| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2004 02:02:26 PM · #1 |
| I think simply a photograph is a photograph, be it taken on film or disk, edited in the darkroom or in the studio. Makes no odds... |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 01:19:41 PM · #2 |
FWIW - I think that is a valid view/definition, as good as any.
And I'm not quite sure how I personally define it - not sure of my personal digital art boundary. Even if my boundary is more narrow than others, it doesn't mean I don't like digital art or digital effects....quite the opposite. For the time being I've abandoned film-based photography in favor of digital - and I fully understand that digital editing/processing goes hand-in-hand with digital photography.
Maybe digital photography is a different breed with different considerations? While a post-pic digitally added feature may render the end result less of a "pure photograph" I think it's a fine "digital photograph." Dunno if that makes any sense, or if its a distinction without much of a difference. Trying to incorporate the expanded possibilities inherent in the digital medium. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 12:07:10 PM · #3 |
FWIW my definition of photography starts with the idea/imagination and ends with the final print.
Enough on the subject I feel..
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:44:17 AM · #4 |
only in end result, and as beaten to death, if your definition of photography starts and ends with the final result it is likely very difficult to find any meaningful distinction. This also relies (IMO unduly) on the fact that Eddy's blue dot was digitally created - it was a photographed backdrop be it painted, natural, a filtered light, a laptop screen - whatever.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, one should be allowed, one should not, just that there is a difference and some do not blur or ignore that difference, even if the end results are identical. This is a good topic for discussion as Gordon suggested in his initial post. The example of Eddy's photo provides a clean set of facts for this debate.
I doubt there will ever be an absolute answer unless we all agree entirely on just what constitutes photography or even a photograph. And if you are searching for absolutes, I recommend death and taxes as good starting points! |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:27:55 AM · #5 |
Patents4u the problem being that they still both contain 'digital art' regardless of when or how it was added they still both contain exactly the same thing...
As for breasts, well, having never had the (delight?) of feeling a nice fake breast I can't answer that - as a guess I say breasts are breasts -as long as they look nice who cares ;)
And I don't mind a layer or two either ;)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:16:02 AM · #6 |
i used the same technique about 20 challenges ago for this shot:
Believe me, it was more of a pain to light the rest of the scene without washing out the screen or getting reflections than it would have been to composite the BG in pshop.
It was a pure photograph in the sense that nothing was added after the shutter button was pressed.
However, this is not an unlimited technique. For starters you can only shoot subjects this way that are smaller than your screen. So forget about shooting an SUV in front of a panorama full of huge dinosaurs, unless you happen to be really really special...
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:00:30 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I am slowly giving up on reading a decent answer to Gordon's initial question here....
I think we all know the image was a 'pure photograph' for want of a better word, and to use Photoshop after would make it 'part digital art' but nobody seems able to explain why they feel the latter is less of a photograph...?
Any takers? |
Jon - I think Patents4u did a good job of answering your question. "explain why they feel the latter is less" -
I think what some folks struggle with is if we can use "some" of the tools in Photoshop, why can't we use the "all". Good question, and maybe a great opportunity for DPC to step out and create a 3rd rank of Challenges. (balls in their court)
Now, more on the question at hand. "explain why they feel the latter is less" - I'll break this down into something easier to understand.
"Real" breasts - vs - "Silicon"
Do you have a preference? If you do, you probably prefer "real"
If you don't - you are probably ok with using Photoshop to add layers.
:) |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:37:23 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I am slowly giving up on reading a decent answer to Gordon's initial question here....
I think we all know the image was a 'pure photograph' for want of a better word, and to use Photoshop after would make it 'part digital art' but nobody seems able to explain why they feel the latter is less of a photograph...?
Any takers? |
I am quickly giving up on people not blurring or entirely ignoring the distinction just to say the distinction doesn't matter. :-) I mean c'mon now - your question admits that the post-processed dot is not a "pure photograph" but is "part digital art" and then you go on to ask why the latter is "less of a photograph." You've stated the base reason in the preface to your question!
But, for kicks, I'll take another quick crack at it anyway...When Eddy placed the laptop behind the rope he likely had to deal with reflections/lighting issues, composition, etc - you know, all the things photographers worry about when taking photographs (since he was in fact photographing the blue dot). The other way eliminates or greatly simplifies much of that - does it after the pic is taken - and, for at least these reasons is deemed by some to be "less of a photograph."
Hopping off of the soapbox now. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:20:27 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet, I can't rationally articulate where the boundary between 'photography' and digital art is.
|
I don't think anyone can - at least not with a definition or boundary that satisfies everyone. It's certainly harder to do, IMO, if you focus only on the final result. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:19:49 AM · #10 |
I am slowly giving up on reading a decent answer to Gordon's initial question here....
I think we all know the image was a 'pure photograph' for want of a better word, and to use Photoshop after would make it 'part digital art' but nobody seems able to explain why they feel the latter is less of a photograph...?
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:09:10 AM · #11 |
LOGIC: In one instance the background was photographed in the other it was not.
I don't see the point in ignoring this just to run in circles. It is a very basic and very logical distinction. The distinction is in the process of producing the end result. You can ignore the process and simply recite that this can be done by any number of processes, but that's circular.
By the way, nobody, from what I can tell, thinks or has even insinuated that you (Gordon) are stupid, or that you don't understand the issue....a tad stubborn perhaps, but not stupid. :-)
It's an interesting issue you've posed - especially for those who believe anything within the photographers artistic vision constitutes photography, even if it goes beyond what the photographer actually saw through her/his camera. People with this viewpoint of photography, as I understand it, tend to focus more on the end result. People with the other viewpoint tend to focus more on the elements that existed in the camera's view.
The usual rebuttal to the latter viewpoint is that many things could and have always been done in a film darkroom. Being essentially ignorant on that, could a radiant blue dot as in Eddy's photo be added when developing film? My guess is no, or not very easily. So this would seem to be much further away than tweaking contrast/lighting, burning/dodging, etc., which are common in the darkroom...I'll let the experts weigh in on that if they want to.
Message edited by author 2004-02-19 10:10:00. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 09:01:41 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by joebar:
Why dont we just draw the entire rope and background and take a photo of the screen? Why photograph anything? Just draw the entire scene in photoshop, edit as much as you want, use 15 layers, then take a single pic of the screen when you're done. Hey, it's not post processed!
This is a workaround to avoid the rules.. The end. |
We've had entries pretty much like that in the past. As long as there is some additional element (e.g., stick a fly on the screen) it has been considered legal within the rules....
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 09:00:11 AM · #13 |
Why dont we just draw the entire rope and background and take a photo of the screen? Why photograph anything? Just draw the entire scene in photoshop, edit as much as you want, use 15 layers, then take a single pic of the screen when you're done. Hey, it's not post processed!
This is a workaround to avoid the rules.. The end. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 08:45:51 AM · #14 |
I probably have to just reiterate that I'm certainly not for completely open editing and not for swapping heads, adding flying pigs or random application of photoshop filters.
Yet, I can't rationally articulate where the boundary between 'photography' and digital art is.
I'm not so stupid that I can't see all the reasons why Eddy's shot and a layer in photoshop are different in specifics, I just can't logically find a reason why those differences actually matter in any meaningful sense.
His picture and the yellow spot version I knocked up in about 3 seconds would look exactly the same, if I spent a bit more time and masked it well (it really isn't hard to do, just not with photoshop 5 LE).
The exact same tools would have been applied.
Same result, same tools.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 08:26:29 AM · #15 |
| I agree with that description of the difference, and I think there's another difference: the way Eddy did it, it's a physical backdrop. If it were a PS layer, it would be a digital backdrop. That's the other difference I see. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 10:07:58 PM · #16 |
| The only difference is in one scenario the camera saw it and in the other it did not. That is a significant difference to some. To others it is not. But I don't think that difference can be simply ignored. Is taking someone's portrait in front of a painted backdrop the same as taking someone's picture and then painting (with real paint, not painting with light, not photoshop, just paint) a background on the photo? (just trying to remove the dependence on photoshop). |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 09:53:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Yellowpeep:
Gordon, I admire your tenacity in this thread, and again, I go back to my original point: If Eddy had printed out the blue dot on paper and hung it behind the rope would this forum thread exist right now? How is a paper different from a laptop screen in this scenario? Both are backdrops, both have been created in PS, both cause the same effect. |
Absolutely. How then does a layer added in photoshop after the fact differ, other than in time with respect to the shutter ? |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 08:58:59 PM · #18 |
| Gordon, I admire your tenacity in this thread, and again, I go back to my original point: If Eddy had printed out the blue dot on paper and hung it behind the rope would this forum thread exist right now? How is a paper different from a laptop screen in this scenario? Both are backdrops, both have been created in PS, both cause the same effect. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 07:19:59 PM · #19 |
To me, the fact that he created the blue dot in Photoshop is wholly irrelevant - he captured the image, blue dot and all, with his camera.
The argument that with a mere change in when you use Photoshop you can create the same image puts undue significance on the fact that the blue dot was created with Photoshop. I understand this to be a base fact in the integrity of photography posts, not just some nebulous "integrity of photography" feeling without substance.
In one instance, the end result is faithful to what he physicaly saw through his camera, without regard to how any element in the scene was generated. In the other, the end result is not faithful to what could be seen through the camera. May be faithful to what the photographer intended, but that's another issue I think.
Does anything other than the end result matter? |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 06:23:30 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 06:07:36 PM · #21 |
I have no problem with this shot and I have no problems with photoshop. Photoshop is a great tool for making your pictures better. Awhile ago I made some comments regarding a picture that won a challenge that may or may not be part of this.
My original fear and complaint has been showing up very high on a lot of recent challenges. (note: no disrespect is ment towards the photographers of the pictures to be mentioned). In one shot someone deleted out much of the picture to leave a pure white background, covered a bald spot, and touched up a fish and turned a snap shot into a ribbon winner. Great job in photoshop (and well within the rules), but I thought this was a photography challenge? How does a snapshot win a photography challenge? In another shot someone took a lot of time and effort to set and light a scene, but then used photoshop to add the painting with light element to make it fit the challenge. It wasn't the painting with photoshop challenge. In yet another example someone photoshopped brush strokes into their shadow. These were all within the rules, but well beyond removing a glare or a spec of dust or a bird that got in the way of the shot. These were all pictures created in photoshop, not created with a camera. They are closer to being a painting then a photograph.
Thats why I feel the members challenges have become photoshop contest and why I'm against the advanced editing rules. |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:46:53 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by orussell:
If you feel that photography is taking a picture and compositing to create better looking backgrounds or whatever, that is your perogative. Photography is many thing to many people. Bottom line you have your definition of photography, and even if anyone could provide the ultimate definition (I certainly don't profess to be that scholarly about all things photographic), I doubt you would adopt it without question. |
There has to be a better one than 'preserves photographic integrity' though.
It is very difficult to define something by saying that it should be what it is. It is a tautology and largely useless.
I'm still waiting to hear some reason why doing the photoshop before you press the shutter or after you press the shutter is somehow more photographic one way than the other.
Several people have said 'because it is' but that is mostly unhelpful too. Note that I didn't say it was either, I asked you why it is not.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 17:48:05.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:42:27 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by orussell:
Same tools yes. But it is a "photograph" the way that he did it, not a "composited" version of a photograph. Sorry Gordon if this doesn't fit with your idea of what photography is, was, or will be; some people like it just fine the way it is. |
Its not so much that it doesn't fit, its just that nobody has yet managed to define it very well. If it was well defined, obviously it would be easy to point to a definition. Feel free to provide one then we can all put this to rest quickly... |
If you feel that photography is taking a picture and compositing to create better looking backgrounds or whatever, that is your perogative. Photography is many thing to many people. Bottom line you have your definition of photography, and even if anyone could provide the ultimate definition (I certainly don't profess to be that scholarly about all things photographic), I doubt you would adopt it without question.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:30:33 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Do you have some examples of standard photographic techniques that are illegal under the advanced rules? I am confused there, but I have no real formal education in photography, I am still feeling my way along in a lot of ways.
Also, in what way does the advanced rules limit photographic workflow?
Thanks,
Rich. |
Illegal under the advanced rules:
expanding dynamic range through image combining
expanding depth of field through image combining
panoramic stitching
multiple exposures/ sandwiches
all considered advanced, but certainly photographic, techniques, while at the same time allowing someone to shoot a blank sheet of paper and paint everything in using the brush tools (as long as it starts from a photograph and ends up looking like a photograph, apparently)
It is the open challenge rules that promote the investigation and investment in suboptimal workflows. E.g., selective desturation using hue/saturation sliders, or selective colour + hue/saturation for dust removal, while still encouraging sloppy technique by using levels to fix bad white balance and poor exposure choices. I think a lot could be done to have basic rules that encourage great in camera photographic capture and advanced rules that encourage developing and learning world class photographic editing and workflows. Currently we have a mostly random mix of allowed and disallowed techniques, which ignore what the photographer is actually trying to achieve, but tries to tie it together with the woolly term 'photographic integrity'. It makes as much sense as banning hammers because they might be used to break in to safes, or making crowbars illegal because they could be used to hijack buses.
As it is they currently do neither well, but the dead horse has started decomposing. I should know when to stop flagellating. So I will.
Message edited by author 2004-02-18 17:34:36.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2004 05:21:18 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Same tools yes. But it is a "photograph" the way that he did it, not a "composited" version of a photograph. Sorry Gordon if this doesn't fit with your idea of what photography is, was, or will be; some people like it just fine the way it is. |
Its not so much that it doesn't fit, its just that nobody has yet managed to define it very well. If it was well defined, obviously it would be easy to point to a definition. Feel free to provide one then we can all put this to rest quickly...
|
|
