Let's Talk - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/23/2004 09:04:33 AM · #101

More food for thought: are these photographs ?

If not, why not ?

Only one of them is possible under the current rules, yet it is the one I would consider the least photographic and the most like 'digital art'

However, I'd say they all have 'integrity' of some sort as they represent what I originally aimed to achieve when I picked up the camera.

The first two were shot on film, and developed in a 1-hour photo lab (Ritz Camera) Do they look 'too photochopped' ? There was no editing at all.

How about this one ?

From all the 1's, 2's and 3's it scored, I suspect many people considered it 'too photochopped' Yet it was a straight from the camera/resize and submit.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 10:02:22.

stevenayer

Nikon Coolpix 995

01/23/2004 09:20:20 AM · #102

Gee this is a very good question and the examples really make a stong point. Perhaps it would be a more level playing field if some challenges were required to be "straight from the camera", which would strictly test the mettle of the photography, and other challenges allowed the currently permitted level of post-production, or digital artistry, while a third, open class would go for limitless digital art. All three approaches have merit and intergrity, but I for one was kinda irked when I saw how bland the original dead tree was and realized that what I had been ascribing to photographic skill was more properly ascribed to digital artistry. Should we have a "PURIST" category for challenges, with absolutely no processing? How would we ever know if people cheated anyhow?

Thanks for starting the thread

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

01/23/2004 09:25:22 AM · #103

I just have to say: Ferragamoscope is great! I really like that one :-)

01/23/2004 09:28:25 AM · #104

Originally posted by stevenayer:

realized that what I had been ascribing to photographic skill was more properly ascribed to digital artistry.

I think this comment really gets to the heart of the issue.

For me, personally 'photographic skill' includes everything up to and including a good quality print, carefully colour managed, correctly sharpened and all the post-processing that goes up to that point. Note, that here I've made no distinction between digital or film darkroom work - I consider both a large part of the photographic 'skill'

Consider any basic film photography course - most will include some level of darkroom work as part of that photographic training.

Many of the great photographers heavily manipulated their final results, through editing, filters, painting negatives, esoteric film and developer choices. In contrast, many of them used the equivalent of a 1-hour photo lab - both produced great photographic results.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/23/2004 09:29:25 AM · #105

Originally posted by tfaust:

I just have to say: Ferragamoscope is great! I really like that one :-)

Thank you ! That's certainly the most obvious 'digital art' shot I've done in a long time - yet it fits within the advanced editing rules (it was one photograph without anything added)

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

01/23/2004 09:29:39 AM · #106

There is a ton of "grey area" here. My first submission to the december free study was this one

Now, to most people, they would think the light and smoke were real therefore my photo wouldn't be considered didgital art. People were actually surprised when I posted it that the beams and smoke were fake.

Now, the reason I didn't submit it was becuz I "added" an element to the photo. What would be the difference between adding or removing elements? Why would removing something be considered photographic integrity and adding something not be? :-)

01/23/2004 09:35:31 AM · #107

Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

There is a ton of "grey area" here. My first submission to the december free study was this one

Now, to most people, they would think the light and smoke were real therefore my photo wouldn't be considered didgital art. People were actually surprised when I posted it that the beams and smoke were fake.

Now, the reason I didn't submit it was becuz I "added" an element to the photo. What would be the difference between adding or removing elements? Why would removing something be considered photographic integrity and adding something not be? :-)

I expect to have the opposite problem when the painting with light voting starts. I have a shot that was taken entirely in camera, yet looks quite heavily photoshopped. In reality all I did was a few very small (10s of pixels) spot editing to remove some dust and specular highlights. But the final result could to some jaded eyes look like it was created almost entirely in photoshop.

Is that fair ? Is it just my fault ? :)

In terms of your picture - I think it still has photographic integrity - in that it looks like a photograph. You've obviously tried hard to
balance the light and make it look real - it doesn't look fake. You
could have set that up with a smoke machine/ lighting. It is true to
the reality of the situation, no matter how you achieved it.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 10:09:12.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/23/2004 09:38:56 AM · #108

Originally posted by stevenayer:

Should we have a "PURIST" category for challenges, with absolutely no processing? How would we ever know if people cheated anyhow?

Thanks for starting the thread

This sort of challenge was done at least once for the 'past' challenge. I think it would interesting to mix in advanced, classic and 'purist' editing challenges with the purist challenge being just a straight rotate, resize and sharpen.

coolhar

01/23/2004 11:54:20 AM · #109

Originally posted by Gordon:

Here's another picture shot through a fence, pretty much equivalently spaced as in the winning entry

Yet, in this case, the bars were removed, using a long lens, a wide open aperture and careful camera placement.

Is this then a more 'valid' form of photography than the other way of removing the cage ?

Yes, in my personal opinion, and in my understanding of the original intent of this site, it is a more valid photograph.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

01/23/2004 12:15:27 PM · #110

Originally posted by ahaze:

To me the thing that sets digital photography apart from film photography is the post processing.

The ease of doing the processing and the wide varity of techniques that are easily available (whether simple downloading and viewing, resizing to e-mail, or heavy manipulating), especially to those of us that are already computer users, are what sets digital apart. In film most people are dependent upon others to process their images. In doing the processing yourself you must make your own decisions about "photography integrity". Some people handle that better than others.

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

01/23/2004 12:25:47 PM · #111

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by ahaze:
To me the thing that sets digital photography apart from film photography is the post processing.

The ease of doing the processing and the wide varity of techniques that are easily available (whether simple downloading and viewing, resizing to e-mail, or heavy manipulating), especially to those of us that are already computer users, are what sets digital apart. In film most people are dependent upon others to process their images. In doing the processing yourself you must make your own decisions about "photography integrity". Some people handle that better than others.

So, where do people like John Paul Caponigro //www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/ fit, who do mostly film based photography then heavily post process it in photoshop, to make realistic looking, surreal images ?

I find all these artifical constraints people feel the need to apply to 'art' quite sad in a lot of ways. It would be a whole lot more interesting to ask if it moves you, or inspires you or makes you feel something - anything. Than worrying about if some dust was cloned out or a traffic cone was moved. I'm sure there will be someone along in a minute to point out that it isn't art, its photography...

The vague point I'm trying to make in this thread that for every 'absolute' that someone comes up with, its easy to find examples that are the complete opposite. Real images that look photoshoped, film images that look like layers were used, digital art that is legal with the limited editing rules, trick photography that people state 'must' have been photoshopped.

Try expanding your horizons, open your mind to what can be achieved rather than trying to pull everything down to little boxes you can stick 'photography' in or 'digital art'

It is digital photography. Think different.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 12:29:16.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/23/2004 01:03:56 PM · #112

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by ahaze:
To me the thing that sets digital photography apart from film photography is the post processing.

The ease of doing the processing and the wide varity of techniques that are easily available (whether simple downloading and viewing, resizing to e-mail, or heavy manipulating), especially to those of us that are already computer users, are what sets digital apart. In film most people are dependent upon others to process their images. In doing the processing yourself you must make your own decisions about "photography integrity". Some people handle that better than others.

So, where do people like John Paul Caponigro //www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/ fit, who do mostly film based photography then heavily post process it in photoshop, to make realistic looking, surreal images ?

I find all these artifical constraints people feel the need to apply to 'art' quite sad in a lot of ways. It would be a whole lot more interesting to ask if it moves you, or inspires you or makes you feel something - anything. Than worrying about if some dust was cloned out or a traffic cone was moved. I'm sure there will be someone along in a minute to point out that it isn't art, its photography...

The vague point I'm trying to make in this thread that for every 'absolute' that someone comes up with, its easy to find examples that are the complete opposite. Real images that look photoshoped, film images that look like layers were used, digital art that is legal with the limited editing rules, trick photography that people state 'must' have been photoshopped.

Try expanding your horizons, open your mind to what can be achieved rather than trying to pull everything down to little boxes you can stick 'photography' in or 'digital art'

It is digital photography. Think different.

I have to agree with Gordon that the important thing is not fitting art, photography or otherwise into a neat little category, but how the image affects the viewer and the response it creates in them.

People have been manipulating and merging photographic images to produce very surreal results for a long time, certainly well in advance of digital technology. Take a look at the work of Jerry Uelsmann he has been doing this stuff since the 1960's. I would bet that his images would get the "too photoshopped" comments, were one of them posted here. The merging and manipulation of photographic images to create new surreal and unreal images is not new. The advent of digital imaging just makes it easier and more accessible to the masses.

The interview with Jerry Uelsmann on the above website is very interesting. He discusses the reactions he received when he would show his images to his fellow teachers in Florida (they were painters, sculptors etc, but not photographers) and the reaction he got from other photographers in NYC. It's very much like the discussions we have in these threads, but this was going on some 35 years ago.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 13:11:51.

Refracted

Canon EOS-50D

01/23/2004 02:15:28 PM · #113

Originally posted by Gordon:

[...]

It is digital photography. Think different.

Very good post. I agree with everything you said :)

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/23/2004 02:21:02 PM · #114

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?

If it matters [no???] I'm on board with Louddog since I see the point he's desparately tried to make, that though the images are beautiful, with so much manipulation they can be viewed more towards DA then a standard photograph. Obviously, it's a good debate here.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/23/2004 03:00:52 PM · #115

Originally posted by DJLuba:

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.

...but there is a "move your camera closer so the fence doesn't show up" technique. Anybody who has a problem with post processing should stick to shooting Kodak EPN slide film. That way you can get all those wonderfully drab and accurate colors. What ever you could do in the darkroom and a dust spotting brush by hand is still photography. Photography has way more to it than just pushing the shutter release!

...and if people did not like extreme colors and saturation, they wouldn't buy images, prints, or film that renders the scene that way. I think it's more of an issue with people being insecure about there digital abbilties and thinking that some one has an unfair advantage over them.

I guess I should be signed to an NBA team and make everyone play on their knees to make it fair for me... ;P

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/23/2004 03:57:02 PM · #116

The way I see it, an untouched straight out of the camera digital picture is the same as a negative in film. I don't think anyone would claim a negative is a finished picture. In the same way I don't think a digital picture straight from the camera is necessarily finished either.

rcrawford

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/23/2004 04:21:16 PM · #117

Originally posted by DJLuba:

Very interesting discussion. I just want to clarify a few of things.

1. �Final Sunset� was edited using the old rules that still apply for the open challenges.
2. I post processed �Final Sunset� using the inexpensive PhotoShop Elements program that came with my camera. (available at Sam�s Club for ~$60)
3. The Olympus E-20, as a semi-pro camera, does very little in-camera processing and as such the images strait out of the camera are very flat. I can attest that colors as I saw them through the viewfinder were much more vivid that the photo strait from the camera. My wife has the Olympus C-750 and the images strait from that camera are much shaper and more vivid than mine. All cameras are not created equal.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/23/2004 04:32:36 PM · #118

If a "photograph" means that it is straight from the cam, or even with very minimal post-processing, then no gallery has ever shown or sold a "photograph," no magazine has ever printed or published a "photograph," and all "photographers" are and always will be very poorly respected in the actual photographic community, because their work is not what it could be!

You can see why that doesn't work...

(** I have intentionally used hyperbole here to prove my point. I know that some images straight-from-the-cam are very good, and some have been published or sold. But you can see the point I'm making.)

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 16:33:24.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/23/2004 04:51:30 PM · #119

does the whole right brain/left brain argument relate here?