SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

“Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
~~Albert Einstein

--

We all have different opinions, different skills, and different preferences. So, push what you've got as far as you can, and don't worry about what someone else is doing.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

You do realize all digital photographs are manipulated, whether in camera manipulation or computer manipulation. This was not the case in the film days, what came out of the camera was film that was developed into a negative and as long as no manipulation was done when developing a print then you had a true image of what was taken. Today the in camera processing (computer in your camera) are making a pre determination of what your image should look like. If I shot an image with my Sony camera and then shot the same image with my Nikon camera using similar lens and all the settings were the same on each camera and shot in JPEG the end image from each camera would look different as far as color balance. Each manufacturer decides what image quality is right for their camera and programs the in camera computer to those specifications.

coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA

And in film, it had been manipulated (perhaps not on purpose) as soon as it came out of the developer -- film choice, developer temperature, developer, development time.

dualimages Loc: Mt. Airy, Maryland

Photography, at least beyond the pure snapshot realm, has always been a form of art (although, in the early days, that recognition was slow to develop). It is a process, one of many, by which art can be created. I don't see where that has changed in the era of the computer.

You have the "pure" photograph as it comes from the camera (some manipulation from life has probably already taken place...objects rearranged or removed, lighting adjusted, etc.). This 'from the camera image' may be all the photographer was looking for, what they were seeing, what they captured and what they get when they simply hit the print button. That is undoubtedly a "photograph" as conceived and as it has been understood historically.

It used to be we went into the darkroom and would use various procedures or techniques to make "corrections" to the images or to "improve" them. This was really a form of what we now refer to as 'post-processing'. This was still considered to be an original photograph.

I would think that post-processing by computer, minimally done, would still be considered an original photograph. Any type of traditional manipulation of the image would seem to also leave the photo in the realm of the original photograph.

The main difference lies in that the computer allows us to do so much more with the photo, to give it an entirely different look and to seemingly change its very form and integrity. And the question asked here is..is it still a photograph?

We definitely have a lot more options in what we do with our photos. They can be given the appearance of canvas paintings, watercolors, etchings and so much more. In so doing, they would seem to become something other than pure or original photographs.

Does that devalue them or make them any less important than the original photograph? I don't think so. It seems simply to make them different.

We generally consider photography to be an art form (at least when the photographer is attempting to use it in that fashion). Art allows us to use all kinds of mediums and methods to express what we see or what we feel. There are all kinds of allowances there. Shouldn't photography in the computer age have the same freedom?

For years, painters have sometimes used photographs to guide them in the creation of their paintings. They may travel to sight and paint but they sometimes also take photos to work from in their studio. They are using the photograph to assist in capturing the image they see in their medium of choice. The photographer, using post processing techniques, is at least partially, following that same pattern. They may not be as aware of what they are actually doing as the painter is, perhaps even to the point that they are just fooling around until they find something they like. But, conceptually at least, they are still accomplishing by computer pretty much what the conventional artist is accomplishing by brush or chisel or whatever tool they use in their work.

Please understand that I am not saying the two processes (OR their finished product) are equivalent. They are not. What they are is different. They are different and the results are different. It is also my belief that the artist working with the brush REQUIRES a much higher level of natural talent than the photographer working with a computer post-processing program. Of course, to be fair, it would also appear that a certain skill set would be a requirement for the photographer doing these heavier post-processing tasks (and doing them well) by computer than the brush artist would need in his work.

Perhaps what we really need is to invent a new term that refers to traditionally produced photographs that have been heavily post-processed and which have taken on an entirely new aura. Let's see now. Camograph? Poprograph? Maybe there is a term already in use?

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Right, all those could add to individualistic photographs. What I believe in is the photographers eye, if it looks like what he/she saw when looking in the viewfinder, then it is as close to perfect for that person. If the photographer wishes to modify it from its so called natural state it is art, as that is not what he/she saw, but imagined what it should have been. Either way the camera was the tool as well as a computer and he/she should not have to apologize for it. How many people went to Yosemite expecting to see what Ansel Adams created in a photograph, but we all enjoy his work.

Kimbee Loc: Dunedin, Florida, USA

Excellent and well thought-out response. You are spot on.

Mercer Loc: Houston, TX, USA

I believe photography begins and ends in the heart, brain and soul of the photographer. The equipment is secondary.

fthomas Loc: Philippines

A photograph (sensors reacting to luminance in the scene in the R,G,B realm converted to numerical values) is not the same as how pan chromatic films reacted to color. Film hoped to react and replicate how the eye see's a scene and the eye can handle 30 f stops compared to digital or film. I do not believe a bad photograph can be made great simply by post processing! Are we taking images for the sake of PP? If so I believe we are following the wrong path.

Even the use of Unsharp Mask does not sharpen an image, but uses a process to increase the contrast between pixels that was invented in 1930 and called the "Cornsweet Method", after the inventor in a black and white darkroom method using an out of focus copy to create the perception of sharpness.

It is my desire to create an image from the point the shutter is released that through knowledgable post processing will be enhanced and the viewer will have a similar emotional response to it that I did. Carrying my artistic vision forward.

If it is a poor image going in it will be poor coming out. All of the post processing in the world cannot make it a better photograph. It may cross the line into the realms of painting, etc. but is it then still a photograph?

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

It is not a painting. So in your analogy Ansel Adams was not a photographer.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

jerryc41,

To add a touch more to your statement.

It is true you cannot make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear. But, you cannot make a silk purse without post processing the raw silk from the worm.

Michael G

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

:thumbup: :thumbup:

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Is the object to document what your eye has seen, or to create an image that is most pleasing to look at? I vote for the most pleasing!

RiverNan Loc: Eastern Pa

there is photo art and photo journalism
art is an expression...the camera and computer the tools

in photojournalism I should think the image should be pretty much straight out of the box...

cropped


abstract play try it ...its fun

RiverNan Loc: Eastern Pa

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

CraigB Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Some of the greatest photographers spent a huge amount of their time in the darkroom to "create" the image they wanted. Now, how is this any different than using our electronic darkroom? Except a whole lot easier and safer.