| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/02/2005 10:59:51 PM · #1 |
Recently every new Challenge most of the top 10 shots are brutally over-processed digital arts.
What is going on here,people are getting impressed by PS techniques because they can't do that ? Does anyone care about classic photography,the way your eyes see the real world? |
|
|
|
08/02/2005 11:16:12 PM · #2 |
If photography is about capturing what the eye sees, which is more important; the physical eye looking thru the lens or the minds eye that interprets it?
I agree that things get a bit out of control from time to time, but it will swing back -- the unusual or shocking is only interesting as long as it is unusual or shocking.
David
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 11:17:12 PM · #3 |
Everybody probably recently picked up PSCS2 or something :P
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 11:20:03 PM · #4 |
if you have the chance to do advanced editing go for it
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 11:24:54 PM · #5 |
I really can't see anything unusual, so just in case I went back to see if I missed something in the challenge history.
This is what i saw the top ten of each challenge :
Wooden - probably 2 or 3 highly processed images
Textures III - probably 2 highly processed images
Zoo - none
Independence - none
Sports II - none
Family - none
These are just how I see it as far as how i interpret a highly processed image. Which by the way I don't have a problem with
Message edited by author 2005-08-02 23:27:09. |
|
|
|
08/02/2005 11:56:43 PM · #6 |
I'm looking at the top 3 in the last 10 challenges and I only see 2 entries that look "brutally overt processed", and they actually aren't; both ate by Marbro and they are infrared shots, so what we are seeing is basically close to what came out of his camera... Not "real" for sure, in terms of conventional seeing, but nonetheless real enough in terms of what the camera delivered to the shooter. Infrared imagery has been around since long before digital photography.
Care to be more specific in your examples of "brutal overprocessing"?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 12:05:58 AM · #7 |
If I wanted to see what my eyes see, I wouldn't bother taking many pictures. Part of my attraction to photography is to see what the mind sees, if that makes any sense. Oftentimes this may involve processing an image so that it doesn't look exactly like what it did in the real world.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 12:50:42 AM · #8 |
I think pitsaman is correct. There has been a fairly steady trend toward heavily edited images, and away from straight photography, going on for some time here at dpc. I feel that this trend has become so established that many users have lost their perspective when it comes to "seeing" how much has been done to images when we view them. When you look at an image and the first things that come to mind are notions about how it was edited (such as "nice d&b job", or "good work on the sel-desat background", or "I'm going to check back after voting to see how they did that") that image has been over-processed. When editing techniques command more attention than camera technique and subject matter, you have slipped down another notch on the slippery slope toward digital art. Without citeing specific examples, or counting up recent results, I'd say that all the ribbon shots now showing would fit the definition of heavily edited, and about half of them fit the OP's "brutally over-processed digital arts" terminolgy. It's surprising to me that such a large community could stray in this fashion. But I look to our tunnel-visioned fascination with Canon cameras and L glass as proof that it can happen. People really are falling into the "eye candy" trap.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 12:57:32 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Everybody probably recently picked up PSCS2 or something :P |
Costco had a sale :) |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 12:57:38 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think pitsaman is correct. There has been a fairly steady trend toward heavily edited images, and away from straight photography, going on for some time here at dpc. I feel that this trend has become so established that many users have lost their perspective when it comes to "seeing" how much has been done to images when we view them. When you look at an image and the first things that come to mind are notions about how it was edited (such as "nice d&b job", or "good work on the sel-desat background", or "I'm going to check back after voting to see how they did that") that image has been over-processed. When editing techniques command more attention than camera technique and subject matter, you have slipped down another notch on the slippery slope toward digital art. Without citeing specific examples, or counting up recent results, I'd say that all the ribbon shots now showing would fit the definition of heavily edited, and about half of them fit the OP's "brutally over-processed digital arts" terminolgy. It's surprising to me that such a large community could stray in this fashion. But I look to our tunnel-visioned fascination with Canon cameras and L glass as proof that it can happen. People really are falling into the "eye candy" trap. |
I totally disagree with just about everything you have said but respect you view.
What would interest me further is to know where you draw the line in the sand as far as processed and over-processed.
It appears that we all have a different point of view at where that line should be and it would interest me where you are at.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 00:57:54. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:00:11 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think pitsaman is correct. There has been a fairly steady trend toward heavily edited images, and away from straight photography, going on for some time here at dpc. I feel that this trend has become so established that many users have lost their perspective when it comes to "seeing" how much has been done to images when we view them. When you look at an image and the first things that come to mind are notions about how it was edited (such as "nice d&b job", or "good work on the sel-desat background", or "I'm going to check back after voting to see how they did that") that image has been over-processed. When editing techniques command more attention than camera technique and subject matter, you have slipped down another notch on the slippery slope toward digital art. Without citeing specific examples, or counting up recent results, I'd say that all the ribbon shots now showing would fit the definition of heavily edited, and about half of them fit the OP's "brutally over-processed digital arts" terminolgy. It's surprising to me that such a large community could stray in this fashion. But I look to our tunnel-visioned fascination with Canon cameras and L glass as proof that it can happen. People really are falling into the "eye candy" trap. |
I totally disagree with just about everything you have said but respect you view.
What would interest me further is to know where you draw the line in the sand as far as processed and over-processed.
It appears that we all have a different point of view at where that line should be and it would interest me where you are at. |
Which brings us to the BIG question. Are we in fact photographers or "digital artists"? Just thought I would throw this in the mix since we're at it :) |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:03:21 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by rikki11:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think pitsaman is correct. There has been a fairly steady trend toward heavily edited images, and away from straight photography, going on for some time here at dpc. I feel that this trend has become so established that many users have lost their perspective when it comes to "seeing" how much has been done to images when we view them. When you look at an image and the first things that come to mind are notions about how it was edited (such as "nice d&b job", or "good work on the sel-desat background", or "I'm going to check back after voting to see how they did that") that image has been over-processed. When editing techniques command more attention than camera technique and subject matter, you have slipped down another notch on the slippery slope toward digital art. Without citeing specific examples, or counting up recent results, I'd say that all the ribbon shots now showing would fit the definition of heavily edited, and about half of them fit the OP's "brutally over-processed digital arts" terminolgy. It's surprising to me that such a large community could stray in this fashion. But I look to our tunnel-visioned fascination with Canon cameras and L glass as proof that it can happen. People really are falling into the "eye candy" trap. |
I totally disagree with just about everything you have said but respect you view.
What would interest me further is to know where you draw the line in the sand as far as processed and over-processed.
It appears that we all have a different point of view at where that line should be and it would interest me where you are at. |
Which brings us to the BIG question. Are we in fact photographers or "digital artists"? Just thought I would throw this in the mix since we're at it :) |
I guess Ansel Adams wasn't a photographer but a darkroom artist. It all comes down to where the line is however the line is in a different place for each of us.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:16:26 AM · #13 |
We are all artists, the camera sees only what is in front of it. Your eye sees a 'filtered' or manipulated version of real life. The brain removes all the junk.
For what its worth I belive that the image your camera captures is only the first step in roducing an image which is published. This continual debate about where each individual draws the line between 'photography' and 'digital art' is just a waste of time and space. The number of answers is equal to the number of photographers, some are more 'fundementalist' in one direction or another.
Just learn to live with the 'art' which is published for your pleasure, and try not to be so judgemental.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 01:16:50.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:18:51 AM · #14 |
Am I having a flashback, bad case of deja vu or has this argument been hashed over several times? And it always seems to start with a crtiticism of post-processing techniques.
I'll jump on the "where do you draw the line?" train. When cameras were first invented, some painters probably complained as well. My personal feeling is that how you arrived at the end result makes no difference at all to me. IMO, the mind's eye is more important than visual reality. And processing is as much a skill that is part of today's photography as anything.
No disrespect intended to those who think otherwise - you are obviously entitled - maybe there should be another site for purists or if this was a totally purist site, how many would stick around?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:22:27 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I totally disagree with just about everything you have said but respect you view.
What would interest me further is to know where you draw the line in the sand as far as processed and over-processed.
It appears that we all have a different point of view at where that line should be and it would interest me where you are at. |
I can't draw a line in the sand to separate digital art from straight photography. Can you keegbow? I'll point you back to my post and repeat that if the editing dominates your impression, pushing subject matter on to the back burner, then it is toward the digital art end of the spectrum.
Consider this: Take the last sentence of brianh's post and leave out the word exactly (to bypass nit-picking) and you get "processing an image so that it doesn't look like what it did in the real world." Apply that, and the sentiment expressed by the original poster, and my pseudo-definition, to the recent ribboners. Tell me what you think. Do those images "look like what it did in the real world"?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:31:17 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
.... No disrespect intended to those who think otherwise - you are obviously entitled - maybe there should be another site for purists or if this was a totally purist site, how many would stick around? |
If there were a site for purists, and people from the other school came and started to infiltrate, gained influence, even threatening to dominate and overwhelm, don't you think some of the original purists would speak out, and that they would come off sounding a bit indigant to the newcomers?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:37:12 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
If there were a site for purists, and people from the other school came and started to infiltrate, gained influence, even threatening to dominate and overwhelm, don't you think some of the original purists would speak out, and that they would come off sounding a bit indigant to the newcomers? |
Is that what is happening here? I am a newcomer, so I'd be guilty of being an infiltrator. I see your point, but this is also not a democracy - the rules are created by the reclusive site admins and managed by the Site Council. They are the ones deciding where the line is drawn as far as what is allowable. If the issue is not with what the rules are, but what people are doing in pushing the envelope, then the voters are the ones who are deciding. That all sounds reasonable to me. I am just wondering if you or pitsaman or whoever is on the purist side had the power to unilaterally implement a change - what would it be?
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 01:37:37.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:41:31 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I totally disagree with just about everything you have said but respect you view.
What would interest me further is to know where you draw the line in the sand as far as processed and over-processed.
It appears that we all have a different point of view at where that line should be and it would interest me where you are at. |
I can't draw a line in the sand to separate digital art from straight photography. Can you keegbow? I'll point you back to my post and repeat that if the editing dominates your impression, pushing subject matter on to the back burner, then it is toward the digital art end of the spectrum.
Consider this: Take the last sentence of brianh's post and leave out the word exactly (to bypass nit-picking) and you get "processing an image so that it doesn't look like what it did in the real world." Apply that, and the sentiment expressed by the original poster, and my pseudo-definition, to the recent ribboners. Tell me what you think. Do those images "look like what it did in the real world"? |
Well I can probably draw the line and say I'm yet to see digital art on this site in any competition. Would you call any images here digital art.
Digital art to me is the things that are illegal here eg using two or more images.
I see photography as art not just a recording of the "real world" that must look like it did on the day I shot it. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:48:18 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Digital art to me is the things that are illegal here eg using two or more images. |
Lots of those here - multiple exposures, combining PC monitor images with real objects, etc. Those things might bolster pitsaman and coolhar's argument, but I don't have a problem with them and if I did, I would also have a problem with traditional "trick" photography like much of what graphicfunk does.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 01:59:53 AM · #20 |
Straight from the camera: 
"Brutally overprocessed" image: 
There's only one problem: the second version, the processed one, is what I saw when I exposed the image. I knew exactly what I wanted to capture, and exactly how I was going to get it. The eye sees levels of color saturation and tonal range that the sensor cannot capture precisely, and the mind's eye sees even more than that.
In the entire history of photography, it has been considered "normal" to process images to such effect, to use your tools like a scalpel to carve out a slice of perceived reality. I submit that this processed image falls squarely into he category of "straight, no gimmicks" photography. I submit that it is the color equivalent of an Ansel Adams type zone system print. I submit that color photography has only just begun to realize its potential as an art form (unlike BW photography, which has long been recognized as such) since the advent of the digital darkroom that allows photographers to realize their visions cohesively.
I don't understand what the fuss is about. This is, by far, the most conservative "straight photography" site I have encountered, at least among those that are thriving and active, and I don't see that changing.
But then, that's just my opinion.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 02:07:00 AM · #21 |
I really don't want to spend time re-hashing all the old arguments, or engaging in a contest to see who is the better forum debater.
But I do think it is important for all of us to understand that there is a distinction, and that we'll probably never agree on that imaginary "line in the sand".
Blurring of the line might make some more comfortable. IMHO, saying things like "we are all artists" or that there is no digital art in our challenges are self-defeating in their shortsightedness. There is a large part of photography that is not art, and does try to show what the real world looks like. Try to respect the practitioners of that part of photography as you destroy their temple.
As always, just my two cents. Not intended to offend anyone, but hoping to make you reflect a bit.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 02:21:20 AM · #22 |
Harvey - looks like your photos are very real and very good - most of them outstanding, in fact, and all probably very pure (alhtough I couldn't find any post-proc details). But it looks like this one slipped in there by mistake...
heeheehee. Just rattling yer cage. I'll go back to reflecting. ...or was I destroying a temple... :)
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 02:21:29 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... I submit that this processed image falls squarely into he category of "straight, no gimmicks" photography. ... |
Agreed. Perhaps just a little on the heavy side in the darkening in the upper left and at the horizon on the right. I would not call that "brutally over-processed digital art". It barely even approachs "heavily edited", based on it's appearance and compared to the original. But, IMHO, it is a far cry from some of the ribboners now on the front page.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 02:25:50 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Harvey - looks like your photos are very real and very good - most of them outstanding, in fact, and all probably very pure (alhtough I couldn't find any post-proc details). But it looks like this one slipped in there by mistake...
heeheehee. Just rattling yer cage. I'll go back to reflecting. ...or was I destroying a temple... :) |
Agreed again. That one is definitely digital art. But keeg is still ok cuz my kayaks weren't in a challenge, lol.
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 03:55:09.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 02:32:30 AM · #25 |
Harvey,
For the record, I am always trying to show "what the real world looks like" in my landscapes, and I shoot a LOT of very mundane objects in an entirely unromantic manner trying to show what HEY look like as well. It is my contention that the referenced shot above DOES show "what the real world looks like" in a much more satisfactory and revealing manner than the straight-from-camera original does. It's not, to me, a matter of "art" vs "non-art", it's a matter of seeing clearly and well.
I have consistently praised just such photography as you seem to be referring to when it is posted and is well-done. I habe no problem whatsoever with documentary photography, photojournalism, neo-realist work, whatever form photography may take. I take it all on its own terms and love it all at one level or another.
It seems to me, however, that those who take the position you are so articulately advancing do many of us a disservice. You seem to dismiss out of hand our best efforts as somehow less-than-worthy simply because we DO Have a vision and attempt to fulfill it in our own way. I realize this is an oversimplification, but that tone exists in what you say.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't understand why you preach that "we" should respect the practitioners of these "other parts" of photography whiule seeming NOT to respect what it is that "we" do. And yet "we" are very much a part of the mainstream of photography, and fully partake of its history.
Robt.
Here's a ribbon winner from almost exactly 3 years ago: 
This would be right at home hanging next to my landscape on the wall of shame for photographers who dare to see more fiercely what is "there".
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 02:34:34.
|
|
