Digital Enhancement?
Sep 3, 2015 15:36:49 #
Photographer Jim wrote:
From my position as one who creates artistic image... (show quote)
My original suggestion was not to mark any work. It was to be a reference - with no manipulation called a photo or with manipulation called a pic. Not well received so.......
Sep 3, 2015 15:39:17 #
oldtigger wrote:
thats just fine with me, more power too them that can do both as long as they understand its two different schools.
Looking at the big picture (no pun intended) who cares!!
As I have stated ad nauseam, a photo is a photo, manipulated, non manipulated, it is a photo. If it bothers you that you think someone is "cheating" when presenting
a photo, that is your problem.
I have taken thousands of photographs over my 50 years in the hobby. I print, matte and frame them myself and give them away to friends and family. Not once has anyone questioned me on my "ethics". Some of my friends are lifelong photographers. They either like or dislike a photo. They realize that it is the end product that counts.
There are very few "rules" in photography, and those rules are to be broken at will.
It is one of the most expressive vehicles out there and does not need to be stifled in any manner!!
Sep 3, 2015 15:39:46 #
pfrancke wrote:
YES. But even then there would be cheating. Hardware and encryption is the only way to do such systemically. And then the only cheating would be "staging" the scene.
In the old days of japan, a noteworthy painting would be submitted to a panel of masters who would add their comments and affix their signatures on the painting border itself. They became a part of the painting.
You've posted a couple photos i would be happy to scribble my name on for you if you'ld like.
Sep 3, 2015 15:50:27 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
oldtigger wrote:
thats just fine with me, more power too them that can do both as long as they understand its two different schools.
No, it's all the same school. If you're not great at both, you're not as good as you could be.
Sep 3, 2015 15:51:22 #
randomeyes wrote:
Looking at the big picture (no pun intended) who ... (show quote)
I hope that you don't think that I would wish to stifle any part of the art. I wished only that, through introducing a section type, to inform as to what techniques had been used.
Sep 3, 2015 15:53:13 #
Delderby wrote:
I hope that you don't think that I would wish to stifle any part of the art. I wished only that, through introducing a section type, to inform as to what techniques had been used.
What difference does that make? That is silly - If you want to learn new techniques, there are books, videos, classes to take.
Sep 3, 2015 15:53:53 #
TheDman wrote:
No, it's all the same school. If you're not great at both, you're not as good as you could be.
There is no such thing as post-processing in my view. It is all processing that leads to the final result which me is a print and that is what matters. I see it as a continuum with no stopping point along the way at which I can subdivide the process. The end result for me is a print that is usually my visualization at the starting point of the process which is exposing in camera.
Sep 3, 2015 15:55:14 #
oldtigger wrote:
In the old days of japan, a noteworthy painting would be submitted to a panel of masters who would add their comments and affix their signatures on the painting border itself. They became a part of the painting.
I didn't know that - that is such a cool concept - method of endorsement that they used. While in the Western world, it is a signature. That custom speaks volumes.
Sep 3, 2015 15:59:07 #
Delderby wrote:
I hope that you don't think that I would wish to stifle any part of the art. I wished only that, through introducing a section type, to inform as to what techniques had been used.
It is never a requirement for an artist to disclose his technique, but when they do... I LOVE it!!!!
Sep 3, 2015 16:37:47 #
Probably the best answer, and one that Elderby is considering as well.
:thumbup:
Photographer Jim wrote:
From my position as one who creates artistic image... (show quote)
:thumbup:
Sep 3, 2015 22:15:53 #
Yes, digital photographs carry EXIF information with them, telling much about the given photograph. But I understand the EXIF information can be removed from a photograph.
Others more checked out could discuss this subject more informatively.
Others more checked out could discuss this subject more informatively.
pfrancke wrote:
Isn't there metadata present in image files that p... (show quote)
Sep 4, 2015 01:56:00 #
tdekany wrote:
What difference does that make? That is silly - If you want to learn new techniques, there are books, videos, classes to take.
That post was badly worded - I did not mean to suggest that the photographer artist should reveal / describe their methods. By "technique" I meant only with or without manipulation. Put another way - Original or Doctored.
PS putting the "s" on "technique" was a typo.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.