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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is it Photography or Is it Photoshop?
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 144 of 144, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/19/2007 04:28:00 PM · #126
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I know his wife works on the computer, but I have not heard of Jerry using the computer in his own work.


He talked a bit about it in that interview. That he much prefers the magic of the darkroom and chemicals, but that he does work on a computer, with someone else doing the technical stuff and him directing.


I must have missed that part, I know he talked about working with Epson to produce some prints, but I didn't hear that he was manipulating anything digitally. hmmmm.
 09/19/2007 04:55:08 PM · #127
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I know his wife works on the computer, but I have not heard of Jerry using the computer in his own work.


He talked a bit about it in that interview. That he much prefers the magic of the darkroom and chemicals, but that he does work on a computer, with someone else doing the technical stuff and him directing.


I can see a strawman is being built up here. Forget about computers for a second. When he was working just with chemcials to develop his wild images was it photography? Yes or no?

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 16:57:28.
 09/19/2007 05:00:25 PM · #128
FWIW I once had the chance to ask one of Ansel Adams' assistants if he thought AA would use Photoshop if he was still alive, to which he replied (approximately) "Hell yeah!" Last I heard Adams was considered a "photographer."
 09/19/2007 05:01:48 PM · #129
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW I once had the chance to ask one of Ansel Adams' assistants if he thought AA would use Photoshop if he was still alive, to which he replied (approximately) "Hell yeah!" Last I heard Adams was considered a "photographer."


This is "Deja Vu all over again". I swear I have read this post before...

;-)
 09/19/2007 05:06:49 PM · #130
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
This is "Deja Vu all over again". I swear I have read this post before...

;-)

Yeah, but it was easier to retype it than to search the forums so I could quote it, and I didn't think to add the quote tags manually. And it was a pretty memorable occasion -- there was a reception at his house/studio in Carmel, so I got to just hang out for a couple of hours since I really didn't know most of the other folks there.
 09/19/2007 05:18:02 PM · #131
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
This is "Deja Vu all over again". I swear I have read this post before...

;-)

Yeah, but it was easier to retype it than to search the forums so I could quote it, and I didn't think to add the quote tags manually. And it was a pretty memorable occasion -- there was a reception at his house/studio in Carmel, so I got to just hang out for a couple of hours since I really didn't know most of the other folks there.


No it is very cool that you had that opportunity. You and Bear are our connection to AA. I was just poking fun at the thread as I know the post you made before had to be in a similar thread. Plus I really love that Yogi Berra quote. It's fitting in that there is the Deja Vu challenge and this dead horse of a thread. :-P
 09/19/2007 05:18:08 PM · #132
Originally posted by macpapas:

Hey Justin,

First of all, I would like to publically apologize for bringing you into the sorted mess of a thread by using your picture as an example. It was not my intent to malign your skills or your picture in any way. As I noted on several occasions, it’s a totally AWESOME image that met all the Expert Editing rules and whole heartedly deserved 1st place. It was also not my intention, nor did “I” ever state (I can’t speak for others on this thread), that this form of art should be taken out of DPC – personally, I think it’s really cool and would love to know how to do it!!

I brought your image into this discussion as example of where I personally draw the line between photography and digital art – that’s not to say that one is better or worse than the other, or that digital art should not be part of this site – it was just “an example” of an image that I personally thought transcended what most would call photography into something else (in this case, the term being used: “digital art”).

Again, I cannot speak for others on this thread, but please do not read into my comments as being negative in any way towards you or your image. I used the picture in what I thought would be an academic discussion of the “blurring line” between photography and “multi-media artwork” (to use the OP’s original terminology). It’s great stuff – I hope to see more!!

-Mark


No worries, I dont mind anyone using my image as an example, and completely understand why. ;)

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 17:18:31.
 09/19/2007 05:20:17 PM · #133
just catching this thread in mid-stream...BUT for what it's worth, I love images like ELSAPO's shot discussed here. I just wish like rip I could DO images like that! I am very thankful for ALL images at DPC that teach/motivate/inspire and take one "outside the box" of whatever TRADITIONAL photography is. IF it moves one good OR bad it's artistic to me. IF SOMETHING in finished product was taken WITH A CAMERA...tis a photgraph in the onset, correct? AFTER everyone decides if it's photography or not...please let us southerners know if it's PEE'kahn or PEEcan OR PUHkhan etc etc ;-)love to all.
S
 09/19/2007 06:21:56 PM · #134
Here is where I define the line, and then cross it gleefully!

I think what ever editing steps you need to take an average photo and make it into a better photo is fine. Sometimes the white balance is off or it was under/over exposed, maybe cropping fixes composition…whatever, I think the end result is still a photograph.

If the editing process removes elements captured or adds elements not captured then it is a photographic image not a photograph.

If the editing process changes the tone or mood of a photo then it becomes a photographic image. For example, using HSL to make an early afternoon blue sky seem red as if it was sunset. It was not captured that way, it may or may not even be possible to capture that, so it becomes an image.
Yet, if the same technique, using HSL, is used to take a near silhouette (to much illumination) to become a complete black silhouette is ok to me, The editing was done to achieve what was intended, what the ‘tog “saw”, what should/could have been captured, but for whatever reason was not.

If one takes a photo of a lion in a zoo and places said lion into a photo of the Serengeti or in photo of one’s living room, then that becomes digital art. It would be impossible in the latter to capture that photo and misleading or fraudulent in the former, esp. if one is claiming to have taken said photo.

Ultimately it is an individual distinction. I think the key to answer the question that started this thread boils down to intent.
G.
just my 2¢
 09/19/2007 06:42:09 PM · #135
Originally posted by studiog2:
Here is where I define the line, and then cross it gleefully!

I think what ever editing steps you need to take an average photo and make it into a better photo is fine. Sometimes the white balance is off or it was under/over exposed, maybe cropping fixes composition…whatever, I think the end result is still a photograph.

If the editing process removes elements captured or adds elements not captured then it is a photographic image not a photograph.

If the editing process changes the tone or mood of a photo then it becomes a photographic image. For example, using HSL to make an early afternoon blue sky seem red as if it was sunset. It was not captured that way, it may or may not even be possible to capture that, so it becomes an image.
Yet, if the same technique, using HSL, is used to take a near silhouette (to much illumination) to become a complete black silhouette is ok to me, The editing was done to achieve what was intended, what the ‘tog “saw”, what should/could have been captured, but for whatever reason was not.

If one takes a photo of a lion in a zoo and places said lion into a photo of the Serengeti or in photo of one’s living room, then that becomes digital art. It would be impossible in the latter to capture that photo and misleading or fraudulent in the former, esp. if one is claiming to have taken said photo.

Ultimately it is an individual distinction. I think the key to answer the question that started this thread boils down to intent.
G.
just my 2¢


Now this has some logic to it. However, wouldn't some straight out of the camera shots fail your test? For example, one could turn a blue sky to red using only in-camera techniques. Then there's multiple exposures, motion blurs, etc.
 09/19/2007 06:42:53 PM · #136
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by leaf:


Just because i use a photograph in a collage i make, doesn't make the collage a 'photograph'


Nope, it makes it a collage made of photographs. :-))


exactly - just like digital art is made of photographs.
 09/19/2007 08:26:36 PM · #137
Originally posted by yanko:


[quote] Now this has some logic to it. However, wouldn't some straight out of the camera shots fail your test? For example, one could turn a blue sky to red using only in-camera techniques. Then there's multiple exposures, motion blurs, etc. [/quote]

Not necessarily, if you do in camera things, that’s fine because you CAPTUIRED it that way, same as if I used a ND filter or a color correction filter on my lens, even a diffusion filter or spot filter. Multiple exposures do get a little on the grey side, at least for film, but it can’t be done in a digital camera as far as I know.
As far as motion blurs and long exposures are fine as long as you captured it that way. Yes you could do some of this in PS, but I guess it becomes a matter of difficulty, easy in PS, harder to capture it in camera. More rewarding really and I guess that is at the heart of it. The reward of getting it “right”.
INETNT again.
A commercial job, short amount of time, a demanding client, tricks and PS out the wazoo.
Fine art, lots of time, and the reward and satisfaction…. Priceless. =)

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 20:27:47.
 09/19/2007 08:48:30 PM · #138
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I know his wife works on the computer, but I have not heard of Jerry using the computer in his own work.


He talked a bit about it in that interview. That he much prefers the magic of the darkroom and chemicals, but that he does work on a computer, with someone else doing the technical stuff and him directing.


I can see a strawman is being built up here. Forget about computers for a second. When he was working just with chemcials to develop his wild images was it photography? Yes or no?


Yes.

I'm not alone in that opinion either. For example, in the dominant photo history textbook, "A World History of Photography", the author, Naomi Rosenblum refers to him as "American photographer Jerry N. Uelsmann". I have not seen any contemporary articles or texts that refer to him as anything other than "photographer".

Authors may refer to his work as being photographic montage or composite imagery, but they do not attempt to catalog him as anything but what he is; a photographer.

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 20:57:19.
 09/19/2007 08:58:28 PM · #139
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW I once had the chance to ask one of Ansel Adams' assistants if he thought AA would use Photoshop if he was still alive, to which he replied (approximately) "Hell yeah!" Last I heard Adams was considered a "photographer."


Was that me? Damn, I don't remember.... But I did work with Ansel and I know damned well he'd have said "Hell, yes!" In a sense, all my tone mapping work, however clumsy it is, is dedicated to Ansel, who would have LOVED Photomatix pro... Ansel was NOT a "purist"; the idea is silly. he was about the finished image and its impact on the viewer.

R.
 09/19/2007 09:00:56 PM · #140
Originally posted by studiog2:

Not necessarily, if you do in camera things, that’s fine because you CAPTUIRED it that way, same as if I used a ND filter or a color correction filter on my lens, even a diffusion filter or spot filter. Multiple exposures do get a little on the grey side, at least for film, but it can’t be done in a digital camera as far as I know.
As far as motion blurs and long exposures are fine as long as you captured it that way. Yes you could do some of this in PS, but I guess it becomes a matter of difficulty, easy in PS, harder to capture it in camera. More rewarding really and I guess that is at the heart of it. The reward of getting it “right”.
INETNT again.
A commercial job, short amount of time, a demanding client, tricks and PS out the wazoo.
Fine art, lots of time, and the reward and satisfaction…. Priceless. =)


Ok now you're going off on the deep end. :) If you value quality it is far more difficult to do something in photoshop then it is to do in-camera. Far more. Got a difficult exposure? Just slap on an ND filter. Hell, a trained monkey can do that. Just takes but a second. Now try to duplicate that shot without the screw on filter in photoshop? I can assure you it won't take a second. Need a sunset sky? No trouble doing it in-camera. Just shoot at sunset. Try and turn a shot taken at noon into a sunset in photoshop? Go ahead give a real challenge a try. I dare ya! :)

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 21:08:46.
 09/19/2007 09:23:11 PM · #141
I have to admit, the argument starts getting a whole lot more interesting when people start divining the opinions of the dead to add weight to their opinion on the matter.
 09/19/2007 09:55:31 PM · #142
Originally posted by yanko:


Try and turn a shot taken at noon into a sunset in photoshop? Go ahead give a real challenge a try. I dare ya! :)


Well I don't have that exactly.....but, here's a couple of links for you to check out:

this is the digital art section of my web site...Digital Art
this is more of my digital art...
Digital art gallery

Please let me know what you think.
btw, I looked at your portfolio...wow, GREAT stuff. I really like your Architecture and Soap galleries.

As far as a monkey doing it,(lol) yes it can, but does it know when to =)
I do understand what you’re saying, and yes some things in PS can be extremely difficult, that is not the point.
Some things getting in camera can be just as if not more difficult. Try getting a rambunctious 5yr old to stay still for a portrait
Fix that in PS! :) Go ahead give a real challenge a try. I dare ya! :)

All I'm trying to say is, there is a line, at least for me in what constitutes a photo from say digital art or photographic image or any other classification.
All are valid forms of Art. But I would not claim something is a “photograph” that I couldn’t capture as such. Good faith practice. I won’t sell you an orange and tell you it’s an apple, even if PS lets me show you it is. :)
09/19/2007 11:12:19 PM · #143
Originally posted by studiog2:
Originally posted by yanko:


Try and turn a shot taken at noon into a sunset in photoshop? Go ahead give a real challenge a try. I dare ya! :)


Well I don't have that exactly.....but, here's a couple of links for you to check out:

this is the digital art section of my web site...Digital Art
this is more of my digital art...
Digital art gallery

Please let me know what you think.
btw, I looked at your portfolio...wow, GREAT stuff. I really like your Architecture and Soap galleries.

As far as a monkey doing it,(lol) yes it can, but does it know when to =)
I do understand what you’re saying, and yes some things in PS can be extremely difficult, that is not the point.
Some things getting in camera can be just as if not more difficult. Try getting a rambunctious 5yr old to stay still for a portrait
Fix that in PS! :) Go ahead give a real challenge a try. I dare ya! :)

All I'm trying to say is, there is a line, at least for me in what constitutes a photo from say digital art or photographic image or any other classification.
All are valid forms of Art. But I would not claim something is a “photograph” that I couldn’t capture as such. Good faith practice. I won’t sell you an orange and tell you it’s an apple, even if PS lets me show you it is. :)


Now that's definitely digital art! :-P And very good I must say.
 09/19/2007 11:13:30 PM · #144
thank you.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:27:48 PM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:27:48 PM EDT.