Let's Talk - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF for Canon

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/22/2004 05:50:44 PM · #26

Originally posted by ahaze:

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 :-)

so true...ok well i'm satisfied, john i think your definition works, and all is well..rcrawford i hope i didn't offend you by using your photo, i like your work

deafwolf

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/22/2004 05:51:38 PM · #27

achrial, I like both final results. Me being new to digital, I would like to know how you dodged the eye. I still have no idea how to do that digitally, but I can work wonders in a film darkroom.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/22/2004 05:52:09 PM · #28

If you want to consider 'photographic integrity' being more true to what you'd get with a film camera without digital manipulation, then I would have to disagree and say that the brightly saturated tree is more typical of for example velvia colour and hence more true to traditional landscape photography.

Personally I don't think either of them claim to have any photographic integrity, but best represent the photographer's vision and own personal integrity. In either of these cases they aren't puporting to be journalistic or realistic representations of the subject matter.

For me, neither of them represent any attempt at reality, but both are quite good photographs and certainly don't stray far into the 'digital art' realm. Now if the bird had a frogs eye, or the tree had flying pigs in the background, then I'd be concerned if someone thought they were a photograph.

As an alternate point, I'll throw

out there. Now this looks surreal and in fact borrows heavily from surrealist photography by Man Ray. Does it have photographic integrity ? It uses very well established photographic techniques. Does it pretend to be what I saw ? no - but it was what I visualised it as.

How about

Again, the pop art movement used a lot of photography and could be considered part of the historical canon of photographic work - does this picture then still have photographic integrity ?

joshua

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

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/22/2004 05:52:16 PM · #29

Originally posted by GeneralE:

There is a difference between photography as evidentiary documentation, and photography as an art form.

yeah this is what i'm struggling with

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/22/2004 05:53:30 PM · #30

Originally posted by louddog:

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?

The difficulty I have with your view is that it would mean that well over 50% of all published landscape photography would be, by your definition, not a photograph. At least all the images captured using velvia and similar emulsions would not be photographs as the colours are much more wildly saturated than reality.

Gringo

Nikon D2X

01/22/2004 05:54:53 PM · #31

Originally posted by louddog:

So if you had an award winning shot, except for one stupid bird that jumped into the picture, would you remove him..... I would, I never intended for him to be there.
As well the specks of dust, Garbage cans, spots in the road, Do not touch signs in the windows of the show cars, Power lines... so on, so on...

The park service frowns on people moving fences and or chopping down trees to get a better picture.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/22/2004 06:00:58 PM · #32

Okay, as a homework assignment, look at the pictures at

//www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm

Then realise they are all unmanipulated and shot on film.

Then talk about saturated, unnatural colours and photographic integrity.

Photography has never been about representing 'reality'. The camera always lies. Its just people have fooled themselves for a long time. Consider what you can include or exclude, just by lens selection, composition, film selection, orientation and timing. Completely ignore post shot editing and photoshop. Honestly, I feel a lot of the angst about photoshop manipulation, particularly at this level of adjustment comes from ignorance of the history of photography and the reality of what has always been a part of the standard film and digital darkrooms

(again, ignoring journalistic or reportage photography which has some ethical requirements built in, but still represents a biased view of any event)

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

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

01/22/2004 06:04:35 PM · #33

Originally posted by tfaust:

Originally posted by ahaze:
I'm with Jim.

Did you mean John? :-)

Yeah! My bad!

cshep

Nikon Coolpix 5700

01/22/2004 06:05:05 PM · #34

Ansel Adams spent more time manipulating his images in the darkroom than out in the field actually shooting. Should we consider his body of work to be non-photography? To produce a pleasing (which is subjective) image is the "art" of photography. IMHO, how we come to that end doesn't really matter.

joshua

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/22/2004 06:06:18 PM · #35

so in the dpc sense "photographic integrity" means no digital art

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

01/22/2004 06:07:04 PM · #36

If the scene isn't worth capturing, don't take a picture. If you want to create a scene, that's great, take up painting or call it what is. "Digital art."

Comparing putting a filter on a camera with photoshoping out a fence is just plain stupid. Where do I get me one of those fence filters for the next time I go to the zoo???

I don't have a problem with adjusting color levels and what not. my big issue is with adding/removing things in the picture.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

01/22/2004 06:10:25 PM · #37

Just curious..

Is there a difference between Photoshoping a cage out, and using a posh telephoto to blur it out? Either way I can change the reality of the shot..

deafwolf

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF for Canon

01/22/2004 06:10:43 PM · #38

Originally posted by louddog:

I think you are forgetting one thing. This is DPChallenge, not FPChallenge. If you want the Film Photography Challenge site, you will have to do a google search for it. :P

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2004 06:11:19 PM · #39

Originally posted by achiral:

so in the dpc sense "photographic integrity" means no digital art

I'd pretty much say so ... I try and look at an image and see if I can visualize it being taken as a photo (given just the right placement, equipment, lighting, etc.).

We're already not allowed to add text or elements from another picture. And there's plenty of weird stuff you can do even within the Basic rules (see my early entries!)

kaycee

Olympus C-750UZ

01/22/2004 06:11:26 PM · #40

Interesting. Ken Rockwell even says on his site:

Most were photographed with crummy old equipment on Fuji Velvia film and no filters and no playing in Photoshop. I get what I get because I point my camera in the right place at the right time. That's the art of photography. The equipment has nothing to do with it.

fsteddy

01/22/2004 06:20:02 PM · #41

Originally posted by louddog:

I agree 100%

01/22/2004 06:20:35 PM · #42

I like the rules without allowing photochoping better. I guess it's a good excuse not to pay the $25. The open challenges don't allow photochoping so I won't be up against digital art.

The problem is, by allowing some photochoping you now enter opinion into the factor. How much is too much? Who decides? Obviously most of you wouldn't want me deciding that. By not allowing any, there is no confusion, no opinion and no argument.

Konador

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/22/2004 06:30:05 PM · #43

Show me one piece of digital art that has scored well in any of the recent 'Advanced Editing' challenges. In my opinion they are all still photographs.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2004 06:34:23 PM · #44

Originally posted by louddog:

The problem is, by allowing some photochoping you now enter opinion into the factor. How much is too much? Who decides?

The voters decide how much is too much ... the results are all based on opinion anyway.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

01/22/2004 06:35:39 PM · #45

Taking that bird out of the cage made it digital art in my opinion. My definition of a photograph is a capture of a scene. If you change the scene it's no longer a photograph.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

01/22/2004 06:38:26 PM · #46

Originally posted by louddog:

Taking that bird out of the cage made it digital art in my opinion. My definition of a photograph is a capture of a scene. If you change the scene it's no longer a photograph.

But you can do the same thing by blurring the cage out with a lens. I'm not disagreeing with you, but does doing it in-camera make it more valid?

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 18:39:12.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

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

01/22/2004 06:43:55 PM · #47

Originally posted by louddog:

Taking that bird out of the cage made it digital art in my opinion. My definition of a photograph is a capture of a scene. If you change the scene it's no longer a photograph.

Had you not seen the original, what would you think of the photo?

01/22/2004 06:45:01 PM · #48

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by louddog:
The problem is, by allowing some photochoping you now enter opinion into the factor. How much is too much? Who decides?

The voters decide how much is too much ... the results are all based on opinion anyway.

Voters don't know what was photoshoped until the artist says they did it.

Konador

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/22/2004 06:47:17 PM · #49

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by louddog:
The problem is, by allowing some photochoping you now enter opinion into the factor. How much is too much? Who decides?

The voters decide how much is too much ... the results are all based on opinion anyway.

Voters don't know what was photoshoped until the artist says they did it.

In my opinion, if the voters don't know it's photochoped, then it isnt digital art, and is still a photograph.