20% photo 80% photo-shop

[Buckster]

Although these were properly identified and graphic art this is the type of things I am talking about as being called photography

Except that you just said they were properly identified as graphic art. Nobody tried to pass them off as straight up shots from the camera in a contest.

Speaking of, what PHOTO contest(s) did they win?

And, is this the kind of thing you see winning in ALL PHOTO contests? That was, after all, your claim:

I have been doing on-line searches for photo contests although I have found a large amount of them, they all have one issue I’m a little bothered by.

 

[mortovismo]

If, as an artist, someone likes what they are producing and as an added bonus other people like what they are producing...does it really matter how much photoshop is or isn't used?

 

[flea77]

If, as an artist, someone likes what they are producing and as an added bonus other people like what they are producing...does it really matter how much photoshop is or isn't used?

It very well may to certain people. For example, here is my opinion:

Any image that is not significantly different from the original (meaning that alterations such as exposure, contrast, removing minor blemishes, etc) are photographs.

Any image that is significantly different from the original (those above, objects removed or added, most HDR, etc) are not photographs, they are graphic art.

That does not mean one is any more legitimate than the other, or one is better than the other. But just like oil painting and watercolor are different, so are these. And yes, I do both.

Other people's opinions may be different, and that is fine. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place.

Allan

 

[skyy38]

I think this idea applies to more than just photo contests. As I learn more about photography and look into techniques and ways to get certain looks I keep finding that all this cool "photography" happens to mostly be really cool post processing. I feel like I need to work less on my photography skills and more on my processing skills which kinda makes me sad.

No-get back to being a world-class sniper with your camera.
If photoshop was gone tomorrow, a lot of people would be up that far-famed tributary without so much as a tongue depresser.


Original or edit?

88th Sunset | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

But just like oil painting and watercolor are different...

...they are both still called painting. :lmao:

By gosh, how can two forms of art using totally different pigment compositions used on very different grounds, be called the same thing?!?!


Wait! Wait! Isn't it all considered graphic art? Photography, painting, illustration, printmaking, drawing...It's ALL Graphic Art.

/thread.

 

[flea77]

...they are both still called painting. :lmao:

By gosh, how can two forms of art using totally different pigment compositions used on very different grounds, be called the same thing?!?!


Wait! Wait! Isn't it all considered graphic art? Photography, painting, illustration, printmaking, drawing...It's ALL Graphic Art.

/thread.

Yes, and aerospace engineering and ditch digging are both occupations, so if you get general enough everything can be lumped together under one word or phrase. That doesn't mean they are the same.

Of course differing opinions are what makes the world great, you have yours and I have mine. More power to you!

Allan

 

[AdrianS]

I would have to agree with steve

 

[Tbini87]

I think this idea applies to more than just photo contests. As I learn more about photography and look into techniques and ways to get certain looks I keep finding that all this cool "photography" happens to mostly be really cool post processing. I feel like I need to work less on my photography skills and more on my processing skills which kinda makes me sad.

No-get back to being a world-class sniper with your camera.
If photoshop was gone tomorrow, a lot of people would be up that far-famed tributary without so much as a tongue depresser.


Original or edit?

88th Sunset | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Not exactly sure what your point is. I want to be as good with a camera is possible. A technically good shot will be better than a crappy shot with the same amount of editing. Getting a great shot in camera reduces the amount of editing needed. However, photoshop isn't going anywhere so the reality is that some people don't need very good photography skills when they have very good photoshop skills. As others have mentioned it is a fine line between being a photo and being graphic art with the amount of editing done to some "photos".

As far as that sunset photo goes it doesn't look heavily edited to me. I have no idea what it would prove if it was or wasn't edited.

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

I think processing is an imperative part of photography, and I love the look of processed photos--even if the final product barely resembles the original exposure. Actually, I rarely find photos without significant processing compelling.

 

[Brenda Lee]

I get the point of the OP. "No editing" and "pure photography" contests are harder to find. If you just want to do it for fun, you can find some on Facebook that state "no editing". Like this one:

Photography Contest * New and Improved* | Facebook

 

[Bynx]

Im not sure what the point of this thread is. First off Im not sure the percentage claims of contest winners are anywhere near accurate. Where do they come from besides the OPs imagination? A winning photograph is just that -- a photograph. To win, it must have been good with no tell tale obvious signs of being put through Photoshop. Its up to each person with a camera to decide what they want to learn to produce that final image. Its admirable if you can use only the camera. But not all can afford the best glass. Not all can have an incredible subject in front of them. Photoshop can clear up a fuzzy image from poor quality glass, and can make a subject more interesting with layers. Its a way of leveling the playing field. Having different options to create a prize winning image is good for everyone and gives them the choice how they want to proceed. Its not good to have a division between pure camera and camera with Photoshop. Its the final image that counts and how one gets there is no one's business but the artist. I think there is room for everyone with a camera and Photoshop.

On a side note to the critic who analyzed Jakes photo. Its always easy to do that when you know what was involved. I would have been more impressed if you made your comments before you were told it was an HDR.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Personally, "people" photography isn't something I have much more than a glancing interest in... landscape/outdoors/scenic photography is what I'm really into. I can say that, by and large, it's still practically heresy to enter a landscape/nature/wildlife shot into a contest if elements within were literally added to the frame and didn't exist there at the time of the shot (many such contests specify this in the rules). And I can also attest that I can't remember a single time that I've browsed the winning photos from a nature/landscape contest and seen elements that appeared to be Photoshopped into the scene. So, on that level, I'm not really sure what contests you are looking at. Admittedly, I have seen amazing shots that came together so remarkably well that I was almost instantly made jealous of such a spectacular photograph... but I had no reason to believe that it wasn't simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time and having the skill to capture the photograph properly and creatively.

To clarify, though, I've done my share of complaining about blatant HDR jobs. I, personally, am sort of turned off by the whole "cartoonish" trend... but that's just me. The fact of the matter is that many people really enjoy the style and, as it's always been with so many crafts and arts, the masses are the judge and jury of what is termed "good" or "bad"... even if we are all entitled to our own opinion. I use HDR all the time, but if I can't look at the resulting image and feel that it looks natural, it gets a one-way trip to the Recycle Bin. Then again, everyone's concept of "natural" is going to be slightly different.

I would agree that more and more landscape photographs are enhanced by brilliant Photoshop plug-ins and the like. Every once in a while I look at photo and honestly feel that there's almost no way that the scene looked quite so amazing when the photographer was standing there taking the shot... the colors are just too amazing, the lighting is almost unrealistically perfect, etc, etc. In short, it's been made to look almost more perfect than it possibly could have been in real life (if that makes sense). But if I can't perceive that some area is totally faked, then that pretty much qualifies as a great photo with great processing. Some trust is involved here, too... if you look at superb photos thinking that amazing elements MUST be fake, then that's what you'll see. Even if some landscape photographs are getting polished up to near mythical quality with PS plug-ins, that's still a far cry from adding entire elements to a photograph.

I don't think that great photos these days are 20% photo and 80% Photoshop. Along the same line of reasoning, a guy without the funds to travel around the world going to remarkable landscapes could argue that "in contests these days, it's 20% photography and 80% wealth to go to amazing places." (EDIT: I meant to add here that I think that, too, would be something of a cop-out) Photography is what it is... a constantly changing field where you have to keep up with the current or get left behind and fall into the "rutted, old-timers" category. Even if you prefer the "old-timer" category, that's okay. Every craft and art has that sub-culture of "doing it the old-fashioned way" folks. Maybe it's a good thing, after all, that there are always some people left over asking that we re-evaluate where we are going... even if that questioning doesn't change the direction of advancement.

 

[Forkie]

I don't think Photoshop is a bad thing. In the film days, people manipulated their photos in the darkroom by fixing or altering the exposure by over or under-developing, created composite photos by developing one photo over another, etc. I just see Photoshop as the modern equivilent and as just as valid a way to manipulate photos. Some people take it over-the-top, of course, but I'm sure loads of people did the same in the darkroom, you just didn't know it because they couldn't share their work so easily without the internet.

 

[ericANDamanda]

I am also amazed at how much photoshop beyond the typical color correction, blemish removing, contrast, etc is allowed into photo contests. I tend to think if the image is 80% not real, it's not really a photograph but more of a graphic concept. Lame sauce indeed!

Blessings

Eric & Amanda Photography - International Destination Wedding Photography Team - International Destination Wedding Photographers

 

[Buckster]

I am also amazed at how much photoshop beyond the typical color correction, blemish removing, contrast, etc is allowed into photo contests. I tend to think if the image is 80% not real, it's not really a photograph but more of a graphic concept.

Please point me to these many, many "PHOTO" contests where 80% 'shopping is allowed and used on the winning PHOTOS.