Am I wrong?

[Stevepwns]

I have been learning as much as I can about photography here in the past few months. I find myself getting frustrated at the fact that too many pictures I see posted here, on reddit and anywhere else for that matter, are not as they were shot. Not even close.

Not that I dont appreciate the art behind it, but it seems your editing skills are more important than your photography knowledge.

Example: Removing objects altogether, changing the entire color of the photo to portray an image that was not at all like it was shot.

I have been an artist my entire life dam near, and I understand that art is just that and as long as someone gets enjoyment from the work then its a good thing. But what happened to taking a picture of the sunrise using good technique and skill then enjoying your work. I could understand touching up the photo a little but some of the things I am seeing aren't even close to the real image. Then they are passed off as "look at the picture I took" when thats not the picture taken, thats the picture after 2 hours of editing with software.

Am I expecting too much from this hobby, or am I just seeing what has been happening since the beginning and just didn't know it?

 

[flow]

You're not "wrong". Like you said, there's always been editing. Just doesn't need quite as much chemistry now
If your style isn't heavily edited, that's great, go do your thing. It's just a different way of expressing.

 

[12sndsgood]

so your saying your an artist, but then the next sentance getting upset at people creating there own art? and that they are not just documenting life around them? why be upset that people are choosing to create and make the art they prefer? the world would be a boring place if we had to create art to satisfy you and you only. people have been editing photos for years, editing in the darkroom, this is just another way of doing it.

why is it bad if instead of walking couple hundred feet and removing a trash can at a park from my picture because I don't want to see it there in my finished photo i just erase it in photoshop. there is a diffrence in documentary photography and artistic photography.

 

[Stevepwns]

so your saying your an artist, but then the next sentance getting upset at people creating there own art? and that they are not just documenting life around them? why be upset that people are choosing to create and make the art they prefer? the world would be a boring place if we had to create art to satisfy you and you only. people have been editing photos for years, editing in the darkroom, this is just another way of doing it.

why is it bad if instead of walking couple hundred feet and removing a trash can at a park from my picture because I don't want to see it there in my finished photo i just erase it in photoshop. there is a diffrence in documentary photography and artistic photography.

I understand what you are saying, completely. I agree with you. Maybe expressing frustration isn't the correct angle. Yes, art is art, I have loved it since I was a small child. I don't know what the correct expression would be, but there should also be some integrity in the art being produced.

Again, thats why I am asking if its always been like this and I just didn't know it because I just recently decided to give this a go. Maybe its because when I thought of photography, I automatically thought of simple pictures and didn't realize how many alterations go into producing these images.

 

[kathyt]

I understand what you are saying. There are extremes to everything. Sometimes it is very subtle and other times not. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[SCraig]

Yes, it's pretty much always been like this. Most of the tools available in the editors of today got their start in a darkroom somewhere. We dodged dark areas and burned light areas, and we tilted easels to correct distortion in buildings, and we did color corrections and used varying grades of paper to change contrast, and all kinds of tricks. Cloning was tough because we usually had to airbrush things out and make it look real, so someone good with an airbrush (I never was) was worth their weight in gold.

 

[KmH]

As mentioned you're not wrong, but you may not realize what all has to happen to make a photo, be it a digital photo or a photo made on film.

A photograph doesn't come close to recording what we see. The biggest difference is a photo is a 2-D representation of what we see as a 3-D scene.
So a photograph has no 'purity', and at best only partially records reality.

The image sensor in a digital camera can't record color, and the image sensor 'sees' luminosity linearly, while the human eye perceives luminosity in a non-linear fashion.
The color of a digital image has to be interpolated (Bayer Array filter), and a gamma curve has to be applied to the luminosity values the image sensor recorded.
The color interpolation has to be further based on telling the camera what color temperature of light was used to make the image (white balance).

Various other digital image data manipulation has to be performed before the digital information becomes something that looks like a photo.

 

[Derrel]

I have been learning as much as I can about photography here in the past few months. I find myself getting frustrated at the fact that too many pictures I see posted here, on reddit and anywhere else for that matter, are not as they were shot. Not even close.

Not that I dont appreciate the art behind it, but it seems your editing skills are more important than your photography knowledge.

Example: Removing objects altogether, changing the entire color of the photo to portray an image that was not at all like it was shot.

I have been an artist my entire life dam near, and I understand that art is just that and as long as someone gets enjoyment from the work then its a good thing. But what happened to taking a picture of the sunrise using good technique and skill then enjoying your work. I could understand touching up the photo a little but some of the things I am seeing aren't even close to the real image. Then they are passed off as "look at the picture I took" when thats not the picture taken, thats the picture after 2 hours of editing with software.

Am I expecting too much from this hobby, or am I just seeing what has been happening since the beginning and just didn't know it?

Over the last decade or so, much of the photography presented on the "sharing sites" has become clownish, cartoonish, and, well, close to ridiculous. It's part of what happens when a science, art, and craft becomes very popular and barriers to entry drop away. Utter rubbish shots, post-processed to the nnnth degree, have become the norm. One fellow on Flickr specializes in SE Asia photos that he applies FAKED "God's Rays effects" to, in 8 out of 10 shots!!! Hilarious chit, and yet newbie after newbie LOVES it!!! The sun rays come from behind and off to the side oftern times, and yet the ACTUAL light lighting his scenes can be coming from the opposite side, he pays no attention really. I saw one he did last month with two boys riding a water buffalo to school, according to the title...but the buffalo was obviously grazing....and the boys appeared to have been added from an amusement ride...utter crap. Yet, it got quite a few "Faves". But then, Justin Bieber sells a lotta' records too...there is zero accounting for bad taste. The lowest common denominator has a bright future in today's world.

A lot of garbage images are juiced up quite heavily these days. Just clownishly over-the-top. A lot of people "like that". Just like a lot of people like Jersey Shore, Mafia Wives, and Fox News. And McDonald's hamburgers, and disgusting pink-slime-paste-sourced chicken nuggets...fake soy-based "Frostee's" at Wendys...and so on. Most children today can not distinguish the flavors of real berries or juices from fake flavors, and in fact often dislike "real fruit" and favor fake crap. So...this is the way much of the world is today...the genuine, the "real", has to be made "fake" for the unwashed masses to really say, "Hey, I like this!"

 

[amolitor]

It's truly up to you. Photography is a medium that allows a startling breadth of expression.

You can choose to record what's in front of the lens, with as much technical accuracy as possible. This may or may not make a picture that recreates what it felt like, though.
You can choose to make a picture that recreates in some degree what it felt like to look at what was in front of the len. This is probably NOT technically precise.
You can choose to make a picture that's something quite new and different, based on what was in front of the lens.
You can choose to make a picture that's quite new and different, and perhaps only loosely based on what was in front of the lens, or in front of several lenses as in a composite or collage.

All these things have been done, and many more besides. They've all been done virtually from the beginning of photography.

 

[Ilovemycam]

OP, not wrong or right. No photo police here. We do as we like. There are all sorts of photo devotees. We just have to make room for them all. We had photogs screwing with reality back in the day look them up...the surrealists.

For me, the defining moment is when I ask to see a photogs street photography. A computer whiz can create a photo from nothing. But put them on the street with an honest and real shot and they may not be able to take a decent street shot to save their life.

 

[ShooterJ]

I think it's fair to ask yourself what the skill level really is behind a photo. Many very good photographers love to edit in post .. but that doesn't change the fact that the shot they took to begin with was a well composed, good shot.

If someone is falling back on editing because they CAN'T get a good shot in the first place, that's usually evident.

I wouldn't say there's no integrity in the art because people choose to use tools to enhance their work. In point of fact, without the combination of tools and techniques both in camera and in post, there would be very little in the way of defining attributes from one artist to the next ... if, as you say, it was just simple shots from the camera and nothing more.

 

[12sndsgood]

so your saying your an artist, but then the next sentance getting upset at people creating there own art? and that they are not just documenting life around them? why be upset that people are choosing to create and make the art they prefer? the world would be a boring place if we had to create art to satisfy you and you only. people have been editing photos for years, editing in the darkroom, this is just another way of doing it.

why is it bad if instead of walking couple hundred feet and removing a trash can at a park from my picture because I don't want to see it there in my finished photo i just erase it in photoshop. there is a diffrence in documentary photography and artistic photography.

I understand what you are saying, completely. I agree with you. Maybe expressing frustration isn't the correct angle. Yes, art is art, I have loved it since I was a small child. I don't know what the correct expression would be, but there should also be some integrity in the art being produced.

Again, thats why I am asking if its always been like this and I just didn't know it because I just recently decided to give this a go. Maybe its because when I thought of photography, I automatically thought of simple pictures and didn't realize how many alterations go into producing these images.

fads and trends come and go. what's the in thing today will be out tomorrow. One thing to think about is how you saw art or photography 10years ago versus how you see it now. 10 years ago people would go to exhibits, or look at actual pictures, or museams. now people sit in there underwear and can look at millions of photos without seeing a duplicate because everything is available to you online. you have the good and the bad. the good being you can look all day long and always see a new photo. and the bad, you can see all the millions of bad photos out there, 10 years ago those photos would have been printed out and stuck in a photo album. or left in the wrapper in some box. now every bad photo is up for view. and now there are simple actions people use to try and make there bad photos look good.

 

[ShooterJ]

Also important to note that art is subjective.. always has been and always will be. I never take it too seriously when people say "This is bad"... because others may actually like it. Who wears the crown that makes them lord over all things art, free to declare what is and is not good enough?

To state that what one feels is bad for them, is bad period.. that's simply ego.. arrogance ... you may not like the way a certain chef prepares your food but the person at the next table thinks it's wonderful.

What would qualify you to say that person was wrong to like it?

 

[CCericola]

It's a fair discussion but the way I see it, it's personal preference only. Is a Realist painting by Courbet better than an Impressionist piece by Monet? Nope, just different.

That said, there is something said for good technique. Be it photography or post processing or paintings, or sculpture or performance art. Some art is just bad

 

[Stevepwns]

Well, I can say, that my perception of photography has changed. Not in a bad or good way, just different than when I bought my camera. Very interesting, all your responses, thanks for your feedback and opinions. In the end, art is art. Period.