Purity :)

[Moni]

One thing I was always thinking........

Upto what percentage we can use Softwares in our photos?

And then it'll be counted as photo not photo manipulation!

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

thats a good question. I'm sort of torn between two different defitintions. 1. anything you can do in the darkroom is alright, but then again i've seen photos spliced together in the darkroom so i don't know how valid that is. I think anything things that don't really change the image, but adjuts it would be alrihgt. things like cropping, burning, dodging, adjusting colors, contrast. Pretty much all the things that have always been accepted throughout the years

 

[vonnagy]

And then it'll be counted as photo not photo manipulation!

Thats a good question that has no answer, the same thing can be said for darkroom manipulation.

Basically, I take artistic liberty to recreate my photos how I see fit. I consider it more of an art - if I don't like one of my photos, I'll recreate to see how I think it should be.

You'll have purists who will look down on this who'll say software takes away from the authenticity of a photo. But if you get 2 different photographers, with different cameras photographing the same subject chances are the outcomes will be quite different anyway. Who is to say one is wrong and the other is right? Its just 2 different ways of interpreting the same thing!

I know which side of the fence I am on this, but there are no clear answers - the artist/photographer must decide for themselves!

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

Do yall think that if a photographer substantially changes the content of his or her photograph. I.E. splices 2 photographs together or uses some of the crazier photoshop filters, then he or she has the responsibility to tell people that the photograph has been digitally altered?

 

[LaFoto]

Funny to be finding this discussion going on here now when I was having the exact same with my husband yesterday morning over breakfast. I was telling him about this forum and about how some have in other threads already said they'd "not digif***" their photos, while others say, a photo is like a painting, and many painters have not been satisfied with their works for years and kept changing and changing and changing.

Before I came to this board, I tended to be more of a "purist", thinking that if I didn't compose my photo well enough BEFOREHAND, and didn't realize that the light could be special, the motif could be special, my frame could be special, then I'd have to make do with a "bad picture". I tended to (still tend to, actually) think that much of what makes one photo stand out out of the millions of others has to be "done" before the photographer presses the button. Do you see what I mean?

But then we talked about the ways in which photographers could ALWAYS make changes to their once taken picture, in the development process, in the darkroom, through hand-colouring and what not.

So what speaks against all this? All of this lies WITHIN the artistic process.

So then my husband said something that I find sounds quite good. In general, a photography tends to be the DOCUMENTATION of a momentary situation; you capture a situation that is gone the next second in a picture and thus save it. If you have "the eye" for the situation and all the things surrounding it, you can create art through this process of documentation.

Other photographers, however, see their work in an ARTISTIC RECREATION of things they see. And if that is the basic idea, then changes to what originally is on the negative (chip) are allowed.

This brings us to what you're also mentioning, Moni: actual manipulation. I'd say that if there's a very expressive photographer, who feels he can only express what he wants to say with his photo by putting two or more photos together in order to create HIS OWN PIECE OF ART, then that is ok.

If it's done with malice, in order to harm someone or tell lies or distort the truth... then I find it's bordering in criminality.

 

[ksmattfish]

Photographs have been manipulated since the beginning. I don't see any ethical difference between raising contrast by increasing dev time or temp, or using a #4 contrast filter, or upping it in Adobe PS. At least 75% of the functions in Adobe PS have their history in the traditional darkroom.

I have a buddy who never uses filters, like he's some sort of purist, but he shoots about 75% of the time on Velvia, which I feel is a beautiful film, but not at all natural as far as color and saturation go. What's the diff between using it, or a different film with a pol filter, or increasing saturation in Adobe PS? No diff in my eyes.

Previsualization is a basic concept of the zone system. Looking at reality, the photographer must previsualize how the final print is to look, which may not be accurate at all when compared to reality. They choose camera, lens, filters, film, exposure, dev time, and print contrast to arrive at the results they imagined. Ansel Adams first became serious about his photography when his hiking snapshots didn't compare to the sense of awe he felt when in the actual location. He learned to manipulate the image to add the grandeur and drama that he felt when confronted with the real deal. Ansel Adams died before digital photography was a reality; I have no doubt that he would have embraced Adobe PS with a passion. He would have loved the control.

As long as the photographer enjoys the process, that's probably what's most important. Some folks like auto-exposure, and getting the processing and printing done at the lab; they just want to see and compose the image. Other folks want to do the entire process themselves. And of course, many people fall somewhere in between.

As long as the work is not being submitted as evidence, or breaking any rules (like in a digital or film ONLY contest), I see no reason why the creator has to say anything about the process involved in making the image, although if they want to that is fine too. I'm always very curious about how images are made. And although I'm most interested in prints from BW film (because that's my thing), I wouldn't discount the quality of an image because it was mostly realized in Adobe PS.

 

[Dew]

i think as an artist, i would express freedom of all artistic ability

for me, im against photoshoping my photos to death, i want to have them as authentic as possible (thanks to the hubby ) ... i will sharpen, bump up contrast, sometime crop (although i do this minimally), occasionally dodge and burn, convert a color into b&w .... if i need to do too much after that or too much to one photo, most times i trash the photo because i have failed my duty as an artist ...

but frankly, people can do what they want to their photos and express themselves the way they feel is right .. but im on a journey where im trying to get back to basics

 

[doxx]

a photograph is a photograph is a photograph - I like to keep
it 'as is', except for color correction/contrast/burning etc..

I'm able to do lot of unbelievable things to photos, but digital
art is something else...

 

[markc]

Looking at reality, the photographer must previsualize how the final print is to look, which may not be accurate at all when compared to reality. They choose camera, lens, filters, film, exposure, dev time, and print contrast to arrive at the results they imagined.

This is how I feel. I don't think there is such a thing as a "pure" photograph. Even if you only use a neutral color film, a 50mm lens (or whatever is "normal" for you camera), and f22, you are still choosing where to point the camera. A photograph can never show everything there is about being someplace at sometime. It's all about the photographer's interpretation of it, through the choices made. For myself, I don't make much of a distinction between choosing before hitting the shutter and after. I prefer before, but if I can make a so-so image into something more, I'm going to go ahead and do it. If nothiing else, it will help me see what's possible and make better choices before I hit that button the next time.

It's definitely a case of "to each their own". Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson are both masters of their prespective approaches, so I don't think you can say one is better than the other.

 

[Moni]

I don't know which way to follow...but it seems you people tell us to do what my eyes seems ok and heart feels right???

 

[vonnagy]

but it seems you people tell us to do what my eyes seems ok and heart feels right???

thats a pretty good conclusion Moni

 

[Moni]

Thanks!
I think soon I'll write an article on this particular topic!
I am a newbie...but I think you'll find my article useful as you'll know "How newcombers take this thing!"

 

[drdan]

Most of the points have been covered. I'm with Ansel Adams, if my pictures don't have the same visual or emotional impact as what I saw with my eyes, then I try to recreate some of that same impact with editing. In that sense I think the edited picture is a more accurate representation of the scene or moment I was trying to capture than the original.

It seems like extremely manipulated images are obvious and not as appealing. In Colorado Springs it is difficult to get shots without any powerlines in them. Is it cheating to clone them out? It certainly is not as authentic then but I've found that authenticity often matters more to the photographer than the viewer. That babyfood dripping down your grandsons chin may be an important part of capturing that moment for you, but most other viewers of that picture would probably rather it was edited out. I don't think people would feel cheated or deceived if the babyfood was gone and an otherwise appealing picture saved.

Seems like lots of gray area here.