Real Photography?

[Ediacol]

So I had fallen in love with this woman's photography... but then I realized that a lot of her photos of say a baby in a candy jar are actually photoshopped together one of the candy jar and then the other of the baby then she will cut around the baby and put him in the jar. Or another photo was of a baby laying on a guitar and it looked amazing however after finding that out I didn't really feel like it was real photography... is there another word for that? Image manipulation or something? I feel like professionals should not rely on photoshop as much.. but I guess with shooting babies you have to use it.. Do you guys frown upon that kind of photography?

 

[EIngerson]

You have never once been able to say "WOW" to a photograph that didn't have some sort of PP done to it.

 

[MTVision]

So I had fallen in love with this woman's photography... but then I realized that a lot of her photos of say a baby in a candy jar are actually photoshopped together one of the candy jar and then the other of the baby then she will cut around the baby and put him in the jar. Or another photo was of a baby laying on a guitar and it looked amazing however after finding that out I didn't really feel like it was real photography... is there another word for that? Image manipulation or something? I feel like professionals should not rely on photoshop as much.. but I guess with shooting babies you have to use it.. Do you guys frown upon that kind of photography?

Well I know a lot of people frown upon stuffing babies in glass jars or hanging them in slings from trees or whatever else. They should all be composites and most pros do photos like these as composites - including the head in hands pose.

A lot of people don't do composites and it is dangerous. Some lady had a picture of a newborn stuffed in a jar with gum balls and it wasn't a composite. What of the glass broke? The babies neck was also resting on the edge of the jar - uncomfortable. Also - everytime the baby breathes - the gum balls move which can make it harder to breathe. There was also another photographer who posted a pic on FB of a baby hanging in a tree. The babies face was purple and it was crying. The photog said her husband was down below snapping pics as well as being there for her safety. She no longer does photos like that once she learned about composites.

With newborns it should be about safety not just about art.

 

[CCericola]

Image manipulation is nothing new and was done decades before photoshop was invented.

World’s First Photomontage

In 1858, Henry Peach Robinson [wiki] made the world’s first photomontage by combining multiple negatives to form a single image.
Robinson’s first and most famous composite photo, called "Fading Away", was a composition of five negatives. It depicted a girl dying of consumption (or tuberculosis), and quite controversial as some objected to the morbid subject of the photo.

It is nothing new. It is a technique. No need to thumb your nose at it.

 

[luvmyfamily]

It's all preference. I like the cool PS photo's that make you say WOW! I will say that I cannot stand the baby in the net photo.

 

[Ediacol]

So I had fallen in love with this woman's photography... but then I realized that a lot of her photos of say a baby in a candy jar are actually photoshopped together one of the candy jar and then the other of the baby then she will cut around the baby and put him in the jar. Or another photo was of a baby laying on a guitar and it looked amazing however after finding that out I didn't really feel like it was real photography... is there another word for that? Image manipulation or something? I feel like professionals should not rely on photoshop as much.. but I guess with shooting babies you have to use it.. Do you guys frown upon that kind of photography?

Well I know a lot of people frown upon stuffing babies in glass jars or hanging them in slings from trees or whatever else. They should all be composites and most pros do photos like these as composites - including the head in hands pose.

A lot of people don't do composites and it is dangerous. Some lady had a picture of a newborn stuffed in a jar with gum balls and it wasn't a composite. What of the glass broke? The babies neck was also resting on the edge of the jar - uncomfortable. Also - everytime the baby breathes - the gum balls move which can make it harder to breathe. There was also another photographer who posted a pic on FB of a baby hanging in a tree. The babies face was purple and it was crying. The photog said her husband was down below snapping pics as well as being there for her safety. She no longer does photos like that once she learned about composites.

With newborns it should be about safety not just about art.

Oh no I know about safety and all that I didn't mean she should have put the baby in the jar lol I just wondered if you have to rely solely on Photoshop for everything is it still photography? should I learn how to do all of that or just stick to natural photography when it comes to babies? I figured the gumballs would be very uncomfortable =/

 

[Overread]

You have never once been able to say "WOW" to a photograph that didn't have some sort of PP done to it.

If Helen B finds you saying that she's going to shoot you down with film stuff (and the polariod shooters are going to go crazy at you )



As for the primary question the use of editing in photoshop or the dark room has been a part of the photographic process for about as long as photography has existed. The only difference is that what once took hours in the darkroom now takes moments in photoshop - that and the average person can actually use it whereas in the past many people simply never had darkrooms nor training to use them - let alone use advanced editing methods.


In general a lot of "is it right" comes down to the situation specifically. If one is producing art then the rules are pretty much do what you want - from just touching up small parts through to full collages of multiple photos. Heck I've seen some outstanding work done where the photographer spent hours adding in a snowy blizzard to a group shot of 4 people on a town street dressed in period arctic explorer clothing.


Further remember that the camera starts telling lies as soon as one frames the shot - one can go to the zoo and frame and shoot a photo that looks 100% natural, without any bars or man-made components. Is it any more or less of a lie than if they'd photoshopped them out?


Generally most of us don't have problem so long as one does not miss-represent their work when asked - in the above example of the zoo if I were to take a zoo shot and then claim it was wild that would be a lie and a thing I would take issue against. However if one admits (when asked) that it is indeed a zoo shot then there is no problem .


Also I say to people that before they can judge photoshopping first they must learn to do it - learn to use editing, theory and method and not to discount it.

 

[Bossy]

Megan, I had to google that, I thought you had to be making it up. HOLY COW. What the heck was the mother thinking???

​

 

[MTVision]

Oh no I know about safety and all that I didn't mean she should have put the baby in the jar lol I just wondered if you have to rely solely on Photoshop for everything is it still photography? should I learn how to do all of that or just stick to natural photography when it comes to babies? I figured the gumballs would be very uncomfortable =/

It's still photography. Why wouldn't it be? Art is art.

Well it's up to you if you want to do composites or not.

If you want to do newborn photos like that then you need to learn how to do composites. If not - lifestyle photos are great.

I personally don't like the composite photos because I don't think baby are objects. I wouldn't put my baby in a glass jar so why would I want a photo like that. I dont have anything against composites I'm just not into the whole newborn craze.

 

[luvmyfamily]

So I had fallen in love with this woman's photography... but then I realized that a lot of her photos of say a baby in a candy jar are actually photoshopped together one of the candy jar and then the other of the baby then she will cut around the baby and put him in the jar. Or another photo was of a baby laying on a guitar and it looked amazing however after finding that out I didn't really feel like it was real photography... is there another word for that? Image manipulation or something? I feel like professionals should not rely on photoshop as much.. but I guess with shooting babies you have to use it.. Do you guys frown upon that kind of photography?

Well I know a lot of people frown upon stuffing babies in glass jars or hanging them in slings from trees or whatever else. They should all be composites and most pros do photos like these as composites - including the head in hands pose.

A lot of people don't do composites and it is dangerous. Some lady had a picture of a newborn stuffed in a jar with gum balls and it wasn't a composite. What of the glass broke? The babies neck was also resting on the edge of the jar - uncomfortable. Also - everytime the baby breathes - the gum balls move which can make it harder to breathe. There was also another photographer who posted a pic on FB of a baby hanging in a tree. The babies face was purple and it was crying. The photog said her husband was down below snapping pics as well as being there for her safety. She no longer does photos like that once she learned about composites.

With newborns it should be about safety not just about art.

I wish I could find the link I saw on "you are nota photographer," about "BEFORE YOU THINK OF HANGING THE BABY IN THE NET." Was a great article about infant safety.

 

[MTVision]

I wish I could find the link I saw on "you are nota photographer," about "BEFORE YOU THINK OF HANGING THE BABY IN THE NET." Was a great article about infant safety.

On another forum a group of ladies got together and are making a whole newborn safety packet to be passed online and at ob-gyns, pediatricians, hospitals, etc. People don't understand what goes into these photos and new photographers don't either so they attempt it without really any safety precautions. A lot of people dont realize these photos are composites which is scary.

Anyways the info pack is going to have a bunch of pictures - pullbacks to show how's it's down, the 2 pictures used to make the composite and other stuff.

 

[MTVision]

Megan, I had to google that, I thought you had to be making it up. HOLY COW. What the heck was the mother thinking???

C'mon Bossy! Thanks for the vote of confidence

 

[luvmyfamily]

I wish I could find the link I saw on "you are nota photographer," about "BEFORE YOU THINK OF HANGING THE BABY IN THE NET." Was a great article about infant safety.

On another forum a group of ladies got together and are making a whole newborn safety packet to be passed online and at ob-gyns, pediatricians, hospitals, etc. People don't understand what goes into these photos and new photographers don't either so they attempt it without really any safety precautions. A lot of people dont realize these photos are composites which is scary.

Anyways the info pack is going to have a bunch of pictures - pullbacks to show how's it's down, the 2 pictures used to make the composite and other stuff.

I couldn't agree more. I HAVE to find this article. I just did an 8 month old and I did so much as hardly touch her. I asked her mom to do it. Anyway, great article online about photo sessions with infants and toddlers.

 

[EIngerson]

You have never once been able to say "WOW" to a photograph that didn't have some sort of PP done to it.

If Helen B finds you saying that she's going to shoot you down with film stuff (and the polariod shooters are going to go crazy at you )
.

I guess I could have worded that differently, but oh well. I'll take my lumps.

 

[Bossy]

Before You Even Think of Hanging That Newborn in a Net, Read This | You Are Not a Photographer

Google- You are not a photographer hanging baby

​