is photography supposed to be reality ?

[Sirius Glass]

I did not like it in 1839 either. Just because it can be done does not make it right. After all I could push someone off a cliff, but that would not make it right, even in 1839.

 

[removed account4]

I did not like it in 1839 either. Just because it can be done does not make it right. After all I could push someone off a cliff, but that would not make it right, even in 1839.

so having artistic license and removing something via lead pencil cuting and pasting retouching is a NO NO
but heavy artistic liscence via tonal representation ( color palet of film ) contrast and grain manipulation ( film type and processing )
and burning+dodging + enlargement of a negative ( the evil twin of cropping ) are allowed ?

its nice ot have rules to impose on yourself .. but your arbitrary rules &c have nothing to do with apug or photrio &c.

 

[faberryman]

Given today's digital technology, you don't know if something has been added/removed or not. Why not just judge the image on it's own terms without quizzing the photographer about what he did or didn't do.

 

[eddie]

I am holding photography to its OWN standard. It is also the APUG standard. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

I have no problem grasping your concept. APUG no longer exists, so neither does it's standard. Where do you draw the line on "reality"? Does spotting a cigarette butt out of a scene count? Does hand-coloring a violet sky which didn't exist cross a line? I don't see why photography should be held to a higher (or lower) standard than the other visual arts. It would make it a lesser art form, as it would remove creativity from the hands of the photographer, instead insisting on some truth which was really never there.

 

[faberryman]

I am holding photography to its OWN standard. It is also the APUG standard. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

What standard is the photography standard? Can you point me to it? I missed it somewhere along the way. And I have never heard of an APUG standard. Point me to that one as well.

 

[jtk]

Why all this bickering?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have no problem grasping your concept. APUG no longer exists, so neither does it's standard. Where do you draw the line on "reality"? Does spotting a cigarette butt out of a scene count? Does hand-coloring a violet sky which didn't exist cross a line? I don't see why photography should be held to a higher (or lower) standard than the other visual arts. It would make it a lesser art form, as it would remove creativity from the hands of the photographer, instead insisting on some truth which was really never there.

Because other visual arts starts with a blank canvas or a hunk of clay that is imagined and shaped into something that wasn't there before. Photography was traditionally something the camera froze - a moment in time where you started with something in the world already created. Today, viewers ask if the damn photo was photoshopped because they're not sure it was even taken with a camera.

 

[removed account4]

Because other visual arts starts with a blank canvas or a hunk of clay that is imagined and shaped into something that wasn't there before. Photography was traditionally something the camera froze - a moment in time where you started with something in the world already created. Today, viewers ask if the damn photo was photoshopped because they're not sure it was even taken with a camera.

the equivilant of the lump of clay or blank sheet of canvas you mention
is an unexposed sheet of film or paper or whatever .. and if i want to make something with it/ them i will ..
and again i find it to be arbitrary to say it is OK to retouch a pimple off of a beauty queen's face
or use selective focus or specialized processing or printing techniques but not allow other "stuff"

as they say YMMV ..
btw this thread wasn't supposed to be the same old same old digi v ana thread .. its too bad it took that turn
cause the camera that choses its own reality i am using is from about 1910

 

[markjwyatt]

..
btw this thread wasn't supposed to be the same old same old digi v ana thread .. its too bad it took that turn
...

Not sure I am hearing that. Clouds were added back in the 1800s, remember (in 1910 too )?

 

[removed account4]

Not sure I am hearing that. Clouds were added back in the 1800s, remember (in 1910 too )?

yups

 

[Sirius Glass]

so having artistic license and removing something via lead pencil cuting and pasting retouching is a NO NO
but heavy artistic liscence via tonal representation ( color palet of film ) contrast and grain manipulation ( film type and processing )
and burning+dodging + enlargement of a negative ( the evil twin of cropping ) are allowed ?

its nice ot have rules to impose on yourself .. but your arbitrary rules &c have nothing to do with apug or photrio &c.

That is not what I said or meant and you know it. We have exchanged posts on this many times.

Why all this bickering?

Someone can not remember who said what from one day to the next. What can one do?

 

[removed account4]

That is not what I said or meant and you know it. We have exchanged posts on this many times.

yes we have had this conversation many many times before
and your line in the sand between what is allowed and not allowed
is ( to me at least ) arbitrary ... retouching a blemish or crows feet or a mole or laugh lines
is permitted but dodging a tree or shrub isn't ? using other darkroom methods
like contrast enhancement, color palet enhancement &c through processing/printing
IS allowed but dropping in a orthochromatic negative with clouds on it isn't ?
seems like its all the same thing and kind of absurd ...

but whatever ,,, as long as you don't impose your strange line in the sand to restrain others
from doing "stuff" thats fine by me LOL

 

[Vaughn]

...but dodging a tree or shrub isn't ? ... LOL

Chainsaw is a man's way...I tend to lay dead branches on ferns in the foreground, or perhaps tie back a branch with parachute cord (rare).

Include or do not include what one wishes. Keep the litter as part of the scene, remove the litter, or move the camera to have the litter outside of one's frame. All the same. The choice is the photographer's, based on his/hers wish for an image.

 

[removed account4]

Chainsaw is a man's way...I tend to lay dead branches on ferns in the foreground, or perhaps tie back a branch with parachute cord (rare).

Include or do not include what one wishes. Keep the litter as part of the scene, remove the litter, or move the camera to have the litter outside of one's frame. All the same. The choice is the photographer's, based on his/hers wish for an image.

YES but i use an axe, i hope that is ok chainsaws and dichromate bleach give me the willies ..

 

[JonyWest]

Each photo carries a certain meaning and reflects the reality of what is happening at the time of the shooting. It is thanks to photographs that we preserve our history and can pass them on to future generations. Previously, some paintings had such properties, but technologies made it possible to display reality much easier. Now you will not surprise anyone with a photo taken, since this is not something special. Using phones, cameras or drones, you can take picturesque photos of nature and historical events. I have really appreciated the quality photography since I checked out the info from graydonschwartz.com. My dream is to become a good photographer and leave a mark on history with this.

 

[removed account4]

Because other visual arts starts with a blank canvas or a hunk of clay that is imagined and shaped into something that wasn't there before. Photography was traditionally something the camera froze - a moment in time where you started with something in the world already created. Today, viewers ask if the damn photo was photoshopped because they're not sure it was even taken with a camera.

hi Alan
I forgot all about this thread
thanks JonyWest for bringing it back to life!
I've been thinking a lot about photography and what it is and isn't these days
and how the camera has been an unfaithful mediator (sometimes) to time and place
people making camera photos have a strange obligation to acknowledge that whatever it is
they made with the camera might be/represent/mean/depict &c something else to someone else.
regarding photography was traditionally something the camera froze
I think traditions are over rated lol

 

[juan]

Photography must be absolute reality. That’s why I shoot black and white.

 

[ruilourosa]

Read the introduction for "El beso de Judas"
It would clarify you people.

 

[ruilourosa]

Its from the guy who joked with scientific American mag... Joan Fontcuberta

 

[Don_ih]

Photography is a real activity. A photo is a thing - it is itself a real thing. Generally, we say photos are "of" something, in the way that a sketch can be of something. No one will confuse a sketch of a house with a real house. Why would anyone confuse a photo of house with a real house?

 

[Steve@f8]

I have little interest in representing ‘reality’, photographically. Generally I go out of my way to make it unrepresentative. Photography for me is to amuse the visual senses.
I voted No.

 

[Horatio]

I’ve not read all 320+ posts, nor voted, but I think it depends upon the reason the image was captured. Commercial photography, fine art photography and photojournalism are all legitimate forms of the craft, but each offers a unique perspective. Anything goes with fine art photography, in my way of thinking, but photojournalism demands something entirely different. I recall there was a furor over using digital cameras vs film cameras for journalistic work in 1990s, due to concerns of digital manipulation. Anyone else recall this debate?

 

[removed account4]

Photography is a real activity. A photo is a thing - it is itself a real thing. Generally, we say photos are "of" something, in the way that a sketch can be of something. No one will confuse a sketch of a house with a real house. Why would anyone confuse a photo of house with a real house?

hi don
I understand what you are saying but what happens when you take a photograph of a house
and after you get the film processed its a photograph of a bird building a nest ..
it has more to do with people confusing what they see in a photograph with what really happened.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/forest-and-sun.61655/
the photograph was made with a box camera, and none of this was there...

 

[radiant]

Reality is boring.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" - Adam Savage (orig. The Dungeonmaster / Dr. Who)

 

[Wayne]

Photography isn't supposed to be anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't anything.