|
|
Post by Peterj on Dec 15, 2018 0:43:10 GMT
Here's an interesting YouTube on the subject. |
|
bnk1953
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 183 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by bnk1953 on Dec 15, 2018 1:27:38 GMT
Thanks for posting this. I believe it all goes to the purpose of the photo......is it supposed to "affect" you or is it supposed to show what is "real". Granted that the combination of both is something strived for by photographers for publications (newspapers, Nat. Geographic, etc). And that is fine - but I like the "affect" - but it would be nice to see if it was manipulated a lot (adding parts versus adjusting the photo (Adam's "Moonrise").
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Dec 15, 2018 1:50:29 GMT
Thanks for sharing, Peter. I won a "Best in Monochrome" for this image. The image as shown looks nothing like the picture that I originally took. After reading the judge's comments and seeing some people's reaction after sharing the steps I took to create the image, I began to feel guilty. That is when a friend pointed out that I had a vision for the picture and that is where the "art" came in. Still there are purists who I am sure would look down on the process I took to create it. I know at one time I would have. Now I think it comes down to what the requirements are where an image is submitted. I have often thought of sharing the steps I took in creating the image on the Show Your Work board. Maybe when we get home I will. u.cubeupload.com/HMCA/DSC0668Printed.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Dec 15, 2018 1:54:58 GMT
The photograph or photographer's purpose is at the heart of this. I use photography in 2 ways:
1) document what, when, where, how, & why - crop, adjust WB and exposure are my self imposed limits
2) create a compelling image for my pleasure - anything goes |
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on Dec 15, 2018 4:07:20 GMT
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking article Peterj ! My response to this issue has evolved enormously over the years. Coming to appreciate that a camera is not a human eye (color spectrum, dynamic range, etc) and therefore can never replicate what one sees is one important aspect. In the same vein is the fact that "seeing" is dynamic; we don't see in snapshots but rather compose a scene in our brain over a finite amount of time. I used to think that a photograph could be "honest" but believe now that that was very naive of me. In a photo there is always a frame, so already it is an abstraction. Just using the language of "composing" an image acknowledges our (perhaps unrecognized) understanding that it is not real. We see with "proper eyes" that a painting is something other than reality, but we are still learning to understand that the same applies to all photographic images as well. Pencil and paper are just tools, equally usable by a child or a Picasso. The same with a camera, just another tool for making images. |
|
|
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Dec 15, 2018 18:16:12 GMT
Excellent video. Thanks PeterJ. IMHO, we have a lot of latitude when post photos merely as "photos" and almost anything goes. Provided Helen's photo fell within the guidelines of the show it is totally acceptable. (Nice photo BTW.) Radical adjustment should be revealed such as in the image below which is a composite. I've sold the "photo" below (2005) in assorted iterations and hung it in art shows, but have always revealed the truth, i.e. that this scene never existed and made form two photos. However, if a photo is manipulated to falsely deceive, then that is not acceptable. (The ad industry uses false imagery constantly, as do environmental radicals, media and politicos.) Tom is spot on, "In a photo there is always a frame, so already it is an abstraction." Our photos represent something close to reality, but never reality. Without even using photoshop our photos are different then what we saw....close. (Gear, lenses, filters, artificial light etc etc.) This never happened..not even close. The tree was shot in daylight and the moon shot at another time and place. If I told you, "Wow, look what we saw last week" then that is deceitful. If I tell you it is a composite make from two photos and heavily manipulated, that's okay. Thanks for the video.  |
|
|
|
Post by whippet on Dec 15, 2018 19:03:57 GMT
Since learning more about PSE, I have for some time, got to the stage where I don't believe anything I see, be it, photos, films, TV adverts etc. I really enjoy doing manipulation of images. But, like Clive says, Quote - However, if a photo is manipulated to falsely deceive, then that is not acceptable. (The ad industry uses false imagery constantly, as do environmental radicals, media and politicos.)
The first image on the video is amazing. I love to see how these things are done. But, if the artist didn't explain when he first showed it . . . then in my opinion, that is cheating.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on Dec 15, 2018 19:56:10 GMT
Interesting video. Photo manipulation is fine. Isn’t this forum in existence for that reason? 😏 I just want to know going in that the photo is a composite and the like. Love your example Clive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sydney on Dec 16, 2018 0:02:16 GMT
What a great topic! Without doubt there will be many opinions on this subject. As for me personally, I don't feel at all bad about manipulating a photo to create the composition or artistic vision I had in mind for it as long as I am not entering it into a competition which specifically forbids it. After all, even the act of cropping a photo is manipulation. Another area where I would fine photo manipulation unacceptable would be photos appearing as part of a journalistic piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 0:36:37 GMT
I concur with others in that this is a great topic.....thank you for bringing it up Peter 
That's a really interesting and thought provoking video.
From my point of view.......my main interests are in landscapes and events. In both cases, especially documenting an event I aim output images that "tell the story" of the event and maintain realistic views as they actually were.
I am not really into art photography/processing but I admire those who have the talent for it. So as long as an image is clearly intended to be a work of art then of course anything in terms of editing is allowed.
Something that is totally unacceptable to me is editing that is intended to deceive the viewer in the hope of personal gain (monetary or otherwise) for the creator of the image.
Then you have a very, very broad grey area where an image might be edited with the purpose to deceive the viewer but with no possibility of personal gain for the image's creator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Dec 16, 2018 0:55:38 GMT
As for me personally, I don't feel at all bad about manipulating a photo to create the composition or artistic vision I had in mind for it as long as I am not entering it into a competition which specifically forbids it. After all, even the act of cropping a photo is manipulation. Another area where I would fine photo manipulation unacceptable would be photos appearing as part of a journalistic piece. Sydney, you said it all. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Dec 16, 2018 0:58:47 GMT
This topic is especially interesting in this era of "fake news".
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Dec 17, 2018 2:10:50 GMT
Certainly an interesting subject. Funnily enough the first time I ran into Photoshop was in the early 1990's (so likely Photoshop 2 running on a Mac) when visiting an ad agency where they were using it to change the colour of a car in an ad so the ad could be used in a country where that particular colour wasn't going to be available. I think they also demonstrated turning a left hand drive car into a right hand drive one. Anyway I was very impressed by what was new technology at the time (and it encouraged me to get early version of PSE when it appeared around 2001). I can't recall ever considering it cheating even if it was using digital manipulation to save money. I just thought of it as Photoshopping . Needless to say some of the first things I did with PSE2 was to change the colour of pictures, combine them, remove things etc etc just because I now could and it was fun to do. I guess it all comes down to motive. If the intent is to cheat then it's likely cheating. Tony |
|
