Let's Talk - DPChallenge Forums

01/22/2004 06:51:23 PM · #51

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
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?

Without seeing the original I think that is a great picture. I'm not saying it's good or bad. Photo shop is an art and people can do great things with it. I don't think a photography challenge is a good place to be doing great things with photoshop.

Check this out:
//www.annthenwhat.com/photoshopped.html
Digital art, or photography?

Taking a bird out of a cage, moving spots on a cow, changing colors on a cat. It's the same thing.

If you can't tell that it has been manipulated, what difference does it make?

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

01/22/2004 06:59:14 PM · #52

My point is being missed. It's still a great picture, it's still great art. However once it's changed it's no longer, by definition, a photograph.

I suppose I could take a picture and photoshop out all the undisireable stuff, and add some disireable things and trick everyone into thinking I took a fantastic photo when in reality I took an average photo and did a fantastic job in photoshop. That's not photography and that's not integrety.

Do you think the original is a good photograph?

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

01/22/2004 07:03:24 PM · #53

I think it's a good photograph with one unavoidable problem. Using photoshop to remove this problem seems perfectly fine to me. It's not like crab gave the bird an extra eye or anything :)

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/22/2004 07:03:59 PM · #54

Originally posted by louddog:

This is just my opinion, but I think you are letting your camera be the artist, here. Post-processing is and always has been a part of photography - maybe even the most important part. Photoshop (or it's equivalent) allows a photographer to make his picture the best it can be.

01/22/2004 07:08:02 PM · #55

Do you think the original is a good photograph?[/quote]

No. I do not. I would have never shown it myself. Our definitions of 'digital art' are somewhat different I think. You consider removing and adding things to be digital art. I do not, to a certain extent. Manipulated, yes. Digital art? I'm not sure.

Photography is about reality for the most part. A good photographer with good editing skills can enhance reality. Is this a bad thing? I guess it depends on how you look at things. When reality can be presented in a more pleasing way, I like it. I should not be able to tell that what I'm looking at has been modified in any way. This is what I like to call 'photo finishing'. Crab's photo is an example of great photo finishing that can be done with digital images that could never be done with film.

To me, digital art does not represent reality and was never intended to. It's about creating using software rather than the camera. It's about making things exist that don't exist. The fence existed in the original bird photo, but not in the finished product. The finished product shot is of the bird. It's about the bird. If the bird (the subject of this photo) had been created in photoshop, I would consider this image to be digital art.

01/22/2004 07:18:43 PM · #56

It's an argument over what is photography. Neither of us are right or wrong. Just opinions on what is and isn't. The text book definition pf photography says it has to be on film so I guess we're all wrong(someone should call websters)!

In your opinion, are the pictures on the link I posted digital art or photography?

01/22/2004 07:23:40 PM · #57

Originally posted by louddog:

It's "Digital art"

Message edited by author 2004-03-29 00:44:34.

01/22/2004 07:26:14 PM · #58

Originally posted by louddog:

They are digital art.

01/22/2004 07:35:52 PM · #59

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by louddog:
It's an argument over what is photography. Neither of us are right or wrong. Just opinions on what is and isn't. The text book definition pf photography says it has to be on film so I guess we're all wrong(someone should call websters)!

In your opinion, are the pictures on the link I posted digital art or photography?

They are digital art.

They are definitely digitally manipulated art.

Message edited by author 2004-03-29 00:45:50.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

01/22/2004 07:38:42 PM · #60

how are those different then taking a bird out of a cage?

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

01/22/2004 07:39:44 PM · #61

i say that if you did it in 'photo' shop, it MUST be photography, since by definition, it's a 'photo' shop

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/22/2004 07:52:18 PM · #62

Originally posted by louddog:

how are those different then taking a bird out of a cage?

They are different because they are not intended to reperesent reality.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

01/22/2004 08:01:38 PM · #63

Originally posted by louddog:

how are those different then taking a bird out of a cage?

They are different because, if you could take the photo from inside the cage, the bird would look very much like it does in the finished photo. Those pictures in the other link show things that simply do not exist.

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

01/22/2004 08:08:15 PM · #64

Time to eat...

Photographic integrity means don't make the picture some thing it's not. Correct?

Turning a picture of a bird in a cage into simply a bird makes the picture something it wasn�t. The same as re-arranging the spots on a cow to make it look like the map of the earth, or making a turtle look like a lady bug. Maybe one is more extreme then the other, but it�s the same thing. Just like that cow dosen't exist, neither does that bird. It's still in a cage. If you go in the cage to take the shot they will probably put you in a different cage. That shot was made, not "taken" (read the description of the challenge).

Taking out a spot in the background, cloning out a candy wrapper on the ground, removing a light pole in the background. I don�t like it, but I could deal with those. Removing the cage here changed what the original picture was. Just like cloning colors to put a skull and cross bones on the back of a frog.

Personally I love photoshop. I took a picture of Elvis and put my bosses face on it, under the hair. It was a big hit put no promotion this year� I�d call that art, but I wouldn�t submit it to a photography challenge. Fark.com has photoshop challenges, it would probably do well there.

When I take a picture I look at what it is, not what I can make it. Oh well� Happy photoshopping.

deafwolf

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/22/2004 08:14:35 PM · #65

They are different because they are not intended to reperesent reality.

But what is reality? Whoa, what a concept. You can't bend the spoon, that's impossible. What you must realize is, that there is no spoon.

Excellent statement John.

01/22/2004 08:14:44 PM · #66

Originally posted by louddog:

Time to eat...

Photographic integrity means don't make the picture some thing it's not. Correct?

No. This is not my opinion of what it means.

Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D

01/22/2004 08:22:55 PM · #67

Originally posted by louddog:

I do understand your point Louddog. I think this site caters to both the technical and the artistic compositions. I think the score shows when you've taken it too far one way or the other. The "altered looking" work often doesnt do well here with the voters.

Message edited by author 2005-05-03 02:13:01.

DJLuba

Nikon D2Xs

01/22/2004 08:42:03 PM · #68

Wow. Some intense people here throwing this about.

My two cents:

Would either of the first two photos win without Photoshop?

Probably not. Therefore, the members challenge has been changed to a Photoshop Challenge.

If you want a photography challenge, point your lense to the "open" or non-member challenge.

Oooh, and if you spent the $25.00 to become a member, you better shell out another $650 for photoshop if you want to win. There isn't a "fence out filter" by Tiffen or Hoya just yet.

casualguy

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/22/2004 08:42:13 PM · #69

Regarding the bird entry Chairman of the Board:

I think what crabappl3 did was simply poked his camera lense through the fence (in a sense) and uncovered what was truly there - a beautiful bird.

I would wager to say that if the 'handler' of the bird were to see the photo he would undoubtly say "that's my bird!" - (possibly followed by "how'd you get in there to take that shot?".

Keep'm coming crab!

01/22/2004 08:49:47 PM · #70

Therefore, the members challenge has been changed to a Photoshop Challenge.
If you want a photography challenge, point your lense to the "open" or non-member challenge.
Oooh, and if you spent the $25.00 to become a member, you better shell out another $650 for photoshop if you want to win. There isn't a "fence out filter" by Tiffen or Hoya just yet.
----------------------------------------------------
I didn't read anything that said the editing rules would always stay this way, for every challenge. I like the way they change things around here. It keeps things interesting for me.

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 21:01:14.

01/22/2004 09:07:17 PM · #71

Originally posted by DJLuba:

I would wager that the winners in the open challenges would not win without photoshop either.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/22/2004 09:14:55 PM · #72

Originally posted by louddog:

I'm curious, did you just ignore the links I posted because they disprove your point, or you didn't notice them ? The film images I linked to are 'less real' than many of the things you believe are 'not photography', yet come straight from a camera.