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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> photographic itegrity, if it looks cool, use it.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 8 of 8, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/20/2005 03:30:59 PM · #1
Why do people think that playing with an image in photoshop is wrong?

to me the whole "integrity of the photo" idea is stupid. if you know how to make it look cool, who cares if the original was dumb or not?

what do you think on the subject?
 03/20/2005 03:57:53 PM · #2
It depends...Having the ability to re-arrange things in photoshop is a fantastic ability to possess, but there are times I wish we had a challenge where people would be required to submit their photos exactly the way it came out of the camera.

It might make for some fantastic and interesting submissions and would give people like myself, who know nothing about photoshop, or photography for that matter, a bit of a chance to compete a little.

Ray
 03/20/2005 03:59:14 PM · #3
playing with a photo in what context? How will the photo be used? If it's photojournalism, then it's definately a big no no. If it's for prints, then there's really no problem with it.
 03/20/2005 04:19:59 PM · #4
playing too much in photoshop, changes it from a photo to art work in my opinion. I bet as you get a lot loder you may feel the same way as us old folks. If you want to be a photoshop artist, go for it, If you want to be a photographer, learn the craft and beable to make the best possible photo in the camera. After you can do that, then go ahead and experiment. Don't let photoshop cover up your mistakes.
 03/20/2005 04:21:06 PM · #5
As far as photojournalism goes, it's clear that we can't mess with a photo.

Here's what I think is unfortunate. Nobody trusts photographs anymore because they are now digital images. I can't look at a photo and say "oooohhhh, neat!" without second-guessing whether the image is an accurate representation of real life.

*This is where some people will step in with examples of film and print manipulation...fine. My point is that the digital age has allowed any 12 year old boy to give fangs to his little brother in the family portrait*

I liken it to music. "Who cares if it's a keyboard or a real violin, as long as it sounds cool?" I do. I enjoy artistry...I like the fact that some things require work and effort and expertise and craftsmanship. Not for the sake of making things more difficult, but for the sake of showing that the artist has the passion required to practice and pay painstakingly close attention to detail in order to come up with the results that he/she intended.

I'm too tired to dig into this too much, but those are my sunday afternoon thoughts.

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 16:22:18.
 03/20/2005 04:21:30 PM · #6
Originally posted by deapee:
playing with a photo in what context? How will the photo be used? If it's photojournalism, then it's definately a big no no. If it's for prints, then there's really no problem with it.


Yes, exactly. If the image is for, say, editorial work, post-processing -- including the addition of major elements to the photo -- is not a problem at all. If the image, however, is for a photo-journalism project, then it is a huge no-no -- photojournalists are routinely dismisses over photo manipulation of major elements (not including brightness, and some color correction).

Now, as for the larger issue of post-processing, contemporary photo purists seem to forget that post-processing (i.e., darkroom work) has always been a big part of photo work. To my mind, photography is comprised of two elements: in camera work (i.e., composition, DOF, subject) and post-processing (i.e., color correction, dodging/burning, cropping, sharpening and, depending on the nature of the project, addition or removal of major elements); these two elements are what make photography. Now, there have always been a thousand and one ways of achieving certain effects in camera (i.e., filters, specialty film in the old days, different lenses, etc.) and in the darkroom (i.e., paper in the old days, chemicals, dodging/burning, double exposure in the darkroom, etc.); of course, now there are different ways of achieving the desired effect on an image. What's key, though, is that the art of photography is made up of what occurs in camera, in post-processing, and during all the steps taken before capturing the image, in between shots and after processing (for example, presentation).
 03/20/2005 06:50:06 PM · #7
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
As far as photojournalism goes, it's clear that we can't mess with a photo.

Here's what I think is unfortunate. Nobody trusts photographs anymore because they are now digital images. I can't look at a photo and say "oooohhhh, neat!" without second-guessing whether the image is an accurate representation of real life.

*This is where some people will step in with examples of film and print manipulation...fine. My point is that the digital age has allowed any 12 year old boy to give fangs to his little brother in the family portrait*

I liken it to music. "Who cares if it's a keyboard or a real violin, as long as it sounds cool?" I do. I enjoy artistry...I like the fact that some things require work and effort and expertise and craftsmanship. Not for the sake of making things more difficult, but for the sake of showing that the artist has the passion required to practice and pay painstakingly close attention to detail in order to come up with the results that he/she intended.

I'm too tired to dig into this too much, but those are my sunday afternoon thoughts.


Anyone who can make a keyboard sound like a violin convincingly gets a thumbs up from me... thing is I've never in my entire life heard it convincingly done yet.
They're all just tools though, and if someone could communicate through a keyboard as effectively as a violin, then they would have done their job.
 03/20/2005 07:14:06 PM · #8
I don't partcularly care how any piece of art, whether it be audio or visual, came into existence. I'll either like it or I won't, and its creation method is not usually a reason for either.

When it comes to comparing photographic art with my definition of digital art, I can certianly draw a distinct line in most cases. They are two different schools of thought and creation. I can like either form, but I don't believe the two should be compared. They aren't the same thing.

It all boils down to certian appreciations. Some people prefer a piece of art based on how it was created rather than what it sounds or looks like. In a previously mentioned example, a violin sound made from a keyboard may or may not sound realistic in terms of the original instrument, but it still may be pleasing to listen to. The sounds you hear are about those sounds moreso than the tools used to create them. For me, the same goes with photography. I don't really care if what I see is or isn't a perfect realization of what existed. I would rather see what the photographer wanted me to see. I'm sure Beethoven didn't run around telling his friends about how great his piano was. Michelangelo probably didn't use designer paint brushes and sculpting tools....

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:08:38 AM

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 01:08:38 AM EDT.