Return of Light

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

Chase said:
I'm curious to know just how many of these "purists" you believe we have here? Although there are a few that would probably consider themselves to be purists, there are obviously plenty of members who look at any image from a purely artistic standpoint regardless of the tools used to create the image.

I'm concerned that, in my opinion, many of your messages imply that this forum as a whole is very against the use of photoshop. Gordon W even mentioned his expectation of being singled out for his use of PS, and I am curious what prompted that expectation. Being that you mentioned it may have even been you who suggested Gordon post his photo here only increases my concern. With over 2,000 members (granted, a fair number are not active posters), I believe we have a pretty wide range of thoughts, opinions, and knowledge regarding photography and I think that point has been demonstrated in this thread.

If my interpretation of your comments is incorrect, my apologies, however I suspect that I am not the only person to come to this conclusion.

Chase, you have a personal message.

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

MDowdey said:
I was wondering the same thing too. I don't ever recall any number of people that act like purists on this board.

I DONT THINK THERE ARE ANY DEVOUT PURISTS HERE.

MDowdy, you have a personal message.

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

voodoocat said:
I was wondering the same thing too. I don't ever recall any number of people that act like purists on this board.

Will this eliminate any doubt? Here are a few just from my post. No Names, please...

once again the diference between digital art and digital photography... i like the effect of the fog but it isnt THERE its not even evident in the original... i just dont agree with adding things to pictures that arent there and still claiming it as a digital PHOTO when its really a digital COMPOSITION when editing my digital PHOTOS i am a firm believer in the fact that as long as you limit what you change in them to something you can do in a darkroom then its still a photo... now i dont tihnk the fog was there to begin in fact to me it looks like you just used the dodge and burn tool in ps to dodge a few areas to give it a fog effect in fact im almost positive thats what you did... i geuss you could do that to a degree in a darkroom however the sky thats just cheating.... this is a digital composition not photo at least thats my 2 cents/opinion hate all u want

These forums should have a dedicated section for these kinds of things, and leave the rest for actual photographs. Ok, if anyone is not convinced the image is artificially composed, consider this:
1) That's not how real lightning looks like, real lightning lights up the clouds and the ground below.
2) The clouds are OBVIOUSLY fake, you can find repeating patterns in them if you look closely
3) The bush in the lower-right corner was obviously pasted there, you can see how it "fades" into the water
4) The author has not claimed it is an actual photograph (although I think he should have mentioned it isn't, as this is not a photoshop forum)

That should be enough, but you don't really need to analyze it, the overall look of the picture makes it obvious it's fake (it does for me anyway)

he's always stickin up photoshopped images... they used to be a lot worse but he's learning, bless 'im.

but yeah, seeing as this is a PHOTO forum, it should be photo's only IMO.

Saturation/color correction/sharpening/etc., the traditional darkroom arts (for lack of a better term) are accepted as part of photography. Placing things wholesale into a photo until it no longer resembles a photo, to my mind, crosses the line into digital art.

Now, there isn't a thing in the world wrong with digital art, but I feel it belongs in the proper forum. Should there be a "manipulated picture" forum here? Not for me to say. But since there isn't one, and you feel you need to show your "art" (my term), then at least identify it as such.

Then the purists won't have anything to quibble about, will they? Except the quality of the manipulation.

nothing wrong with a piece of digital art,
there is a category in the photoforum where it might fit better

The Creative Corner
A place to share artwork that is NOT photography.
Post your Poetry, Music, Paintings, etc.

Or, could pieces like this be called an "alternative" process....? There is an Alt section here, as well.

There is a huge difference between boosting contrast and adding elements to a photograph that were never there in the first place. Things like contrast, color balance, etc are things that were done in a traditional darkroom so using that as an argument holds no ground. When you add things like lightning bolts, cut and paste wolves, add clouds using the cloud filter in photoshop, etc... it ceases to be photography. The thing that gets me is you either post a photo saying no postwork was done (like anyone cares) or you post photos with deers pasted in and babies floating on the water then ***** when anyone says anything about photoshop.

Chase · Jul 16, 2004

Although I see your point of view, I maintain that the posts you have referenced are a result of a minority of people on the board. I would guess (though I haven't counted) that the positive responses you have received relating to your work have been quite comparable in number.

voodoocat · Jul 16, 2004

Those quotes are all after you started bringing up the purist talk. And those quotes don't prove anyone as a "purist" Honestly, I think you have a preconceived notion that is simply wrong. If you post photos that are obvious composite images, expect honest feedback that it doesn't look real.

I recall the first image you posted had 2 deers pasted into a field and when someone mentioned it wasn't real you said "I'm sorry but I didn't know that photoshop wasn't allowed here" or something to that effect. Photoshop has been and will be accepted on this forum. Some people prefer to get a fine print in the darkroom, some do it in photoshop. If you post a wonderful image, nobody really cares about the path you took to get it.

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

Chase said:
Although I see your point of view, I maintain that the posts you have referenced are a result of a minority of people on the board. I would guess (though I haven't counted) that the positive responses you have received relating to your work have quite comparable in number.

Chase, I absolutely agree with you! And that group that comprises the minority are the people I refer to when I mention purists.

This is a great forum. 99 % of the responses to even my submissions are favorable and have provided sound advice and excellent instruction. And advice and instruction is what I think this forum is about--it certainly has helped me. Those who would make critiques that are personal are merely snapshooters anyway--not photographers. They dont help, they only complain and discourage.

Chase · Jul 16, 2004

canonrebel said:
Chase, I absolutely agree with you! And that group that comprises the minority are the people I refer to when I mention purists.

This is a great forum. 99 % of the responses to even my submissions are favorable and have provided sound advice and excellent instruction. And advice and instruction is what I think this forum is about--it certainly has helped me. Those who would make critiques that are personal are merely snapshooters anyway--not photographers. They dont help, they only complain and discourage.

I'm happy to hear you feel that way.

Maybe I misinterpreted some of your previous posts.

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

voodoocat said:
Those quotes are all after you started bringing up the purist talk. And those quotes don't prove anyone as a "purist"

This is not true-I did not coin the term "Purist". You should be ashamed. Wont you try a little harder to diffuse this situation rather than making the attempt to "get your licks in" to make me the bad guy? Down here in a cat fight is no place for a moderator. Won't you let this thing rest?

If you post photos that are obvious composite images, expect honest feedback that it doesn't look real.

Do you think that all of Vonnaggy's posts are totally real? Do you think Gordon's post is totaly real, he even showed you it wasn't real. It was his perception of the scene he shot--and his perception far exceeds the actual scene. These two gentlemen have posted the most beautiful photographs I've seen posted on any forum. Nobody attacked those people for presenting the fake.

I submitted a post and also submitted the original as did Gordan. I even explained how the manipulation was done and still issues were raised. Sup with that? What's so uncommonly fake about this...
Manipulated

Original

Here's the posted commentary with the above pics...
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7636&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The thing that gets me is you either post a photo saying no postwork was done (like anyone cares) or you post photos with deers pasted in and babies floating on the water then ***** when anyone says anything about photoshop. I recall the first image you posted had 2 deers pasted into a field and when someone mentioned it wasn't real you said "I'm sorry but I didn't know that photoshop wasn't allowed here" or something to that effect.

I ask for a critique on composition and I get redicule because it's a cheap fake.

I recall the first image you posted had 2 deers pasted into a field and when someone mentioned it wasn't real you said "I'm sorry but I didn't know that photoshop wasn't allowed here" or something to that effect. Photoshop has been and will be accepted on this forum. Some people prefer to get a fine print in the darkroom, some do it in photoshop. If you post a wonderful image, nobody really cares about the path you took to get it.

Voodoocat, you're not trying to diffuse this situation, you're still trying to get in your licks. You of all members on this board should be above this stupid little petty $h!t

voodoocat · Jul 16, 2004

canonrebel said:
This is not true-I did not coin the term "Purist". You should be ashamed. Wont you try a little harder to diffuse this situation rather than making the attempt to "get your licks in" to make me the bad guy? Down here in a cat fight is no place for a moderator. Won't you let this thing rest?

I won't let it rest? You're the one acting childish here. I have refrained from posting what I really feel due to my status as admin. Your attempt to provoke me will be unsuccesful so I suggest you drop it.