Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[RPC]

The market for paintings has probably decreased significantly since photography came into its own, but people still sell them.

Yes, painting is a totally surreal art form, and everybody knows that, no deception there, and people like the look. But a good painting is not something anybody can easily do. A good, real painting is not so common.

 

[eddie]

There's a whole bunch of hubris in deciding whether another person's methods of creating their art is legitimate or not.

 

[Pieter12]

It is quite tiring and mildly annoying to read people going on ad nauseam about the legitimacy of certain techniques (theirs, usually) over others, inferring that art or photography is somehow linked to technique. And now painting comes into the picture (pardon the pun) with folks lacking even a minor understanding of that field chiming in. What counts is the image, not how it was created. Technique is important inasmuch as its apparentness can add or detract from the image, but there is no such thing as legitimacy of technique. Except maybe for those who can only master one or a few and therefore rely on the crutch of denying the value of any other.

 

[jtk]

It is quite tiring and mildly annoying to read people going on ad nauseam about the legitimacy of certain techniques (theirs, usually) over others, inferring that art or photography is somehow linked to technique. And now painting comes into the picture (pardon the pun) with folks lacking even a minor understanding of that field chiming in. What counts is the image, not how it was created. Technique is important inasmuch as its apparentness can add or detract from the image, but there is no such thing as legitimacy of technique. Except maybe for those who can only master one or a few and therefore rely on the crutch of denying the value of any other.

Yes, 100%

 

[jeffreyg]

I feel that as long as you don't misrepresent your work, do whatever works for you. Label a silver-gelatin as such, digital as digital , etc. Many famous photographers had assistants or someone else do their printing. famous sculptors likewise. One person didn't sculpt those famous fountains by himself. Many years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Henry Moore's home and studio. One of his assistants showed me around - moore would make a small model and his team would enlarge it in styrafoam blocks (under his supervision) for casting in bronze. The pieces were trucked to a foundry, cast and reassembled and finished by technicians at the installation site. IMOP art is appreciated or not by the observer. Sausage may taste great but you may not want to see how it is made.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[markjwyatt]

There's a whole bunch of hubris in deciding whether another person's methods of creating their art is legitimate or not.

If you label an image as "art" or "graphic arts" for instance, then it is wide open. If you label it photography, then it can be challenged if it seems to have other elements added to it. There may be no "right" or "wrong", but questioning something about an image labeled "photography" but apparently containing what might be considered non-standard features is as legitimate as producing it as you please. If you are an artist and questioned you should be more than happy to have an answer which could be anything from "none of your business" to some sort of explanation of the technique(s) used. You are also free to not label your image as to any given technique (which may to honest questions as to what technique is used).

 

[markjwyatt]

It is quite tiring and mildly annoying to read people going on ad nauseam about the legitimacy of certain techniques (theirs, usually) over others, inferring that art or photography is somehow linked to technique. ...

It is quite tiring and mildly annoying to read people going on ad nauseam about other people having discussions, especially if those complaining are not being forced to participate in the discussions (on a discussion forum for instance).

 

[removed account4]

Uh, yes of that is necessary. It is a matter of honestly. If you cannot take the photograph you want, then make it but do not call it a photograph.

you obviously have not read the photographic history books listed for you in the other thread
photographs just require light that's it, it honest or dishonest scissor and glue or photoshop have nothing to do with it
you are making up your own definition of photography? yours is not the generally accepted definition since 1826.

 

[Pieter12]

you obviously have not read the photographic history books listed for you in the past thread
photographs just require light that's it, it doesn't matter if it is honest or dishonest if it is cobbled together with scissor and glue or photoshop
it seems you are making up your own definition of photography, it is not the generally accepted definition since 1826.
you should really spend some time and read the texts suggested to you last week.

There are those who consider their work superior because they have not "manipulated" it in any way, especially not through the devil's own tool, Photoshop. It is a sign of insecurity and lack of understanding of art.

 

[removed account4]

There are those who consider their work superior because they have not "manipulated" it in any way, especially not through the devil's own tool, Photoshop. It is a sign of insecurity and lack of understanding of art.

the thing is they also manipulate the hell out of their work in other ways but refuse to acknowledge what they do.
oh well. ..

 

[RPC]

Those who manipulate their images into existence are simply taking the easier way out. Why go out and shoot when you can just create it on a computer, and people will think it is real? And justify it by calling it art.

It is a slap in the face of those who actually go out and work for a real, great photo, and de-values their work.

 

[Pieter12]

Those who manipulate their images into existence are simply taking the easier way out. Why go out and shoot when you can just create it on a computer, and people will think it is real? And justify it by calling it art.

It is a slap in the face of those who actually go out and work for a real, great photo, and de-values their work.

Have you ever "manipulated" an image into existence that people would think is real? Is it really easier than going out and making a shot? Another fantasy dreamt up by the ignorant.

 

[removedacct1]

Jerry Uelsmann.

You're welcome.

 

[removed account4]

Jerry Uelsmann.

You're welcome.

it was insinuated in a previous thread that he's not a real photographer.

Those who manipulate their images into existence are simply taking the easier way out. Why go out and shoot when you can just create it on a computer, and people will think it is real? And justify it by calling it art.

It is a slap in the face of those who actually go out and work for a real, great photo, and de-values their work.

can you please show examples of the work that has been debased / devalued?

 

[Pieter12]

Jerry Uelsmann.

You're welcome.

Nothing he did was easy. And only a simpleton would think it was reality. And everything quite impossible without manipulation.

 

[eddie]

The use of telephoto and wide angle lenses distort perspective. Is that an acceptable "fakeness"?

 

[removed account4]

The use of telephoto and wide angle lenses distort perspective. Is that an acceptable "fakeness"?

I asked similar questions and was ignored. seems the blinders are fitting well.

 

[grat]

It is a bit of cheating, and if you are a commercial photographer maybe shooting a house for a customer, it may be ok. On the other hand it is a step in the right direction because you are cataloging clouds from the region rather than pulling some cloud formation out of a library, which may never happen in the region. Next step would be if you were an expert meteorologist, you might make sure other features lined up. Next you need to examine shadows especially if the % if the sky clouded is significant. If you don't likely the image will start looking un-natural. Next you need to examine reflections, specular and diffuse, and make sure those match the clouds that you are adding, and modify all of this from what you actually took with a cloudless sky. You should also consider the contrast, both at a local as well as global level because the clouds will modify this in both local and global ways. After spending a week or two on your image with your PhD in meteorology, optics, cloud science, etc. you might end up with something realistic looking. Or you could just wait 5-10 years and let AI take care of it for you. On the other hand you could just take shots as they occurred and get natural looking images, perhaps lacking features you would prefer but maybe you could use creative approaches to mitigating the lack of these features (like avoiding having too much sky if clouds are the feature you desire).

Actually, Luminar does a bit of recoloring and relighting for you. It's surprisingly good. It's not perfect-- but it's better than it has any right to be.

 

[Pieter12]

So by dodging shadows on a face or a side of a building, you are introducing a lighting situation that did not exist naturally at the time. FAKE! This whole discussion is so ridiculous. Go out and take some photos!

 

[eddie]

This whole discussion is so ridiculous. Go out and take some photos!

Or, go inside and make some!

 

[KenS]

I post this thread here not for discussing film scanning techniques. It's all about achieving the best image from film although this is via film scanning, not by wet printing. The scanned images will be for viewing on monitors and also for inkjet printing. I believe the majority of film shooters scan their films.

After reaching my 'retirement years' i found 'commercial' B/W papers somewhat too expensive, and now scan my sheet film (4x5 and 8x10) to make digital negatives on Asahi's Pictorico OH film for prints using the (so called) 'archaic print' processes to reduce the chance of 'damaging' the original film negative. it IS a bit more work but well worth the effort.

Ken

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are those who consider their work superior because they have not "manipulated" it in any way, especially not through the devil's own tool, Photoshop. It is a sign of insecurity and lack of understanding of art.

No one's questioning whether it's art. If it has aesthetic value to the viewer, than it is art. The question is whether it's a photograph or something else.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Have you ever "manipulated" an image into existence that people would think is real? Is it really easier than going out and making a shot? Another fantasy dreamt up by the ignorant.

But we're getting to the point very soon where that will be done simply. With AI and other computer programs, an app will assemble all the elements into a beautiful picture without the programmer leaving his desk. No cameras will even be needed. Then what? Will that be a photograph?

 

[warden]

But we're getting to the point very soon where that will be done simply. With AI and other computer programs, an app will assemble all the elements into a beautiful picture without the programmer leaving his desk. No cameras will even be needed. Then what? Will that be a photograph?

It happens already, more or less, although not simply. Lots of Hollywood movies use CG environments that are indistinguishable from or better than reality on the screen, and any screen capture could be matted and hung on the wall next to one of your images that required your time and energy to make. And so what? You're doing a different thing altogether and they both have value.

This entire movie was filmed in a warehouse.

 

[removed account4]

No one's questioning whether it's art. If it has aesthetic value to the viewer, than it is art. The question is whether it's a photograph or something else.

Hi Alan
some folks in this thread, and others have claimed both that works made in this fashion are not to be considered art, And regarding whether it is photography or not, it is an imprint from a reaction on a light sensitive object, that is all that is needed for something to be called a photograph -- made with light. if someone takes light sensitive photographic emulsion or cyanotype chemistry in a paint brush and puts those brush strokes in the sun those are photographs too... the term is broad, not narrow.

This entire movie was filmed in a warehouse

my question is could it have been filmed if no film was involved ?