Singing Swan

The camera I have now gives me just these choices, too, before I ever touch the shutter button. Where do I draw the line as to what is realistic and what isn't?? I can shoose black and white or sepia BEFORE I make the photo. Which one is realistic??

One of my favorite things to tell people over the years is that I don't have to get all my ducks in a row, I sold the darned things. Lines in photography need to be straight so the water doesn't run off the sides or the building isn't going to lean like the Tower of Pisa...all the others, I have erased. And the only box I'll ever fit in is the one labeled Grumpy Box and people know not to talk to me then. :) :)

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

If you do photography for a living, then you do what your client wants (for the most part). If you do photography for yourself, then you do what you want, and although it's nice, sharing your philosophy accomplishes little.

Shoot Happens

Photography can be art - true. But to me a photo was shot and is seen as the camera saw it. Art is something that is created, and in most cases is not exactly what the camera saw or what was actually there.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong, in my opinion, with work photos. All I'm saying is that a photo, as the camera saw it, is a photo. Art is something created that wasn't there when the original image was taken.[/quote]

Obviously, everyone has a right to their opinion. Having said that; you are saying two things in that what a camera sees is a photo but is rarely what is actually there. Take for example, every photo taken with a wide angle lens is distorted with crooked lines and is not what is real. Every image taken at high ISO has grain that is not real; a telephoto lens brings a totally different view than the eye saw, our eyes do not see depth of field as the camera does.

If what you are saying is true then the only photograph is one taken when someone pushes a button on a camera set on automatic.

Photography is art. A photographer is someone that uses a camera to create a final result. Some of those results are manipulating the camera buttons and dials and processing the resulting image afterwards to try to depict, as close as possible, what was actually there. But in every case, it always involves manipulation of what the camera originally captured. If it isn't, then you are not a photographer in my opinion, you are just someone who pushes a button.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

And has been done in years past in the darkroom with dodging. burning, mixture of development formulas, temperature control, masking, flashing, posterizing and the list goes on. Ansel Adams who we photographers revere was a master of image manipulation in the darkroom.

TheDman Loc: USA

Since when does pp = 'not real' though? In order for it to not look real, you have to point to one area or another and say "those clouds couldn't look like that", "those rocks couldn't be that color", etc. Which part looks like it couldn't have been possible?

TheDman Loc: USA

So what the camera sees is real, but what our eyes see is not real?

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I posted these comments in another thread a few weeks back, and feel they are relevant here as well.

***************

A true anecdote:

I was at a show last year where a gentleman walked into my booth (dSLR around his neck). He walked up to an image I have of an old truck which has been manipulated to have qualities very reminiscent of a watercolor painting. He then turned to me and said, "So, this is a lie then"?

Me: A lie? No, it's neither a lie nor a truth. It's a picture of an old truck.

Him: But it's not how the camera saw it. So it's a lie.

Me: Well, the image has been manipulated. But it isn't a lie. It's a picture of an old truck that has been made to look a lot like a watercolor.

Him: But if you have manipulated it, how do I know that it looks like what was in front of the camera. If I can't tell, it might be a complete lie.

Me: I suppose the only way you'd know is if you were standing next to me when I took the photo. But as you weren't, I guess you can't know. So, all you can know for sure is that this is an image of an old truck, made to look like a watercolor, and you either find it aesthetically pleasing, or you don't.

At this point I told the fellow that he might want to check out a fellow photographer down the aisle as his work may be more to his liking.

Now, a week later at a different show, a guy came in and stood before the exact same image. He asked me a few questions based on the title, my answers confirming that it had been taken exactly where he thought it had. He stood there silently for a good few minutes, until I noticed that his lip was quivering and his eyes were tearing up. It turns out that this photo had been taken three miles from his grandfather's place in Arizona, where he often spent his summers as a young boy. This "lie" had obviously struck a deep emotional cord with him, and obviously carried enough "truth" within it (despite its obvious and extensive manipulation) to draw up strong enough memories to bring him to tears.

So, my bottom line is this. If I have an obligation to anyone, it is not to try to satisfy the demands for "full disclosure" or "truth" or "reality" that the first viewer insisted upon. My obligation is to strive to create images that have the aesthetic, intellectual, and emotional appeal that can bring forth reactions like that of the second viewer. If some wish to quibble over that, or about what label to attach to me or my work, I can honestly say I truly don't care. And in the end my efforts will always be to try to satisfy the viewers like the second guy.

***************

Now, this is where i get a bit snarky. (Understand, I've only had one morning cup of coffee, so I'm entitled.).

Given what I said above, it may surprise a number of readers to know that I actually do label the work in my booth as either "photographic image" or "photo-digital art". I do this for two reasons, neither of which is because I agree with those who espouse that manipulated images should be identified as such. Indeed, I in no way agree that there is any obligation for me to make that distinction. I do so because:

1) it was the most effective way to keep obnoxious hobbyist photographers from coming into my booth and attempting to engage me in the debate we are having in this thread while I am engaged in my business. It still happens, just not as often as before. Truthfully, when someone walks into my booth my only concern is whether they like my images or not. I have no interest in debating their philosophy of photography, or personal preferences concerning post-processing. If labeling manipulated images as such keeps these people quiet, great; I'll do whatever it takes. (Told you I was about to get a bit snarky! :twisted:

2). It actually works well as a marketing tool. Since I more or less made-up the term "Photo-digital Art", people often ask what that means. That presents the opportunity for me to explain some of the technique I use to get some of the effects in my images, and to engage the potential customer in conversation which will hopefully be interesting and pleasant for them, and will hopefully lead to a sale. In other words, differentiating my images is done as an outright marketing technique.

To conclude, I firmly believe in the thought expressed in the second quote in my signature.

Everyone have a good afternoon :)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

The falling water!!!

TheDman Loc: USA

Water doesn't fall? ;)

dmsM43

Maybe we should have a system similar to what they do for books, where they have fiction and non-fiction books usually clearly labeled. This could also be applied to images. Although as pointed out, where do you draw the line.
And by the way, even in the good old days of film, there was a lot of manipulation done, often with an airbrush. And prior to ortho and panchromatic films, it wasn't unusual for photographers to add images of clouds to the otherwise blank skies in their prints from their blue-sensitive only films.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Falling water doesn't look like nice smooth milk. It has texture and contrasts. Slow shutter water looks as fake as you can get it.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Hi Dman - your pic would look great in a kid's story book about "The land that never was". It is pleasant to look at. (Where's the Lion- King)
But it is not down to any one part of the image looking unreal - the pic as a whole (IMHO) does not give an impression of reality. In other words it is too good to be true.
But maybe it's just me, e.g., - I've never been keen on creamy waterfalls.

Collie lover Loc: St. Louis, MO

I don't do a lot of PP as I prefer to show what I saw, not something created. I do crop where necessary; maybe lighten up dark areas to bring out details. But I prefer the natural look.

I see you have a Norwegian Elkhound.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Good for you Tony, but why do so many people feel that their opinions matter? I mean really matter? They don't. If you instead wrote, that you except photography as ART and therefore it is subjective, you would have gotten much more positive feedbacks. The people who actually look at your site couldn't care less how your photos were created.



Makes me laugh. Really? Since when do you see a blurred background behind a person? So before you judge others, be ready for others to point out your BS. :thumbup:

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Yes it is just you. :mrgreen: