Am I right or wrong?
A couple of issues back in PHOTOgraphic Magazine, I saw an article that has somewhat been on my mind ever since.
A guy took a photo of a Barn. It was a nice day, Wheat field in the foreground, not a bad looking shot. He then put the photo on his computer and began to alter it using his photo software.
He changed the Wheat field into water. He used the sky from another photograph. He made it a night scene instead of daytime. And he also put in a picture of the moon.
My problem with this, is that if he could of got a barn photo from some clip-art, he would not even have had to leave the house.
I'm no expert, far from it, but to me, that's not photography. I'm not sure what I'd call it? It's artistic. I'm sure it's very difficult to do. It just seems like cheating, in a way.
Anyway, that is just my opinion, and I hope nobody cares that I gave it. Let me know what your thoughts are about this.
Am I right, or wrong?
Brad Waldera
A guy took a photo of a Barn. It was a nice day, Wheat field in the foreground, not a bad looking shot. He then put the photo on his computer and began to alter it using his photo software.
He changed the Wheat field into water. He used the sky from another photograph. He made it a night scene instead of daytime. And he also put in a picture of the moon.
My problem with this, is that if he could of got a barn photo from some clip-art, he would not even have had to leave the house.
I'm no expert, far from it, but to me, that's not photography. I'm not sure what I'd call it? It's artistic. I'm sure it's very difficult to do. It just seems like cheating, in a way.
Anyway, that is just my opinion, and I hope nobody cares that I gave it. Let me know what your thoughts are about this.
Am I right, or wrong?
Brad Waldera
At least his modification was based on his photographing regardless of that in fact I feel it is actually thoroughly diverged...so this belongs to digital editing.
If I were him I would simply go find a nightscene instead of wasting time doing considerable modification on my own photographing work.
If I were him I would simply go find a nightscene instead of wasting time doing considerable modification on my own photographing work.
Well Brad, i think you are both right AND wrong ! 8-)
In the past some photographers used to do the same but then in the darkroom, making some photographs and then by altering and editing make a total different picture. This is just one of the many forms of photography and therefore also part of the artform called photography. The only risk thereby we have nowadays is the fact that things can be altered in such way that it is not visible anymore, so a problem can arise that we are being shown something which is not real. In my opinion anyone can alter his pictures as much as desired however one should always mention that the result was made by digital editing. In FC we have a special channel for this digiart !
In the past some photographers used to do the same but then in the darkroom, making some photographs and then by altering and editing make a total different picture. This is just one of the many forms of photography and therefore also part of the artform called photography. The only risk thereby we have nowadays is the fact that things can be altered in such way that it is not visible anymore, so a problem can arise that we are being shown something which is not real. In my opinion anyone can alter his pictures as much as desired however one should always mention that the result was made by digital editing. In FC we have a special channel for this digiart !
Brad,
Photography has many uses. What you are doing is very straight forward black and white photography without any editing. There are certain darkroom techniques that are considered standard for improving the quality of an image. Now with digital photography a lot of people never learn those techniques, nor do they understand that it was part of the process. Sandwiching, dodging (stopping light from over exposing an area), burning (giving more processing time to an area to darken it), solarization, colored filters, masking, tints/sepia tone, reverse negative, adjustments in printing and processing times, are just some of the standard ways traditional black and white photographers altered. It is not uncommon in traditional film printing to cut a mask of an area to expose, and then cover that area to go back and give a different exposure to another area of the print. These are not considered "cheating" in traditional photography processing - it's part of the art of developing an image.
Other techniques such as softening filters (a stretched nylon hose, or a sheet of blurred glass over the image paper, sometimes with colored jells for example can alter a black and white image.
When you get into color processing another whole world opens up to techniques. In color you can manipulate saturation, color levels, just about anything that you find in Photoshop software.
The world of digital cameras and editing software is quickly changing how photography is used as an art medium.
The fact is what a lot of people consider "digi-art" now is often something that can be done in the darkroom of a skilled photographer. When digital started I was one of the first to abhore the trend - after all how could THIS be REAL photography. Absurd. I've now reluctantly given in and have started to learn digital editing - I miss the darkroom, but I am amazed at how easily and quickly I can do what took me hours, days, sometimes months for more elaborate works to do with the enlarger and processing chemicals.
Pure digitally created images are something different. Those images come purely from the imagination of the artist - sometimes they include aspects of photographic images.
In history the camera (camera obsura)can be traced to the 5th Century B.C., was used in Aristotle's time and was used by artists with the advent of the convex lens around the time of De Vinci. It was used as a tool to project scenes to aid painters and artists. I am sure they took artistic license in their "photography".
If you want to wade through all the bickering (and PLEASE ignore it, because we are all getting along nicely now) on a previous forum discussion, I have a multi part posting that might help.
http://www.fotocommunity.com/forum/read ... =727&t=727
If you want, I also have links on my profile page to articles and websites on various aspects of photography, it's history, and it's new trend, can also send you articles.
Hope this helps.
Photography has many uses. What you are doing is very straight forward black and white photography without any editing. There are certain darkroom techniques that are considered standard for improving the quality of an image. Now with digital photography a lot of people never learn those techniques, nor do they understand that it was part of the process. Sandwiching, dodging (stopping light from over exposing an area), burning (giving more processing time to an area to darken it), solarization, colored filters, masking, tints/sepia tone, reverse negative, adjustments in printing and processing times, are just some of the standard ways traditional black and white photographers altered. It is not uncommon in traditional film printing to cut a mask of an area to expose, and then cover that area to go back and give a different exposure to another area of the print. These are not considered "cheating" in traditional photography processing - it's part of the art of developing an image.
Other techniques such as softening filters (a stretched nylon hose, or a sheet of blurred glass over the image paper, sometimes with colored jells for example can alter a black and white image.
When you get into color processing another whole world opens up to techniques. In color you can manipulate saturation, color levels, just about anything that you find in Photoshop software.
The world of digital cameras and editing software is quickly changing how photography is used as an art medium.
The fact is what a lot of people consider "digi-art" now is often something that can be done in the darkroom of a skilled photographer. When digital started I was one of the first to abhore the trend - after all how could THIS be REAL photography. Absurd. I've now reluctantly given in and have started to learn digital editing - I miss the darkroom, but I am amazed at how easily and quickly I can do what took me hours, days, sometimes months for more elaborate works to do with the enlarger and processing chemicals.
Pure digitally created images are something different. Those images come purely from the imagination of the artist - sometimes they include aspects of photographic images.
In history the camera (camera obsura)can be traced to the 5th Century B.C., was used in Aristotle's time and was used by artists with the advent of the convex lens around the time of De Vinci. It was used as a tool to project scenes to aid painters and artists. I am sure they took artistic license in their "photography".
If you want to wade through all the bickering (and PLEASE ignore it, because we are all getting along nicely now) on a previous forum discussion, I have a multi part posting that might help.
http://www.fotocommunity.com/forum/read ... =727&t=727
If you want, I also have links on my profile page to articles and websites on various aspects of photography, it's history, and it's new trend, can also send you articles.
Hope this helps.
Thank you all for replying. I see a need for this type of photography, I just don't feel comfortable yet with the fact that through today's technology, you can put out an image without ever taking a photograph. I agree it's artwork, and I suppose I'll also give in to it at some point.
Thanks again, everybody.
Brad
Thanks again, everybody.
Brad
Hi Brad,
everything been said before by Anastasya, Ruud and Wen.
I think that we have to remember the time when photography started.
All art painters were against it and couldn't take that the photography is part of the art.
Now, we have the same situation. Most art photographers are against digital photos or art.
The most common sentence is in both cases: 'I can do it.'
The most important thing for me is the final work. I don't care how is done.
I use my photo softwares same way how I worked in darkroom but I think, that I will move further and try to use all other functions.
Regards
Roberto
everything been said before by Anastasya, Ruud and Wen.
I think that we have to remember the time when photography started.
All art painters were against it and couldn't take that the photography is part of the art.
Now, we have the same situation. Most art photographers are against digital photos or art.
The most common sentence is in both cases: 'I can do it.'
The most important thing for me is the final work. I don't care how is done.
I use my photo softwares same way how I worked in darkroom but I think, that I will move further and try to use all other functions.
Regards
Roberto