DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> This was not photoshopped
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/05/2015 10:14:23 AM · #1
How far would you go to get the shot you wanted? Hard to believe this isn't photoshopped, it was actually taken 30m under water.
07/05/2015 12:42:45 PM · #2
me and my cormorants prefer photoshop.
07/05/2015 12:45:35 PM · #3
Whoa.....that's crazy!
07/05/2015 12:47:41 PM · #4
I would so do that for the shot!! (It has a bird in it. :)
07/05/2015 12:49:55 PM · #5
So I'm guessing the bird was stuffed and dead already? lol. This is awesome.
07/05/2015 12:50:47 PM · #6
It's a heck of an accomplishment, for sure. But I have a bit of a problem with the idea that it represents his "Keep it Real" concept, since the only "real" part of it is the free diver. I mean, the raft is *supposed* to float, so that isn't real, the cormorant is *stuffed*, and so forth. Conceptually, it's a bit precious to me, if you catch my drift? Still, it's a heck of a team accomplishment :-)
07/05/2015 02:03:19 PM · #7
What Bear said...
07/05/2015 04:11:39 PM · #8
I just realized, finally, for good and for all, I will never understand photographers. And I can never be one. I don't understand why it's so wrong to have a vision that can't ever be seen in reality, to use a camera as one among many tools to realize that vision. What is the moral and ethical insult about photoshop. The notion that reality can be accurately captured by a camera and that a camera should be used to only do that...is impossible for me to accept. So. I'll get over it somehow, I guess.
07/05/2015 04:25:46 PM · #9
Pix you are not a documentarian, you are an artist who paints with a camera.
07/05/2015 05:07:27 PM · #10
:D I think I'm wishing for some moral and ethical high ground to stand on, or at least a compelling illusion that I can find such high ground. In school, I remember the casually condescending attitude of those who looked down upon artists who "only" painted what they saw. Maybe that still resonates with me. It takes skill & persistence to realize a vision that only you can see in your mind, & to recreate it convincingly enough that others can see it. But the skill & persistence it takes to create a convincing memento of reality cannot be denied either. So. No moral or ethical high ground for me, I guess.

As for the comp in the OP
I have often been taken with the notion that the sky resembles water. On a cloudy day, I sometimes feel, visually, like I'm living at the bottom of a big pond. I never was taken with the notion of how I could realize that in art, though. So I admire it for that. People with a strong vision like this, & the talent to pull a team together to realize it, often end up making big bucks with their skill & persistence. I admire that, too.

Message edited by author 2015-07-05 17:18:11.
07/05/2015 05:33:01 PM · #11
Originally posted by pixelpig:

I just realized, finally, for good and for all, I will never understand photographers. And I can never be one. I don't understand why it's so wrong to have a vision that can't ever be seen in reality, to use a camera as one among many tools to realize that vision. What is the moral and ethical insult about photoshop. The notion that reality can be accurately captured by a camera and that a camera should be used to only do that...is impossible for me to accept. So. I'll get over it somehow, I guess.


That's because there are many photographers who would have love to have been artists, but don't have the skills. Photography is my art, but even then, I'm just a documentarian. How can I begin to compete with the artist/photographers, much less the artist/artists? When you give people photoshop, and they can create whatever they want, there's no way I can begin to impress with my natural world. Now any sense of wonder I can achieve with a once in a lifetime capture has absolutely no sense of wonder, because it probably was photoshopped (in the eyes of viewers).

So while I'm not one who rails against photoshop manipulations/creations, I can understand where they're coming from. Because my reality can't even begin to compete with people's visions that can't be seen in reality. Imagination is so much more interesting. I wish I had some. :)
07/05/2015 06:00:52 PM · #12
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

I just realized, finally, for good and for all, I will never understand photographers. And I can never be one. I don't understand why it's so wrong to have a vision that can't ever be seen in reality, to use a camera as one among many tools to realize that vision. What is the moral and ethical insult about photoshop. The notion that reality can be accurately captured by a camera and that a camera should be used to only do that...is impossible for me to accept. So. I'll get over it somehow, I guess.


That's because there are many photographers who would have love to have been artists, but don't have the skills. Photography is my art, but even then, I'm just a documentarian. How can I begin to compete with the artist/photographers, much less the artist/artists? When you give people photoshop, and they can create whatever they want, there's no way I can begin to impress with my natural world. Now any sense of wonder I can achieve with a once in a lifetime capture has absolutely no sense of wonder, because it probably was photoshopped (in the eyes of viewers).

So while I'm not one who rails against photoshop manipulations/creations, I can understand where they're coming from. Because my reality can't even begin to compete with people's visions that can't be seen in reality. Imagination is so much more interesting. I wish I had some. :)


Can you really relate to those though? A picture so unrealistic it's hard to relate to. Take for instance our most recent Expert Challenge. Gyaban created a beautiful first place entry but as humans can we relate to playing music underwater in a tuxedo? Or can you relate more to a beautiful sunset in England (1st place in I am the Walrus).

I love looking at those amazing images people can create in Photoshop and even would love to create some but saying you can't compete with them because they make such grand and unrealistic images is selling yourself short . For every human is going to be able to relate so much more with something they are familiar with rather than something that is impossible.
07/05/2015 06:16:10 PM · #13
I think people do what they can, with what they've got. In fact, the only choice you have is to do what you can & do it with all your might. And for what it's worth, a photo of a sunset, any sunset, no matter how wonderful, is still only a photo and a very poor second-best to actually being there. Landscape photographs are the most popular, & among the most forgettable, of all documentary photographs. IMO.

Wendy, I am a big fan of your bird portraits. I admire greatly the skill & persistence, the ability to 'know' birds, that is behind it all. Never stop.
07/05/2015 07:40:20 PM · #14
There is nothing wrong with photoshop. Nor photoshop creations. The heavily, or completely manipulated images are art. But I would not call it photography. In school, when we took different images and put them together in one scene, it was called a collage.

I'm not saying it is a bad thing at all, but it is not photography, as usually practiced. My only argument is when it tries to get shoehorned into the definition. Sculpting and oil painting are both art, both are good, bother are not the same thing.

As my grandpa used to say, "Just cause a cat has kittens in the oven, that don't make them muffins." I heard this when I tried to stretch a point to fit what I wanted.

As for the original image. I do not see an argument for it being "more real", had it been done in Photoshop. I can see an argument for it being "less real" had it been done in Photoshop. Yes rafts are supposed to float; but then so was the Titanic. ;-)
07/05/2015 08:39:19 PM · #15
Originally posted by pixelpig:

I think people do what they can, with what they've got. In fact, the only choice you have is to do what you can & do it with all your might. And for what it's worth, a photo of a sunset, any sunset, no matter how wonderful, is still only a photo and a very poor second-best to actually being there. Landscape photographs are the most popular, & among the most forgettable, of all documentary photographs. IMO.

Wendy, I am a big fan of your bird portraits. I admire greatly the skill & persistence, the ability to 'know' birds, that is behind it all. Never stop.


(thanks Annie :)

The problem is, if you get a shot of the weasel on the woodpecker or the crow on the eagle, people will automatically wonder if it's photoshopped. Luckily, I've never seen a crow on an eagle or weasel on a woodpecker, so I'm probably safe. :)
07/05/2015 08:58:00 PM · #16
That is truly amazing! It goes to show you what man can do if he sets his mind to do something, for good or for bad and that's scary but in this case it was for good!
07/05/2015 10:41:45 PM · #17
A photojournalist sees photography as a means to getting the story. An artist sees it as a means of self-expression. Photoshop is only a tool to ehance either one. The photographer is still the one behind the art...... an artist.
07/05/2015 10:59:16 PM · #18
Wow, a much deeper discussion than I was expecting. I just wanted to point out what I thought was a very cool and extreme photo shoot.

Von Wong is no stranger to PS, he uses it extensively in many of his images, I believe, from the video, that he was commissioned to effectively realize someone else's vision in this case. So I am guessing that is why it wasn't all done in PS.
07/06/2015 12:16:46 AM · #19
Wendy, even if you don't usually create from scratch, my guess is that you shoot until something artistic happens. That still counts.
07/06/2015 01:18:33 AM · #20
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Wendy, I am a big fan of your bird portraits. I admire greatly the skill & persistence, the ability to 'know' birds, that is behind it all. Never stop.


(thanks Annie :)

The problem is, if you get a shot of the weasel on the woodpecker or the crow on the eagle, people will automatically wonder if it's photoshopped. Luckily, I've never seen a crow on an eagle or weasel on a woodpecker, so I'm probably safe. :)


You must put out the word to the squirrel nation! A squirrel on a...crocodile? Or a squirrel flying a small airplane? Or squirrels making endearing faces as they retrieve peanuts from under water. We could think of something wonderful. And then you write a little blurb explaining how you got the shot, stealing the show from the doubters. I see it all.

I remember one bird photographer telling the story of how he got the shot, which involved walking out into a pond with a blind on his head in the shape of a large goose. He was mostly-submerged in the pond for a long time but he got some fabulous shots.

Photoshop may have bedazzled people, but not everyone assumes "it must've been photoshopped."

Message edited by author 2015-07-06 01:23:23.
07/06/2015 01:49:57 AM · #21
I guess for me it doesn't matter if it's photoshopped or not, it is the end result that counts. Here I find the end result looks more like a cartoon or an airbrush painting, also emotionally it not being based in reality I have a hard time connecting with it, if it was a painting I would feel the same. Hats off for all the hard work though.
07/06/2015 01:54:53 AM · #22
I do wonder why someone would go to all the trouble of making a photo that looks photoshopped but isn't ? now that thousands of people can make similar looking pictures maybe it's a way of standing out.

Message edited by author 2015-07-06 02:02:12.
07/06/2015 02:04:51 AM · #23
Originally posted by jagar:

I do wonder why someone would go to all the trouble of making a photo that looks photoshopped but isn't ? now that thousands of people can make similar looking pictures maybe it's a way of standing out.


Because is an ad and regardless of the result the WOW factor is huge. And Ballantine's is linked to it. The the making of it rather then "it". Smart

Message edited by author 2015-07-06 02:05:44.
07/06/2015 10:32:59 PM · #24
Originally posted by vawendy:

Because my reality can't even begin to compete with people's visions that can't be seen in reality. Imagination is so much more interesting. I wish I had some. :)

Oh, pshaw, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' vawendy. People are easily bored. When they see something time and time again, they come to categorize it as "common", and don't even think twice about it, when people who haven't seen it before will travel half way around the world to see it in person. Think of Ireland - do folks who live there think it is the most beautiful place? Or Hawaii? When I was there, I talked to some kids who were dying to leave the islands because there was nothing to do! Or pick any tourist destination city. Do New Yorkers go visit the Statue of Liberty? Carnage Hall? Grand Central Station? Empire State Building? Do folks in Seattle go visit the Space Needle? Fisherman's Wharf? In San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge? In Indianapolis, attend the Indy 500 or the Brickyard 400? In Chicago, the Pier? the Oriental Museum? Folks in Cairo, Egypt, the Sphinx? the Great Pyramids?
I'd say that the greatest artist on earth can't imagine something as grand as a sunset, as beautiful as a flower, as incredible as a bird in flight, or many of the other natural, or even man made wonders. We fill in with fire, fog, plain backgrounds in our imaginations. But reality is detail after detail after detail - no gaps, voids, or blank spots. Just because we've grown familiar with something doesn't decrease its wonder - we just increase in our ability to ignore it.
To me, the greatest artists are the ones that evoke our emotional responses from previous experience - maybe not even something we can put into words, but something we've experienced, thought, felt, saw, or related to. As a final example - the horror or scary genre of story or film. The artist can't scare you (startle is another matter), but the best at their craft provide you the cues and tools to scare yourself silly.
07/07/2015 02:41:31 AM · #25
It's a good piece of advertising.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/28/2020 07:19:27 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/28/2020 07:19:27 AM EDT.