Photography and reality: I posted this as a response to a discussion earlier about "What is a Photograph" that was primarily about "image manipulation" and why it is done. I didn't get...

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I posted this as a response to a discussion earlier about "What is a Photograph" that was primarily about "image manipulation" and why it is done. I didn't get much response to it but I find the question interesting enough to ask it again as it comes up so often.

Photography, while a means of documentation and communication is also an artistic medium. Why does it matter what is real or true in a photograph if it is not meant as documentation?

Photographers are often asked but is that what it really looked like. This question is rarely asked of painters. Through various art movements painting broke free from the chains of reality. Photography did as well during the first half of the 20th century. Photographers can not only capture a slice of time and reality but create their own realities and narratives. Yet, why do so many continue to attach the photograph to reality, when it is not reality but a new object all together.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Also, here some examples of photographers that invented their own realities. Often this is refered to as the constructed image.

Gregory Crewdson: https://www.artsy.net/artist/gregory-crewdson

Jerry Uelsmann: http://www.uelsmann.net/works.php

William Mortensen: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/06/william-mortensen-photography-master-macabre

Amjad Faur: http://amjadfaur.com/section/213020-Bethlehem-in-Wax.html

Robert and Shana ParkeHarrison: http://www.parkeharrison.com/architect-s-brother/kingdom

Maggie Taylor: http://maggietaylor.com/

Rickyb

Thank you, out of the dark room has come and will proceed to be many realizations of life and death.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Darkroom317 wrote:

I posted this as a response to a discussion earlie... (show quote)

Sheer ignorance is the reason.

Virtually every medium ever invented can be used artistically or artfully. But there is a certain snobbery that persists...

I absolutely agree that a photo is "a new object all together." It can document, communicate, inspire, and probably affect us in other ways.

It is nice to live in an age when the lines are blurred between and among all the various media. The Internet, video, audio, photography, telecommunications, and written word, in all their forms, are all in a melting pot of possibility now. Photos and videos can bring images of other artistic endeavors on line. So what's reality, but what you make of it?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Darkroom317 wrote:

Also, here some examples of photographers that inv... (show quote)

Thanks very much for the links.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

burkphoto wrote:

I absolutely agree that a photo is "a new object all together." It can document, communicate, inspire, and probably affect us in other ways.

As Rene Magritte stated in his painting the Treachery of Images, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" or "This is not a pipe." A painting or photograph is not the original object/ subject so why should have to look like it.

https://www.renemagritte.org/the-treachery-of-images.jsp

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Darkroom317 wrote:

Yet, why do so many continue to attach the photograph to reality, when it is not reality but a new object all together.

I don’t think that there are “so many” but what I have seen on this forum is that those who are opposed to manipulation are jpeg shooters. The common theme I have seen is: lack of artistic skills. Why some of these individuals can’t see the other side as valid is beyond me. The results are always superior to their SOOC JPEGs. Could it be envy?

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

tdekany wrote:

I don’t think that there are “so many” but what I have seen on this forum is that those who are opposed to manipulation are jpeg shooters. The common theme I have seen is: lack of artistic skills. Why some of these individuals can’t see the other side as valid is beyond me. The results are always superior to their SOOC JPEGs. Could it be envy?

The art is in the image and concept behind it not the process.

I have no ideas as to why this discussion keeps happening. It is odd to me. I just wish there was more discussion of photography, rather than just process and equipment.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

RichardTaylor wrote:

Thanks very much for the links.

You're welcome. Hope you enjoy looking through their work.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Darkroom317 wrote:

You're welcome. Hope you enjoy looking through their work.

Photography is like sex. Those who do it don’t talk about it. Those who talk about it aren’t doing it!

mrpentaxk5ii

tdekany wrote:

I don’t think that there are “so many” but what I have seen on this forum is that those who are opposed to manipulation are jpeg shooters. The common theme I have seen is: lack of artistic skills. Why some of these individuals can’t see the other side as valid is beyond me. The results are always superior to their SOOC JPEGs. Could it be envy?

Funny I use JPEG files and I post process each one that I keep. I get it from both ends, the JPEG photographers that do little or no PP and the RAW crowd for not shooting in RAW...Bottom line I march to my own drum, been that way all my life.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Darkroom317 wrote:

I posted this as a response to a discussion earlie... (show quote)

In my opinion, photography only needs to reflect reality in the cases of portrait, journalism, certain advertising, and some special cases. It depends on whether or not what is being photographed needs to be depicted the way it really exist. Anything else is "fair game" including generating alternate realities and things that don't and can't exist.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

mrpentaxk5ii wrote:

Funny I use JPEG files and I post process each one that I keep. I get it from both ends, the JPEG photographers that do little or no PP and the RAW crowd for not shooting in RAW...Bottom line I march to my own drum, been that way all my life.

But are you against those who shoot raw and post process? What I said, that those who complain are jpeg shooters. Every time.

I personally only care about the end product. I want to admire the results. How you achieve it, is not important to me.

With that said, what I don’t get is:

1 - those who believe in SOOC, why don’t they shoot raw and just export as jpeg. To me THAT is SOOC.

2 - those who post process and shoot jpegs like yourself. I see very little logic in that. Why not use all the info the sensor recorded?

In any case, hope this was not too off topic.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

wdross wrote:

In my opinion, photography only needs to reflect reality in the cases of portrait, journalism, certain advertising, and some special cases. It depends on whether or not what is being photographed needs to be depicted the way it really exist. Anything else is "fair game" including generating alternate realities and things that don't and can't exist.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Darkroom317 wrote:

I posted this as a response to a discussion earlie... (show quote)

When you are out in nature, viewing a beautiful landscape, a photograph will never give you the feeling you had viewing the real scene. Many photographers want to enhance the scene not so that it will look just like the scene the eye sees, but revved up somehow, maybe increasing contrast or saturation, to increase the impact of viewing it, more nearly approximating the impact of viewing the scene.