Inserting objects into photos: I believe that all photos should be as taken with no afterthought objects inserted. That's my opinion only. The PROS may know differently. I've seen...

artlover Loc: NM

I believe that all photos should be as taken with no afterthought
objects inserted. That's my opinion only. The PROS may know
differently. I've seen photos, elsewhere, that don't look natural.
Numerous sunset pix show inserted boats, camels,
horses, bike riders, dogs, children, etc.

Cameras made today and yesteryear can do marvelous things.

I am amazed at the talent of those that post here. It's great.

I worked for a Fine Arts Museum and saw the works of Ansel
Adams, Edward Weston, and Cunningham. GREATER than great, in B/W.

Doing all kinds of tricks is fine, but inserting something that was
not originally in the shot, in my untalented techie mind, NO.

99% of most of you will most likely disagree and I accept that.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

There is a large contingent of photog's who feel the way you do. It's a philosophical point for which there is no absolute answer. Remember though, that even the great photog's were not above 'creating' the scene they wanted. There are several examples of M. Brady arranging corpses and such on the battlefield, to make his point. And it's been going on since Day 1.

Juleann

I believe the point made by JimH speaks to the notion of "making" an image -- which is one thing -- while pasting objects in during post-processing is another.

It's a new world. I'm inclined to embrace it all -- when it works effectively it can be great art! But, I believe it's important to fess up to what's 'real' and what isn't.

mommy115 Loc: California

Juleann wrote:

I believe the point made by JimH speaks to the notion of "making" an image -- which is one thing -- while pasting objects in during post-processing is another.

It's a new world. I'm inclined to embrace it all -- when it works effectively it can be great art! But, I believe it's important to fess up to what's 'real' and what isn't.

I think Jim was referring to pasting in dead soldiers.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Well, actually, I was simply referring to the practice of 'arranging' a scene before you shoot it, as many photographers did before the digital age, versus 'arranging' it afterwards. I don't see a big difference, and, as I noted, it's a philosophical difference where there is no 'right' or 'wrong' so much as there is a personal choice.

(This DOES NOT, however, condone the practice of 'creating' an image that is patently dishonest or cheating, as the recent winner of a Swedish photo contest was found to have done. The fact that he did it in PP is no different than had he done it before hand - it was a deliberate attempt to create an image that was patently false, in hopes of winning the contest.)

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

I agree with you. I use post processing only to enhance the original subject, NOT to create a completely different image. I often say that I envy artists who can can paint and draw because they can put a bird or animal or whatever into their shots where I have to be patient and wait for them to appear or have to get up early and be out there when the sun is right. I believe the wait is worth it though and it wouldn't feel right in my gut as a photographer if I "cheated".

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

donnahde wrote:

I agree with you. I use post processing only to enhance the original subject, NOT to create a completely different image. I often say that I envy artists who can can paint and draw because they can put a bird or animal or whatever into their shots where I have to be patient and wait for them to appear or have to get up early and be out there when the sun is right. I believe the wait is worth it though and it wouldn't feel right in my gut as a photographer if I "cheated".

I was talking to the original poster.

mommy115 Loc: California

I don't consider it 'cheating'. I consider it a different artform based on a photo.

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

Point taken, but I do think honesty about what has been manipulated and added is important. I feel the same way about it as I do about someone taking a portion of a quote out of context and using it to illustrate an opposite point of view.

mommy115 wrote:

I don't consider it 'cheating'. I consider it a different artform based on a photo.

Ripley44224

artlover wrote:

I believe that all photos should be as taken with no afterthought objects inserted...

A bit narrow, IMHO. What about the entire green-screen industry? Or photgraphic backgrounds used in photo studios? These techniques are based on replacing image backgrounds for a pleasing result, or to express the photographer's vision. Isn't that what art is all about?

kippix

Is it "CHEATING"? The Iwo Jima Monument is based on a staged photograph. It doesn't detract from it. Images made by cameras are all a form of distortion of reality. In fact all of our memories are a distortion of reality. Real or cheating if you like the image, you like the image. But if asked you should not tell stories that are a distortion of reality.

Paw Paw Bill Loc: d

artlover wrote:

I believe that all photos should be as taken with no...

I understand what you mean and agree. The photo here is my exception. One of the girls had to leave early, another could not keep her eyes open, one was cranky and would not pose.

The result was a combination made from five shots. I wanted to give the bride something with them in it and have it be a decent shot.

Five photos combined

ces308 Loc: Houghton Lake ,Mi

mommy115 wrote:

Juleann wrote:

I believe the point made by JimH speaks to the notion of "making" an image -- which is one thing -- while pasting objects in during post-processing is another.

It's a new world. I'm inclined to embrace it all -- when it works effectively it can be great art! But, I believe it's important to fess up to what's 'real' and what isn't.

I think Jim was referring to pasting in dead soldiers.

I am not a fan of this either,however,when my father passed away he left me his 1969 Corvette and I am going to hand it down to my son and grandson.I have a picture of my son,grandson and myself with the car and think it would be nice to include a picture of my dad standing behind us next to the car to show my grandson his great grandfather with us and his car...you know what I mean??I don't have PS yet ,but when I do (soon) I am going to attempt it....

chris

ces308 Loc: Houghton Lake ,Mi

Paw Paw Bill wrote:

artlover wrote:

I believe that all photos should be as taken with no...

I understand what you mean and agree. The photo here is my exception. One of the girls had to leave early, another could not keep her eyes open, one was cranky and would not pose.

The result was a combination made from five shots. I wanted to give the bride something with them in it and have it be a decent shot.

I think this looks very nice !

chris

Paw Paw Bill Loc: d

This was not a primary shot, so I spent some time on it, but not what I could have. There are some obvious errors, but I needed to move on within time constraints. I wanted to straighten and/or replace the candle in the background, but ended up with a 'what the hey' and moved on.