TonyP Loc: New Zealand

I have the following on my website as an indication of my philosophy regarding 'photography'.

Photography Philosophy
I believe, in this computer age, many stunning images are more the result of digital enhancement than a display of the photographers skill with a camera.
The potential of Photoshop and similar computer programs, to alter the context and contents of a photograph are enormous and only an educated viewer might detect the manipulation that has been applied to the final result.
I certainly think there is room for digital art, as I would label such images, but equally, I think they should be labelled as such and not published as 'Photographs'.

In my opinion an amount of processing is certainly acceptable, similar to the days of film as the medium; cropping, colour correction, dodging and exposure, to name the most common.
But adding and subtracting backgrounds and subjects, changing features of the viewed scene, in my opinion defies the definition of a 'photograph' and becomes digital art.

While I have reasonable skills available to me to enhance my photographs, unless otherwise stated, all images displayed are a true representation of the scene or situation I have been fortunate enough to see through the lens of my camera.

Ive received some interesting emails (and some not so 'interesting') in response.
I'm keen to hear how others on UHH view my look on photography in the digital age.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

And who defines where the line(s) is/are? And why does it matter?

Read the quote from A.A. in my signature.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Tony, I agree 100% with your conclusion and I believe Ansel would too. Best wishes for many clear, sharp photogenic days! /Ralph

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Any image which has passed through an editing program should have a 'PP' automatically watermarked on it.
Of course any in camera jpg would have to be marked also.

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

Tony, I like your collection of photos, in particular the lady sitting on the bench. I wish you had added a label stating where the photos were taken. Well done.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - there have been many quite heated discussions in "SOOC v PP"
topics, with many saying "where do you draw the line?"

IMHO anything which could be pre-set in a digital camera - WB, color tone, sharpening, contrast, exposure, etc, - even HD, and of course cropping, plus straightening, should also be considered photography if adjusted using PP. And that should be the line between Photography and Digi-art. IMHO. I accept that there is a grey area - "removing removables" - like dustbins, but that is another "where do you draw the line" discussion. IMHO.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I am 100% behind you on this issue!!
Definitely agree that there are 2 definite divisions===
1> True Photography
2> Photographic Art (based on photography, but manipulated to something that did not exist at the time it was taken)


EDIT: Your website shows some AWESOME photography!! LOVE the sunset and scenics, and the 'people' groups definitely is amazing in the views you have captured!

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

I don't have any particular argument with your statement because everyone has an opinion on this matter. However, I have really never understood just why in the devil it's so important to categorize or put a label on what kind of an image one creates... Will it really make a difference in the potential enjoyment quotient whether one calls what he/she produces and 'image' or a 'photograph'? :shock:

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

By your statement above, then back in FILM days, EVERY photo would have to be labeled also because the RAW film had to be processed in order to get the print!!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Tony, I agree with you to some large degree. The power of PS is enormous. I've relied on that power for numerous retouching and restoration projects. However, for my own straight work I tend to limit what I do to what I can do in a darkroom, those things you mentioned in your post. I follow the idea that just because one can do something doesn't mean one should do that something.

However, with that said, Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind. His work predates PS, yet he accomplished many things that are commonly done in PS today. I did read that he doesn't use PS and continues working in the darkroom.

I guess it would depend on the type of work one is focused on doing. Personally, I'd never replace a sky. I would, however, burn or dodge the sky I have to make it more presentable. I guess I'm more a purist in that respect. I do some work that does a lot of cutting and pasting, but that I consider just fun.
--Bob

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

It's not just about the "enjoyment quotient" It's about a record of reality for posterity. :-) IMHO

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

From the very beginnings of photography some photographers have produced images which were not "true" representations of the scene or situation they saw through the lens of their cameras, and there has never been a requirement that photographs must fulfill this purpose. Except for photojournalism, documentary or forensic photography, no photographer owes anyone an explanation or a "label" explaining how they produced their images.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

You say, quote, "not true". If not true is it then a lie ? But you are correct in that there is no requirement not to lie, unless on oath.
But a "label" (maybe just a single letter in the title or file name) would remove the question before being asked.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Just for fun I post processed a few shots from a friends wedding just to see what I could do. I could do a lot more and better quality but this was me essentially doodling with affinity photo and Adobe Camera Raw.

The first issue really was the photo wasn't very straight so i made corrections using acr to sort out the perspective in the lens section, this is also in light room. behind the girls in the foyer is a bright sunlit window, which grabs attention so i subdued the sunlight lowering the exposure there using an adjustment brush. For the second image I was able to use inline painting to remove a fair bit of the distractions enough to get a large crop.

In another thread on here someone on the hog said that you could use photoshop lasso tool to remove an area and select fill content aware fill to replace the area. This worked fairly well to remove the photographer and the row of chairs I switched to affinity to clone parts of the back wall sometimes just in painting other times extending lines, this was hard using a track pad and it isn't as straight as I would like. It could be done better.

It is very hard to have to work on area's of the subject that are hidden behind objects I did think I wouldn't be able to remove the bottom chair without making a mess of the brides maids feet.

I wasn't there the camera was a phone and i started out with 70KB of image data. Oh and this was my first go at trying to remove objects in a photo. Which image do you prefer the photograph or the painting?

As Shot

(Download)

Adjustment


Artistry