Are these pics "Phography" or Art?

[Hooligan Dan]

Toilet. Urinal.
It's all sanitary ware. You are merely playing with semantics, sir.
What was done first in 1917 has often been copied but never equalled. :greenpbl:




Removing items from an image that were originally there stops the image from being a representation of reality because you are altering reality in retrospect. So one could successfully argue that any image so altered is no longer a photograph.
'Make it look more realistic'? A photograph is a 2-D representation of a 4-D world. How realistic is that?

Hertz is correct. We can't do anything unnatural or anything that can't be done in a traditional darkroom. Basically you can crop, burn/dodge/take out dust spots, adjust levels/contrast, etc. Anything more than that you're screwed if you get caught. Even burning too much is a no no. A few years ago it was revealed that a famous 9/ll photo had a super-burn and the guy who took it was ousted by the publication.

 

[flea77]

Removing items from an image that were originally there stops the image from being a representation of reality because you are altering reality in retrospect. So one could successfully argue that any image so altered is no longer a photograph.

You read two different ideas and swapped one for the other. I said anything done to make it look more realistic COMMA, more like the real world VISION (as in what you envisioned the photograph should look like). What that means TO ME, is removing the candy bar wrapper on the ground that you did not see, removing the one twig sticking out of someone's head, cloning out that bright red traffic light that somehow managed to shine through the trees etc. That does not mean moving the tree, cloning out a car or building, etc. You would not be altering reality in any significant manner.

To make this even more confusing, once again stating only my opinion, using makeup to cover a mole and taking a picture is a photograph, covering the same mole using photoshop.....well.....not so much.

'Make it look more realistic'? A photograph is a 2-D representation of a 4-D world. How realistic is that?

Yes, and our vision is not reality either because we use depth PERCEPTION to perceive the distance between objects, and of course we only see the filtered or reflected light from an object, not the actual objects. So even our senses are not "realistic" now are they?:lmao:

Allan

 

[Hooligan Dan]

You read two different ideas and swapped one for the other. I said anything done to make it look more realistic COMMA, more like the real world VISION (as in what you envisioned the photograph should look like). What that means TO ME, is removing the candy bar wrapper on the ground that you did not see, removing the one twig sticking out of someone's head, cloning out that bright red traffic light that somehow managed to shine through the trees etc. That does not mean moving the tree, cloning out a car or building, etc. You would not be altering reality in any significant manner.



Allan

It may not be "altering reality in any significant manner" but you still can't do it. If a post-it note is stuck on a window a block down from you subject and you clone it out, no one will likely notice, but it's changing reality and it's considered unethical. You could lose your job for even the tiniest thing like that.

 

[flea77]

Hertz is correct. We can't do anything unnatural or anything that can't be done in a traditional darkroom. Basically you can crop, burn/dodge/take out dust spots, adjust levels/contrast, etc. Anything more than that you're screwed if you get caught. Even burning too much is a no no. A few years ago it was revealed that a famous 9/ll photo had a super-burn and the guy who took it was ousted by the publication.

I agree, although I may take it a bit further, not just dust spots but that coke can in the leaves you did not see in the finder is fair game to me.

Now wait just a sec, I was under the impression we were discussing photography in general, not specific to fields. In the photojournalism and/or scientific community there are a different set of rules. If I were shooting for the news I would strictly adhere to no alterations with the exception of increasing the viewability of the subject without changing any of the actual data there. In other words, cropping, levels, contrast, repairing flaws in the negative (dust/water spots) and that is it.

Allan

 

[flea77]

It may not be "altering reality in any significant manner" but you still can't do it. If a posted note is stuck on a window a block down from you subject and you clone it out, no one will likely notice, but it's changing reality and it's considered unethical. You could lose your job for even the tiniest thing like that.

No I would not lose my job and it would not be unethical as I am not a paid photographer and not in photojournalism.

Allan

 

[Hooligan Dan]

Working photographer or not. It's no longer reality even though it may fit your photographic vision.

EDIT: I should add that I have absolutely no issues with doing what you say. Make a photo a great photo. This is just reality vs. not

 

[Chiller]

​

 

[flea77]

Working photographer or not. It's no longer reality even though it may fit your photographic vision.

Once again I preface this by saying IN MY OPINION, I disagree. The things I change in my photographs are nothing I could not have changed in the reality of the situation. I could have picked up the candy bar wrapper, and then in reality it would not be there. I could not however have moved the tree, a building, or a car (unless I had the keys).

If you disagree, that is fine, we all have our different opinions and I have stated mine. I will continue to use these guidelines for my own photography, and use them to judge others as I see fit, whether or not others agree with me.

Allan

PS. So I assume by your comments when you have a photograph printed in a paper you insist that their four color presses are color calibrated as is your camera, monitor and printer? I also assume that you require them to print in at least 600dpi on high quality paper? I ask because the photos in all the newspapers I have ever read do NOT look realistic in the least, blotchy, colors off, low resolution which looks like grain that was not in the original "vision" at all.

 

[table1349]

​

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Mike_E]

Well Gee..... now that we have a definitive definition as to what Art is, what is reality???

Reality is the bill collector. Or anything that takes you away from your life as you would prefer to live it.

The preference is what Photography is mostly about. Opinions and desires.

Did you ever wonder why GAS was so insidious and so contentious?

Opinions and desires, the stuff of dreams.

 

[MrsMoo]

well apparently video games are art, so why cant photography be art too?

 

[skieur]

I find it humourous that anyone would speak of photography and reality in the same sentence. Framing is already adding or subtracting elements of reality from a scene. Lenses distort perspective, distances, size, and camera location. Film affects colour, contrast, and dynamic range. Sensors and menu settings modify every aspect of the photo.

Then of course, is reality what is in the scene, or what you see in the scene? At ISO 1600, you can pick up objects in a photo that you were not able to see with your eyes when looking at the scene. Has your camera distorted the amount of light really present in the scene?

The elements of design or composition determine whether a photograph is a work of art or not. One photographer described the process of taking a great photo as subtracting or isolating the strongest compositional elements in a scene to create a visually effective work of art.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

well apparently video games are art, so why cant photography be art too?

A paraphrased conversation between a photographer from the 1940's and an art gallery... "Sir, you seriously do not believe that your photograph could ever be art, do you?"

Man, we have not come very far in a long time, have we?

In days where I see 200 pound bronze statues of bull testicles considered art and photography not being able to be considered in that genre... kinda concerns me... lol

 

[Garbz]

I don't want my photos compared to b o l l o c k s (I can't believe that's censored on this forum) anyway

 

[iheartphotos]

hey everybody! I've just seen some news on bbc.co.uk and bapla.com about a youth culture photography exhibition called Unordinary People at the albert hall in London in April / May. Could definately be worth a visit if your interested in the cultures that were present in the different decade of the 21st century.