LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

To take this out of the realm of opinion:

Photography is the art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film. It is employed in many fields of science, manufacturing (e.g., photolithography), and business, as well as its more direct uses for art, film and video production, recreational purposes, hobby, and mass communication. ... The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light"[2] and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing",[3] together meaning "drawing with light".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography

Drawing with pixels is merely a high tech version of drawing with pencils.

I didn’t write the definition.

JBGLADSTONE Loc: Oregon

Thanks CHG Canon

You confirmed what I understood about RAW may need some touch up. Plus adding any enhancements to my creation.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Via, by all means start the conversation you propose. The change you want is you. Any thoughts along the line you want?

The philosophical question is: Can I tell a photograph made by automatic settings (artificial intelligence, so to speak) from a photograph made by manual settings (and human intelligence)?

That is harder to answer than it appears at first (like all philosophical questions). The question resembles this one: Can silverware made by machines in a factory be as good as silverware made by a craftsman? If all we want is silverware like that from a machine, the answer is yes; but if we want silverware better than that--the answer might be, no.

Many people think the answer is simple: anything can be made by machines. Picasso (thinking the idea was very modern) mass-produced much of his art ($5 ashtrays signed by machine). But he also often paid his check in cafes by autographing the tab for them; this would have no value if it was made by a machine, yes? Its only value was in the human author. And of course, his individual works are of far greater value than those mass-produced. A print of a Rembrandt is not worth quite as much as the original, made by the person. And a series of artist prints is numbered for a reason--the fewer we make, the greater their individual value.

If I cut out a photo from Ansel Adams from a book, it is not as valuable as a print made by his hand; certainly the real one is better (visibly) than the copy. But if a machine could copy it so you could not tell one from the other--a) is that possible? and b) would one still cost more? (Why or why not?)

Doyle Thomas Loc: Vancouver Washington ~ USA

,

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

There is true reality and virtual reality. To manipulate a photo, whether by software or in the darkroom, to bring out details that were in the subject, but were somehow missed during exposure, is one thing. To add or subtract details that were or were not in the original photo is another thing. One purpose is to reproduce the true details of the subject, the other is to add artistic license to the subject. Where does philosophy come in here?

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Well stated.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

The philosophical question to which I referred was whether a computer can have a human mind (AI); and the similar question whether automated cameras can create art, or photographs indistinguishable from those taken by people.

The more narrow instance is whether the typical automatic settings (exposure, shutter, aperture, ISO) are as good as manual settings of the same selections by a human artist. In a trivial sense, they can be the same, certainly; but most of us think that the element of choice introduces the possibility of art, and machines cannot choose (no free will, as we say)--therefore, no art as such. The "P" setting may give the same readings as a manual selection by a person; but the person-photographer chooses a certain look by free will, while an automatic camera gives the same look because the creator of the camera chose it. The camera has no free will or choices but those built into it by the creator. (It is like this: the wolf puts on a winter coat, not because it is smart, but because its creator was smart. We would never call something art if it was merely the output of unavoidable forces, except in a metaphorical sense--one might say the universe is an artwork of God, comparing him to people. Otherwise we would not call snowflakes artworks--they can be made by snow machines, and be very pretty, but they are just snow all the same.)

There is a market for pretty things (ugly ones, too), but that does not make them art if they are made without art. It is the very fact that a work could have been otherwise that we consider it creative art. So manual camera settings open doors that are otherwise closed--we would never know what was behind them if we only had the options locked and pre-set.

Such questions are philosophical because they cannot be answered by scientific research or study alone--they address what we mean by what we see and touch.

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

Algorithms are the mathematics by which your camera operates. They operate pretty much the same way algorithms in mechanical film cameras operate. Yes, someone had to come up with the math, so when you set ASA, aperture and shutter speed, the film is exposed to give the image you want (Later film cameras were aperture priority, and the camera electronics set the shutter speed.). You stated it correctly when you stated that the "camera creator" made the choices, algorithms. This is still all "scientific." The "artistry" comes in when the image is manipulated to other than what was real, and I believe this is where this discussion began 21 pages ago.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Now THAT'S funny! Nothing like calling out a guy who is full of himself for calling out others for being full of themselves. . . .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You might want to try asking a specific question about technique - or re-read some of the responses. Most are forgettable, some regrettable, but there are some nuggets of knowledge in the mix.

srt101fan

You say "The "artistry" comes in when the image is manipulated to other than what was real". Do you really believe that? There is no artistry in photographs by Cartier-Bresson or others like him?

User ID

Film and paper did not exist.

At the time, all (lol) photography involved that same special effect, so I spoze you could remove the term “special”. Today, in making a similar type of image, you would definitely call it a “special” effect.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Photography is and i think always will be, an imperfect view of the world. Film stocks have characteristics that go with the formulation of the film. Kodacolor gold was much stronger in color than the scene that you saw. Even our eyes don't see the same as we age, so really we are giving an impression of the world, not reality.

Where do you stand? The other day I was eyeing up a potential shot but the situation was flawed there was a big gas tank set off to one side and it clashed with the stone walls and tree's that I wanted to photograph, I realised if I moved to one side I could make that tank disappear behind a large tree, unfortunately that angle revealed another tank on the opposite side... someone needs to plant a tree :)

I suppose I could of taken the shot and erased the offending tank in post. Why does it offend , because this location has been here for 100's of years and it detracts from the location and it's not what I want to show.

We make choices of what we photograph and how we photograph it all the time. If you have a significant other don't you try to take their photo in a complimentary way, in the way that you see them and not in a way that makes them feel bad about themselves.

It's not all about beauty , sometimes you want to show the ugly too and this year has introduced a new ugly the discarded mask, the selfishness, the lack of respect and care for others that shows... but I am going of topic.

My point is that we take, make photos that ideally represent what we want people to see and not reality.

If you can accept that we are and our devices are imperfect then we come to the subject of processing. Generally our cameras automatically process the light we capture into an image which we call a photograph and I don't think there is one that has just a single option for how that image is processed. Even a raw file when we first see it usually has some processing applied for example white balance. Even in processing film we generally had pot luck as to how are images were developed.

Is it just me that finds people who profess a preference for straight out of camera images are letting an algorithm automatically process their image. Yet seem to think its less pure to take an active role in the final image. I guess they are going to love self driving cars :)

Actually to be fair, having a machine drive can be preferable to being a passenger driven by some people...

Personally I prefer to post process to some degree and that can be for a result closer to my vision of reality or maybe my vision of reality as I wish it was. The machines are quite good but somethings may be characteristic of a lens in a particular situation, purple fringing and chromatic aberration were not part of the original scene so it makes sense to correct for them but that's just my opinion.

Some post processing is just disturbing, if you take something like a sky replacement it should at least have a similar direction of light and the sky obviously affects what you see on the ground. I think it's actually quite hard to do well without the photo looking a bit off but that's really down to skill and judgement of the person doing the processing. I guess that's more where the school of thought of SOOC comes from because a lot of photos get "enhanced" badly.

Phew that's a lot of writing just to say photos are an imperfect capture of reality, so you really are free to change that capture.

I think the OP is right there often is more talk about gear rather than how to use that gear to best effect on here.

There are some discussions on technique but they are fairly widely dispersed across the boards sections. Pro's have some well worn formulas that they use regularly to obtain pleasing results that their clients will be happy with and some are happy to share them.

The problem with a word like technique it's a very broad brush, and probably why I just spent the last few paragraphs hammering out that photography is an interpretation of reality that you can bend to your own vision (or just let robots take care of).

Now we have that established that as the photographer you are free to do as you want, you need to figure out what you want to do and you will get techniques and methods once you say what you are aiming for. It really is up to people to start the conversation and after what 21 pages it's clear people want to talk.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I have an 89.00 phone. It takes raw photos has complete ability to shot manuel and 3 different lenses available. Yes I usually just use it to snap a photo I see when out and about without my D500. I played with it when I bought the second one in 2 months after destroying the first. Lol. The technology in a phone is actually amazing. My cheap phone even has exposure compensation. Its an LG. K51. Cheapest I could buy with a removable sd card. Up to 2tb actually. The phones have come a long way and it looks like they have just begun.

GerryER Loc: Virginia USA

He captured the scenes and moods as they were; he didn't alter what was in them. Framing a picture properly seems to be more of a gift than anything else. Some people on this forum (Gene51 for example) do very well when framing an image and capturing the mood, others not so much. Cartier-Bresson and Adams had that gift. The "artistry" I am referring to has to do with adding or subtracting from an image to change the mood of an actual scene which takes you from the real to the virtual. I just like the "real" better.