Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Art
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 17 next>>
Jan 11, 2019 05:15:57   #
R.G. (a regular here)
 
joer wrote:
Any generalizations are bound to be wrong some of the time. On what planet do professionals not PP.


That post was all about prioritising. I pointed out that professionals have to prioritise technical standards** whereas the hobbyist doesn't have to dance to that tune if he/she doesn't want to. As far as their profession goes, professional photographers will not prioritise creativity unless their particular profession requires it, whereas many if not most hobbyists will see photography primarily as a creative outlet, and will see PP as an extension of that creative process.

As far as PP goes, I would expect most professionals to be well versed and competent because PP can be used to produce technically superior results.

(** "Professionals have to prioritise technical standards" - OK, that's a generalisation, but how many professionals are going to thrive (or even survive) if their technical standards are seriously lacking?).

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 05:57:09   #
Jimmy T
 
Linda, what an excellent picture!

Most importantly your attitude is one of tolerance, and encouragement, which is a delightfully fresh breeze here on the Ugly Hedgehog site. Thank you!!!
Bravo Zulu, JimmyT Sends.
Linda From Maine wrote:
Agree 100% but these types of conversations on UHH - as you've already seen - don't seem to change anyone's beliefs. There appears to be a large contingent of members who have forgotten how much you could and would "edit" via the wet darkroom, and who are judgmental about anything to do with digital photography outside their narrow personal vision. On the other hand, some folks just like to argue!

I feel fortunate to have connected with several talented members here, early in my membership, who encouraged my exploration in the digital darkroom. Now it's a joyful part of the hobby.

The silhouettes in #1 are all home-made "stamp-brushes" made from my own pics
Agree 100% but these types of conversations on UHH... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:04:23   #
Jeffcs
 
I’m in a photography (camera) club and an image to be in our monthly contest must
Be of the makers own and must have come out of their camera
So it you have a nice landscape without a good sky you can put in a better sky providing you shot the sky and the tree you added must have also come from your camera

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:05:37   #
dave.m
 
this debate is so common and repetitive I almost didn't comment.

For reporting and documentary purposes the major objective is to demonstrate the facts. It would be completely unacceptable to 'doctor' the image to exaggerate what it is intended to show. Other than cropping and maybe improving shadow detail the image should be 'as is'. Attempts to deliberately exaggerate are effectively lying.

That's not to say that such images cannot be emotive and artistic - I think of the iconic image of US marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima among others.

Once you move into artistic interpretation then all constraints are off and the mind's eye of the photographer is all that matters.

Perhaps curiously, both genres have the same objective in the viewer of the image - to 'see' what the photographer saw.

One problem occurs when the latter is passed of as the former. I recently saw some images advertising holidays in Iceland. I've been there, and it does have some of the most stunning scenery in a relatively small land mass. But I can guarantee that the overprocessed, almost HDR image of one huge waterfall, with shadows falling towards the amazing sun and sky, is nothing like that! I guess we probably expect much advertising photography to be economic with the truth. Perhaps indirectly, that is what the SOOC advocates are rebelling against?

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:21:30   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Agree 100% but these types of conversations on UHH - as you've already seen - don't seem to change anyone's beliefs. There appears to be a large contingent of members who have forgotten how much you could and would "edit" via the wet darkroom, and who are judgmental about anything to do with digital photography outside their narrow personal vision. On the other hand, some folks just like to argue!

I feel fortunate to have connected with several talented members here, early in my membership, who encouraged my exploration in the digital darkroom. Now it's a joyful part of the hobby.

The silhouettes in #1 are all home-made "stamp-brushes" made from my own pics
Agree 100% but these types of conversations on UHH... (show quote)


Linda, this is called cognitive dissonance -

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort." - Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

Three cognitive biases in particular are components of dissonance theory. The bias that one does not have any biases, the bias that one is "better, kinder, smarter, more moral, and nicer than average," and confirmation bias. - Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot (2017). "Why We Believe -- Long After We Shouldn't". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (2): 51–53. Retrieved 5 November 2018.

This helps to explain why people hold on to their incorrect beliefs in the face of logic, facts, and alternate explanations.

Or as a good friend of mine used to say, "denial is not just a river in Egypt."

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:25:40   #
billnikon (a regular here)
 
ngrea wrote:
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm about whether post processing removes the pure “art” from photography. It seems some think photography must be SOOC to be “real”.
It seems to me the post processing could be interpreted as being similar to what a painter or sculptor does. Is a blob of paint SOOT (straight out of the tube) more “authentic” than the final painting the artist does? Is the sculpture of less merit than the block of granite?
The color and the granite are both genuine, and can covey a message without manipulation, but the artist that changes them also brings us something from his/her mind and heart that conveys or evokes emotion.
A photograph never captures the view exactly the same as experiencing it in person. It conveys something of the photographers interaction with the scene (think Impressionism). And I enjoy abstract and highly manipulated photos that are completely unidentifiable as to the subject, just as I do an abstract painting.
So, I say let each person do and enjoy and share photography however they want. All approaches are equally valid.
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm ... (show quote)


Art by definition is:
Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (), expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
So, it appears, post secondary processing, is ART.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:33:50   #
R.G. (a regular here)
 
dave.m wrote:
....Perhaps indirectly, that is what the SOOC advocates are rebelling against?


Most if not all SOOC advocates are doing their thinking from a narrow and highly personalised viewpoint. I suspect that most of them have their roots in film where getting it right in camera was not far from being a necessity (at least financially) rather than just being a nice idea. And on top of that, the possibilities for creativity with film were very limited compared to what PP gives us with digital, and in the days of film, creativity in processing was seen by many as a low priority side issue that would be pursued by only a few dedicated and technically capable individuals. As a consequence, anything other than very basic post processing (by today's standards) was generally perceived as a technical extravagance. I suspect that with some people, something of that mind-set persists to this day.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:35:15   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
Bipod wrote:
You've got it backwards: the problem is that post-processing puts art into photography.

I completely agree that it's possible to paint with photography--but I never met a photographer
who had the knowledge and skill to do it well.

On another thread, we just heard from a poster who's solution to a blown sky was to go into
Photoshop and fill that area with blue. Well, that's one way!

There you are, sitting in front of your computer monitor, glazing and tinting an image file.
The scene you photographed is long gone, just a faded memory. And so is your visualization
of that scene. "Hmmm....what do I know about how the sky looks?" you think to yourself.
Aha! It's blue! Problem solved.

Painters have a rather different understanding of the sky--or even of how common, everyday
objects appear in different light. Painters understand the laws of reflection, color mixing,
atmospheric perspective, etc.

Could anyone here have painted the attached painting (by California artist Boyd Gavin)?
Really look at it. We've seen similar objects a million times: salt shaker, ketchup bottle, table top, etc.
But have we ever really looked at them--at how light plays on them?

If not, then we should be extremely cautious about messing around with how objects appear in
image files. The interplay of light is extremely complex, and changes can easily make the
image look unnatural and "wrong". It takes many years to learn how to make a painting look
right.

If you take the image file scanned from this panting and start manipulating it in Photoshop,
the way we so cavalierly do with our photographic images, running "sharpen", altering
highlights and shadows, chances are you will quickly ruin it, making it look odd and unnatural.
A photographer is not a painter, and shouldn't try to be.

In the golden age of "straight photography", processing was limited to dodging shadows and
burning highlights during printing. (Plus occasional bleaching or intensification of a negative.)
This was a conscious choice.

Pictorialist photographers beginning in the 1880s had drawn on their negatives and cut them up
with scissors-- but the straight photography movement on the West Coast in the 1930s shunned
that kind of manipulation. Photography was supposed to be honest, not contrived, and not
an imitation of painting.

The same, humble approach--aware of one's artistic limitations---can be adopted in digital processing.
Unfortunately, software packages like Photoshop offer hundreds of ways to draw on your image file,
paint on your image file, and cut and paste on it. Digital filters like "sharpen" do drastic things
to tone and gradation.

Photography is as much about looking as it is about snapping. But photographers are at their
best when they are doing photography -- not painting, drawing or collaging.. That was the fundamental
insight of the straight photography -- Adams, E. Weston, Strand, Lange, the later Stieglitz, etc--and it's still
true today.

Photographers are at their best with a camera in their hands, not a paint brush or its digital equivalent.
And as the saying goes: "true art is to conceal art."

Boyd Gavin, "Cafe Table". http://boydgavin.com/ https://natsoulas.com/artists/boyd-gavin
You've got it backwards: the problem is that post... (show quote)


An example of "straight" photography from one of the guys you named as an example. So much for the notion that a non-manipulated image is art and one that is manipulated isn't.

The truth is that art can exist at both ends of the spectrum - I have seen amazing artistry with and without processing. While making art without post processing can be harder, that does not make it better - Ken Rockwell, who takes pride in the claiming that his images are straight out of the camera - https://www.kenrockwell.com/. By the same token, post processing beyond what looks good, aka Captain Kimo - https://captainkimo.com/hdr-photography-gallery/, Trey Ratcliffe - https://stuckincustoms.smugmug.com/.

Another way to look at it is to just examine how fine artists have interpreted the world around them - rarely is it photo-realistic, though for a while there has been a movement that does just that - https://www.creativebloq.com/illustration/examples-photorealism-10135012 and some pretty incredible work comes out of that style.

SOOC is NOT the only way to take pictures, but neither is full-tilt post processing. Both are interpretations - and both can be amazing. Both can be obscene aberrations as well.

For the record - I prefer the "highly manipulated" version of Moonrise Over Hernandez below. Though the first un-manipulated image is strong example of exactly what GIRITC really means.

.
SOOC aka unmanipulated Contact Print
SOOC aka unmanipulated Contact Print...
Non-SOOC aka "not 'art' according to some"
Non-SOOC aka "not 'art' according to some"...

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:52:54   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
tdekany wrote:
The end result has nothing to do with what camera was used or what size sensor. A photo either grabs our attention or it doesn’t.

No new vision? What an arrogant statement. And it comes from someone who has posted not a single photo.

Since when are you to speak for the rest of us? Who put you in charge to decide what we like, or what we find original? First of all, you, like any one of us, has seen less than a trace of what is being created daily. Or are you trying to claim that you see very single photo taken every day? I didn’t think so.

And please stop with the camera company BS. Advertising features doesn’t make people think that they are going to become professionals.

All this nonsense, yet no photos from you personally. I wonder why. You will never convince anyone by badmouthing. Haven’t you learned that yet? Let your work speak for itself.
The end result has nothing to do with what camera ... (show quote)


He's just another kind of artist . . .

And best dealt with using this product:

.



| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 06:58:33   #
Jimmy T
 
Gene, I try to learn something new every day, however, this is a lot for one sitting, Haha. I think that your reply to Linda may do me for several days, grin. Also, I couldn't agree more with your findings! JimmyT Sends.
Gene51 wrote:
Linda, this is called cognitive dissonance -

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort." - Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

Three cognitive biases in particular are components of dissonance theory. The bias that one does not have any biases, the bias that one is "better, kinder, smarter, more moral, and nicer than average," and confirmation bias. - Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot (2017). "Why We Believe -- Long After We Shouldn't". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (2): 51–53. Retrieved 5 November 2018.

This helps to explain why people hold on to their incorrect beliefs in the face of logic, facts, and alternate explanations.

Or as a good friend of mine used to say, "denial is not just a river in Egypt."
Linda, this is called cognitive dissonance - br ... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:07:29   #
R.G. (a regular here)
 
dsmeltz wrote:
.....three groups have been at the forefront of moving technology ahead. The defense industry, scientists and artists.......


Now you can include kids playing computer games .

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:12:39   #
anotherview
 
Technology, human imagination, intelligence, experience, skill, and perception meld as one to produce a photographic result.
ngrea wrote:
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm about whether post processing removes the pure “art” from photography. It seems some think photography must be SOOC to be “real”.
It seems to me the post processing could be interpreted as being similar to what a painter or sculptor does. Is a blob of paint SOOT (straight out of the tube) more “authentic” than the final painting the artist does? Is the sculpture of less merit than the block of granite?
The color and the granite are both genuine, and can covey a message without manipulation, but the artist that changes them also brings us something from his/her mind and heart that conveys or evokes emotion.
A photograph never captures the view exactly the same as experiencing it in person. It conveys something of the photographers interaction with the scene (think Impressionism). And I enjoy abstract and highly manipulated photos that are completely unidentifiable as to the subject, just as I do an abstract painting.
So, I say let each person do and enjoy and share photography however they want. All approaches are equally valid.
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm ... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:34:50   #
DebAnn (a regular here)
 
Very well said!
ngrea wrote:
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm about whether post processing removes the pure “art” from photography. It seems some think photography must be SOOC to be “real”.
It seems to me the post processing could be interpreted as being similar to what a painter or sculptor does. Is a blob of paint SOOT (straight out of the tube) more “authentic” than the final painting the artist does? Is the sculpture of less merit than the block of granite?
The color and the granite are both genuine, and can covey a message without manipulation, but the artist that changes them also brings us something from his/her mind and heart that conveys or evokes emotion.
A photograph never captures the view exactly the same as experiencing it in person. It conveys something of the photographers interaction with the scene (think Impressionism). And I enjoy abstract and highly manipulated photos that are completely unidentifiable as to the subject, just as I do an abstract painting.
So, I say let each person do and enjoy and share photography however they want. All approaches are equally valid.
Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm ... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:42:36   #
DanielJDLM
 
The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways. Ansel Adams

Simple.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 07:45:44   #
bbrowner
 
You should do whatever keeps you off the streets at night!

Barry

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 17 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.