When 'photographers' post processing goes too far
Jul 20, 2014 21:21:46 #
Erik_H wrote:
You are not as alone as you may think. I believe that there is a big difference between photography and visual art. I lean heavily towards true photography, which is why I very rarely use Photoshop, instead, shooting raw and doing all of my adjustments in Lightroom which is akin to processing film in the darkroom. I feel that a photograph is the capturing of a moment in time, whereas photographic art is the artists (photographers) interpretation of the scene that is photographed.
Then you must feel Ansel Adams is a visual artist and not a photographer. Black and White is an abstraction to begin with, and then using filters to get a much darker sky than real life, and all darkroom techniques to manipulate what the tones looked like. He very much interpreted the scene. Not a "true" photographer?
Jul 20, 2014 21:27:53 #
oldtigger wrote:
Don't get me wrong, i've pushed a slider or two in my day, i just don't claim they are photographs.
No matter how startling or impressive to the viewer they might become they are now only artwork.
No matter how startling or impressive to the viewer they might become they are now only artwork.
By definition your photographs are artwork from the instant you push the shutter release to create it. Not just in philosophy either, but literally that is the legal status too, under copyright law.
Jul 20, 2014 21:38:30 #
Apaflo wrote:
By definition your photographs are artwork from the instant you push the shutter release to create it. Not just in philosophy either, but literally that is the legal status too, under copyright law.
Think of all the bad artwork created all over the world every second... Staggering.
Jul 20, 2014 21:43:13 #
I think photography should be a large enough tent to accommodate all kinds of imagery created with light sensitive material, analog and digital, and all kinds of techniques to manipulate that imagery. I feel like people who declare that photographers who use techniques they don't like are not really photographers, and their works are no longer photographs, and digital cameras are not cameras, are pretty closed minded. I do a lot of digital manipulation, and I am a photographer, my works are photographs, and my digital camera is a camera.
Jul 20, 2014 21:51:34 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Then you must feel Ansel Adams is a visual artist and not a photographer. Black and White is an abstraction to begin with, and then using filters to get a much darker sky than real life, and all darkroom techniques to manipulate what the tones looked like. He very much interpreted the scene. Not a "true" photographer?
What I'm referring to is when you take a photograph and actually change the image at the pixel level, like removing whole buildings, etc. When the end result is not what the camera captured at all. Mr. Adams shot in B&W which, as you say is an abstraction to begin with, we don't see in B&W, so that in itself makes it art. Was Mr. Adams a "true" photographer? Of course . But he was also an artist. Erik Johansson is a master at digital artistry.
Jul 20, 2014 21:57:59 #
Erik_H wrote:
You are not as alone as you may think. I believe that there is a big difference between photography and visual art.
Photography is one of several different kinds of visual art.
What else could it be defined as? The photograph is not the thing photographed. It is an abstraction, an illusion, a representation, and it is never the "real" thing. Therefore it is art. In this case a visual art, where the photograph communicates something to the viewer via visual symbols. (The same is true of cinematography, painting, etching, sculpture, etc.)
The psychology of visual art has been studied for centuries by painters and those who draw. More recently the art of photography has been added. And in the past several decades both the philosophy and science of visual art has been studied intensively. Rudolf Arnheim (1907-2004) published the classic work "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye" in 1954 and an updated and revised edition 1974.
We may "believe" whatever we like, but it's just a self delusion.
Erik_H wrote:
I lean heavily towards true photography, which is why I very rarely use Photoshop, instead, shooting raw and doing all of my adjustments in Lightroom which is akin to processing film in the darkroom. I feel that a photograph is the capturing of a moment in time, whereas photographic art is the artists (photographers) interpretation of the scene that is photographed.
Any photograph necessarily is the photographer's interpretation, starting with the decision to take a photograph, continuing with decisions about angles, timing and other scene manipulations that change the interpretation (and maybe even the reality), and right on through deciding which paper is best to print it on.
By arbitrarily dividing the manipulations you like to do from those you don't, you are never defining "true photography", just defining yourself. Use terminology that has meaning to others, such as perhaps saying you are a photographer in the Straight Photography style. Don't claim something exclusive about not being able to accomplish some of the useful skills of photography, just admit to being at best a journeyman photographer as opposed to a master photographer.
Jul 20, 2014 22:14:33 #
Erik_H wrote:
What I'm referring to is when you take a photograph and actually change the image at the pixel level, like removing whole buildings, etc. When the end result is not what the camera captured at all. Mr. Adams shot in B&W which, as you say is an abstraction to begin with, we don't see in B&W, so that in itself makes it art. Was Mr. Adams a "true" photographer? Of course . But he was also an artist. Erik Johansson is a master at digital artistry.
Virtually none of the prints that Ansel Adams is famous for show exactly "what the camera captured". Every print he ever made has "pixel level" manipulations.
Jul 21, 2014 05:37:49 #
HowardPepper wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: EXACTLY!!
Jul 21, 2014 05:43:16 #
cntry wrote:
And yes, I do some PP on some of my photos...cropping and minor tweaks like sharpening, adjusting the exposure... but I'd rather spend my time behind a tripod than a computer screen, so the goal is to learn how to make the camera take the shot I want so I don't have to make the shot.
And yes, I do some PP on some of my photos...cropping and minor tweaks like sharpening, adjusting the exposure... but I'd rather spend my time behind a tripod than a computer screen, so the goal is to learn how to make the camera take the shot I want so I don't have to make the shot.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jul 21, 2014 06:03:27 #
If it is wrong to you, you are right. If it is ok for someone else, it is right for them. That is how art works. I see a mountain and enter satori, other people say
"It is just a mountain! Borrrring! I would rather go to the seashore!". I always thought Warhol's Marilyn Monroe prints were processed way too much, over saturated, and too contrasty to be aesthetic. Now they are worth millions, so it must be right for a lot of people, and I have gotten more used to looking at them, although I still don't like them a whole lot. Art should never be totalitarian, which is more important than forcing standards.
"It is just a mountain! Borrrring! I would rather go to the seashore!". I always thought Warhol's Marilyn Monroe prints were processed way too much, over saturated, and too contrasty to be aesthetic. Now they are worth millions, so it must be right for a lot of people, and I have gotten more used to looking at them, although I still don't like them a whole lot. Art should never be totalitarian, which is more important than forcing standards.
Rongnongno wrote:
No, this is not about distortion of really, well, ... (show quote)
Jul 21, 2014 06:07:33 #
DJ Craig
Loc: Payson, AZ (North-Central)
Those who feel comfortable doing it, should do it. Those who don't, shouldn't.
Jul 21, 2014 06:19:21 #
HowardPepper wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jul 21, 2014 06:20:53 #
oldtigger wrote:
In my opinion if you do more than the basic gamma, dodge, burn, color correction and crop then your photograph become artwork.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Jul 21, 2014 06:22:17 #
Jul 21, 2014 06:30:29 #
It is my opinion that the satisfaction of the finish product lies between the photographer and the buyer. If everyone walks away happy, then it's a job well done.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.