I've Had a Slight Change of Mind (Page 7): Replacing the sky is a step too far for me. Putting a Maui sunset sky taken by someone else on a picture you took of a waterfall in New York...

mdoing

Replacing the sky is a step too far for me. Putting a Maui sunset sky taken by someone else on a picture you took of a waterfall in New York is perhaps an exaggeration, but in my mind is no longer a photograph or particularly your photograph. Might be art, I guess.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

rmalarz wrote:

One of our members, Steve R, posited that technique has disappeared. He was referring to the discussions involving technique. It seems that the technique has been replaced with which camera and software will provide one with the satisfaction of creating a notable photograph. I've observed that trend myself but not really given much thought to that occurrence. Most notably, I've been opposed to Luminar's claim to fame of replacing skies, etc.

Up until recently, I was completely opposed to substituting incredible skies into a landscape photograph, etc. I prefer to capture what's there. If what I want isn't there, I'm not disingenuous to 'fake' it. I liken it to say one is going fishing and upon not catching anything, going to a fresh fish store, and purchasing a large fish to return home and announce oneself as a great fisherman to have brought this wonderful dinner home.

Well, I've had a change of heart. I can see where there is a good cause for substituting skies, or any other background, in a photograph. This change was due to viewing a commercial photographer's work. The subject was shot in a studio and then an incredible and related background was placed in the photograph.

In this photographer's case, these are commercial photographs. They are done for pay, a sizable payment to say the least, and done with a time limit. They would be impossible to accomplish with the deadline given, people's schedules, etc. To say nothing of having nature cooperate with the ideal weather for a backdrop. So, in these cases, it is quite acceptable to produce a product photograph as quickly as possible.

Now, to the average person who wants to be a photographer. There is the knowledge that is needed to produce a successful and pleasing photograph. Today's cameras and associated software remove a great deal of the burden of photographic knowledge and simply reduce a good many to being merely camera operators. Ask yourself, if you didn't take that path, or continue to look for that path. It comes down to whether you wish to be a photographer or a mere button pusher. The choice is yours.

You can't purchase talent. You can, anyone can develop talent if they are willing to invest in learning the necessary skills as a foundation and then continuing to build on those skills. The results will be far more satisfying than just mastering which button to push. Kodak used to have an advertising expression, "You push the button. We do the rest". If photography and photographic art were that simple, why didn't the notable photographers resort to letting Kodak do the rest?

So, it comes down to whether you want to be a photographer or just a button pusher? One will produce photographs. The other will be entangled in a constant search for the "next best thing" that will propel them to the heights of photographic accomplishments they couldn't achieve on their own.
--Bob

One of our members, Steve R, posited that techniqu... (show quote)

Hi Bob sorry the late reply wow already 6 pages!

Replacing backgrounds is common in the film and TV industry where the actors perform in front of a green screen and the background is added later. A common use in TV is the weather woman standing in front of a big map. That map is not there when it’s recorded.

Funny aside my buddy told me they were using a blue screen one day the actress showed up in a blue dress.

Somebody had to tell her she needed to change the dress. She became angry 😡 didn’t want to do it. I guess there was a big scene. Ultimately she changed her dress.

Anyway it has been a common thing for quite a while. So that technology has been evolving and it’s available for purchase by the masses.

Is it good or bad? I say it depends on how it’s used.

Does a calculator make a student less proficient at math or enable greater things? The answer depends on the student.

So this leads to the bigger question since digital images require processing are computer and graphic arts skills part of the art? If so then the definition of “photographer” just got a lot wider. If not then tools to save time are acceptable.

Myself I’m not planning to run off and buy AI software to change sky’s. But for those who do that’s fine, it stimulates the economy and maybe some people will have some fun.

Now if there was something to change the background around a models hair....I might be interested. 😅

I am open to things that save me time behind the computer so I can spend more time as the nut behind the lens.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

goldstar46 wrote:

---------------------- br br I would respectfull... (show quote)

Congratulations on retiring from law enforcement. Regrettably there are some who think being honest and law enforcement are oxymorons.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't like this notion of "disclosure". If you present a photo and say it's a single photo when it isn't, that is fakery and dishonest. But if you present a composite image without comment, that is not fakery. Composite photographs have been part of photography since its very start, and they have always been considered part of photography and not graphic arts. It's just easier now with digital than is was in the darkroom. Is a photograph presented without comment automatically assumed to be SOOC unless it is disclosed to be something else? Should SOOCers be required to disclose what JPEG settings the SOOC image used? I'm proud to be a photographer who sometimes makes composite photographs, and sometimes does post processing which make the image appear differently than my eyes saw it, and I don't like people who presume to say I am not a photographer but a graphic artist.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. As for the question you pose, I'm sure they would have liked or not liked the styles.

The point was that these artists did their own work. They didn't rely on AI (sorry to use the term) to produce their work. They did the work.
--Bob

SkyKing wrote:

...welcome to the new world...I wonder what Rembrandt would have thought of Monet and Lichtenstein...it’s all good...can’t wait to see what you have in store for us...!

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

traderjohn wrote:

Congratulations on retiring from law enforcement. Regrettably there are some who think being honest and law enforcement are oxymorons.

Tks very much Trader

Cheers
GeoVz
####

JD750 Loc: SoCal

JohnSwanda wrote:

I don't like this notion of "disclosure"... (show quote)

There is a grey area here followed by a slippery slope. John I believe that goldstsr46 covered that as follows:
“In reality, a lie continues when one someone allows facts to go forward without full disclosure of all of the information. Giving someone half the truth, without presenting all the facts, is the same as LIE.“.

Just because many people do it that does not change what it is.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

rmalarz wrote:

Portraiture is done to please a client. Adding a sky that wasn't there is a different situation all together. Even if it pleases the photographer, it's disingenuous.
--Bob

When I replaced the gray sky in my waterfall picture with a blue sky that had to be fakery and extremely unrealistic because I'm sure that particular small area of the USA never has a blue sky. Or if it does have a blue sky at times I should have planned another vacation to that area when conditions were better. What was I thinking? We should always be true to ourselves regardless of the cost or inconvenience. Yes, I'm being facetious.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

JD750 wrote:

There is a grey area here followed by a slippery slope. John I believe that goldstsr46 covered that as follows:
“In reality, a lie continues when one someone allows facts to go forward without full disclosure of all of the information. Giving someone half the truth, without presenting all the facts, is the same as LIE.“.

Just because many people do it that does not change what it is.

-------
You NAILED it JD

Spon on. -- "With holding some of the facts.... Which result in a false impression is still a LIE....

Cheers
GEOVz
Xxxx

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There are no rules for good photographs, great photographs have just one: the photoshop work is exquisite.

Abo

rmalarz wrote:

One of our members, Steve R, posited that technique has disappeared. He was referring to the discussions involving technique. It seems that the technique has been replaced with which camera and software will provide one with the satisfaction of creating a notable photograph. I've observed that trend myself but not really given much thought to that occurrence. Most notably, I've been opposed to Luminar's claim to fame of replacing skies, etc.

Up until recently, I was completely opposed to substituting incredible skies into a landscape photograph, etc. I prefer to capture what's there. If what I want isn't there, I'm not disingenuous to 'fake' it. I liken it to say one is going fishing and upon not catching anything, going to a fresh fish store, and purchasing a large fish to return home and announce oneself as a great fisherman to have brought this wonderful dinner home.

Well, I've had a change of heart. I can see where there is a good cause for substituting skies, or any other background, in a photograph. This change was due to viewing a commercial photographer's work. The subject was shot in a studio and then an incredible and related background was placed in the photograph.

In this photographer's case, these are commercial photographs. They are done for pay, a sizable payment to say the least, and done with a time limit. They would be impossible to accomplish with the deadline given, people's schedules, etc. To say nothing of having nature cooperate with the ideal weather for a backdrop. So, in these cases, it is quite acceptable to produce a product photograph as quickly as possible.

Now, to the average person who wants to be a photographer. There is the knowledge that is needed to produce a successful and pleasing photograph. Today's cameras and associated software remove a great deal of the burden of photographic knowledge and simply reduce a good many to being merely camera operators. Ask yourself, if you didn't take that path, or continue to look for that path. It comes down to whether you wish to be a photographer or a mere button pusher. The choice is yours.

You can't purchase talent. You can, anyone can develop talent if they are willing to invest in learning the necessary skills as a foundation and then continuing to build on those skills. The results will be far more satisfying than just mastering which button to push. Kodak used to have an advertising expression, "You push the button. We do the rest". If photography and photographic art were that simple, why didn't the notable photographers resort to letting Kodak do the rest?

So, it comes down to whether you want to be a photographer or just a button pusher? One will produce photographs. The other will be entangled in a constant search for the "next best thing" that will propel them to the heights of photographic accomplishments they couldn't achieve on their own.
--Bob

One of our members, Steve R, posited that techniqu... (show quote)

I agree that less photographic technical skill is required today than 30 or 40 years ago.
And that technical skill is an asset.

Imho though, any no talent dummy can master the technical requirements of operating
a camera.

In broad brush strokes only 3 or 4 things need to be understood (vis a vis technical requirements).
The "Exposure Triangle"... that's 3 things covered.
And 4, how aperture effects depth of field.

Unless images are just documentary or for evidence, one
could be the best photographic technician on the planet;
but without originality, creativity, art...
the photos are not worth 2 seconds
of viewing time.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

pithydoug wrote:

Rather than changing skies one friend does graduation Photos offers differing a catalog backgrounds. Rather than use the some one size fits all, he provides a catalog of backgrounds and they choose from. For females more than males as they can "match" their dress/hair/etc. Shoots in general with something usable for most but allowing choice.

It seems the precedence has been set for anything.

...and doing a job like this requires skills. Computer skills that have to be learned and practiced. A good example of how our "Activity" is multi-faceted...or not, depending on the outcome the artist is after. I often will be taking a shot and before clicking the shutter have made decisions about post processing...that requires skill and knowledge on a number of levels. Point is, if you've never taken the time to learn how to do something you simply don't have the *experience* (read: skills); and commenting negatively to whatever artist renderings result are a product of ignorance. (<shrug>) Surely, art in any form generates like and dislike, that comes with the territory, but the road taken to creation shouldn't be looked down upon. Why? It's one thing to cover up mistakes (which, as a carpenter/woodworker I am absolutely an expert at...), quite another to have the chops to blend different photos into a stunning piece. Look at any given infrared effort and you will see a TON of post processing, all requiring several trips down the black hole of infrared...all to provide the viewer what the artist/photographer wanted to show in the first place. There's room for all, why not relax and enjoy each-other's work?

russraman Loc: New York City

Would Rembrandt have used a “paint-by-numbers” paint set? How would that have worked out?

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

rmalarz wrote:

Good one. There is one photograph I've been wanting to make since I found the location I wanted. I've been there three times and the situation wasn't what I wanted. I'll go back again when things open up a bit. The plague has restricted some locations I want to photograph.
--Bob

That's one reason I choose to live in an RV. I can park somewhere and live comfortably for days, waiting for the right sky, light, shadow, mood etc. It has worked for me very well for several years now. It doesn't answer all the potential problems but it helps tremendously.

srt101fan

JD750 wrote:

There is a grey area here followed by a slippery slope. John I believe that goldstsr46 covered that as follows:
“In reality, a lie continues when one someone allows facts to go forward without full disclosure of all of the information. Giving someone half the truth, without presenting all the facts, is the same as LIE.“.

Just because many people do it that does not change what it is.

Can we turn this whole question around, accept processed/manipulated photos as the new default, and demand that SOOC photographers disclose that they have not processed/manipulated their photos? 😕