Processing vs Photography Skill

[SquarePeg]

I guess next time I go out I’ll have to carry a sign saying I’ve lightened my hair color, covered up some freckles and padded my bra.

 

[smoke665]

@SquarePeg only if there are edited enhanced selfies out there. LOL

 

[Sharpshooterr]

I guess next time I go out I’ll have to carry a sign saying I’ve lightened my hair color, covered up some freckles and padded my bra.

Plsase Sharon...., say it ain’t so!!!!

 

[dennybeall]

My mantra, since my background is in photojournalism, is "Get The Shot!". When you get the shot you want, there are often fixable problems due to the circumstances at the time. People or items in the shot, backgrounds that are not good or dark/bright areas that just couldn't be worked around at the time of the shot, most can be fixed in post-processing. Always want to get the shot 100% right but the world often has other ideas...........................................

 

[The_Traveler]

My mantra, since my background is in photojournalism, is "Get The Shot!". When you get the shot you want, there are often fixable problems due to the circumstances at the time. People or items in the shot, backgrounds that are not good or dark/bright areas that just couldn't be worked around at the time of the shot, most can be fixed in post-processing. Always want to get the shot 100% right but the world often has other ideas...........................................

For those of us who want to get a shot that won't exist in another instant, there isn't the luxury to wait and come back. Mother Nature absolutely doesn't care what the photographer wants to say.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Unless you go from camera to print, almost all photographs are "enhanced". I am a fan of "as shot", but I still crop, adjust contrast, and brightness.

It all comes down to what you enjoy when it comes to massaging your photo.

In the art world I have seen people swoon over impressionist blobs. What ever float your boat.

 

[Derrel]

One is not much use without the other. In this day and age if you are shooting digitally you must be at least basically conversant with post-processing.

 

[MVPernula]

Some people like to do photography other people are more interested in digital imaging.

THIS! Everyone has their own opinion of what's "allowed" or what even counts as photography. Does it stop counting as photography after a certain amount of post proccesing? At which point is the photograph converted into digital art? Is it ever?

To me it's alot about 'feeling'. I won't say that a heavily edited photo isn't photography, but it -to me- wont feel very genuine. The russian lady @Braineack shared is a good example. It is photography, no doubt, and I can see why it would look attractive to the masses and some people, but to me it lacks feeling. I think I mean "genuinity" by 'feeling', not quite sure myself really. However another example from @Braineack was http://ridgeandramble.com/galleries/ , as her editing don't really appeal to me I wouldn't say that her way of processing images ruins the shot. Her shots, personally, feel much better than the Russian lady's. It's more like I'm looking at an actual photo rather than... Something else.

To my earlier point I'd say that the russian lady's work is more in the direction of digital art rather than photography and Kelsey Rae's work is more photography than digital art, but both are 'photography' either way. At least that's what I think!

 

[407370]

I love discussions like this.

My avatar is a fine example of something that cannot be done in camera. It cant even be done in Photoshop / Lightroom.

Take my avatar....

This is the end result I was looking for. I cannot achieve this with a camera so I used the following workflow:

1. get photo of water. Loch Lomond will do nicely
2. Create 3D Scene
3. Create a model of 3D Head
4. Add objects as necessary
5. Create textures
6. Add Camera Object

No matter what I do to the photo of Loch Lomond it is still a photo of Loch Lomond. Is it still photography?. It is to me.

 

[MVPernula]

I love discussions like this.

My avatar is a fine example of something that cannot be done in camera. It cant even be done in Photoshop / Lightroom.

Take my avatar....

This is the end result I was looking for. I cannot achieve this with a camera so I used the following workflow:

1. get photo of water. Loch Lomond will do nicely
2. Create 3D Scene
3. Create a model of 3D Head
4. Add objects as necessary
5. Create textures
6. Add Camera Object

No matter what I do to the photo of Loch Lomond it is still a photo of Loch Lomond. Is it still photography?. It is to me.

Now this is a good one!

This even had me looking up the definition of photography out of curiosity. Depending on where you look you get more or less specific explanations on what 'photography' is. You get simple definitions such as:

-"The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of images, and the like." -Webster Dictionary

and

-"The art and technology of producing images on photosensitive surfaces, and its digital counterpart." -Wiktionary.

Along with other, more explanatory and in-depth, definitions.

One thing I saw coming up repetitively on the more in-depth ones was that you needed to capture light chemically, by film or its digital counterpart such as image sensors. So from what I could find you are not, by definition, taking photos. You are indeed making a photograph, but it's a tricky one! Did you take the photo of Loch Lomond? In that case we're talking about something else, then you've snapped a shot and edited it. If you've downloaded the photo and placed that 3D model on top I'd say it's digital art.

Conclusion:
It depends

 

[smoke665]

@407370 thanks for the backstory, this is way beyond cool for an old tech junkie like me, though admittedly I was mostly lost after "get photo of water". LOL

Did you take the photo of Loch Lomond? In that case we're talking about something else, then you've snapped a shot and edited it. If you've downloaded the photo and placed that 3D model on top I'd say it's digital art.

This is a question I've struggled with finding a definitive answer for as well. If a musician plays a piece composed by someone else, are they any less a musician? If an actor plays a part from a script written by another are they any less an artist? As with the person who compiles a totally new composition from the bits and pieces of photos, each contribute their artistic influence.

Part of the issue might lie in the fact that "digital photography" and the ease of manipulation is relatively new. Unlike the musician and actor example, the understanding and acceptance, of who does what in the digital world is still struggling for a definition. Maybe it's time for Webster's to reevaluate thier definition?

 

[MVPernula]

This is a question I've struggled with finding a definitive answer for as well. If a musician plays a piece composed by someone else, are they any less a musician? If an actor plays a part from a script written by another are they any less an artist? As with the person who compiles a totally new composition from the bits and pieces of photos, each contribute their artistic influence.

Part of the issue might lie in the fact that "digital photography" and the ease of manipulation is relatively new. Unlike the musician and actor example, the understanding and acceptance, of who does what in the digital world is still struggling for a definition. Maybe it's time for Webster's to reevaluate thier definition?

If a musician plays a piece composed by someone else, they're still playing the composition. The person in question is a musician.
If an actor plays a part from a script written by another are they are still acting.
My point is that they're doing it. They are acting, and they are playing the instrument.
I'm not a photographer if I download someone elses photo. I would be a photographer if I snapped any shot, or in this case a photo of Loch Lomond. Should I have taken this photo and edited it, sure yeah! Downloaded it? No not really.

But like you said with: "As with the person who compiles a totally new composition from the bits and pieces of photos, each contribute their artistic influence."
This, to me, still wouldn't be photography. If the process didn't include some for of, well.. Camera usage or similar, is it really photography? If a person complies a totally new composition from bits and pieces of photos they haven't shot It'd be digital art to me. Have you shot one/some/all of the pictures in said composition? Then we're back to some for of photography.

I'd compare it to someone saying "I'm a videographer", but the person in question only downloads finished footage online to slap it into a video editing software. Said person in question didn't shoot video at all, is he/she a videographer?
Am I making sense?

 

[smoke665]

@MVPernula how a musician plays a piece usually includes thier artistic adaptation in some manner, as with an actor they aren't just reading the words in monotone. I would agree that someone who merely copies something verbatim falls within the realm of reproduction.

As to the digital image world, we are entering a new world where IMO labels of the past may be outdated. Look at the digital images in today's movies, where they create images from nothing but an idea? Using your Wikipedia definition above, "Photography is the art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film", I'd say an alien being created on a digital drive would fall within the realm of the definition.

 

[munecito]

Processing isn't a digital thing.

Have a little browse here:

Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom

Dennis Stock (magnum photographer) marked up his photos with heaps of instructions on how they were to be processed.

 

[Braineack]

However another example from @Braineack was http://ridgeandramble.com/galleries/ , as her editing don't really appeal to me I wouldn't say that her way of processing images ruins the shot. Her shots, personally, feel much better than the Russian lady's.

The shots are fine, but the styling is awful.

If i'm paying for engagement photos or wedding photos, that last thing I want is dark, dreary, GREEN images that don't match the mood/emotion. They look like an Instagram filter was applied to them willy nilly -- look at all the black clipping. I just personally, very much dislike this look but granted I'm more keen on "true-to-scene" photography.

This was really just an example of decent photos, that IMHO were ruined by inability to process correctly/well. It's fine to have a style, and obviously people are hiring her, but I wouldn't.

I'd rather hire @Vtec44 here if I wanted a similar style. James Tang Photography - Southern California forest wedding photographer serving Los Angeles, Orange County, Temecula, San Diego, Big Bear Lake, Lake Arrowhead Pine Rose Cabins , San Moritz Lodge in Crestline, and other So Cal cities. I'm a hybrid (film and digital) wedding photographer specialize in rustic mountain and forest weddings in Southern California. I also own a beautiful row boat.. He has a light and airy style, and even a slightly green hue to his images still.

The point I was trying to express with the Russian photographer, and that she's more into digital art/manipulation; which is totally fine. But the photography base isn't all that strong, and again, in my opinion the photoshopping isn't that strong. People go ga-ga over her work, and all i see i fake snowflakes, poorly photoshopped flowers, fake light flares, and artificially blurred backgrounds. I also don't really find her compositions all that compelling, and rarely like the dark look and color cast she adds.

Ultimately what I'm getting at is both photography skills AND processing skills are both very important.