| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2004 09:53:48 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Yellowpeep:
Gordon, I admire your tenacity in this thread, and again, I go back to my original point: If Eddy had printed out the blue dot on paper and hung it behind the rope would this forum thread exist right now? How is a paper different from a laptop screen in this scenario? Both are backdrops, both have been created in PS, both cause the same effect. |
Absolutely. How then does a layer added in photoshop after the fact differ, other than in time with respect to the shutter ? |
|
|
|
02/18/2004 10:07:58 PM · #77 |
| The only difference is in one scenario the camera saw it and in the other it did not. That is a significant difference to some. To others it is not. But I don't think that difference can be simply ignored. Is taking someone's portrait in front of a painted backdrop the same as taking someone's picture and then painting (with real paint, not painting with light, not photoshop, just paint) a background on the photo? (just trying to remove the dependence on photoshop). |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 08:26:29 AM · #78 |
| I agree with that description of the difference, and I think there's another difference: the way Eddy did it, it's a physical backdrop. If it were a PS layer, it would be a digital backdrop. That's the other difference I see. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 08:45:51 AM · #79 |
I probably have to just reiterate that I'm certainly not for completely open editing and not for swapping heads, adding flying pigs or random application of photoshop filters.
Yet, I can't rationally articulate where the boundary between 'photography' and digital art is.
I'm not so stupid that I can't see all the reasons why Eddy's shot and a layer in photoshop are different in specifics, I just can't logically find a reason why those differences actually matter in any meaningful sense.
His picture and the yellow spot version I knocked up in about 3 seconds would look exactly the same, if I spent a bit more time and masked it well (it really isn't hard to do, just not with photoshop 5 LE).
The exact same tools would have been applied.
Same result, same tools.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 09:00:11 AM · #80 |
Why dont we just draw the entire rope and background and take a photo of the screen? Why photograph anything? Just draw the entire scene in photoshop, edit as much as you want, use 15 layers, then take a single pic of the screen when you're done. Hey, it's not post processed!
This is a workaround to avoid the rules.. The end. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 09:01:41 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by joebar:
Why dont we just draw the entire rope and background and take a photo of the screen? Why photograph anything? Just draw the entire scene in photoshop, edit as much as you want, use 15 layers, then take a single pic of the screen when you're done. Hey, it's not post processed!
This is a workaround to avoid the rules.. The end. |
We've had entries pretty much like that in the past. As long as there is some additional element (e.g., stick a fly on the screen) it has been considered legal within the rules....
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:09:10 AM · #82 |
LOGIC: In one instance the background was photographed in the other it was not.
I don't see the point in ignoring this just to run in circles. It is a very basic and very logical distinction. The distinction is in the process of producing the end result. You can ignore the process and simply recite that this can be done by any number of processes, but that's circular.
By the way, nobody, from what I can tell, thinks or has even insinuated that you (Gordon) are stupid, or that you don't understand the issue....a tad stubborn perhaps, but not stupid. :-)
It's an interesting issue you've posed - especially for those who believe anything within the photographers artistic vision constitutes photography, even if it goes beyond what the photographer actually saw through her/his camera. People with this viewpoint of photography, as I understand it, tend to focus more on the end result. People with the other viewpoint tend to focus more on the elements that existed in the camera's view.
The usual rebuttal to the latter viewpoint is that many things could and have always been done in a film darkroom. Being essentially ignorant on that, could a radiant blue dot as in Eddy's photo be added when developing film? My guess is no, or not very easily. So this would seem to be much further away than tweaking contrast/lighting, burning/dodging, etc., which are common in the darkroom...I'll let the experts weigh in on that if they want to.
Message edited by author 2004-02-19 10:10:00. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:19:49 AM · #83 |
I am slowly giving up on reading a decent answer to Gordon's initial question here....
I think we all know the image was a 'pure photograph' for want of a better word, and to use Photoshop after would make it 'part digital art' but nobody seems able to explain why they feel the latter is less of a photograph...?
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:20:27 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet, I can't rationally articulate where the boundary between 'photography' and digital art is.
|
I don't think anyone can - at least not with a definition or boundary that satisfies everyone. It's certainly harder to do, IMO, if you focus only on the final result. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 10:37:23 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I am slowly giving up on reading a decent answer to Gordon's initial question here....
I think we all know the image was a 'pure photograph' for want of a better word, and to use Photoshop after would make it 'part digital art' but nobody seems able to explain why they feel the latter is less of a photograph...?
Any takers? |
I am quickly giving up on people not blurring or entirely ignoring the distinction just to say the distinction doesn't matter. :-) I mean c'mon now - your question admits that the post-processed dot is not a "pure photograph" but is "part digital art" and then you go on to ask why the latter is "less of a photograph." You've stated the base reason in the preface to your question!
But, for kicks, I'll take another quick crack at it anyway...When Eddy placed the laptop behind the rope he likely had to deal with reflections/lighting issues, composition, etc - you know, all the things photographers worry about when taking photographs (since he was in fact photographing the blue dot). The other way eliminates or greatly simplifies much of that - does it after the pic is taken - and, for at least these reasons is deemed by some to be "less of a photograph."
Hopping off of the soapbox now. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:00:30 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I am slowly giving up on reading a decent answer to Gordon's initial question here....
I think we all know the image was a 'pure photograph' for want of a better word, and to use Photoshop after would make it 'part digital art' but nobody seems able to explain why they feel the latter is less of a photograph...?
Any takers? |
Jon - I think Patents4u did a good job of answering your question. "explain why they feel the latter is less" -
I think what some folks struggle with is if we can use "some" of the tools in Photoshop, why can't we use the "all". Good question, and maybe a great opportunity for DPC to step out and create a 3rd rank of Challenges. (balls in their court)
Now, more on the question at hand. "explain why they feel the latter is less" - I'll break this down into something easier to understand.
"Real" breasts - vs - "Silicon"
Do you have a preference? If you do, you probably prefer "real"
If you don't - you are probably ok with using Photoshop to add layers.
:) |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:16:02 AM · #87 |
i used the same technique about 20 challenges ago for this shot:
Believe me, it was more of a pain to light the rest of the scene without washing out the screen or getting reflections than it would have been to composite the BG in pshop.
It was a pure photograph in the sense that nothing was added after the shutter button was pressed.
However, this is not an unlimited technique. For starters you can only shoot subjects this way that are smaller than your screen. So forget about shooting an SUV in front of a panorama full of huge dinosaurs, unless you happen to be really really special...
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:27:55 AM · #88 |
Patents4u the problem being that they still both contain 'digital art' regardless of when or how it was added they still both contain exactly the same thing...
As for breasts, well, having never had the (delight?) of feeling a nice fake breast I can't answer that - as a guess I say breasts are breasts -as long as they look nice who cares ;)
And I don't mind a layer or two either ;)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 11:44:17 AM · #89 |
only in end result, and as beaten to death, if your definition of photography starts and ends with the final result it is likely very difficult to find any meaningful distinction. This also relies (IMO unduly) on the fact that Eddy's blue dot was digitally created - it was a photographed backdrop be it painted, natural, a filtered light, a laptop screen - whatever.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, one should be allowed, one should not, just that there is a difference and some do not blur or ignore that difference, even if the end results are identical. This is a good topic for discussion as Gordon suggested in his initial post. The example of Eddy's photo provides a clean set of facts for this debate.
I doubt there will ever be an absolute answer unless we all agree entirely on just what constitutes photography or even a photograph. And if you are searching for absolutes, I recommend death and taxes as good starting points! |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 12:07:10 PM · #90 |
FWIW my definition of photography starts with the idea/imagination and ends with the final print.
Enough on the subject I feel..
|
|
|
|
02/19/2004 01:19:41 PM · #91 |
FWIW - I think that is a valid view/definition, as good as any.
And I'm not quite sure how I personally define it - not sure of my personal digital art boundary. Even if my boundary is more narrow than others, it doesn't mean I don't like digital art or digital effects....quite the opposite. For the time being I've abandoned film-based photography in favor of digital - and I fully understand that digital editing/processing goes hand-in-hand with digital photography.
Maybe digital photography is a different breed with different considerations? While a post-pic digitally added feature may render the end result less of a "pure photograph" I think it's a fine "digital photograph." Dunno if that makes any sense, or if its a distinction without much of a difference. Trying to incorporate the expanded possibilities inherent in the digital medium. |
|
|
|
02/19/2004 02:02:26 PM · #92 |
| I think simply a photograph is a photograph, be it taken on film or disk, edited in the darkroom or in the studio. Makes no odds... |
|
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: 04/20/2024 01:50:39 AM EDT.
