Where should we stop trying to enhance a photo?
How long can we call a photograph a photograph and when do we have to call it a "digital produced picture"?
How far do we have to stick to reality?
Sure, there will be at least as many answers as we are people in the fc, but what do you think?
I'm posting this under "creative Photography" because we all use digital imaging...
Post Edited (22:48h)
How long can we call a photograph a photograph and when do we have to call it a "digital produced picture"?
How far do we have to stick to reality?
Sure, there will be at least as many answers as we are people in the fc, but what do you think?
I'm posting this under "creative Photography" because we all use digital imaging...
Post Edited (22:48h)
13.12.04, 00:27
Post 2 of 48
There is no answer - i have thought long and hard about this - being someone who has touched up virtually EVERY single image I have produced .. albeit just the required 'unsharp mask' on many ... I dislike intensely the use of photo editing software to improve images but i still do it ... i feel like a cheat and view it as the easy route for getting results more talented people can achieve using talent and a camera alone ... sorry if i offend any digi fans but as a digi fan myself i feel this qualifies me to have this opinion. I can't answer the question as i know that there cannot be a line where a photograph becomes a piece of manipulated art ... i guess that if the whole of the image was derived from an image initially created in a camera then its a photograph .. if u add elements created in a computer or hand drawn then it is no longer a photograph ... (except a signature of course). I will think on about this (again) and re-post ... after a few replies ...
Post Edited (23:36h)
Post Edited (23:36h)
Well...
Unfortunately, there is no photo camera that is 100% perfect. The human eye will stay years and years unreacheable in the mean of visual perception. So I think, there always be the need for editing captured images to match it as more as possible to the human eye.
Another question is (you ask that 100% right), where a photographer should stop in order not to call his work Digital Art, but still Photgraphy.
I think, everyone agree, that for example by landscapes only the color correction, crop and sharpening are acceptable (I don't mention such little operation like flip, sepia colorizing etc.). The main purpose of the Landscape Photography is to show the beauty of a REAL scene created by the Nature.
But when we go to the portrait Photography, there is a wide space for imagination. As to me, I accept here everything - special filters, wild colors etc. - untill the photo will stay as just a modified, enhanced image, but not as just the source to take some parts of the image to create a separate, Independent work.
By the Arcitecture Photography I accept ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING without any limitation, becouse I've never seen yet that someone could modify a building so that nobody understood this was the Eufel's tower or Empire State Building.
It's good that there is the separate section "Digiart".
Unfortunately, there is no photo camera that is 100% perfect. The human eye will stay years and years unreacheable in the mean of visual perception. So I think, there always be the need for editing captured images to match it as more as possible to the human eye.
Another question is (you ask that 100% right), where a photographer should stop in order not to call his work Digital Art, but still Photgraphy.
I think, everyone agree, that for example by landscapes only the color correction, crop and sharpening are acceptable (I don't mention such little operation like flip, sepia colorizing etc.). The main purpose of the Landscape Photography is to show the beauty of a REAL scene created by the Nature.
But when we go to the portrait Photography, there is a wide space for imagination. As to me, I accept here everything - special filters, wild colors etc. - untill the photo will stay as just a modified, enhanced image, but not as just the source to take some parts of the image to create a separate, Independent work.
By the Arcitecture Photography I accept ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING without any limitation, becouse I've never seen yet that someone could modify a building so that nobody understood this was the Eufel's tower or Empire State Building.
It's good that there is the separate section "Digiart".
This is a very good question and especially nowaday digital imaging makes about everything possible. I myself keep to a very simple rule that what i show in a photograph should be that what i saw when i made it. I use imaging only so far to enhance colour, sharpness if needed and to remove very small disturbing errors. I.E in a landscape i can have a little black spot in the sky which upon further examination turns out to be a distant bird. In such case if i find it disturbing i will take it out. If for instance one photographs a landscape and artificially brings in fog then you go to far in my opinion. The same thing i saw a short while ago. Someone had made a photograph of a forrest with fog and very nicely mounted a deer into it. It was quite well done and invisible to detect but in my opinion the achievement in such photo is being in the right spot at the right time. The guy was very honest about it but someone else might not be and take credit for things he did not actually photograph in that way. On the other hand well done imaging can be an art in itself even though it is not my turf, as long as it is being atmitted i have no problems with it.
16.12.04, 14:52
Post 5 of 48
I suppose ruud has got it right in terms of honesty ... does it matter when a photograph is no longer a photograph ... we will automatically re-assess the skill of the photographer if we are fully aware of what has been done to the shot ... if one person photographs a deer in a misty forest and it is a clean shot then another represents the image by adding mist and a deer then I know who's work i would value more ... i am happy with that personally ... do what you want but be honest about the content and production of the image ... I personally added a little mist to a photograph once but have not displayed it despite people saying it is a great shot, because i know i didnt really capture the image and the feel of the image ... it has been resigned to my unused folder .. forever ...
u ask the unanswerable.. why has no answer.. how much paint should a painter use how much rock does a sculpter need...is it not up to the artist to decide his own method of portraying his/her insight...enjoy the work and have fun doing it......there is an age old saying .........an art critic is an artist with no talent......not all people like the same things...live and let live.. enjoy what u have.....:))
i am impressed(?) with the differences in a print returned from a retail shop and the simple scan of the negative. i guess i can do what the retail did automatically and still have it my foto, as long as it is what i saw and shot. even kiosks for kodak at the local store allow simple manipulation before it is sent to the printer.
When I started shootin I was imiediatly dranw to film... It's taken me a long while to even consider digital as 'real photography'. At times it is just too easy with digital, I often see cheep piont-and-shoot digital cameras, giving way better colours, saturation, and definition than my mid-grade SLR...
I believe that digital is a great way to make small adjustments to photos, but I myself have tried many experiments with it. Though it is much to simply to create very complex effects on photoshop, with the click of a button, and I struggle for weeks in the darkroom trying the same thing.
Also consider that most every major change in photography has not been well accepted by most very quikly.
I believe that digital is a great way to make small adjustments to photos, but I myself have tried many experiments with it. Though it is much to simply to create very complex effects on photoshop, with the click of a button, and I struggle for weeks in the darkroom trying the same thing.
Also consider that most every major change in photography has not been well accepted by most very quikly.
do you like the picture you are looking at?...if yes!
who cares how it was produced as long as all components are from the maker....if you don`t like the picture...who cares how it was produced!
who cares how it was produced as long as all components are from the maker....if you don`t like the picture...who cares how it was produced!
Well that's a really good question..
it actually depends of your taste , your sensibility and vision you got towards your work or the way you would like it to look..
Primary thing is to have a great lighting which therefore will make your subject specially if it's people , need very little retouching...
Do you want it to look too fake or more realistic , there's a fine line in between the two. Again if it's a photomontage parameters change slightly ..
before rushing into any conclusion experiment with it,make a print with more and one with less then step away from it for 2 to 3 days then go back into it, see how you feel about it..
it actually depends of your taste , your sensibility and vision you got towards your work or the way you would like it to look..
Primary thing is to have a great lighting which therefore will make your subject specially if it's people , need very little retouching...
Do you want it to look too fake or more realistic , there's a fine line in between the two. Again if it's a photomontage parameters change slightly ..
before rushing into any conclusion experiment with it,make a print with more and one with less then step away from it for 2 to 3 days then go back into it, see how you feel about it..
Not an easy one!
Those questions asked are not specific enough. So we'll have a lot of fun and discussion when trying to answer them.
What is a photo?
Considering this is not a technical question, it is the tiny little sequence when the photo is taken from reality. It is also a documentation of s.th. that has been.
Does it matter if it was taken by film or chip?
NO! Generally I can not follow those discussions. I think that it really does not matter what you are going to use (e.g. film, chip, video, composing etc.).
The production of an outstanding photograph is it's expression and it's message. You can manage this with different materials. Life and reality are not digital. It's the imaging technique that is. So for me this question is irrelevant.
Did you ever consider that using a specific kind of film has s.th. to do with creating a special mood? Why do you think that Sensia is so popular among nature photographers? Surely not because of it's realistic color impression!
Color is very subjective and trendy. Take a look at older books, magazines or films. Spot the difference.
I guess the problem about enhancing photos is the fact, that we nowadays have broad access to software tools which have been to expansive for folks like us in the past. It enables us to do things, which could also be done manually in the darkroom, in less time with even less effort.
There is even more:
Nowadays we are the ones who are responsible for taking pictures, selecting, processing, retouching etc.
As said above, this could not be answered in general.
People have different taste. Genres are different and each of it uses different techniques. No problem with that.
Those questions asked are not specific enough. So we'll have a lot of fun and discussion when trying to answer them.
What is a photo?
Considering this is not a technical question, it is the tiny little sequence when the photo is taken from reality. It is also a documentation of s.th. that has been.
Does it matter if it was taken by film or chip?
NO! Generally I can not follow those discussions. I think that it really does not matter what you are going to use (e.g. film, chip, video, composing etc.).
The production of an outstanding photograph is it's expression and it's message. You can manage this with different materials. Life and reality are not digital. It's the imaging technique that is. So for me this question is irrelevant.
Did you ever consider that using a specific kind of film has s.th. to do with creating a special mood? Why do you think that Sensia is so popular among nature photographers? Surely not because of it's realistic color impression!
Color is very subjective and trendy. Take a look at older books, magazines or films. Spot the difference.
I guess the problem about enhancing photos is the fact, that we nowadays have broad access to software tools which have been to expansive for folks like us in the past. It enables us to do things, which could also be done manually in the darkroom, in less time with even less effort.
There is even more:
Nowadays we are the ones who are responsible for taking pictures, selecting, processing, retouching etc.
As said above, this could not be answered in general.
People have different taste. Genres are different and each of it uses different techniques. No problem with that.
One has to answer the following:
Do women use cosmetics to enhance their appearance?
Do people wear fashionable clothes for appearance?
Do we build fashionable housing for lodging?
Do we build stunning skyscrapers and magnificent cathedrals and declare them as works of art?
You can add many more with the greatest of ease !!!
As creative humans, we enhance almost everything ... and photography is no exception. It's called PROGRESS ..... MH
Do women use cosmetics to enhance their appearance?
Do people wear fashionable clothes for appearance?
Do we build fashionable housing for lodging?
Do we build stunning skyscrapers and magnificent cathedrals and declare them as works of art?
You can add many more with the greatest of ease !!!
As creative humans, we enhance almost everything ... and photography is no exception. It's called PROGRESS ..... MH
Hmm, Murray, then one has to ask following:
Are women really enhancing appearance with cosmetics, do they need that?
(Same for clothes etc...)
Is it really "enhancing" what we are doing with di or aren't we just falsifying what we se, turning it in what we would like to see, and if we do so, can we call it art? Or are we just building a dreamworld, flying from the real world? IS it really progress?
Are women really enhancing appearance with cosmetics, do they need that?
(Same for clothes etc...)
Is it really "enhancing" what we are doing with di or aren't we just falsifying what we se, turning it in what we would like to see, and if we do so, can we call it art? Or are we just building a dreamworld, flying from the real world? IS it really progress?
Martin ... The artist interprets what he takes in and controls the process of defining it ... whether it's paint, stone, music or photographs. Digital Imaging is another tool for the creative photographer.
As to the question ... Do women need etc ... The vast use of cosmetics answers your Spartan question.
Yes ... It is PROGRESS ... MH
As to the question ... Do women need etc ... The vast use of cosmetics answers your Spartan question.
Yes ... It is PROGRESS ... MH
Murray, I think you didn't hit the point here. Besides, we don't have to discuss whether it's good to use any digital imaging or not, we all use this.
But photography is more than bytes, pixels, filters etc.
I remember a colleague (unfortunately I have forgotten who it was, so forgive me when I don't name you!) who in his profile-text is quoting a warning he got from his teacher: "Don't let Photoshop turn you into a bad photographer!" Wise words, indeed.
Let me give an example: Have you tried to cook some fine meal with bad ingredients? Then you will find that this is virtually impossible. To turn excellent ingredients into bad meal, now, that's not difficult...
Same with photography: For to get the best results you need good pictures to work with, and then you have to find just the right amount of "enhancement". And there are usually several ways to come to a good result! But how easy is it to ruin a good picture by using too much "enhancement"!
So all is dependent on the first element, and that means a good photograph, good light, creativity, and then the right amount of "presentation". That's what's defining the art of photography to me!
The question here is not "Should we use digital imaging?", but "How much digital imaging do I need, for getting the best result?".
And Murray: The "vast use" of something is answering... nothing!
But photography is more than bytes, pixels, filters etc.
I remember a colleague (unfortunately I have forgotten who it was, so forgive me when I don't name you!) who in his profile-text is quoting a warning he got from his teacher: "Don't let Photoshop turn you into a bad photographer!" Wise words, indeed.
Let me give an example: Have you tried to cook some fine meal with bad ingredients? Then you will find that this is virtually impossible. To turn excellent ingredients into bad meal, now, that's not difficult...
Same with photography: For to get the best results you need good pictures to work with, and then you have to find just the right amount of "enhancement". And there are usually several ways to come to a good result! But how easy is it to ruin a good picture by using too much "enhancement"!
So all is dependent on the first element, and that means a good photograph, good light, creativity, and then the right amount of "presentation". That's what's defining the art of photography to me!
The question here is not "Should we use digital imaging?", but "How much digital imaging do I need, for getting the best result?".
And Murray: The "vast use" of something is answering... nothing!