bobfitz Loc: Kendall-Miami, Florida

I guess the question is, "Do you want to take pictures or make pictures?" There has always been manipulation in the darkroom. However, digital opens up a whole new universe of possibilities. The lion's share of posts are, at least in my opinion, about photo gear. Gear is a tool...PERIOD. Gear does not help or hinder great photos. you do. Granted, it can make them sharper, closer, wider, etc.. Composites are a reality and here to stay. Are you looking for a perfect composition with artistic value or a documentation of the split second that you took the photo? All the new cameras offer high frames per second. Is this any different? I have been a Photoshop user since 1992 and a film shooter since1962. Digital compositing and all of the other benefits of digital are fantastic and I say that now at age 80.

User ID

The broad general hobbyist approach to shooting slides is as you present it, not very different from shooting sooc jpegs.

But as a verrry heavy slide produce I/we "worked" slides the way one "works" negs or digital files. I shot miles of E6. No one outside the operation EVER saw unworked original slides. Over 90% of these slides were for projection, the larger chromes were for publication.

Speaking of publication, most print media professionals did shoot chromes, but not for projection. Chromes destined for publication are also "worked" by the color separator in the prepress stage. The choice of inks, papers, plates, etc further works the chromes.

The professional use of chromes is waaaaay different than the making of sooc jpegs.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

I have been a long time photographer. I love playing in photoshop and making composites, adding things and creating a different image.
Here are some of my composites.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

=============================================================

My .02¢ For What it is Worth...

It all boils down to "Honesty," and Integrity as an Art Form.

If you are going to do "Photography" then do single photographs which are 'developed' with the objective of presenting the "Image" with the perception, mood, and 'likeness' which was viewed at the "time of capture"
....... Yes, it is a matter of 'interpretation' of the subject as presented at the time...

Merriam-Webster Definition
photography (N)
... ": the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)"

NOTE: Nowhere is the above does it mention, "adding" elements such as a "Moon" or a "Bird" or does it mention the "removing" of elements such as "People," "Towers" or "Light Poles" ... you get the picture...

NOW ~~ Let's visit the definition of ...

Merriam-Webster Definition
graphic design (N)
... ": the art or profession of using design elements (such as typography and images) to convey information or create an effect...

Notice that the above 'Graphic Desing' says: the ... using... of images... to convey .. information

It is my humble opinion..... When "Images" are sandwiched, or images are edited to 'remove' or 'add' elements... that falls into the category of "Graphic Design" and not Photography

What I am saying is "Graphic Design" is NOT equal to "Photography"

In many, many cases, the photographic artist will spend excessive amounts of time, money, energy, and effort, to find that "just so right location with the 'right light' and having the right mood, and then have the skills to know how to use their professional ability to know how to use the camera to 'capture' the moment in 'one image'

There in lies the difference.......

NOW..... For me yes, the art of Graphic Design is a skill and takes good talent... But, what I disdain the most is when individuals 'throw out an image' without regard to distinction or clarification, and they sit back, and 'absorb' the 'accolades' of just what a wonderful person they are to be able to 'capture' such rare moment in a single photograph.......

NO ~~ in many instances, it is "Graphic Design" and they wish to present it as a photograph...

The above is "ONLY MY OPINION".....
... All others are surely welcome to there's
...... And this is why we call them both art forms, BUT - they are NOT one and the same.

That is My .02¢

Cheers
George Veazey

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

Not exactly my style, but these are attention-grabbing shots. Good work.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

I certainly agree that there is a line (somewhere) between a photograph and an artistic graphic design; I think that line varies between individuals, as you noted.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

Thanks so much. The camera club I belong to has a creative competition. I use these kinds of images and sometimes get a good score.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To quote Ansel Adams, "You don't take a photograph, you make it." I think this applies to development and printing techniques not adding something that wasn't there.

I have seen an AA print wherein there was a good deal of retouching to remove some large letters placed on a hillside.
--Bob

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

He may have said that, but I still “take” them, exactly as they are, utility wires and all.

birdseyeview Loc: Indiana

you seem to have added a lot of depth to the photo with that technique.
I can't see any thing wrong with that.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

If it’s presented as Art - then it’s not relevant how it was made or if it resembles any reality at all. Add remove objects, lighten or darken, paint in it directly… - it’s a work of art.

If it’s presented as news then I expect it to be faithful to the actual scene photographed. Shadows can be lightened and highlights darkened - or any other editing for that matter as long as the scene is faithfully reproduced.

MJPerini

In my opinion,
Compositing is just a technique, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
It moves the RESULT from Photograph to Photo-Illustration both of which are again totally valid.
Overriding all that, is Context and Honesty. In Reportage , Documentary and some scientific types there are often clear rules, for good reason.
For Personal work, pretty much anything goes, you are the artist, make yourself Happy.
For work that is shown or offered for sale, I think Honesty about the process you chose to use is paramount.
That allows Viewers/ purchasers to decide if it matters to them.
In the pictures offered above I really like #3. You were there, you made the exposures seconds apart and presented them in an Artistic Value added way, but would expect to be told it was a composite.

At the same time I feel less comfortable with things like Sky replacement--- adding elements that weren't there when you were there so to speak. Even though they would also be 'Compositites'
But that might not be true for others. So I think the bottom line is Honest description is the most important thing.

User ID

I checked out some pix in your archive. Now I fully understand your post here.