Photoshop and Photography!

[ksmattfish]

Photography is not rocket science. There is a huge difference between using light sensitive materials to create an image and going to the moon.

A very good photographer should be able to create a good photograph using nothing but a box with a hole in it, paper, and basic chemicals.

I know of lot's of photogs with Nikon F5s, and I wouldn't doubt there is rocket science and super computers built into a Nikon F5, but the photogs still don't make very good images (IMHO).

A camera cannot take a photo sitting in a box on the store shelf. It needs a person. Just because that person has a good camera doesn't mean they can take a good photo. The combination of the right mind and tools is what makes it all come together. Without one, the other is lost.

 

[markc]

I don't know if you were responding to my post or not, Matt, but I totally agree. I was comparing the approach, not the tech. While you only need basic equipment, there can be a lot of mental mecanics going on to produce a "good" image.

If you want to compare tech, it only takes a few dollars at a hobby store to build yourself a rocket you can launch in your backyard. That's a hellova lot of fun and many people consider them good rockets, if rather simple. A really skilled hobbyist can build themselves a multi-stage machine with lots of fancy fins for only a few dollars more spent on scrap pieces and using their own design. They are much more likely to have a smooth flight and be able to launch it again without major repairs. That's an absolutely great rocket for field launches.

Going to the moon would be akin to doing a studio shoot for a major advertising campaign. A photographer might be able to take what they consider a great shot using a Holga, but it's not likely that the client is going to be thrilled with it if they are trying to sell wine or diamonds. You will most likely need to spend money on a good lighting setup and at least a moderately priced camera to get the job done in the manner and time-frame that the client expects.

But an art dealer will probably not even glance twice at a comercial shot of a wine bottle and instead be drawn to the moody feel of the Holga image.

One isn't better than the other. I guess that's my point after being so long-winded: Some shots require certain equipment to make, whether its expensive or cheap, but that doesn't make them better than any other.

 

[ksmattfish]

Just responding to the general flow of posts. There is no right or wrong, we are discussing philosophy.

 

[danalec99]

drdan wrote:

I recall Robert Heinlein talking about making calculations in the early days of rocketry that took several people, several days to do. There weren't any computers available and the amount and complexity of the calculations for achieving orbit etc were staggering. That amount of work made the results seem a lot more valuable, certainly much more of a personal accomplishment. To an astronaut though, they just want those calculations to be correct!
If accuracy can be more assured with a computer, great. A lot of the "purity" of getting a picture from proper camera and darkroon technique is lost on viewers who are not photographers themselves. They are interested in the result and often have very little interest in the means.

To reiterate what was already said here, computer skills may or may not translate in to artistic talent or even the sensibility to appreciate what looks good and what doesn't. PS can not give you talent, only tools.

As far as I can tell, PS does not have the ability to turn a bad photo in to a good one, believe me I've tried. I think the photographers who excel in the digital era are going to have the ability to take technically good pictures AND the ability to use PS effectively.

ksmattfish, No one is trying to compare photography with rocket science. The terms 'Rocket science' came in to the picture with the above quote. And I was trying to draw an illustration on the basis of it.

And I was merely observing the fact that it is the stuff between the ear that matters, rather than the equipment and tools. I totally agree with you.

WHICH draws to the conclusion that the human still rules over machine!

 

[joseph]

from my point of view the issue is the definition of a photograph as we have known it to be i.e the camera the chemical processing and the print or slide as the final product. If I can create a photo like image on my computer without actually taking a photo but it look like one is it a photograph? or should we call it something else? it's also an art form but in my book not a photograph. So if I create in PS for instance, a different color sky, pain the flower yellow etc. is it a photograph? I would like a semantic distinction e.g. photographer vs. graphic artist. These days I often find the best so called "photos" choices on online forums and some magazines to be obviously altered digitally with some software, to me these are graphics not photographs... they do not represent the real.

 

[markc]

There is no right or wrong, we are discussing philosophy.

Right on, Matt.

they do not represent the real.

But neither does a photograph. This is the most common complaint I hear about digital photography, but just the fact that film does not have the light sensitivity of the human eye means that a picture taken on film does not show you what it was really like to be there. Henri Cartier-Bresson shoots with only a 50mm lens and prints full-frame with no cropping or burning, and yet he uses B&W film. How is B&W any more real than super-saturated colors? It's the same dramatic change, just in the other direction. The thing that B&W has going for it is that it's been around for more than 100 years, so people are used to it.

At the turn of the century, traditional photography wasn't even seen as art. It took Alfred Stieglitz a long, hard fight to try and get it at least a little bit of recognition. It was new and traditional artists didn't see it as being worthy. I know people aren't saying that digital photography isn't art, but saying it isn't photography feels like the same thing to me.

I completely understand it, too. Having legions of hacks making images of purple cows floating in the sky and calling them photographs is unsettling. It cheapens what we think a photograph should be. The worst of it is it's so easy to do. It would take a lot of skill to make a purple cow floating in the sky using traditional darkroom methods. It could be done, but by the time a person gets good enough to do so, they usually have no desire to, so we don't see it often.

If it's the fact that it's taken digital that makes it not a photograph, then a large number of the images posted here aren't photographs, and we aren't photographers, as many of us are using digital cameras. It would mean that one of these images was a photograph, and the other wasn't:

That seems a little strange to me.

If it's the manipulation that makes it not a photograph, then again, a majority of images, I dare say all images, aren't photographs, even traditional ones. There is at least some manipulation done to every image somewhere down the line. If a photograph was only a photograph if it showed only what was "real", we would have one focal length - whatever was normal for the particular camera; one film - color, and it's saturation would be as natural as possible; one developer - whatever gave the most perfect tones; everyone would shoot at f22 or narrower; etc.

Photographers have to be graphic artists, otherwise our compositions suck. There are so many variables that we choose amongst. A good way to improve your photographic skill is to take some graphic arts classes along the way.

The digital workflow has blurred the lines, and people don't like that. We like having neat labels that we can apply to things so that they can be sorted, and judged, in our heads. This is something that's going to take a while to settle out. It took a long time for wet-plate photography to be accepted as art. It took a while for color photography to be accepted as real photography (that "color" always had to be tacked on to make sure people knew you weren't talking about "real" photography; people did some strange stuff at the time with that color). It's going to take a while for digital photography to be accepted as just "photography", but it will happen.

I've worked both traditionally and digitally, but right now I'm 100% digital, and I usually have to tell people that my prints are such. They have a hard time telling the difference. I consider myself a photographer, no matter if I pick up my EOS5 or my 10D. I feel I have a stake in this arguement because whenever someone says that digital work isn't photography, they are saying I'm not a photographer. That's everyone's right to think that way, but I'm also going to defend my right to call myself one at the same time. The exact same creative process is going through my head; it's only the tools that differ.

 

[drdan]

Well, written Mark!

 

[danalec99]

Very well written Mark!

 

[ksmattfish]

If I can create a photo like image on my computer without actually taking a photo but it look like one is it a photograph? or should we call it something else? it's also an art form but in my book not a photograph.

Someone has pointed this out before, but I don't remember if it was this thread or not. Photograph means "light writing", which is pretty vague. Would the wet plate photographers of old consider shots on 35mm roll film to be "real" photographs?

 

[danalec99]

How is B&W any more real than super-saturated colors? It's the same dramatic change, just in the other direction. The thing that B&W has going for it is that it's been around for more than 100 years, so people are used to it.

At the turn of the century, traditional photography wasn't even seen as art. It took Alfred Stieglitz a long, hard fight to try and get it at least a little bit of recognition

It took a long time for wet-plate photography to be accepted as art. It took a while for color photography to be accepted as real photography (that "color" always had to be tacked on to make sure people knew you weren't talking about "real" photography; people did some strange stuff at the time with that color). It's going to take a while for digital photography to be accepted as just "photography", but it will happen.

Would the wet plate photographers of old consider shots on 35mm roll film to be "real" photographs

So you mean to say 'PhoShograph' (a photoshopped photograph) is going to to be the next art form? And you mean to say it is all in the mindset??

 

[joseph]

To me the issue is not the dictionary definition of the word but rather the essence of the photography art form. To me photography was the pursuit of representing a real and meaningful moment in time. The operative word here is "real" that distinguishes photography from other similar art form. With the available technology of the time, we had wet plat, b/w, color, but imo it was always trying to represent the real. That is what, to me, is unique to photography. Certainly Picasso's Guernica is not real but boy what a way to covey a moment in time. Similarly a digital creation manipulated and changed by software or for that matter color filters with film, can also be a wonderful representation of a moment in time...but if we where there would the sunset ever be as red? the sand as white, leaves as green? if not...is it a photograph?

 

[markc]

but if we where there would the sunset ever be as red? the sand as white, leaves as green? if not...is it a photograph?

I say yes. Because if everything was exactly like it was there, there would be no need for a photographer. We could have a robot taking the pictures.

This again goes back to the fact that photography can't be just like being there. Here's a direct question regarding what you said about the sunset being red: if it's just balck and white and greys, is it a photograph? How is more color different than less color?

 

[jack]

Where does Photography stands in this era of Photoshop?

hi danalec

what does your question mean ?
what are you thinking about as such ?

 

[danalec99]

Hi Jack,

I/we were wondering:
-if there is something called photograph today
-or if the next art form is a 'phoshograph' (a photoshopped photograph)
-Which is real? bw/color and so on?
-Will digital photography come under 'real photography'?

As matt and mark mentioned, there is no right or wrong, no better picture or bad picture...this is a debate/discussion going on here. Feel free to open up your thoughts.

Thanks

 

[joseph]

Well, I suppose I think that landscapes in Alaska, for instance, just the way they are is magnificent and do not need enhancement. At the right time, light qnd composition, the photo is a little like being there within the confines of a two dimensional segment of the place. I do not want the alpenglow to be made more purple then it real is, I want the somewhat dull greens to remain dull. So at least for me that is my objective in taking photos. I do not think I can improve the "look" in nature. Re B&W photos. Again, the reality is in the shapes and shades, Adams did not have color to work with, his zone system attempted to mimic what the eye would sees if we were there. In the final analysis this thread demonstrate that we all have our own interpretation of the endeavor, that is often part of what art is. Anyway interesting discussion.