Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Biweekly Shoot Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 26, 2004, 11:06 PM   #11
Moderator
 
calr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466
Default

Thanks, Barbara. Just one question, though. If you start with a digital photo and then start enhancing it in Photoshop or PSP is the end result still a photograph or is it a picture. I don't mean adding or deleting elements from the photo. It seems to that once you start tweaking levels, curves and everything else I see people talking about, it is no longer a photograph, but a piece of photographic art.

Now that I think about it, my objective in taking a photograph has always been the artistic aspects of the shot. I don't shoot snapshots. I don't shoot people. I try to see art in every photo I take. Admittedly, many fall far short of my goal!!

When my wife and I went to Walt Disney World in Orlando a few years ago, while everyone else was taking pictures of Mickey Mouse, etc., I was taking photographs of the landscaping, brightly colored paint jobs, etc. I do that everywhere I go. I let my wife take the snapshots! However, her photographic skills have really improved over the past few years.

Anyway, I guess I've answered my own question.

(Additional photos of balloon in "Other Photos" forum)
calr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 12:26 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

calr wrote:
Quote:
If you start with a digital photo and then start enhancing it in Photoshop or PSP is the end result still a photograph or is it a picture......It seems to that once you start tweaking levels, curves and everything else I see people talking about, it is no longer a photograph, but a piece of photographic art.
When we all grovelled in darkrooms in the attic (or in the understairs broom-cupboard with a home-made biscuit-tin enlarger at age 14 in my case), and wet-processed our images, we were using levels and curves just as much as we do now. The *materials* had their characteristic curves built in, but only only completely standard exposure time, and processing formula, time and temperature would give those standard curves, because we worked with a combination of technique and artistic judgement.

Also, dodging and burning-in were all deemed part of the 'artistic' process. Just a handful of great masters insisted that what the camera saw was what you got. Some wouldn't even crop a 35mm frame. Where do you draw the line? But they still depended on the mixture of technical and artistic skills in the darkroom, often applied by someone else (what the eye doesn't see...).

So don't worry about your lovely balloon pictures. They're fine by me, just so long as you're not a Head of State airbrushing your last military dictator ally out of the state visit snapshots, and inserting your current 'friend', and publishing in a major national newspaper.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 10:40 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
monkey143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,131
Default

I'm also from the "old school" in that's the way I was taught. But we have so much new technology to use for our visions that I think photographic art is still art - even if it's not "just" a photograph. This is just my preference, but I can see a landscape any time I look out my window. I can't see it with early-morning mist, with a faeryflying by,or sans my neighbor's dirty sheep pen. THAT's what I want to see - something to take me away from my "everyday." And while your photo may do that, so may also your digital art created starting with the basic camera. That said, there were those who believed the camera, when invented, was "cheating" as far as art went. Aren't we the same, in this new generation? Kind of like, one generation thought Elvis was obscene. That same generation now thinks Eminem is obscene (I think he is). As Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the sun." The more things change, the more they stay the same. We see, we create.

my 2 cents.
monkey143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 11:44 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

This is a dialogue that's likely to never end because it's predicated on taste, belief, and definition. Before anything else, there's the definition of photography. Don't we first have to decide if it even requires a camera? What if photo paper with a leaf sitting on it is exposed under an enlarger? Is this an element of photography, or since no camera's involved, must we give it a different name?Is a photograph not a photograph until it's displayed on paper or screen? Once we start digging down into definitions, we can probably each find dearly held flaws in our thinking.

When we look at belief, we really get into a tangle because we come up against walls that limit our own and other people's creativity. Once upon a time, it was believed that paintings should represent physical reality. Then it was decided they should represent spiritual reality. After that, they needed to represent ideals that existed nowhere. Eventually, all heck broke loose, and crazy peoplestarted distorting everything, nutty people like Turner, Daumier, Renoir, and Cezanne. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dali, Klee, Kandinsky, Orozko, and Picasso showed up with all their psychotic brethren. Which was the right way, the true way of art? The same question can be asked of photography.

Then there's taste, no denying it. The only thing we need be careful of is that we don't start mistaking taste for value.

Is it bad or wrong to manipulate the image? How so? Is the image in the camera or is it inthe mind? Who is the artist: the camera or the photographer? Must digital photography be held to the limits of film photography, never making use of the great power it has? To what end?

Guess my opinion is pretty darned obvious, isn't it? :-)


bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 12:10 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
ferny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,866
Default

I also think you should try and get the picture you want with the camera. But I also think that the whole point of digital is to give you freedom to edit your pictures more easily. There is nothing wrong with changing the brightness of cloning out a black dot.
Artists use turps and rubbers. Digital photographers use Photoshop.
ferny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 12:22 PM   #16
Moderator
 
calr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466
Default

Some of us use Paint Shop Pro 8
:-D
calr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 12:36 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
ferny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,866
Default

I use PSP8 to, I use the word Photoshop so people know what I'm talking about. :lol: I've got Photoshop sitting here, but I've only used it once. PSP8 is so much better than PSP7.


[line]But then all they know is how to put you down. When you're there, they're your friend. But then when you're not around. They say, "Oh, she's changed". Oh we know what that means. Well it means they're just jealous. But they'll never do the things. That they wish that they could do so well
ferny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 2:43 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

haha...i thought you were saying psp8 was better than photoshop 7...i was like WAAAAt?!...lol

i agree with barbara.....but i don't think the ability to affect exposure later should make you change the way you shoot, like RAW....it is an amazing ability to compensate exposure, but that doesn't mean you just go out not worrying about exposure cuz you know you can fix it later....digital photography has added great things, we just can't let ourselves get lazy....

my 2 cents....

wow..there's a lot of money being thrown around here

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:53 PM.