Debate: When is Photography not Photography anymore?

[hankbeblazin]

i took K1W1's suggestion and made a thread out of this. i would love to hear opinions.

when is it photography, and when is it picture manipulation? i can understand lightening, cloning out a pole, adjusting colors, and so on. when people start manipulating wrinkles, bad backrounds, and totally changing someone's appearance does that constitute as photography?

does anyone else have a problem with this.

[Spookonthe8ball]

i took K1W1's suggestion and made a thread out of this. i would love to hear opinions.

when is it photography, and when is it picture manipulation? i can understand lightening, cloning out a pole, adjusting colors, and so on. when people start manipulating wrinkles, bad backrounds, and totally changing someone's appearance does that constitute as photography?

does anyone else have a problem with this.

I like genuine photos the best. I do enjoy people displaying their artistry going the other way. It is still photography, although with addendums of our modern age.
Case in point I was thinking of had a nice post processing, but the poster also displayed the original. I liked both, but the original still had the feeling of a great image. Overall, I like good photos taken with any camera that get that wonderful image feeling.
Spook

[Rooz]

hmmm "have a problem with this" is probably not the right terminology to me. cos i don't have a "problem" no matter how much PP is done. in fact i think PP is an artform in itself. but thats not the real debate here is suppose.

when is it not photography....hmmm....so many questions in so many contexts that imo its impossible to have a clear definition of when it starts and ceases being photography. everyone will have their own version of the definition and erveyonewill have their own line where once crossed, it ceases to become photography.

let me pose some questions...

RAW:
ok the most basic and common one. how many times do we hear people say "shoot in RAW cos you can change it much easier in PP." like WB and exposure especially. are these not, (especially expsoure), absolutely key points of photography ?

Cropping:
if we all agree that composition is a critical factor of photography, then how much manipulation can be done by cropping to improve the actual composition itself.

HDR:
combining 3 images on a computer and manipulating the levels to a point where the original image is actually pisspoor compared to a HDR version.

Conversions:
so many. sepia, B&W are the basics. but how many presets do we see now ? whether they be a desat, lomo effect, thta hi contrast urban feel. all of these can dramatically change the tone, context and feel of an image. so where do we draw the line on this one ?

Selective colour:
i'm a big fan, but again...you are picking one piece of the photo to colorise and the rest B&W to highlight it. once could argue that the phiotographers skill should be able to draw the eye to that point.

Changing proportions:
this is similar to what TDI (?) did with his picture. manipulating the image by stretching/ lengthening it. sure it slightly changed the body form of his wife but the real beauty of the image was the lighting, the composition, the pose, the rich colours. the silk shirt which fits the oppulant feel of the bedding.

Combining 2 or more images:
the obvious one is multiplicity. the less obvious is where for example...you take a picture of the moon recording all its detail and then insert it into another landscape pic to get the expsoure for the moon and the landscape in the same shot.

Cloning:
where we clone OUT something we don;t think fits the original image or we repair something, (like an ugly mark on a flower or a pimple on a face.)

these are just off the top of my head a few manipulations we do in PP. there would be many more. where do you draw the line ? who draws the line ? on what basis is the line drawn and by what criteria and rules ?

this is a really interesting topic imo. i hope we get some discussion going on it. :)

[Rooz]

I like genuine photos the best.

ahhh...see spook my friend. THAT'S the actual debate. :)

what is a genuine photo ? what PP is "permissable" before it is considered no longer "genuine" ?

[Screenclutter]

My thoughts:

RAW-I can't be bothered and I don't have Photoshop. I'm more of a "volume" photographer, takes tons of photos, and some are bound to be okay.

Cropping-I would do this to make it fit as a desktop background.

HDR-I have no clue what this is.

Conversions, Selective colour-Can't be bothered.

Changing proportions-More of a toy to play around for me.

Combining two or more images-Similar to an artist doing a painting.

Cloning-More for marketing (a magazine), or to make your friends and signifcant others feel really good about themselves.

[K1W1]

I have no problems with manipulation of images from an artistic point of view. This is a photo from a person I know is it any less a photo becuase it does not represent a real scene?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2170948091_be5383d7c3.jpg

IMO no it's a work of art not a holiday happy snap.

I do however have grave concerns about the prevalence of images that are manipulated to represent something they are not. The most common example I guess these days is seen the the Womans magazines with "enhanced" figures on so called stars to make whatever point the editor is after this week. As far as I am concerned that sort of thing is fraud and should be treated as such.

In my own photos every image is in some way edited even it it's only by whatever algorithm Nikon have set regarding in camera sharpening or lighting or Abode have built in Lightroom but I prefer my images to represent the scene as it exists in real life so I rarely remove objects from scenes by any means other than simply cropping the picture. This of course brings us to the question of what is reality. The photo below is probably one of the most famous photos in history representing struggle, heroism, success and all sorts of other things but is it real?

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflage2.gif

This is the original unedited photo

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflaga2.gif

and this is the actual first flag raising the day before

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflagi.gif

The famous photo was staged so is it real?

To answer my own question I believe that it is. The location is correct the participants are correct and what is in the photo is what is happening at that moment in time. If those solders were US based actors Photoshoped onto a scene or if people had been added to or removed from the scene that would make me angry but what we see is essentially what happened and in that context it's good enough for me.

P.S. The reason for the recreation in the flag raising was simply to put a larger flag in position (look at the photos).

[r3g]

To me its all a matter of the amount of PP used. Color editing, adding depth, cropping, and things along that line are enhancers that make a photo more pleasing to the eye but dont change it in such a way that when its being viewed the viewer no longer seeing it has a photo but as "digital art".

Its not a photograph when its edited in a way that the realism is taken away such as HDR images. Now a lot of people will frown at HDR and HDR type works being put in the same category but what I feel they forget is the fact that photography is a form of art and there are no rules to art. If it was taken by a camera by definition its photography.

Just my 2 cents.

[accord2003]

As everyone has indicated, it is art. A painter might simply throw buckets of paint on to a canvas. It is displayed in an art gallery. To some, this is art. Art is really in the eyes of the beholder.

Therefore, no matter how a photograph is manipulated, it is art to this person. Art doesn't have boundary. This is what fuels the creativity.

just my 2 cents.

[r3g]

but the question is when does it stop being a photograph. and as i said by definition it never stops being a photograph because it came out of a camera

[Spookonthe8ball]

I define "genuine" as hitting the exposure and subject with no post processing, however I do allow just as you would a bit of tweeking to make it better. I guess I am thinking of a lot of processing that makes the image a lot different than the original. Then we are into artistic mode. Not saying it is good or bad, just different. I bet that Genuine shot is only about 5 % of what we take when we have time to really think about the shot. That figure is for amatures like me on a moving day like at a zoo, not in a studio where you can stabilize the lighting and subject. It's all photography, but there is a point where it becomes computer art. Where that point begins still remains undefined:eek:
Spook

[tfa8rva]

I agree with Rooz in that PP can be considered an art form. In fact, I like to see how creative some people can get with it. That doesn't mean that some people don't use it to "cheat" their way out of a bad photo. If you think about it, the music industry uses a very similar technique to make the average vocalist sound much better than their raw voice could ever sound. But as far as photos go, I think that if its used to enhance the subject versus cover up the flaws, then its fine.

[accord2003]

but the question is when does it stop being a photograph. and as i said by definition it never stops being a photograph because it came out of a camera

Sorry I got side tracked there. I agree with you. If it came from a camera, it is a photograph. Everyone has different taste.

[r3g]

I agree with Rooz in that PP can be considered an art form. In fact, I like to see how creative some people can get with it. That doesn't mean that some people don't use it to "cheat" their way out of a bad photo. If you think about it, the music industry uses a very similar technique to make the average vocalist sound much better than their raw voice could ever sound. But as far as photos go, I think that if its used to enhance the subject versus cover up the flaws, then its fine.


Some might argue that PP isnt cheating at all because its the end result that matters. You dont judge a painting before its finished right?:rolleyes: im such a PP whore.

[TheWengler]

but the question is when does it stop being a photograph. and as i said by definition it never stops being a photograph because it came out of a camera

I can agree with that.

[e_dawg]

I have to admit that I feel a little guilty sometimes when i PP the hell out of a picture before sharing it with people. Why? I guess because one can say that I or the camera screwed up somehow. That i wasn't able to nail the exposure, perhaps, or that they'll laugh that I spent how much money on equipment that didn't nail the exposure/focus/WB for me?

In fact, I PP every pic that I post or share with others. I know how I want my pictures to look and have a certain "standards" for composition, exposure, contrast, sharpness, WB, noise, etc.

On the flip side, one could say that if the camera doesn't do it for me automatically, then I have to take things into my own hands during PP. If the camera didn't "fail" in its "job", then maybe I wouldn't have to do it myself in PP ;)

Another thing to think about is most of us use "automatic" cameras. Exposure, focus, WB, NR, sharpening, etc. they are automatically set by the camera to a certain extent. So then wouldn't that be "cheating" in a way? Wouldn't photography in its purest sense be using a fully manual camera only?

Before, a photographer's skill included being able to judge the actual exposure value of a scene and set the shutter speed and aperture accordingly for the type of film being used at the time. Now, one could argue that most of that can be handled by the camera, and the main skill that differentiates photographers is the composition.

Just throwing thoughts out there...

[r3g]

Your absolutely right e_dawg. Photography took a lot more technical skill then it does now. And you are right in saying that now a days with the cameras doing a lot of the work the most we have to worry about is composition and such. But that keeps us on an even plane. You can have all the technical skill in the world but if you dont have an artistic eye then you still wont turn out memorable pictures. Id take a slightly under/overexposed but brilliantly composed shot over a technically correct shot that does nothing to the imagination when you look at it.

[fionndruinne]

im such a PP whore.

Heheh, I'm not quite alone.:rolleyes:

Seriously, I find the "adulterated" argument so disingenuous. Simply because in many cases, it is impossible for a camera to capture the "real" scene as we see it. It's just a different range of ability than the human eye. So in many cases, not PP-ing is a further cry from the real scene than digital processing would be. I'm 100% for PP that works with what the image has.

That said, I don't like to heavily manipulate an image with the introduction of what was not there to begin with (mostly in terms of subject). That's art, yes, but ain't photography, or at least ain't the same beast I know. To each his own, but the massive amount of alteration which goes into some digital images originally captured with a camera should qualify as "digital art".

So I just like clarity, rather than the all-or-nothing attitude that sometimes pops up.

[hankbeblazin]

Heheh, I'm not quite alone.:rolleyes:

Seriously, I find the "adulterated" argument so disingenuous. Simply because in many cases, it is impossible for a camera to capture the "real" scene as we see it. It's just a different range of ability than the human eye. So in many cases, not PP-ing is a further cry from the real scene than digital processing would be. I'm 100% for PP that works with what the image has.

That said, I don't like to heavily manipulate an image with the introduction of what was not there to begin with (mostly in terms of subject). That's art, yes, but ain't photography, or at least ain't the same beast I know. To each his own, but the massive amount of alteration which goes into some digital images originally captured with a camera should qualify as "digital art".

So I just like clarity, rather than the all-or-nothing attitude that sometimes pops up.

i agree, couldnt have said it better myself

[Rooz]

so when exactly does it move from photography to digital art ? i'm not talking about extreme cases cos they're easy to see. where is the line ? :confused:

[r3g]

i think it would be impossible for the masses to agree on where the line is because everyone has there own opinion as to what is and is not too much PP. I draw the line where the image no longer looks realistic. HDR and CGI type stuff would be an example. But i still see manips such as cloning as still being photography because its still realistic in terms of the way it looks compared to the real world.

[K1W1]

i think it would be impossible for the masses to agree on where the line is because everyone has there own opinion


That's the point of this thread. There is no right or wrong. This thread is simply an excuse for everybody to have an intelligent debate and express their opinions on a subject where every opinion is different.
The fact that this can happen and not end up in name calling and bitterness (I hope) is a credit to everybody who uses this forum and should be an example to plenty of other sites.

[herc182]

The only time i feel guilty when "changing" a photo is when i drop in a different sky. I have done that 3 times in all the time i have had my DSLR (almost a year). And thats because i was going for an effect. It was more artistic than trying to "Con" the viewer. Two examples:

32366
32367

However, I dont feel in the slightest bit bad about using HDR as thats what the person sees in reality through their eyes. Its only because our cameras have very limited Dynamic Range compared to our eyes, that we cannot capture the detail. However, HDR can go a bit ott, something I have been guilty of in the past. If i remember right, the eye can capture about 24 stops whilst a digital sensor less than half that. Hence I use HDR or Graduated ND filters.

My most used "tweak" is curves in photoshop. Thats the most impressive tool in photoshop to give the photos some punch. I rarely use dodge and burn (but more so lately) and very rarely sharpen photos.

So I think PP has its place, and in some cases is essential (Like HDR to capture the scene as YOU remember it). However, what I object to is people that are constantly dropping in skies, over sharpening and other people thinking "I can never take photos like that". No shit, its been PP to hell. A lot of photo magazines feature shots that have been PP to buggery and you wonder whether they should just try and keep it all to a minimum, as a lot of novice photographers are often misled. One photographer which annoys me on flickr is http://www.flickr.com/photos/valpopando/. Dont get me wrong, his shots look awesome, and some of them are truely amazing and probably "real". but a lot of them have dropped in skies, over saturated, sharpened etc. That to me is a photo made on photoshop and not in the field. THAT has its place but I dont think of him (in some cases) as a photographer but more of an artist.

Composition and knowing your exposure is 90% of the photo, so a little tweaking is acceptable.

Time for a coffee. That was longer than I thought it would be!

[hokeyguy]

Image manipulation has been around for an awful long time. Dodging and burning, the Sabatier (http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Solarization/solarization.html) effect, etc. I'm a big fan of the old masters like Man Ray (http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&q=man+ray&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2) who took photography beyond a photojournalist type form.

If you haven't seen images by Joel Peter Witkin (http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=joel+peter+witkin&btnG=Search+Images), you should check them out.

I guess what I feel about it is an image is art. Journalism and documentaries should be portrayed accurately, but I love art.

[e_dawg]

Your absolutely right e_dawg. Photography took a lot more technical skill then it does now. And you are right in saying that now a days with the cameras doing a lot of the work the most we have to worry about is composition and such. But that keeps us on an even plane. You can have all the technical skill in the world but if you dont have an artistic eye then you still wont turn out memorable pictures. Id take a slightly under/overexposed but brilliantly composed shot over a technically correct shot that does nothing to the imagination when you look at it.

But you know Reg, that scares me a bit. Why? If i am being completely honest with myself, it is because my forte IMO is my technical skill (esp. when combined with my penchant for PP ;) ) ... what I lack relatively is the eye for composition. I'm not that good a photographer if we go by compositional standards. And that's a little embarrassing.

Not to mention, I feel even worse when people say "you spent how much on that stuff?" Of course, all the equipment in the world can't help your composition.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Don't get me wrong, i don't feel this way all the time. Most of the time I simply feel that I like photography, I'm relatively good at it (compared to my friends), it makes me happy, and that includes PP.

[e_dawg]

Seriously, I find the "adulterated" argument so disingenuous. Simply because in many cases, it is impossible for a camera to capture the "real" scene as we see it. It's just a different range of ability than the human eye. So in many cases, not PP-ing is a further cry from the real scene than digital processing would be. I'm 100% for PP that works with what the image has.

Finny, well said. herc, too. I think that's where I stand as well. The camera can't capture the scene as I remember it, so let me help in PP...

[tfa8rva]

But you know Reg, that scares me a bit. Why? If i am being completely honest with myself, it is because my forte IMO is my technical skill (esp. when combined with my penchant for PP ;) ) ... what I lack relatively is the eye for composition. I'm not that good a photographer if we go by compositional standards. And that's a little embarrassing.

Not to mention, I feel even worse when people say "you spent how much on that stuff?" Of course, all the equipment in the world can't help your composition.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Don't get me wrong, i don't feel this way all the time. Most of the time I simply feel that I like photography, I'm relatively good at it (compared to my friends), it makes me happy, and that includes PP.

I'm exactly the opposite. I feel I have decent eye for composition, but absolutely no technical skill at all when it comes to pp, and I feel I rely a lot on the presets in what ever software that I use. I seem to have an amazing ability to take a decent picture and make it look worse once I start applying post processing. So I tend to use very little for fear of making it look like utter garbage.

[ssil2000]

i personally strive to take a picture that i don't need to "fix" or "enhance" my idea of a photo is taking a picture and being able to put it on my wall, having said that i don't believe that when i change "camera settings" in PP like white balance for example, i don't think that qualifies as fixing or enhancing, i am choosing to worry about it later rather then on the spot.

now as for photochopping images, i enjoy doing some of that, but when i say photochopping i mean an obvious manipulation like superimposing someones head or adding people in an image and i consider that more of an art then photography, even if it started with a photo and you are using other photos its art.
finally i just like taking photos! using PP allows me to see what i could have done in real life to achieve something.. under expose or over expose etc but i really don't want to rely on PP saving my pics.

thats my 2 cents! :)

Sergio

ps - i dont think there is anything wrong with cropping :)

[mugsisme]

IMHO, I think it really depends on what you are doing. I took a picture of my DD. She has these gorgeous blue eyes. In the picture, they looked sort of gray, so I fixed it. They are now just as gorgeous as they are IRL. Well, when I posted it on my playgroup, several ladies commented on how blue her eyes are! I felt guilty, and ended up posting a picture with both eyes (pre-fixing and post).

Is it a photo or photo-art? Not sure. Most of the time I am too lazy to fix, unless I want to print the picture for myself. Then I get rid of the imperfections in my photography skills.

[bobc4d]

it funny, we have the same "arguement" on 3D forums. I guess the overall answer is "if you use it to augment" your work then that is fine and dandy. However, if you use it to hide bad modeling/texture work then you're trying to con people to make your work look better than it truely is. (most pros can tell anyway)

it is a fine line, I think it is still photography (no pun) even with post work .. too much post and you're changing the "why" you took that photo. Me ? I'm a picture taker and not a photographer so I need all the help I can get :rolleyes:

[LR Max]

Post Processing has always been a part of photography. The first photograph EVER TAKEN took a while to process. Therefore by default, since the beginning of photography, post processing has been a part of photography. If you don't like it, there is the door over yonder...

"Professionals" (i.e. the guys and gals who get paid a metric crap ton to take photos) will spend about 3 hours on a photograph in photochop or similar program. Thats part of it.

However, to properly chop a photograph, the photograph has to be good straight of the camera. This significantly aids in the processing component of photography.

Back in the day, I was heavily against post processing. I thought it wasn't part of photography. But then I started processing my photos and all of a sudden I had better photos. Most of my processing could be done in under 10 minutes (most time conuming was the RAW conversion).

Processing is part of photography. The best photos are processed and thats part of it.

[imagesbyjudd]

I have to admit I find it interesting, the things we will beat ourselves to death with.

We have been adjusting images almost from the time the first picture was taken, and the photographer figured out how to adjust light, retouch and as the tools got better, those who can and like to will continue to advance image making.

So I guess the movies we watch are not really movies because editing makeup prostetics lighting and so on have been altered.

In photography if I bring artifical lighting to the scene have I not already started the process of altering the image. When I only had a dark room, I would dodge, burn, adjust processing time and temp etc to get what I wanted. With the new cameras and software it has just gotten easier, and allowed me to do things I never explored. Think of all the great images that would have been lost to us and those yet to be created, not to mention how stagnant our world would be if everything had to be only one way.

For me, If someone creates an image that I like, I may be curious as to how it was done, but I don't care if you want to call it a photograph, a painting or whatever. I'm too damn old to get hung up on pureism or the elitist attitudes that often accompany it.

So ladies and gentelmen, go make great images, push the limits.

Just mho

[fionndruinne]

I'm another of the ones who feels that my technical skill is better than my eye for composition. I guess relatively few folks are blessed with that trait; the rest of us have to work hard for it.;)

[e_dawg]

See, that's an interesting point, finny. Are we actually blessed with compositional skill, or is it something that is acquired? Could it be that it's just like a language where there is a learning curve and a certain amount of practice and memorization involved (in language it would be vocabulary and verb conjugation; in composition it would be perspective, ratios, and colour/lighting cues)?

I don't think people think of language as something that your born/blessed with as much as something that's acquired. Some people are able to learn languages more quickly, but they still learn them... they're not blessed with the ability to speak a certain language. And I think the same goes for composition. What do you think?

[r3g]

I'm exactly the opposite. I feel I have decent eye for composition, but absolutely no technical skill at all when it comes to pp, and I feel I rely a lot on the presets in what ever software that I use. I seem to have an amazing ability to take a decent picture and make it look worse once I start applying post processing. So I tend to use very little for fear of making it look like utter garbage.



to me this is the beauty of it all. we all have our weaknesses in certain aspects of the creation process but its our ability to turn out final results that makes us artists.

[erichlund]

I actually find these sort of discussions rather pointless. It doesn't matter. An image is not an image until I say it's final.

There's not an integrity issue involved unless you are failing to tell the truth where truth matters. For instance, a photojournalist should not edit out the truth to raise the impact of an image. That would be unethical. That doesn't mean a photo cannot be edited. It can be cropped to get at the essential facts of the view, so long as the context is not destroyed in the process. It can be sharpened. Unnecessary elements that do not contribute to the photo can be removed. So long as the truth concerning the subject is preserved.

[Rooz]

See, that's an interesting point, finny. Are we actually blessed with compositional skill, or is it something that is acquired? Could it be that it's just like a language where there is a learning curve and a certain amount of practice and memorization involved (in language it would be vocabulary and verb conjugation; in composition it would be perspective, ratios, and colour/lighting cues)?

I don't think people think of language as something that your born/blessed with as much as something that's acquired. Some people are able to learn languages more quickly, but they still learn them... they're not blessed with the ability to speak a certain language. And I think the same goes for composition. What do you think?

a very thought provoking post. have never heard it put that way before. very interesting to say the least. thanks for putting it out there in that context. it's almost a seperate discussion altogteher.

eric...why would you consider this a pointless discussion ? :confused:

[K1W1]

e_dawgs musings are really interesting.

As far as the pointless discussion is concerned I guess 475 hits 30 something contributions in three days must prove that people are interested in pointless discussions.

[Rooz]

I have no problems with manipulation of images from an artistic point of view. This is a photo from a person I know is it any less a photo becuase it does not represent a real scene?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2170948091_be5383d7c3.jpg



can you link me to this person pls. i love that image. :)

they may be interested in this guy too btw.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akabizarro/1840726185/in/set-72157603212046823/

[WestCoast]

I have to admit I find it interesting, the things we will beat ourselves to death with.

We have been adjusting images almost from the time the first picture was taken, and the photographer figured out how to adjust light, retouch and as the tools got better, those who can and like to will continue to advance image making.

So I guess the movies we watch are not really movies because editing makeup prostetics lighting and so on have been altered.

In photography if I bring artifical lighting to the scene have I not already started the process of altering the image. When I only had a dark room, I would dodge, burn, adjust processing time and temp etc to get what I wanted. With the new cameras and software it has just gotten easier, and allowed me to do things I never explored. Think of all the great images that would have been lost to us and those yet to be created, not to mention how stagnant our world would be if everything had to be only one way.

For me, If someone creates an image that I like, I may be curious as to how it was done, but I don't care if you want to call it a photograph, a painting or whatever. I'm too damn old to get hung up on pureism or the elitist attitudes that often accompany it.

So ladies and gentelmen, go make great images, push the limits.

Just mho

I concur. Nice post.

[imagesbyjudd]

I actually find these sort of discussions rather pointless. It doesn't matter. An image is not an image until I say it's final.

There's not an integrity issue involved unless you are failing to tell the truth where truth matters. For instance, a photojournalist should not edit out the truth to raise the impact of an image. That would be unethical. That doesn't mean a photo cannot be edited. It can be cropped to get at the essential facts of the view, so long as the context is not destroyed in the process. It can be sharpened. Unnecessary elements that do not contribute to the photo can be removed. So long as the truth concerning the subject is preserved.

Interesting thought about truth in photography. From whose perspective?
Every still image we see is already cropped out of the larger picture, also it is only in most cases a fraction of a second in time. So what happened before or after that image and what was going on off scene. Most of us have watched a football replay from multiple angles and on occasion still argued about what really happened. So whose truth do we get when we see the images in the magazine, newspaper or on tv? Geraldo in Afghanistan with bullets whizzing overhead, oops staged. The danger lies in taking as total truth everything we see or read without question.

Not to beat it to death. I will contiue to watch the news read the magazines and newspaper, I will admire the work of photographers, writers and reporters and in many cases their ability and courage. But as for truth I will always question what I see read or hear and not go blindly down the path. As for the rest of us. I have seen many examples of amazing work, much of it I wish I had done or were able to do. So thank you to all those that bring creativity, beauty and things that make me think to my world.

[erichlund]

a very thought provoking post. have never heard it put that way before. very interesting to say the least. thanks for putting it out there in that context. it's almost a seperate discussion altogteher.

eric...why would you consider this a pointless discussion ? :confused:

Because I would not have anyone else impose on me their blind limitations as to what I might consider acceptable in an image. If you want to shackle yourself to someone else's expectations, so be it. My photos are finished when I say they are.

I see these threads all the time. Always someone questioning whether it is right to modify our photos or what limits we should place on that modification. Photography is an art. I accept no limitations except my own. I impose no limitations on any of you.

There are cases where the purpose of a photograph is not the art, but to serve some other purpose. Limitations are imposed by that purpose, not by the art. Photojournalism is an example.

[Rooz]

Because I would not have anyone else impose on me their blind limitations as to what I might consider acceptable in an image. If you want to shackle yourself to someone else's expectations, so be it. My photos are finished when I say they are.

I see these threads all the time. Always someone questioning whether it is right to modify our photos or what limits we should place on that modification. Photography is an art. I accept no limitations except my own. I impose no limitations on any of you.

nobodies trying to bind or shackle anyone. :confused: its just a matter of discussion...why be so defensive ? by the logic you just presented, once you form a view on something then forget discussing it at all. you take your view and i'll take mine and to hell with talking about it. i've been here a year and have never seen this discussion btw, so maybe on other forums its something you see all the time, but on this focum, i've never personally seen it.

a little closed minded don;t you think ?

btw: before you fly off the handle and say i'm picking on you, i am NOT. i'm simply trying to have a civil discourse.

[erichlund]

As far as the Geraldo example, he's not a journalist, he's a sensationalist. It's pure entertainment. Geraldo never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Unfortunately, too many people take him seriously.

On the subject of sand :rolleyes:, I completely understand the point. However, I will use your own quoted text:

"these are just off the top of my head a few manipulations we do in PP. there would be many more. where do you draw the line ? who draws the line ? on what basis is the line drawn and by what criteria and rules ?
"
If we are going to consider photography an art, then there can be no rules. If we establish rules for, say, a competition, that's one thing. An event with a specific objective is a perfectly valid reason to establish limits. However, we simply cannot put limits on ourselves. You say no one is trying to shackle anyone, yet whenever we consider that we are exceeding self imposed rules, we are indeed, shackling ourselves.

Mind you, I can place limits on myself. That's my choice, and my shackles are my own. But if I should impose my limits on someone else, even as an opinion, I'm doing a disservice to that other person. So, my only "public" opinion can be that there are no limits, and if there are no limits, then it's pointless to discuss limits.

[tim11]

... the subject blinked and the photographer decided to use the eyes from another shot (of the same subject who blinked) and superimposed them on the shot of choice.

The shot of choice was almost perfect except for the closed eyes. Will you consider that cheating? Is that acceptable?

The finished result was well done and no one knows the difference.

[tcadwall]

Wow... This is what I missed?

LOL!

Awesome thread... LOL still.

My opinion:

People have talents. We don't have equal talents. Let me put it to you this way...

Kids can learn to play an instrument. Let's take a specimen of what musicians consider the hardest instrument family (strings), and look at violin. Now some of you know I am a violinist. I have taught quite a few students, and I will tell you that I can teach ANYONE to play a violin, but only the ones with a natural talent will really be good. Only they will be the ones that will make someone "feel" the music. Even when I was majoring in music performance in college, there was a student there that was a college senior. She LOVED the violin. She practiced 3 to 4 hours a day. She wanted so BADLY to make it her life. But she had no natural talent. She could play a scale (not perfectly), she could play a piece (not that would wow you), and she could do well on less challenging music. BUT one thing she really couldn't do at all: She couldn't evoke any emotions from her violin. No listener felt the passion that she expressed for her violin, because she didn't have the "it" factor.

The truth is, speaking a language doesn't make one a good communicator, nor does it make you a brilliant writer. Hitting the right notes doesn't make a musician awe-inspiring. Taking a picture doesn't make someone a photographer. While you can learn how to do the technical aspects, there is more to it that separates the elite from the good. This is what I choose to call a talent, a gift, whatever. Everyone has their own gift or combinations of such.

Ok so that spoke more to the recent tangent. But on to the original question... In my mind a real photograph is art. If it doesn't evoke emotion, then it has failed regardless of the means used or not used. To me, judging someone's work negatively because you think that there was too much PP is sour grapes. A purist might disagree, but the purists are in the minority, and they are the ones that have to worry about the grey area boundaries. - I personally find it funny that many purists like black and white.

[WestCoast]

To me, judging someone's work negatively because you think that there was too much PP is sour grapes.

+1

IMO, the goal of photography is to produce awe-inspiring pictures. That doesn't necessarily include reproducing reality as close as humanly-possible. If somebody wants to mess with the coloring or sharpness in Photoshop, that's fine with me. I don't understand why PS is considered a negative by some. IMO, it's a tool - just like the the ISO adjustment and exposure compensation functions on everybody's cameras.

[tcadwall]

Tim,

I have done that edit! I just made 8x10 prints of a family. One setting I got probably 10 shots. Of them, everything was the same technically. The subjects (a family of 16) were the variables. In one particular shot all but one person had good smiles. That one little girl had a painful grimace on her face. This was the best shot of the group, not the best shot of her. I simply cut her out of another shot where she had a great smile, and pasted her in. I pointed it out to the lab technician after he gave me the prints, he couldn't tell. But you know what? Her parents sure would have seen the untouched shot as a bad picture.

[e_dawg]

TC, I would say that for pro type work, you do what you have to do to give the best results to your client with regard to your own costs, time, efficiency, limitations, equipment, shooting conditions, etc. The client doesn't care what you did or how you did it as long as you deliver on the results.

I think the controversy stems more when taking artistic license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_license) with one's photographs for less results oriented purposes (i.e., the client has paid for and expects good photos... or at least technically perfect ones). I might even go so far as to say that when one shares their photos online (esp. on such a forum), the intent is often for the photograph to be evaluated on how well the picture was taken and how good the camera/lens was.

That is the common understanding, especially on a camera equipment forum, no? That's why EXIF data is expected with ones' pics. But if you did a bunch of PP to it, significantly improving the lighting, colour, and sharpness of the picture without specifically mentioning it, then it can be a bit misleading to others who think this person nailed the shot, the camera has such reliable WB and exposure (sees WB = auto and 0 exp compensation in the EXIF data) and the lens is extremely sharp. Does that make sense?

But I do like what you said about talent separating the geniuses from the masses.

[TNB]

Here's a link to a paper that may or may not interest some of you.... slightly outdated but as the title indicates, "timeless".

Photojournalism Ethics Timeless Issues

Paul Martin Lester, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Communications, H-230
CSUF
Fullerton, California 92634
714.449.5302
FAX: 714.773.2209
at lester@fullerton.edu

(c)1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/photoethics.html


But no matter how the tools of journalism change, fundamental ethical concerns still apply. Displaying violent, sensational images for economic reasons, violating a person's privacy before the judicial process can function, manipulating news-editorial pictures to alter their content, stereotyping individuals into pre-conceived categories and blurring the distinction between advertising and editorial messages were journalism concerns in 1895, are important topics in 1995 and will be carefully considered issues, no doubt, in 2095. Professionals, academics and students owe it to their readers to be sensitive to unethical practices that demean the profession and reduce the credibility of journalism.

Of course, if some "become" employed and/or want to keep their job...

A QUESTION OF TRUTH:
Photojournalism And Visual Ethics
By Donald R. Winslow

(August 2, 2006) – Photography and visual ethics are currently hot topics in the journalism community....

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html

NPPA Code of Ethics
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html

[fionndruinne]

See, that's an interesting point, finny. Are we actually blessed with compositional skill, or is it something that is acquired? Could it be that it's just like a language where there is a learning curve and a certain amount of practice and memorization involved (in language it would be vocabulary and verb conjugation; in composition it would be perspective, ratios, and colour/lighting cues)?

I don't think people think of language as something that your born/blessed with as much as something that's acquired. Some people are able to learn languages more quickly, but they still learn them... they're not blessed with the ability to speak a certain language. And I think the same goes for composition. What do you think?

Well, I guess I'm talking about the level of aptitude. Take your language example - I happen to have a pretty good aptitude for some aspects of language, grammar especially. So I can confidently look at each part of a sentence and know its elements... and the amount of study I had to put into it was comparatively small. Then, some folks work long and hard to get to a similar level. I think we're all given different levels of aptitude for different kinds of things. One man's strong suit is another's weakness. So when I refer to being "blessed with" something, I suppose I mean that it's a blessing for one's more competent aptitude to be focused right in the area they are pursuing.

[tcadwall]

LOL - are people actually passionate about this? I really don't think that this forum is all about camera technicalities while that is certainly part of it. There are posts that are completely technical, but there is a lot of just plain photography talent. Even in film days there was PP, it just wasn't as easy as it is today.

Rest assured, if I post something to show the capabilities of a lens, it won't have lens correction applied, but if I am posting a shot because I like it, there may be several adjustments applied.

[e_dawg]

Take your language example - I happen to have a pretty good aptitude for some aspects of language, grammar especially. So I can confidently look at each part of a sentence and know its elements... and the amount of study I had to put into it was comparatively small.

Is that a comma splice I detect at the end of your post? ;)

[JTL]

I can't believe that I missed all these inane bablings! :D:p:D

[Cyberwlf]

I got crucified on here when i asked a question relating to the subject of this thread on this forum (You know who you are!) :) But yeah interesting to read the responses here anyhow.

My views (so no, it doesn't mean you have to subscribe to it!) on photography/digital art is...

Photography is something which is an "accurate" representation of what the photographer saw (not imagined). Now if a person was on hallucinogenic substances some of the digital art out there may match what they saw!

Post Processing is something in the form of adjusting for errors in camera handling or adjusting for the cameras built in processing of the image, so it can involve adjusting brightness, contrast, etc etc, but also cropping to capture the part of the image you wanted. It does not alter the content, only the display of that content.

Image manipulation/Digital Art is no longer about representing reality, but whatever the artists vision is, it can (and often is) a hybrid of photographic (and/or rendered/drawn) imagery. It is in ways superior to photography as its 'accuracy' is limited by imagination.

Photographs where 'bits' the photographer didn't want are edited out fall somewhere between the above two paragraphs, depending just how much of the original content is altered. But this type of photography is no doubt some of the most common it would seem.

...

I don't think 'art' is limited though to either digital art (image manipulation) or photography alone, the use of computer based tools as the use of a camera as a tool can both be explored quite thoroughly and through experimenting allowing people to try out many different creative ideas / techniques.

As they are both forms of art I don't think either is therefore better or worse than each other, if it produces a piece of art, then it is an artistic creation, even if the way the image was produced may have been different. Take the realism movement within the painting world, part of its aim was to represent with as great an accuracy as possible a realistic image, but just because it didn't follow the typical pastel designs of other artists didn't diminish its artistic value.

I personally started out over a decade ago sitting on my computer with an image manipulation/paint package and was quite into/loved making what I classed as digital creations, but i never considered them photographs, even though photographs were the main ingredients from which I drew the elements that I created my scenes from. These days I try to capture reality, capture moments, etc... capture life, so being as 'true' to the subject is what I aim to do (which includes at times PP to enhance how the image is displayed). So if i can produce an image from a camera that captures these things then I consider it an achievement in itself.

[XaiLo]

When is Photography not Photography anymore? I am of the opinion that there is no right answer to this question. And niether will one likely find a universal consensus. Firstly one has the daunting task of defining photography, followed by an exceptable process, followed by an exceptable display medium. I think we should call in the IM force. :) In the mean time I give up who has the right answer.

[Paradox]

Photo-graphy = The study of light, I believe. And is that not what it still is, regardless of what processing is done afterwards? ;) Everything changes and evolves with technology - Photography is no exception. Just my opinion.

[Warin]

Consider an artist like Jeff Wall. (http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/jeff_wall/works.html)

Nothing in any of his photographs is accidental. Everything is posed and controlled. So he is essentially "photoshopping" the final product in the camera. Does that make his work any less photography?

I think that the test on post processing is, as others have suggested, not the amount of post processing, but the intention.

For a photojournalist to manipulate an image is unforgivable. For an artist to manipulate an image is completely understandable. Is one more a photograph than the other? Not in my opinion.

Look at John Heartfield (http://www.brasscheck.com/heartfield/gallery.html)... dadaist... photo montage. He was doing, with scissors and photos, what people now do in Photoshop. Nothing we do now is really all that revolutionary... it is just easier to do and far faster.

An interesting view that I've recently come across in an essay by Walter Benjamin is that the photograph destroys the "aura" or sense of originality (since it is, essentially, mechanically and infinitely reproducible) that painting or sculpture has, and so moves the form from mere aesthetic sensibility to a more political end.

Wow... I've wandered off from the original topic. lol.

I doubt you will find many professional working photographers, of any stripe, who exhibit works that have not been extensively post processed. I think it is a certain arrogance of the amateur photographer that presumes that there is something inherently better about a photo that has come directly from the camera.

[JTL]

Consider an artist like Jeff Wall. (http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/jeff_wall/works.html)

Nothing in any of his photographs is accidental. Everything is posed and controlled. So he is essentially "photoshopping" the final product in the camera. Does that make his work any less photography?

I think that the test on post processing is, as others have suggested, not the amount of post processing, but the intention.

For a photojournalist to manipulate an image is unforgivable. For an artist to manipulate an image is completely understandable. Is one more a photograph than the other? Not in my opinion.

Look at John Heartfield (http://www.brasscheck.com/heartfield/gallery.html)... dadaist... photo montage. He was doing, with scissors and photos, what people now do in Photoshop. Nothing we do now is really all that revolutionary... it is just easier to do and far faster.

An interesting view that I've recently come across in an essay by Walter Benjamin is that the photograph destroys the "aura" or sense of originality (since it is, essentially, mechanically and infinitely reproducible) that painting or sculpture has, and so moves the form from mere aesthetic sensibility to a more political end.

Wow... I've wandered off from the original topic. lol.

I doubt you will find many professional working photographers, of any stripe, who exhibit works that have not been extensively post processed. I think it is a certain arrogance of the amateur photographer that presumes that there is something inherently better about a photo that has come directly from the camera.I agree...except where you said "arrogance" I would have said ignorance. ;)

[TNB]

For a photojournalist to manipulate an image is unforgivable.
* * * * *
I doubt you will find many professional working photographers, of any stripe, who exhibit works that have not been extensively post processed.
Exception being of course, the photojournalist.

[AdamW]

Photo-graphy = The study of light, I believe. And is that not what it still is, regardless of what processing is done afterwards? ;) Everything changes and evolves with technology - Photography is no exception. Just my opinion.

Photo = light
graphy = writing

Photography is writing (or painting) with light.

(Optics is the sub-field of physics concerned with light, but if you wanted to make up a word for that it'd be "photo-ology>")

[XaiLo]

This reminds me of tic-tack-toe... how about a game of chess. Well said Warin. The final product has less to do with reality, and more so, exhibits the vision of the author. Which may, or may not, be bond to the reality of the captured moment. Even if staged or altered it can still tell of a true story.

[TheObiJuan]

Great post Warin; I followed the links and learned something new.
Ultimately that is the point of this forum: the free exchange of information for the purpose of discussion and learning.

[Cyberwlf]

Call me ignorant if you'd like...i'm just an enthusiast and no pro :) , but from this persons point of view I don't see why some people readily dismiss producing results in camera and that only PP is god or something.

As i said in my previous post whats done on a computer (as was once done in a dark room) is no or more less valuable imo than what comes out of a camera.

So why does it seem to be a crime to some people here the notion of trying to produce the best possible image from whatever the vision / idea direct from the camera itself, especially considering the camera and the way a shot can be staged has so much flexiblity and creative possibilites in itself. Also what of the notion of just having a 'good eye for it'?? And also if the source is great doesn't that also mean the potential for what can be done PP is even greater?

[JTL]

And also if the source is great doesn't that also mean the potential for what can be done PP is even greater?Only if that is the intention of the creator of the image...

e.g., for my purposes, the below source image may be "great". To you it may not be. But you have no idea of what my "intention" is unless I, as the creator, choose to give you clues.

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/251544869-S.jpg

Did I nail the shot "in camera"? What if I told you for my purposes...my intention, I did? How would you ever know?

It's no different from a novel or a movie...you like it or you don't...you connect with it or you don't. You can play all of the esoteric games in your head all day long but in the end, however the creator produced the final product...whatever media they chose to produce with...the final product it is what it is. For one person, the final product may be the result of a shutter snap...for the next person, it's not. One way is no more valid than the other. They are just different.

[Cyberwlf]

Yeah good point. Thing is, intention is one of those things which is always interpreted by the person observing the creation and given whatever meaning they apply to it, which may even have no relation at all to what the artist saw.

Choice of content/lighting/colours/etc can all affect general perceptions as to somethings meaning, which is why you end up with a whole variety of (subjective) views in situations like this where personal meaning/different perspectives can be attached to things.

[JTL]

Yeah good point. Thing is, intention is one of those things which is always interpreted by the person observing the creation and given whatever meaning they apply to it, which may even have no relation at all to what the artist saw.I think that's the real beauty of it. And I think it's what separates successful artists from others. For the artist to be successful, they must "connect" on some level...even if that connection has nothing to do with the artist's conscious intention. In that regard, one could argue that in order for an artist to be successful, the reaction to the artist's work is equally as important as the artist's vision in creating the work...:)

My point is, and has always been, throughout these various discussions of this subject is simply this: How the creator of the work got to the final product is simply a matter of artistic choice, such as using a palette knife rather than a brush...

Of course, when the intent is to lie...to perpetrate fraud, regardless of the media employed...well, I think we all agree, that crosses a line...

[hankbeblazin]

Call me ignorant if you'd like...i'm just an enthusiast and no pro :) , but from this persons point of view I don't see why some people readily dismiss producing results in camera and that only PP is god or something.

As i said in my previous post whats done on a computer (as was once done in a dark room) is no or more less valuable imo than what comes out of a camera.

So why does it seem to be a crime to some people here the notion of trying to produce the best possible image from whatever the vision / idea direct from the camera itself, especially considering the camera and the way a shot can be staged has so much flexiblity and creative possibilites in itself. Also what of the notion of just having a 'good eye for it'?? And also if the source is great doesn't that also mean the potential for what can be done PP is even greater?

when we say photo manipulation. i don't know about other people but i'm talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0adXaY_bs

changing minor things i don't think thats a big deal,(i know we all have liquified a little bit, or cloned or painted, i know i have) or the artistic form of photo manipulation like John Willet is acceptable.

but when you turn a 200lb woman into a 100lb woman i think thats misleading. thats just my personal view.

i liquified, cloned and painted her left hip, because her jeans were tight and caused some of her skin to go over her jeans. this is just an example, nothing too drastic. some might find this appauling who knows

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2247030468_099bbdc856.jpg

[JTL]

when we say photo manipulation. i don't know about other people but i'm talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0adXaY_bs

changing minor things i don't think thats a big deal,(i know we all have liquified a little bit, or cloned or painted, i know i have) or the artistic form of photo manipulation like John Willet is acceptable.

but when you turn a 200lb woman into a 100lb woman i think thats misleading. thats just my personal view.It's not so black & white (no pun intended). Doesn't it once again depend on intent/purpose? If the intent is demonstrate the power of PhotoShop (as is apparently the case in that youtube example), then isn't that o.k.? I say it's even o.k. if the artist used the final image after alteration. What if instead the artist used an anamorphic lens that "squeezed" the subject and made her "appear" thinner? Or used a wide angle lens that made her appear even heavier? Is that different? The same?

But...if, for example, the intent was for that woman to shop the retouched/manipulated photo of herself to modeling agencies, well then it's fraud. This really isn't that difficult...is it?

[jcon]

Hank, correct me if I am wrong but didnt you post awhile ago saying how pissed you are at photogs that edit "models" to make them look better or thinner or appear to be something they are not? And give false ideals to the younger generation? Then you turn around and do that exact same thing? Atleast to me thats what you did with that photo. If this is true, dont you think thats a tad hypocritical?

[Warin]

Call me ignorant if you'd like...i'm just an enthusiast and no pro :) , but from this persons point of view I don't see why some people readily dismiss producing results in camera and that only PP is god or something.

As i said in my previous post whats done on a computer (as was once done in a dark room) is no or more less valuable imo than what comes out of a camera.

So why does it seem to be a crime to some people here the notion of trying to produce the best possible image from whatever the vision / idea direct from the camera itself, especially considering the camera and the way a shot can be staged has so much flexiblity and creative possibilites in itself. Also what of the notion of just having a 'good eye for it'?? And also if the source is great doesn't that also mean the potential for what can be done PP is even greater?

Ideally, it would be nice to have every shot come out of the camera perfect. And occasionally you have that happen. However, I like to play with the curves a little, tweak the sky sometimes, and occasionally I have to go in and spot out a bit of dust on the sensor.

I think the biggest problem is seeing it as a polar sort of thing... either the image straight out of the camera or always post processed. In fact, it's pretty much a gray area. Not many photos are so perfect that they can't benefit from some post processing, but I've found that a balance between the two concepts makes for a generally more satisfied photographer.

[JTL]

Ideally, it would be nice to have every shot come out of the camera perfect.Therein lies the trap..."perfect" is relative. I blurred my dog picture on purpose and got the effect exactly as I wanted it. To me, it is perfect. To others, it's just a blurry photo. ;)

And that my friends, hopefully illustrates the utter absurdity of these types of discussions...:)

[TNB]

but when you turn a 200lb woman into a 100lb woman i think thats misleading. thats just my personal view.
Yet others may just consider it an ad for internet dating. :p Not like the hair wasn't dyed, the skin wasn't painted, there wasn't a nip or tuck here and there... ;)

[hankbeblazin]

maybe it is, i just did it to see if i could do it that was my first try(i have the original on hand). like you said it isnt black and white. i consider what i did minor. some other consider it major. the problem i have is that big ass woman turning into a stick figure. or the other one where they thin her neck change her face. that's just my personal view on it. like everyone has said its all relative. maybe i am in the wrong i don't know. then again what magazine does not manipulate a cover girl or any picture in there? does it make it right? definately not.

[ssil2000]

Therein lies the trap..."perfect" is relative. I blurred my dog picture on purpose and got the effect exactly as I wanted it. To me, it is perfect. To others, it's just a blurry photo. ;)

And that my friends, hopefully illustrates the utter absurdity of these types of discussions...:)

agreed. everyone has different ideas of what a perfect picture is, like i said before, my goal is to take a picture and go "yep, thats what i want" print it and put it on my wall. and if it is an abstract picture like your blurry dog shot then great it is "perfect" for you... there is a place for PP for me, but i would much rather it be used on "some" pictures instead of needing to use it on "all" pictures...
but its not so absurd, its a discussion and its interesting enough to have 70 odd replies and 1500 odd views...

:)

[JTL]

agreed. everyone has different ideas of what a perfect picture is, like i said before, my goal is to take a picture and go "yep, thats what i want" print it and put it on my wall. and if it is an abstract picture like your blurry dog shot then great it is "perfect" for you... there is a place for PP for me, but i would much rather it be used on "some" pictures instead of needing to use it on "all" pictures...
but its not so absurd, its a discussion and its interesting enough to have 70 odd replies and 1500 odd views...

:)It's just that I notice that some seem to talk as if what the camera captures is reality. It most certainly is not. It is a series of ones and zeros created by a computer processor. It has been manipulated from the second you pressed the shutter release. It has been affected by the characteristics of the sensor. It has been affected by optical aberrations in the glass in the lens. It has been affected by the effects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focal length and focus. It has further been affected by the algorithm used to create the RAW and/or jpeg file...;)

A lot of people seem to live with a lot of myths...I just think they need to be challenged a little. :)

The reason I called the discussion "absurd" is because it will just go in circles form now until infinity...because the premise is flawed from the outset. The image is the image...however it was created. That really should be the end of it. But I'm not so naive as to really believe that it can be. :D

[XaiLo]

maybe it is, i just did it to see if i could do it that was my first try(i have the original on hand). like you said it isnt black and white. i consider what i did minor. some other consider it major. the problem i have is that big ass woman turning into a stick figure. or the other one where they thin her neck change her face. that's just my personal view on it. like everyone has said its all relative. maybe i am in the wrong i don't know. then again what magazine does not manipulate a cover girl or any picture in there? does it make it right? definately not.

Hank, it's all about perspective is it an issue because a voluptuous woman was change into a twig with no semblance of her true beauty remaining or is it a case of a fat, overwieght woman trying to come accross as a model; or is it a case of a woman who wants to realize a dream, or is it somones attempt to prove a point???? Last but not least, is it just art?


The same is true of this subject it's all about perspective. From the moment the shutter is depressed light is being manipulated and even when it's in a final form it will still be manipulated by the viewable light.

[Viktorrr]

This is a very interesting thread, first of all.....
Although manipulating a photo can be fun, in a way i dont think its a photograph anymore.

Im all up for digital art, but in my opinion there's a huge difference between a photograph and an image.

Would like to hear from people who were into photography back when there wasnt photoshop, just good ol' film and labs.

[Calico]

From someone who can only use photo shop to watermark my shots I would fall on the side of less is more. As I self teach myself photo shop I may try to enhance colors but would state so in the description. I to just take hundreds of shots exploring the different settings on my camera and hope I get that one that is worthy of hanging on the wall. Of course this is from a truly beginners point of view.

[ColColt]

I haven't read all the posts yet but to me, REAL photography is what you see in photos by Ansel Adams, Robert Cappa and Eugene Smith and others of this caliber. The only manipulation Ansel did was to adjust his Beer's formula to adjust contrast and a little dodging/burning. This is part of real photograpy where composition, lighting and it's quality, quantity and direction have a large impact on the final product.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

The same is true of this subject it's all about perspective. From the moment the shutter is depressed light is being manipulated and even when it's in a final form it will still be manipulated by the viewable light.

I'd almost forgotten this thread.

I reckon the image manipulation to alter reality starts well before the shutter is pressed. Ms Model please bend over a bit more so things hang a little more obviously. Point that foot over there so your calf muscle appears thinner and tauter. Get the doctor to give you an augmentation there etc.

If it was made with a camera it's a photo even if it's a very altered photo imho.

[Rooz]

I haven't read all the posts yet but to me, REAL photography is what you see in photos by Ansel Adams, Robert Cappa and Eugene Smith and others of this caliber. The only manipulation Ansel did was to adjust his Beer's formula to adjust contrast and a little dodging/burning. This is part of real photograpy where composition, lighting and it's quality, quantity and direction have a large impact on the final product.

if ansel had access to a D3, trust me he'd be using it. look at someone like McNally, great with film and just as great in digital. real photography is by real photographers...regardless of how much an image is manipulated imo.

using your logic, would you say that fangio is a real race car driver but kimi raikkonen isnt ? its drawing a long bow imo.

[K1W1]

Comparing now with then in any sphere of human endeavour is useless and a waste of time as far as "who or which" is better is concerned. We should just appreciate what we have and try in our own ways to push boundaries if that is the way we are inclined.
As far as the when is photography not photography thing is concerned I hope that I said somewhere earlier in this thread that my only real concern is when an image is manipulated to represent something other than what it represented when it was taken and the edited version is passed as the actual version. I guess I'm pointing straight at the so called paparazzi and the cult of celebrity watching as the major miscreants but it can equally happen in any form of photography.
While I'm on the soapbox buy my book from here it contains everything that you need to know about cameras, photography and software manipulation of images.

[ColColt]

if ansel had access to a D3, trust me he'd be using it. look at someone like McNally, great with film and just as great in digital. real photography is by real photographers...regardless of how much an image is manipulated imo.

using your logic, would you say that fangio is a real race car driver but kimi raikkonen isnt ? its drawing a long bow imo.

Ansel had access and the funds for the best there was. He didn't choose Nikon or Leica and I doubt, had it been available, he wold have chosen a D3. He was a photographer cut from a different cloth. What I was getting at was that photographers like him and Smith along with Ed Weston, Dorothea Lange, Alfred Eisenstaedt and Henri Cartier-Bresson were pioneers of photography. If anyone has studied the great works from them I feel sure they in some way have motivated us to pursue and perhaps mimic to a degree, the fine work they did. At a minimum, maybe they influenced the way we see light and know it's limitations on film or now, the SD card, and gave us insight into composition and perchance, the ability to have more "feeling" in our photography.

I suppose I'm an old dinosaur, Rooz, as I don't have a clue who Kimi Raikkonen or Fangio is. I fought the switch to digital photograph for a long time and didn't want anything to do with any "auto" camera of any kind. I still miss the manual cameras as I feel they allowed for more creativity, but I don't miss the price of film anymore. Digital photography gives too many potential photographers the "spray and pray" mentality in that after twenty shots of the same subject, maybe one will come out looking good enough. I rather like the "one shot-one kill" idea personally. Just one way of looking at it all.

[K1W1]

I suppose I'm an old dinosaur, Rooz, as I don't have a clue who Kimi Raikkonen or Fangio is.

You can't be serious.

From Wikipedia


Juan Manuel Fangio (June 24, 1911 - July 17, 1995), nicknamed "El Chueco" ("knock-kneed") or "El Maestro" ("The Master"), was a race car driver from Argentina, who dominated the first decade of Formula One racing. He won five Formula One World Driver's Championships — a record which stood for 46 years — with four different teams (Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Maserati), a feat that has not been repeated since. Many still consider him to be the greatest driver of all time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Manuel_Fangio)

[K1W1]

Digital photography gives too many potential photographers the "spray and pray" mentality in that after twenty shots of the same subject, maybe one will come out looking good enough. I rather like the "one shot-one kill" idea personally. Just one way of looking at it all.

I fully understand that but I think that's more a reflection of modern life than digital photography per se. How easy is it these days to simply replace anything you don't like car, TV, camera, partner? I don't think though that that attitude (shoot away happily) is really the subject of this thread which originally was more about what is a photo and what is not.

[Rooz]

Ansel had access and the funds for the best there was. He didn't choose Nikon or Leica and I doubt, had it been available, he wold have chosen a D3. He was a photographer cut from a different cloth. What I was getting at was that photographers like him and Smith along with Ed Weston, Dorothea Lange, Alfred Eisenstaedt and Henri Cartier-Bresson were pioneers of photography. If anyone has studied the great works from them I feel sure they in some way have motivated us to pursue and perhaps mimic to a degree, the fine work they did. At a minimum, maybe they influenced the way we see light and know it's limitations on film or now, the SD card, and gave us insight into composition and perchance, the ability to have more "feeling" in our photography.

I suppose I'm an old dinosaur, Rooz, as I don't have a clue who Kimi Raikkonen or Fangio is. I fought the switch to digital photograph for a long time and didn't want anything to do with any "auto" camera of any kind. I still miss the manual cameras as I feel they allowed for more creativity, but I don't miss the price of film anymore. Digital photography gives too many potential photographers the "spray and pray" mentality in that after twenty shots of the same subject, maybe one will come out looking good enough. I rather like the "one shot-one kill" idea personally. Just one way of looking at it all.

older cameras didnt allow for more creativity at all. they forced creativity by innacurate meters and dont be mistaken by thinking ansel didnt use a light meter cos he DID. nowadays light meters are accurately built into cameras via TTL systems. you have the option still of completely disregarding light meters and shooting for effect.

people use the best tools that suit their style for the time they were shooting and i have absolutely NO DOUBT that if ansel was alive today he would be shooting digital. no doubt whatsoever.

i have come across many, many pros in my time now and i have yet to come across a single one that still shoots film professionally. sure, some of them keep film cameras as an alternative, hobby, keep the eye in, the joy of developing, using fuji velvia etc but life on the line...every one would choose dslr. no doubt about it.

if you watch pros aswell, (aprt from maybe sports guys), they dont spray and pray like alot of ams do. one of mcnallys great quotes goes something like this; "the difference between a great photographer and a good one is knowing when not to click the shutter."

i think a better way to look at it is to acknowldege that ansel et al were actually great photographers DESPITE their equipment rather than becasue of it. they would be great no matter what era, no matter what equipment becasue they themselves were great.

[ColColt]

You can't be serious.

From Wikipedia



Not being into European(or elsewhere) racing, I can remember and have seen old timers like Banjo Matthews, Elmo Langley, Fireball Roberts and Junior Johnson racing. I lived at the time where NASCAR originated.

I guess you're right about Ansel, Rooz. Some of us just have a hard time getting out of the '50's and '60's.


i think a better way to look at it is to acknowldege that ansel et al were actually great photographers DESPITE their equipment rather than becasue of it. they would be great no matter what era, no matter what equipment becasue they themselves were great.

Agreed, and very well said.

[XaiLo]

Basically if light is captured on a light sensitive medium it's photography. Trying to quantify it after that point can lead down many roads. From is it technically accurate to does it have any social significance or implication and everything else in between. When it's all said and done photography is an art form. Even if one has a natural inclination or aptitude for a given profession it's going to take work to reach the pinnacle.