I found this pretty depressing

I never meant depressing in the sense of clinical depression. I hope no-one thought I meant that.

The idea that you can buy a collection of fabulous skies taken by god knows who and then combine one of them with one of your own landscape images seems so far removed from photography as I understand it.

You can imagine the designer saying to the client:

"Here's the photo of your (.......structure.......whatever.....), sir. Would you like to pick a sky from this selection, and we'll drop it in for you."

Or the photographer anxious to impress his friends, his flickr buddies, whatever, doing the same thing.

It's all too easy. Not having been brought up photographically speaking in the digital era, I do find it contrary to the spirit of photography.

Juggler poses this question -

"For everyone else - why shouldn't we attempt to get the best out of our images?"

I have no problem with that. I do it myself. I've just discovered the adjustment brush! Now there's a thing....

But somewhere between there and sky replacement is a line which in my opinion takes us beyond photography and into something else entirely.

I applaud the good sense and integrity of the organisers of LPOTY in recognising this and staying the right side of that line.
 
jerry12953 said:
I never meant depressing in the sense of clinical depression. I hope no-one thought I meant that.

The idea that you can buy a collection of fabulous skies taken by god knows who and then combine one of them with one of your own landscape images seems so far removed from photography as I understand it.

You can imagine the designer saying to the client:

"Here's the photo of your (.......structure.......whatever.....), sir. Would you like to pick a sky from this selection, and we'll drop it in for you."

Or the photographer anxious to impress his friends, his flickr buddies, whatever, doing the same thing.

It's all too easy. Not having been brought up photographically speaking in the digital era, I do find it contrary to the spirit of photography.

Juggler poses this question -

"For everyone else - why shouldn't we attempt to get the best out of our images?"

I have no problem with that. I do it myself. I've just discovered the adjustment brush! Now there's a thing....

But somewhere between there and sky replacement is a line which in my opinion takes us beyond photography and into something else entirely.

I applaud the good sense and integrity of the organisers of LPOTY in recognising this and staying the right side of that line.
Click to expand...

I think the worst thing about this for me is that it seems to be the done thing for some estate agents. I went to look at a house with an incredible view from the back garden, only to find that there was in fact a housing estate there. When I mentioned it to the agent they said that they change the 'skies' as part of the premium package, but they actually just change everything above the fence line!!

On the topic though I don't see any issue, if you need to use a downloaded sky to create the image you want then so what?
 
You do realise that composite images have been made since the start of photography.

Images of Scott's, I think it was, Antarctic expedition being a classic example.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I don't think we are. All photographs are subjective representations. Nothing is exactly as it seems. Most landscapes have been processed to death already any way, so who cares if there are different skies added. The kind of people who do that are usually the ones that process stuff to death, so they were probably still making crap before, and they'll still be making crap after compositing.

You're all happy to have shots from the A9 represented as wild Scottish countryside, yet get all squeamish about a different sky putting in. This is typical amateur thinking, because amateurs only place value in the actual artefact.. the image itself - technically. That's how amateurs judge photos. They value "skill" in image creating, but only value that skill if it's a single photo, yet ironically amateurs are the ones most likely to process an image to within an inch of it's life. Doing so also massively changes it from reality, and that change happened not in the camera, but on a computer, so what exactly is the difference between your processing and adding another sky?

A good example is the work "Going Home" I shot last year.

.
Click to expand...

sorry, double post.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
Paul Reas

To which one could add; 'or on a computer'. :D
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that in theory, but the vast vast majority of interesting things in the world I'll never see, let alone be able to photograph (even when i win the lottery and spend the rest of my life travelling I'll still be missing 99.99999% of the interesting things in the world)

So in practice a lot of people can actually make far more interesting images using the computer than they can in real life, as their images aren't restricted to just what they can afford to go and photograph themselves.
 
mjScall said:
So in practice a lot of people can actually make far more interesting images using the computer than they can in real life, as their images aren't restricted to just what they can afford to go and photograph themselves.
Click to expand...

Images, yes. Photographs, no.

I don't know where this idea has come from that you have to go to interesting places to make interesting pictures. Interesting photographs don't come from interesting subjects any more than they come from the best cameras, they come from interesting photographers.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Interesting photographs don't come from interesting subjects any more than they come from the best cameras, they come from interesting photographers.
Click to expand...

I was trying to think how best to express that but you've covered it nicely.
 
jerry12953 said:
It's all too easy. Not having been brought up photographically speaking in the digital era, I do find it contrary to the spirit of photography..
Click to expand...

It's not though. No software will be able to magically drop a sky into another picture automatically. YOU as the photographer have to shoot both components sympathetically. It takes skill. Any software that automates this will undoubtedly be utter crap unless the idiot using it chooses components that match accidentally.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
A modern camera is a computer tho...
Click to expand...

That's pedantry. Parts of it may technically be a processing device, but the purpose remains the same. Lens focuses light, and then a means to store that image does just that. There maybe "Picture modes" and crap on it, but you can't composite, or retouch... you can add a few effects is all... but then again, most serious photographers wouldn't be doing that. Those that aren't serious about it.. well.. who cares? People with no interest in photography have always taken photos even since Eastman made it so you just press the button. You can't automate good photography because the equipment is not what's responsible for good photography.
 
jerry12953 said:
It's all too easy. Not having been brought up photographically speaking in the digital era, I do find it contrary to the spirit of photography.
Click to expand...

So its only photography when its as difficult to do as it used to be? What 'spirit' is that? Many have pointed out on here how images have always been manipulated to a lesser or greater degree. Your point seems to be that because its now 'easier' and anyone can do it, it's somehow wrong? Or am i missing the point?

This 'line' is one you are drawing, we all draw it in a different place. If its journalism then most would agree with you, however with most other things, especially landscapes, there has rarely been any spirit or integrity. whats the difference between cloning out a piece of rubbish, a fence post etc and dropping in a sky? Both are false. Why does it matter if the image looks good and viewers enjoy it?
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's pedantry. Parts of it may technically be a processing device, but the purpose remains the same. Lens focuses light, and then a means to store that image does just that. There maybe "Picture modes" and crap on it, but you can't composite, or retouch... you can add a few effects is all... but then again, most serious photographers wouldn't be doing that. Those that aren't serious about it.. well.. who cares? People with no interest in photography have always taken photos even since Eastman made it so you just press the button. You can't automate good photography because the equipment is not what's responsible for good photography.
Click to expand...
I was being facetious!
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's not though. No software will be able to magically drop a sky into another picture automatically. YOU as the photographer have to shoot both components sympathetically. It takes skill. Any software that automates this will undoubtedly be utter crap unless the idiot using it chooses components that match accidentally.
Click to expand...

It may take skill, but we aren't talking photography. We're talking image manipulation.
 
Last edited:
Read most but not all of this thread so if repeating anything then my apologies. Anyway, we seem to have gotten to a stage where you could actually create a 'photograph' without a camera and no one would be able to tell - you might be able to tell it was manipulated but not to what degree and therein lies the issue - for most images it doesn't really matter how it was created if it meets the brief but for the real photographers who for example like to enter competitions but their skills with editing software are limited is it fair that they have to compete with software experts? Some clubs/competitions are now actively stipulating the extent to which an image can be manipulated and to a lesser degree (as in amount of manipulation) than ever before - I've even heard say of a competition that stated the image had to be straight out of camera. One other thing, how will the skill of photography be passed down to the next generation of photographer if all they need to know is how to use the software.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
So its only photography when its as difficult to do as it used to be? What 'spirit' is that? Many have pointed out on here how images have always been manipulated to a lesser or greater degree. Your point seems to be that because its now 'easier' and anyone can do it, it's somehow wrong? Or am i missing the point?

This 'line' is one you are drawing, we all draw it in a different place. If its journalism then most would agree with you, however with most other things, especially landscapes, there has rarely been any spirit or integrity. whats the difference between cloning out a piece of rubbish, a fence post etc and dropping in a sky? Both are false. Why does it matter if the image looks good and viewers enjoy it?
Click to expand...

Rich,


That piece of rubbish: on another day, it might not have been there. Ideally one would walk over and remove it but failing that, I would clone it out.

That fence post is part of the landscape. It stays.

That bland sky? It may have potential and it may be possible to "improve" it in processing. Failing that, come back another day.

I can see what you're saying but honestly, if you don't understand the difference now you never will.

I quite like that Albert Hurwood's work though. Very naturalistic.
 
Wilko58 said:
Read most but not all of this thread so if repeating anything then my apologies. Anyway, we seem to have gotten to a stage where you could actually create a 'photograph' without a camera and no one would be able to tell - you might be able to tell it was manipulated but not to what degree and therein lies the issue - for most images it doesn't really matter how it was created if it meets the brief but for the real photographers who for example like to enter competitions but their skills with editing software are limited is it fair that they have to compete with software experts? Some clubs/competitions are now actively stipulating the extent to which an image can be manipulated and to a lesser degree (as in amount of manipulation) than ever before - I've even heard say of a competition that stated the image had to be straight out of camera. One other thing, how will the skill of photography be passed down to the next generation of photographer if all they need to know is how to use the software.
Click to expand...

Some good points there. Straight out of the camera, though- do you mean a jpeg?
 
Based on Wilko58's comments I would suggest that Ansel Adams wasn't a "real" photographer considering the amount of manipulation he did in the darkroom. These days it's done on a computer. A good image is a good image. Some of the arguments coming across here seem very similar to the ones a number of artists espoused when the camera was invented.
 
jerry12953 said:
Rich,


That piece of rubbish: on another day, it might not have been there. Ideally one would walk over and remove it but failing that, I would clone it out.

That fence post is part of the landscape. It stays.

That bland sky? It may have potential and it may be possible to "improve" it in processing. Failing that, come back another day.

I can see what you're saying but honestly, if you don't understand the difference now you never will.

I quite like that Albert Hurwood's work though. Very naturalistic.
Click to expand...

But that rubbish was there on that day, it was part of the landscape on that day.
In another year, that fence post might not be there. 100 years ago it wasn't. You must see that if you get into the 'movable' object rule then everything is up for debate. A pylon? A building? A plastic sack left and partly buried by an absent minded farmer 10 years ago but bright red and distracting that was there before the fence post?? How long does something have to be there before its deemed movable and part of the landscape? The argument is flawed from the start. Cloning is ok if its only certain things? Goodness me.

I don't get what you are saying at all...you have to understand that its YOUR rules, not everyone's. We will all draw the line somewhere different that's all i'm saying. Your standards are your standards and thats fine of course. But each to their own.

Competitions get themselves into all sorts of hot water with their silly rules. What is permitted and what isnt. A grad filter is ok cos its stuck on the front of a lens but not if done in post by blending from two different exposures? What about a filter stuck on the lens that has a sky at the top.

Posting others pics to ridicule was nothing to do with me...
 
Wilko58 said:
Read most but not all of this thread so if repeating anything then my apologies. Anyway, we seem to have gotten to a stage where you could actually create a 'photograph' without a camera and no one would be able to tell - you might be able to tell it was manipulated but not to what degree and therein lies the issue - for most images it doesn't really matter how it was created if it meets the brief but for the real photographers who for example like to enter competitions but their skills with editing software are limited is it fair that they have to compete with software experts? Some clubs/competitions are now actively stipulating the extent to which an image can be manipulated and to a lesser degree (as in amount of manipulation) than ever before - I've even heard say of a competition that stated the image had to be straight out of camera. One other thing, how will the skill of photography be passed down to the next generation of photographer if all they need to know is how to use the software.
Click to expand...
"real' photographers are ones that enter competitions? God help us...
Photography has always included processing hasn't it? Just cos i can now do it rather than a guy (or me) in a lab this seems to make it unpalatable. Its just a strange way of thinking but ho hum.
 
If you had two equally amazing pieces of art in a gallery, and one of them read
"This image is a composite of 30 other images, and took 20 hours to complete"
It might not seem as impressive as
"The photographer spent 20 years on these peaks..blah blah.."

I assume there are people who care about the history of an image, not just the end result. So would not worry about becoming obsolete to software whizzes just yet :)

At the same time I don't think any limitation should be put on creativity. I personally don't take photos to create an accurate record of what I see before me, I take photos to create aesthetic or emotional images. Even for things like Wedding photos, I'm sure the bride and groom won't mind a bit of embellishment.
 
Last edited:
Rich Ellis I said 'for example those who enter competitions' which therefore doesn't mean real photographers are only those who enter competitions. Ansel Adams may well have manipulated his picture but it was as much as a skill as taking the pictures in the first place; today a kid on a computer could create a composite image made from parts find on the internet or indeed the software package that started this discussion; a big difference in skills I would suggest. I'm not against manipulation per se, should saying that it has got far too easy and is detracting from the skill and challenges in getting the image in the first place.
 
The creativity is in knowing what you want the finished image to look like and achieving it, not in the tools you use to get there.
 
Wilko58 said:
Rich Ellis I said 'for example those who enter competitions' which therefore doesn't mean real photographers are only those who enter competitions. Ansel Adams may well have manipulated his picture but it was as much as a skill as taking the pictures in the first place; today a kid on a computer could create a composite image made from parts find on the internet or indeed the software package that started this discussion; a big difference in skills I would suggest. I'm not against manipulation per se, should saying that it has got far too easy and is detracting from the skill and challenges in getting the image in the first place.
Click to expand...
So, I go back to my previous comment - if its 'hard' then its ok - if its 'easy' then its not. Don't you think thats an odd way of looking at it? Anyway, I wouldnt say its easy to manipulate images well - I find it pretty bloomin' difficult. Its just that I have the tools to do it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top