Photography - Reality of what we see or Edited to what we don't see?

Dave Canon said:
It all comes down to whether you accept that Photography is art.
Click to expand...
That should've been 'can be'.
Petrochemist said:
The results some call photography involve compositing multiple images (swapping skies, adding in a moon etc) even when I like these I feel they are graphic art rather than photography.
Click to expand...
You have a point!
Dave Canon said:
A couple of hundred years ago a painting had to be a religious work (as did most music).
Click to expand...
To clarify, works may have been produced under religious patronage, but great artwork transcends that patronage - the badge is not the content ...
 
Petrochemist said:
Photography doesn't have to have any relation to what the eye sees.
I do a fair bit of infrared photography, shooting things that are there but in a way the eye can't detect, a similar field would be x-rays. In both cases the photographs are showing what is there just not being limited to what our feeble eye's can manage. :)

I have to agree that many over processed images look awful, and I'm sure many will find my false colour IR images hideous. My processing is nearly all using global controls, contrast, hue brightness etc. but I will also crop & clone out sensor muck.

The results some call photography involve compositing multiple images (swapping skies, adding in a moon etc) even when I like these I feel they are graphic art rather than photography.
Click to expand...
You may call the last group Graphic art but that is not what FIAP, PSA, RPS, PAGB think and they represent millions of photographers around the world, But there is a specific distinction between photography and Graphic art. That is a photograph, even if it is a composite, all elements must be a photograph or part of one. Generally Graphic Art is computer originated images which may be drawn or automatically generated but are not base on photographs (though presumably could be). I do some infrared as well but because you can set the false colours as you wish to suit you they cannot be said to show what is there.

I know each generation has a right to question definitions etc. but this debate was done to death 20 years ago.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
You may call the last group Graphic art but that is not what FIAP, PSA, RPS, PAGB think and they represent millions of photographers around the world, But there is a specific distinction between photography and Graphic art. That is a photograph, even if it is a composite, all elements must be a photograph or part of one. Generally Graphic Art is computer originated images which may be drawn or automatically generated but are not base on photographs (though presumably could be). I do some infrared as well but because you can set the false colours as you wish to suit you they cannot be said to show what is there.

I know each generation has a right to question definitions etc. but this debate was done to death 20 years ago.

Dave
Click to expand...

You might believe this debate was done to death 20 years ago but I disagree. Never has it been easier to replace skies (for example) than it is now. The unique selling point now of some software is how easy it is to do it. You can go on the internet and buy "331 skies for just £2.99" or whatever the current offer is. I can't say how objectionable I find this sort of thing. Many younger photographers growing up in the digital age will assume that it has always been this way, when it clearly hasn't. I would argue that it is a good idea to educate these people into trying to find their own landscapes and gain the satisfaction that us old fogeys have always done when we get it right.

As for what to call these composites......definitely not photographs, nor "art" when you consider that most of the work has been done by software designers. But as you suggest graphic art doesn't really cover them either. I honestly believe it would be useful to find a term to describe them and make sure it gets out there into general circulation.
 
Dave Canon said:
You may call the last group Graphic art but that is not what FIAP, PSA, RPS, PAGB think and they represent millions of photographers around the world, But there is a specific distinction between photography and Graphic art. That is a photograph, even if it is a composite, all elements must be a photograph or part of one. Generally Graphic Art is computer originated images which may be drawn or automatically generated but are not base on photographs (though presumably could be). I do some infrared as well but because you can set the false colours as you wish to suit you they cannot be said to show what is there.

I know each generation has a right to question definitions etc. but this debate was done to death 20 years ago.

Dave
Click to expand...
Just like the definition of Macro was set over 50 years ago to be 1:1 & greater on the sensor, but has since been evolved to include 1:4 (by many lens manufacturers).

Infra red does show what's there, just not what we see. Human colour perception is not reality. If global adjustments are used in editing any false colours show different aspects of what is in the data,
Many animals see colour quite different to us with Mantis shrimps apparently having 13 different colour receptors, and even they are far from reality where photons even 0.01nm apart can be significant for determining their source (in atomic spectroscopy). that sort of resolution is well over the top for nearly all images, but just a 10nm resolution would still give 8000 separate colours over the range modified cameras can see. There are applications where 2nm bandwith filters are used in photography.
What people see is very different from reality, with metamers, optical illusions, wishful thinking etc.
 
jerry12953 said:
You might believe this debate was done to death 20 years ago but I disagree. Never has it been easier to replace skies (for example) than it is now. The unique selling point now of some software is how easy it is to do it. You can go on the internet and buy "331 skies for just £2.99" or whatever the current offer is. I can't say how objectionable I find this sort of thing. Many younger photographers growing up in the digital age will assume that it has always been this way, when it clearly hasn't. I would argue that it is a good idea to educate these people into trying to find their own landscapes and gain the satisfaction that us old fogeys have always done when we get it right.

As for what to call these composites......definitely not photographs, nor "art" when you consider that most of the work has been done by software designers. But as you suggest graphic art doesn't really cover them either. I honestly believe it would be useful to find a term to describe them and make sure it gets out there into general circulation.
Click to expand...
Slightly out of touch with the reality. Just because you can buy precooked Tesco edible package it doesn't make it nor degrade real cooked food. Your claim equates that all meals with same description as Tesco readies no longer may be appreciated as gourmet or whatever.
Don't buy 2.99 pack then. They suck. But don't put everyone into the same boat too if you can't appreciate art and see any difference.
In fact going further there is plenty of wonderful digital art created entirely from numerous library piece or even in silico generated. If you so dislike computers and what they can artistically used to create, why are you using one right now. Typewriter and snail mail may be better suited.
 
Dave Canon said:
A couple of hundred years ago a painting had to be a religious work (as did most music). Fortunately, some artists broke away and impressionism became popular.
Click to expand...
This in fact couldn't be further away from history. Perhaps you meant 600-700 years ago and Renaissance?
 
droj said:
I find that extremely curious, Toni, and wonder if you might elaborate on the psychology involved
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I have sufficient understanding to explain well.

A couple of years back I took pictures of some roses that had gone over. They reminded me of my mother's skin, both the silky texture of the petals and the way something of beauty had aged, decayed and become ready to be discarded. The pictures weren't especially great, but I had put a lot of my feelings and emotions into them and might still feel a little of that reviewing today. But others pictures - they just show the thing they wanted them to (or not if they're poor pics).
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'm not sure I have sufficient understanding to explain well.

A couple of years back I took pictures of some roses that had gone over. They reminded me of my mother's skin, both the silky texture of the petals and the way something of beauty had aged, decayed and become ready to be discarded. The pictures weren't especially great, but I had put a lot of my feelings and emotions into them and might still feel a little of that reviewing today. But others pictures - they just show the thing they wanted them to (or not if they're poor pics).
Click to expand...
So the emotion attendant on the roses images was invested in them by you, and involves personal associations. That's understandable, & sounds quite involving. But surely an image can equally have inherent qualities that can be read emotionally by someone who wasn't in on its making - generated by its framing, tonalities, subject matter etc that make it a message from its maker able to be freely interpreted by others.
 
droj said:
So the emotion attendant on the roses images was invested in them by you, and involves personal associations. That's understandable, & sounds quite involving. But surely an image can equally have inherent qualities that can be read emotionally by someone who wasn't in on its making - generated by its framing, tonalities, subject matter etc that make it a message from its maker able to be freely interpreted by others.
Click to expand...

I can probably read the emotion but not *feel* it.
 
datasafe said:
I love viewing pictures especially those that exhibit the skill of the photographer as opposed the the skill of using Photoshop or lightroom!
Click to expand...
How do you know when an image hasn't been post-processed? Done well you can't tell so there in lies the real skill in using Photoshop or Lightroom.

In fact I would go so far as to say that pretty much every really good photograph must have been post processed in some way and the more skilful the photographer the less likely you are to notice. Anyone can point and shoot...
 
jerry12953 said:
You might believe this debate was done to death 20 years ago but I disagree. Never has it been easier to replace skies (for example) than it is now. The unique selling point now of some software is how easy it is to do it. You can go on the internet and buy "331 skies for just £2.99" or whatever the current offer is. I can't say how objectionable I find this sort of thing. Many younger photographers growing up in the digital age will assume that it has always been this way, when it clearly hasn't. I would argue that it is a good idea to educate these people into trying to find their own landscapes and gain the satisfaction that us old fogeys have always done when we get it right.

As for what to call these composites......definitely not photographs, nor "art" when you consider that most of the work has been done by software designers. But as you suggest graphic art doesn't really cover them either. I honestly believe it would be useful to find a term to describe them and make sure it gets out there into general circulation.
Click to expand...
Replacing sky using LR/PS is not something I would do because all images must be your own work for international competitions. Ok you can replace a sky with one of your own but not a sky by someone else. I tried replacing skies 15 years ago but it is never very satisfactory because it may not then match the rest of the scene. Most my composites are surreal images and not pretending to be straight captures. Whether or not you agree, these composites are accepted as photographs throughout the world.

Dave
 
sirch said:
How do you know when an image hasn't been post-processed? Done well you can't tell so there in lies the real skill in using Photoshop or Lightroom.

In fact I would go so far as to say that pretty much every really good photograph must have been post processed in some way and the more skilful the photographer the less likely you are to notice. Anyone can point and shoot...
Click to expand...


Either the photographer has processed it or the software inside the camera has done it for them........
 
jerry12953 said:
Either the photographer has processed it or the software inside the camera has done it for them........
Click to expand...
Friday night, a few sherbets in caveat but ...

there in lies the very essence of the debate. Some people just don't seem to think that intent matters and some do. If the camera does it then it is just lucky happenstance, if a thoughtful and skilful artist does it then it has value. The end results may be very similar ... once .. but the skilful photographer can do it repeatedly, with intent.
 
I think that the debate about Art & Photography was going on when the first Camera Obscura was used :)
The answer may be that all Photography should be classed as a subset of Art like Drama.
Or perhaps we need to get away from the Human need/requirement that things have to put into one category or another, that is just a hangup that we have adopted from the ancient Greeks. An image just is.
As for manipulation of digital data I am quite happy for anyone to do what they like, I may not like it but I don't find it annoying or objectionable. If someone wants to buy a Landscape and a separate Sky and merge them so what, it certainly does not bother me.
I did post an over-processed image on here last year, a bit tongue in cheek, and I was surprised that some people actually liked it.
www.talkphotography.co.uk

Over-processed?

Too much time on my hands.
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Suvv said:
The answer may be that all Photography should be classed as a subset of Art like Drama.
Or perhaps we need to get away from the Human need/requirement that things have to put into one category or another, that is just a hangup that we have adopted from the ancient Greeks. An image just is.
Click to expand...
A camera is a multifunctional tool and as such can be used for different purposes leading to different outcomes,. A medical x-ray or a journalistic photo is mostly not art. Much of what is going on in the art world is about marketing so getting something classified as art gains access to a market in which photos may be sold.

It's fine for things to be multifunctional, the difficulty some people seem to have is seeing that the purpose for which they use the tool is not necessarily the same as that of someone else and hence they might not "like" someone else's results. For me ... vive la difference.
 
jerry12953 said:
Except the prestigious competitions that I'm aware of........... eg LPOTY, WPOTY, BWPA.....
Click to expand...
Obviously you cannot enter a creative composite in Landscape or Wildlife but nor could you with the major international Salons but many have a creative section to encourage such entries. I thought one of the most prestigious UK competitions is Masters of Print and the rule is as I suggested above; as long as it is all your own work and based on photographic images.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
Obviously you cannot enter a creative composite in Landscape or Wildlife but nor could you with the major international Salons but many have a creative section to encourage such entries. I thought one of the most prestigious UK competitions is Masters of Print and the rule is as I suggested above; as long as it is all your own work and based on photographic images.

Dave
Click to expand...


I'm not a great one for competitions myself, although I have entered a few and been "highly commended " three times..... (Just blowing my own trumpet there......). I believe potential winners are asked to supply a RAW file to prevent composites from being selected by mistake. Some winners have been controversially disqualified when it was discovered too late that they have entered a composite. I believe that some of these major competitions employ a judge specifically to look for evidence of such misdemeanors.

I don't have a problem with competitions having a separate section for composites or otherwise drastically manipulated images. I just feel that the essence of photography is responding to the moment in a visual sense. I do find it ironic that the genre of photography that is most prone to the use of composites and other technological fixes etc (landscape) is the one I've spent most of my life engaged in!
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
Much of what is going on in the art world is about marketing
Click to expand...
A line from a radio play I heard many decades ago: "You can sell anything if you lie with a straight face". I long ago forgot the title of the play but that line stuck. :thinking:
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm not a great one for competitions myself, although I have entered a few and been "highly commended " three times..... (Just blowing my own trumpet there......). I believe potential winners are asked to supply a RAW file to prevent composites from being selected by mistake. Some winners have been controversially disqualified when it was discovered too late that they have entered a composite. I believe that some of these major competitions employ a judge specifically to look for evidence of such misdemeanors.

I don't have a problem with competitions having a separate section for composites or otherwise drastically manipulated images. I just feel that the essence of photography is responding to the moment in a visual sense. I do find it ironic that the genre of photography that is most prone to the use of composites and other technological fixes etc (landscape) is the one I've spent most of my life engaged in!
Click to expand...
As a member of a team that runs an international Salon, I can state that your information above is a little misleading. It is only for sections such as Natural History or photo journalism where it is made clear that almost no editing is allowed and no cloning or composites. For these we can demand to see Raw files or multiple JPEG files to check for cheating. As I stated previously obvious surreal composites are not masquerading as straight shots (and normally entered in the Creative section) so these disqualifications are usually due to cloning when not allowed. Even then the rules are gradually being relaxed in that for Nature, they will now allow a little cloning providing it does not distort the truth. So you could remove an extraneous leaf at the edge of an image but must not clone out scientific band or radio collar.

I was reading an article in a recent Amateur Photographer which suggested that we need to introduce some different words. Using words like "shooting" or "capturing" should be replaced by "recording". Also for still photography "creating" images which could apply to to the darkroom or Lightroom. For video it was suggested the "producing" or "directing" be used. These were in the AP and not my invention. I did at least think the editor had a point that maybe it was time to at least review the terminology we use.

Dave
 
I do agree about the use of the word "shooting",;"capturing" perhaps less so. "Recording" seems more neutral. It suggests a high degree of objectivity , though, which would be negated by replacement of a sky, for example.

Those landscape photography competitions that I am aware of are very strict about the extent to which digital manipulation is permitted. Composites are a complete no-no, although there may be separate "creative" sections for those that are. I don't have a problem with that. The editor of OnLandscape (online) magazine has been one of the judges in WPOTY and LPOTY, specifically to look for signs that composites have been entered. There was one specific case a few years ago before he officially became a judge, where he showed conclusively that the overall winner was a composite and as a result that entry was disqualified. It was discussed at length here on TP.

I don't have a problem with the minor "cloning" that you mention in your post either.
 
Roberts said:
Your hat has just been returned from being steamed sir, i'll leave it in the cloakroom....
View attachment 336085
Click to expand...

LLP does imo have a valid point and view which if you disagree does still imo deserve a reasoned counter argument rather than this imo lazy and vaguely insulting reply, which has sadly gained three likes.
 
jerry12953 said:
As the target of his so-called "valid point of view" I found it insulting and incoherent.
Click to expand...

Then reply with decency.

Maybe it's just me today but I'm getting sick of insulting comments and cheap jokes at the expense of others on this site and people who like them. This site used to be a cut above other forums, now I'm not so sure.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I believe 'Roberts' to be operated by a member of the TP team, since having an alias is against the rules for ordinary members.
Click to expand...

I left a previous forum because the mods were as bad as some of the... er... less courteous posters and I suppose that's the key, we're all free to either post here or not if the atmosphere and behaviour don't suit us.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
As for what to call these composites......definitely not photographs, nor "art" when you consider that most of the work has been done by software designers. But as you suggest graphic art doesn't really cover them either. I honestly believe it would be useful to find a term to describe them and make sure it gets out there into general circulation.
Click to expand...
Imitation Imaging.
 
It seems that some of you do not like composites which is fine but are you also wishing to ban them? You can say they are not photographs or art often as you like but all of the major international Amateur Photographic organisations do not agree with you. So I guess you are now resorting to insults. I am also considering dumping this forum as it is far less friendly and tolerant than it used to be.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
It seems that some of you do not like composites which is fine but are you also wishing to ban them? You can say they are not photographs or art often as you like but all of the major international Amateur Photographic organisations do not agree with you. So I guess you are now resorting to insults. I am also considering dumping this forum as it is far less friendly and tolerant than it used to be.

Dave
Click to expand...


I hope nothing I have said is pushing you in that direction? There's nothing wrong with disagreement, surely?
 
Dave Canon said:
It seems that some of you do not like composites which is fine but are you also wishing to ban them? You can say they are not photographs or art often as you like but all of the major international Amateur Photographic organisations do not agree with you. So I guess you are now resorting to insults. I am also considering dumping this forum as it is far less friendly and tolerant than it used to be.

Dave
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with composites to me. Compositing is one of main methods for night sky landscapes - eg tracked sky, static ground. Like any method can be overused to different tastes.
 
Dave Canon said:
It seems that some of you do not like composites which is fine but are you also wishing to ban them? You can say they are not photographs or art often as you like but all of the major international Amateur Photographic organisations do not agree with you. So I guess you are now resorting to insults. I am also considering dumping this forum as it is far less friendly and tolerant than it used to be.

Dave
Click to expand...
I think you must have been reading a different thread to me, Dave.
I've not seen anything about banning composites.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I believe 'Roberts' to be operated by a member of the TP team, since having an alias is against the rules for ordinary members.
Click to expand...

Roberts IS a valued behind the scenes member of the TP team, much the same as the Server Hamster. While he mainly stays unobtrusively behind the scenes in the F&C "clubroom" refreshing members drinks and ensuring the Pomerol is decanted in a timely manner, occasionally he steps out into the greater forum areas... Think Jeeves with more attitude and a slight weakness for the grape.
 
jerry12953 said:
As for what to call these composites......definitely not photographs, nor "art" when you consider that most of the work has been done by software designers. But as you suggest graphic art doesn't really cover them either. I honestly believe it would be useful to find a term to describe them and make sure it gets out there into general circulation.
Click to expand...
We have discussed replacing skies before and you know I'm indifferent to people replacing them, if that's what they want to do. But I don't follow the broader point about composites where you suggest the software designers are doing most of the work,

For me, Art is about the artists vision and message, and they should be free to exploit anything that helps them realise their vision. Software simply expands the boundaries of what can be realised. Software designers may well have supplied a new tool, but it's the artist who still has the responsibility to use it in a meaningful way.

All the important work, the part that makes it art, is still being done by the artist.

Collages, have been a respected art technique for centuries, and I'm not sure how using the same artistic vision to create composites or collages on a computer is any different. from doing it by sticking bits of paper onto a board.

In terms of what you call it, I think the term "composite" or "composite photography" is pretty well established e.g. there are courses on the subject with titles like" Creative composites with your own photo stock" "Creating your reality with composite photography" "Using composite photography to create a fantasy world", and "introduction to character composites". These are from Creative Live, but there are others.

But maybe I'm too old for this argument, I can remember the fuss when cameras with built in meters were considered "not proper photography" , then it was autofocus, then it was digital, then it was mobile phones. And, although it was before my time I wouldn't be surprised if wet plate photographers were making the same sorts of arguments when dry plates were introduced.

Whatever art might be, it certainly isn't static, it's about moving forward and stretching boundaries, it's about appreciating the past, embracing the present and striding towards the future.

And, although changing technology has strongly influenced how art has been able to develop (e.g. it was paint becoming available in tubes that allowed impressionist painting to develop), it's how artists have exploited that technology that has mattered.

And, I think that's my rant over :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top