We're already there. It's just not called photography.
We're already there. It's just not called photography.What's going to happen to photography when computer advances a little more? Then, you'll be able to pick subjects and background and lighting from multiple choice check boxes and the program will assemble the photo into beautifully cloned pictures. We won't have to leave the house or even buy a camera.
What's going to happen to photography when computer advances a little more? Then, you'll be able to pick subjects and background and lighting from multiple choice check boxes and the program will assemble the photo into beautifully cloned pictures. We won't have to leave the house or even buy a camera.
If a photographer were to make an image of a street intersection, waiting for it to be clear of traffic, and another photographer makes a similar image with a portion of a car or a pedestrian present, then retouches out the car/pedestrian, why is one any more valid than the other? If I ask someone to take off a hat or move out of frame, have I manipulated the scene and therefore the image, making it less trustworthy? Asking someone to smile who does not have a reason to smile, is that misrepresenting that person, and the resulting image dishonest and not trustworthy?
We're already there. It's just not called photography.
No.Has photoshop changed the meaning of, "A picture is worth a thousand words. "
Has photoshop changed the meaning of, "A picture is worth a thousand words. "
So which is the better photograph. the one with poor lighting and no cars, or with nice lighting and some cars that may or may not have to be removed?If a photographer does not have the patience to wait for people or cars to be gone, that is entirely on that photographer. I have spend long periods of time waiting for a scene to be clear of people and sometimes that caused me to miss the best lighting.
So which is the better photograph. the one with poor lighting and no cars, or with nice lighting and some cars that may or may not have to be removed?
I had to wait for two hikers who stopped to look at the falls and were hanging out by the log near the water...during the wait, the light got even better. I was lucky.If a photographer does not have the patience to wait for people or cars to be gone, that is entirely on that photographer. I have spend long periods of time waiting for a scene to be clear of people and sometimes that caused me to miss the best lighting.
read Susan Freitag's book ' on photography' it will explain yhis subject in detail.All art photo images are manipulations. Sometimes people get doctrinaire and make pronouncements that photography should be about an objective rendering of reality with no “manipulations” of the image. When I was 17 years old I remember talking to an older family friend that was a passionate amateur photographer. He was deeply invested in the f/64 “Straight Photography” aesthetic and a had been to numerous workshops with Ansel Adams. Naive as I was, I asked what he thought of the montage images by Jerry Uelsman not knowing what a minefield I was stepping into. He gasped as though I talking of devil and said “Oh no, one must never manipulate the image.” The idea from straight photography is that the photo should be an objective documentation of the external world. But that idea is rubbish, all images that are of value and are interesting are manipulations. Few or no images that are moving and artistically important are literal depiction of the external world. It is a myth, a canard, to think that. Adams himself admitted something to the effect the photo could not be an objective and scientific mapping of the exact tone structor of the original seen because that would be BORING. Instead it was necessary to enhance, to exaggerate certain features. In Adam’s famous “Snake River and Tetons” nobody standing next to Adams as he took the picture would have seen the exact thing depicted in the photo. Instead what the photo shows is something that suggests THE FEELING that someone gets from viewing the magnificent scene. But it’s an abstraction, a romanticization,
inspired by the natural scene, not objective rendering of it—never mind that we don’t see in black and white. There is no such thing as "straight photography" in the way the f/64 school wished for that is an entirely authentic documentation of "the world as it is", not slanted by the perspective of the photographer. No photographs are an exact duplication of reality. When cultural anthropologists got hold of video cameras they were excited because they thought the camera would give a neutral, non-biased way document non-western cultures. But they soon found out that there were huge cultural biases in where the camera operator choose to aim the camera. So yes, even the direction the camera is aimed is a kind of non-objective, value-laden manipulation. As an artistic discipline we need move beyond idea that some images are manipulations and some are not. If one claims some kinds images of not legitimate manifestations of photographic art they need to justify that in terms other than whether an image is manipulated or not, but in terms what kinds of manipulations were done.
read Susan Freitag's book ' on photography' it will explain yhis subject in detail.
You are trying to coin a new term for altered images. Unfortunately, the term "graphic arts" is already in wide use, and photography is one of them.You mean, "which is the better work or graphic arts?"
You are trying to coin a new term for altered images. Unfortunately, the term "graphic arts" is already in wide use, and photography is one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_arts
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graphic arts
Does it matter which bucket you put photography in?Agreed. Photography is a subset of graphic arts.
Does it matter which bucket you put photography in?
labels are sometimes use to make life easier ( like the rose ). but often times labels are used to cause problems so people only see differences instead of how "stuff" is virtually the same, and the things that are "different" really don't amount to much. its been that way for as long as there have been people. alternnity. doesn't matter if it is between digital or chemical photography or people from one part of the world or another... the similarities outweigh the differences but sadly people only pay close attention to differences, and dig-in.
AGREED. but often times these debates whether it has todo with digital v. analog. manipulation v.fake straight image or whatever end up being about loose ends, and semantics and not about anything that is really meaningful other than people wanting to hear the sound of their own typing. I mean I have never heard of manipulation not being manipulationThis was not really a analog vs. digital discussion (At least my point was not). Once I digitize a negative, I can treat it like a digital image (because, frankly it is).
An onion has many layers. How many can you remove before it is no longer an onion?AGREED. but often times these debates whether it has todo with digital v. analog. manipulation v.fake straight image or whatever end up being about loose ends, and semantics and not about anything that is really meaningful other than people wanting to hear the sound of their own typing. I mean I have never heard of manipulation not being manipulation
but then again 4 onions at my local grocer is rung up as 1 item. ...
I will agree if you also make drawing and painting a subset of graphic arts, also.Agreed. Photography is a subset of graphic arts.
Yes, any 2-dimensional art on a flat surface.I will agree if you also make drawing and painting a subset of graphic arts, also.
Then I will take that as your personal definition, and not a universal one.Yes, any 2-dimensional art on a flat surface.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?