
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 12:06:37 PM · #5 |
Only more reasons why this more of a Point and Shoot challenge vs a Photographers challenge.
Anything that you could accomplish in the dark room should be allowed to use in photoshop for the challenges.
But even then, photographers who aren't printers would complain about the unfair advantage. The ability to enhance your image through printing and photoshop is what separates a lot of photographers.
I think there should always be a spot editing allowed challenge at all times. And let's see which one gets the most submissions... |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 11:53:26 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
I have a friend who is a genius when it comes to Photoshop and manipulation of photos. However, he cannot take a good picture if his life depended on it, but his final output is fine because he spends hours in photoshop. Is he someone who should be called a photographer?
People who can use Photoshop and use it well tend to get lazy with their phototaking abilities. They will take a picture with trash or power lines etc and think to themselves "oh I can just get rid of it in Photoshop." I'm not against enhancing a good picture that you have taken to make it much better but I feel that the basic aspect of taking a picture should be there. The computer (art programs) has made some of us stop thinking about what we are doing in the purist sense of photography.
These are definitely two different sets of skills and I think that each should be rewarded. I'm just not sure that both should be in the same category. |
Maybe your friend is a graphist or infographist. But besides, I don't think that being good in PS means you are not a good photographer. You can be both. You can also be a good photographer and not be good in the darkroom or be very skilled there and achieve some impressing tricks comparable to PS. For example, you cannot double expose a photo with your digital camera, but can with a standard SLR which can be simulated in PS to obtain the same effect. You can also remove a pole with standard darkroom techniques if you are skilled or inventive. I think that being a photographer is being an artist at first and techniques used to achieve the end results are just different if you are with digital or standard. If a photographer was to be only a point and shoot, than I can tell you that I don't know one person who is not a photographer!!!!
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 11:44:15 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by chalcone:
IMO, it's really the final product that matters. The manipulation process that went behind a picture that *moved* me doesn't even count. |
I absolutely agree. As long as you don't distort reality and pretend it is reality, the end result is the only thing that counts. The image is pleasing to the eye, than it is a winner to me. PS is a complicated program and if you can achieve a masterpiece with it, than Chapeau! this goes as well in a darkroom. For me this is just processing techniques.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 11:37:28 AM · #8 |
| Being an expert with a camera does not to my mind mean point and shoot. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 11:23:40 AM · #9 |
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe photoshop INCREASES ones thoughts?
If someone goes to shoot a scene with a pole with the intention of removing it, he/she has teh same vision of a photographer whom goes to find a scene minus the pole.
If anything, the photoshop user is more skilled & creative becasue that person is saving time/money/ and can use a wider range of photographic tools than the non photoshopper.
Praise to the photoshop youth ;) hehe
As for your friend, if he is working with a photograph, then yes he is a photographer! He can record the whole essence of the image onto chip or film, and then have the imagination and creativity to develop it in something he feels more at home with.
To be a photographer, doesn't mean you have to be an expert with a camera. Who on earth can't point and shoot.
The skill lies in the idea, and it's delivery...however delivered.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 11:16:10 AM · #10 |
My natural preference is for freedom with no rules - just enjoying the artform itself, however impure. However, on this site I prefer rules (except in portfolio entries), because I think it makes this game more fun and separates those who have vision, skill and imagination from those who do not.
You say "separates those who have vision, skill and imagination from those who do not." However, I have a problem with that thought process. Some people are very good photographers but have no PC/MAC skills whatsoever. That does not mean that they have no vision or imagination but rather that they don't have computer art skills. These are two very different set of skills. I have a friend who is a genius when it comes to Photoshop and manipulation of photos. However, he cannot take a good picture if his life depended on it, but his final output is fine because he spends hours in photoshop. Is he someone who should be called a photographer?
People who can use Photoshop and use it well tend to get lazy with their phototaking abilities. They will take a picture with trash or power lines etc and think to themselves "oh I can just get rid of it in Photoshop." I'm not against enhancing a good picture that you have taken to make it much better but I feel that the basic aspect of taking a picture should be there. The computer (art programs) has made some of us stop thinking about what we are doing in the purist sense of photography.
These are definitely two different sets of skills and I think that each should be rewarded. I'm just not sure that both should be in the same category. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 11:08:08 AM · #11 |
Photography is unique as an art form in that it can produce images that come very close to representing reality. I think it is important to distinquish between photojournalism/documentary, creative photography, and digital art. They are all valid art forms based on photography and they all have their place here, but sometimes the viewer needs to understand the nature of what they are seeing. For example, I would feel betrayed to find that a baby was pasted into the middle of a battlefield if the shot was presented as reality.
Message edited by author 2003-09-11 17:29:24. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 10:41:14 AM · #12 |
Photography is like sport. Some like freesports like surfing, snowboarding, climbing, etc - where there are no rules - only exploration adventure and frre spirit. Others like sports with tight rules which must be adhered to in order to enjoy the game fully.
My natural preference is for freedom with no rules - just enjoying the artform itself, however impure. However, on this site I prefer rules (except in portfolio entries), because I think it makes this game more fun and separates those who have vision, skill and imagination from those who do not.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 10:35:59 AM · #13 |
Back in my old film / darkroom days, I had a period where I experimented with the temperature of the developers and stop chemicals. It produced some very interesting effects that were certainly not a "real" representation of the image I shot. Were these still photographs? Or had they crossed a line somewhere that made them something else? Analog Art?
More importantly, does it matter? Some of my experiments were horrible and were trashed (although in retrospect, they may have sold well in SoHo), while I still have some that I treasure 20 years later. Currently I lack the talent to effectively use Photoshop very well. Some day, when time allows, I'll start experimenting with it. If anyone feels strongly that I should not call the finished product a photograph, just let me know what you want to call it :) I'll gladly go with the majority on this because frankly my dear, I don't give a damn :)
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 10:12:12 AM · #14 |
Here is an example of replacing the sky. The turbulent water seemed a little 'stormy' to me, so I Photoshopped in a stormy sky... The difference in the sky is subtle, but it changes the mood of the image. To get the new sky to look realistic, I had to use seven layers comprised of a new sky photo, multiple layers with various opacities and blending modes, one layer with airbrushed shadows, and one layer that was a gradient. Lots of work went into it to make it look like a natural photograph, rather than looking like an obviously manipulated image. I would hang the final result, but I would never have displayed the original.
 //www.pbase.com/image/20360758
Original:
 //www.pbase.com/image/21229872
Message edited by author 2003-09-11 10:17:02.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 09:58:22 AM · #15 |
I see photography as an artform. I think Photoshop is a tool that can play a role in your artwork. If I take a photo that is good, but know a way to make it great, why not do so? If I am going to hang something on my wall, I want it to be the most visually stimulating that it can possibly be. If I take an amazing shot of sand dunes, but the sky is a flat boring blue, then I will photoshop in a more dramatic sky. Does that mean I'm not a photographer?? I don't think so. I just think it means I utilized an available tool to make an image better.
I'm not sure I understand all the calories that get burned debating the use of Photoshop. If you like it, use it. If you are more of a photography purist, then take the best photos you can without manipulation and enjoy your hobby. ....but don't knock the Photoshop users just because you are a purist!
JD Anderson
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 09:48:29 AM · #16 |
I think you are coming at this from the wrong direction.
It isn't the tools used that mater, it is the photographers intent. You can make photorealistic images, or you can extend and distort reality. Ansel Adams who always gets trotted out as a great realist, member of the F64 group etc, extensively worked his negatives to produce the final image. The Moonrise shot, considered his best image is a good example. Tons of tonal adjustments to get a final result.
Two small examples, the first with a 10 second use of photoshop and dpclegal, for those that like the rules here as if they actually encourage or restrict intent (which they dont - general voter pressure does)
Entirely dpc-legal, one photoshop curve:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=9336
Another example, completely against the dpc rules, involving several hours worth of maniuplation, selective adjustments, layers, spot editing, masks and various other 'restricted' tools in the dpc toolbox:
It isn't about tools, it is about what you are trying to achieve. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 06:54:21 AM · #17 |
great BMW shoot man. See to me, I would have guessed you played with the hue quite a bit ;) Thus enforcing my point. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 06:29:42 AM · #18 |
"Obviously manipulated"
You keep using these words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Compare the following two photos of mine and tell me which you think has been manipulated more.
Beem
and
A Break in the Clouds
The first was made with a simple long exposure in the camera.
The second was made almost entirely in photoshop.
Photography is not as "pure" as people would like to believe. |
|
|
|
09/11/2003 05:51:56 AM · #19 |
yes, it's still 2 photographs at the end of the day.
would you class a shot of a busy railway station, with people rushing around creating a blurry effect (with a long exposure) a photo?
It's the same as doing it in photoshop.
Or even better, a traditional film SLR user who took an image of the WTC, then done the wind the film back trick and took another of the void space, thus layering the two, is that a photograph? There woudl be no hint of software involved, but it's exactly the same as using a layer in ps.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 05:05:32 AM · #20 |
no it's not a photograph anymore imo. the artist is great at graphic design, and that's just what that photograph became.
if someone took a picture of NY now, and put the twin towers in there again via photoshop...would you support them being hailed as a great photographer or a great photo manipulator. Combining the two art forms takes away from each in my opinion. They are both great art, but they are different and need to be treated accordingly.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 05:00:13 AM · #21 |
so your saying that isn't a photograph? it's still a photograph, just a manipulated one. And it's still photography.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 04:54:20 AM · #22 |
some examples: //commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/faking.html
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 04:53:38 AM · #23 |
my whole point got started with:
"But anything obviously manipulated (multiple image layers, etc.) isn't photography to me. It may be an art form, just not photography imo."
the key word being obviously. i.e.: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=34586
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 04:47:00 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by xhoss:
that's AWESOME art...but it just can't be considered a photograph anymore imo being as doctored as it is...very cool.... |
No, all I am saying is that you actually can't tell on some photographs, whether they have been doctored or not.
So you have to say that every picture in the press is, not considered a photograph in your book, becasue someone or something has been cut-out, or moved.
If you label like this, you will be wrong on 50% of all images you see.
Another exaple is car shots in magazines, a few of them are not even real cars, they are rendered in 3D software to save on costs. You just can't tell when it's done well.
I understand your point, I really do. But I think people just have to get used to the sad fact that these days, be it watching a film, reading the news, or looking at photographs, you can't tell what is real and what isn't. And thus, the labeling aspect is thrown out of the window.
I think a photograph, by definition has to have been taken by a camera. Regardless of what has been removed, added, changed. In essance is has elements lof photography, and more often than not, the 'true' photographic elements outweigh the photoshoped elements.
Hey photoshop elements, may be onto something here;)
|
|
|
|
09/11/2003 04:40:02 AM · #25 |
again, you didn't understand my point...please read my posts again - i talked about post processing being okay, levels, colors, etc.
|
|
