Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
At what point does photography end?
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
Aug 9, 2013 13:03:31   #
Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC
 
This was my first attempt, what do you think?

Photographer Jim wrote:
I simply cannot agree that if an image is processed to have a painterly feel that it loses "true meaning", and feel that statement is very much a gross over-generalization at the very least. In fact, I would submit that there are definitely times when the exact opposite is true, and that PP to get a painterly effect may strongly add to the "meaning" of the image.

As an example, I sell a number of images of old cars and trucks. Each has been very pain-stakenly hand processed using a digital tablet, to have textures similar to water colors or pastel chalks in some areas. I do this intentionally to help establish the nostalgic component (true meaning?) of the image. I believe that the stark reality of the original photo has a tendency to jar people back into the here-and-now for these subjects. I want them to experience the image in a manner more "out of current time", and the addition of painted texture or color helps me to accomplish this.
I simply cannot agree that if an image is processe... (show quote)

How is this one
How is this one...

Reply
Aug 9, 2013 13:27:29   #
Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC
 
Original.

Photographer Jim wrote:
I simply cannot agree that if an image is processed to have a painterly feel that it loses "true meaning", and feel that statement is very much a gross over-generalization at the very least. In fact, I would submit that there are definitely times when the exact opposite is true, and that PP to get a painterly effect may strongly add to the "meaning" of the image.

As an example, I sell a number of images of old cars and trucks. Each has been very pain-stakenly hand processed using a digital tablet, to have textures similar to water colors or pastel chalks in some areas. I do this intentionally to help establish the nostalgic component (true meaning?) of the image. I believe that the stark reality of the original photo has a tendency to jar people back into the here-and-now for these subjects. I want them to experience the image in a manner more "out of current time", and the addition of painted texture or color helps me to accomplish this.
I simply cannot agree that if an image is processe... (show quote)

Original before manipulation.
Original before manipulation....

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 05:59:55   #
infocus Loc: Australia
 
Mason Jar wrote:
At what point does photography end and computer "animation" begin? I ask only because there is some mention of photoshop or other editing software daily in this forum. It seems that today even a "bad" picture can be made good by a person on a computer. A graphic arts degree in hand can aid that photo in becoming a great picture. Presently there are courts that will no longer accept photographic evidence due to the ability of a photoshop artist in manipulating the evidence. Why is it we spend as much if not more to buy a computer and software to edit the art we created or better yet captured on "film" or actually digital memory card and a box of circuits and resistors?
At what point does photography end and computer &q... (show quote)


Quote "Why is it we spend as much if not more to buy a computer and software to edit the art we created or better yet captured on "film" or actually digital memory card and a box of circuits and resistors?"

I would suggest for the same reason we built our own darkrooms and enlarged and cropped our photos and used
dodging and burning and "double overlay masking" to create our own "masterpiece" in the days of film, bromide papers (all the different varieties of that). Software and computers do what enlargers, various papers, and many darkroom "techniques" used to do.

Reply
 
 
Aug 10, 2013 06:38:07   #
dwightdills Loc: Charlotte, Tn.
 
I truly believe that when I go to shoot an image, not only do I want that image to be the best out of the box, but to also be able to use that image to create a breathtaking piece of art if I choose to do so.

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 06:48:18   #
DJ Mills Loc: Idaho
 
Nobody manipulates more than Hollywood, but we love what they do and call it art.
DJM

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 06:53:31   #
Dlevon Loc: New Jersey
 
dooragdragon wrote:
Very well said and I agree 100%, cropping and red eye removal and a contrast adjustment if that's all that's spoiling the photo.
Once a photo starts to look like a painting it loses its true meaning.


Then there's the painters that try to make their paintings looks like photographs! With accolades, they are called superb artist technicians! Maybe we should call those that postprocess, superb photo technicians!

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 07:01:15   #
kit_kit Loc: NYC
 
This thread has prompted me to try some extreme pp.

Before
Before...

After
After...

Reply
 
 
Aug 10, 2013 07:50:44   #
profpb Loc: Venice, Florida
 
Opinions are like Photo(graphs) and art. They are unlimited!

Accept or ignore at your option. But war is not going to change anything. Nor will it ever end.

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 07:53:02   #
mborn Loc: Massachusetts
 
profpb wrote:
Opinions are like Photo(graphs) and art. They are unlimited!

Accept or ignore at your option. But war is not going to change anything. Nor will it ever end.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 08:07:32   #
coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA
 
dwightdills wrote:
I truly believe that when I go to shoot an image, not only do I want that image to be the best out of the box, but to also be able to use that image to create a breathtaking piece of art if I choose to do so.


That's a great goal and one I heartily endorse. Just tell me, though, what setting do you use on your camera to keep it from recording utility wires?

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 08:36:49   #
David Popham Loc: French Creek, British Columbia
 
dooragdragon wrote:
Once a photo starts to look like a painting it loses its true meaning.

How so? You have made a strong assertion without any supporting arguments. What does "true meaning" mean to you?

Reply
 
 
Aug 10, 2013 08:42:38   #
Mason Jar Loc: Mason, OH
 
Thanks so much to all for expressing your opinions in a civilized manner without too much baiting! Bruce, your opposite opinion proves my point, the addition of a whole new set of rules is needed. Wall-E, I prefer the straight out of the camera as a photograph. If I want or find it necessary to have a painted version than the choice is obvious. It depends on what you want to accomplish. I understand the concepts of 2 tools, but there are painters that can do wonders in oil, but fail miserably with watercolor! I prefer only basic editing, red eye, light variation, etc. too much manipulation changes a photo into something completely different (IMHO). A great carpenter who stinks at drywall and finishing is no less an artist at what he does no matter the tools. I love to take a picture, but really don't enjoy computer manipulation. That doesn't make me any more or less an artist. Again THANKS TO ALL!

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 08:47:57   #
Mason Jar Loc: Mason, OH
 
coolhoosier wrote:
That's a great goal and one I heartily endorse. Just tell me, though, what setting do you use on your camera to keep it from recording utility wires?


Do what I do. Tell everyone that the objective was to capture the true art involved in routing those utilities to the masses. The other stuff is just background I chose not to edit out! lol! Great inputs, Thanks!

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 08:50:41   #
turp77 Loc: Connecticut, Plainfield
 
I totally agree with you Bruce Post processing has been around as long as Photography! Look at Ansel Adams photo of "El Capitan" he worked on that photo for years until it was what he wanted. Yes even the great Ansel didn't get it right in camera and needed Post processing.
Brucej67 wrote:
The computer has taken the place of the dark room in the film days. Not everyone owned a darkroom and those that did not sent their exposed film out for development. When other labs developed your film some did not do any touch up on the prints other labs did (I used National Color Lab who did some processing on my behalf). I also owned a B&W darkroom had a Bessler enlarger and many other equipment in my dark room, I did post processing (dodge, burn, un-sharpen mask and many other dark room procedures). My point being is that todays photography is no different than yesteryear photography in respect to procedure, those that don't want to PP usually shoot in JPEG those that want to PP usually shoot in RAW (which is a negative unprocessed), however unlike having a negative to enlarge and print in a darkroom we use the computer to do the work, or take your card containing JPEG's to a Cosco, walmart or someplace else to have someone else do it for you.
The computer has taken the place of the dark room ... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 10, 2013 08:54:56   #
obeone
 
I would have to disagree. The true meaning of a photograph is "what ever the photographer is trying to say." As for make a bad photograph a good photograph with a computer - I like the computer adage - Garbage IN, Garbage OUT.
I always try to get the best photo possible in camera, only because it means less work later. But, if I see a way to better show what I 'm trying to say, then I'll go to the computer. I just won't try to tell anyone it wasn't manipulated.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.