The Art

[Petraio Prime]

Yes but your post seemed to say that once you start manipulating in post, the image becomes crap.

1) You don't need it if the image is strong to begin with, and you are more than likely to ruin it with excessive manipulation
2) You can't make silk purse from a sow's ear

This girl at a festival caught my eye with her red hair, and she looked into the lens just a moment before I released the shutter. What would you do to this to make it 'better' through manipulation? The only thing to mention is the the girl behind her, but given this is a festival with people milling around everywhere, that's what happens, so it doesn't bother me. If it were a commercial photo of course I would have control over everything and this would not happen.

By the way, this was shot on film (Fuji Pro NPH 400) and scanned.

 

[JG_Coleman]

What would you do to this to make it 'better' through manipulation?

Well... I suppose that what is meant by 'better' and 'manipulation' is really rather subjective. There's the opportunity to apply some output sharpening, at the very least. If you wanted to tweak the tone curve (for a shapely 'S'-curve) you could do that... you can subtly adjust the exposure or white balance if you saw fit.

I mean, if you are satisfied with the photo as it is, then of course you don't have to do anything to it in post-processing. But I'm sure that if the photo were given to ten different people, they would all process it in ever so slightly different ways.

What I can say is that I make a concerted effort to capture any given shot the best I can... but I also never 'force' myself to accept the in-camera shot as the final image merely out of principle. Every photograph goes through Lightroom, every photograph gets a certain degree of sharpening appropriate to the content, and many get tweaks in white balance, exposure, and tone curve. Sometimes the final result is only barely changed from the in-camera shot... other times it is much improved.

'Manipulation', which is really just kind of a loaded way of saying 'post-processing', is only detrimental to a photo if the individual doing the processing doesn't have a good enough eye to distinguish between 'just right' and 'over-the-top'.

Bad post-processing is not to be blamed on the practice of post-processing, but the person doing the processing. In the hands of an experienced photographer, post-processing applications only improve and refine photographs.

Those who shoot JPEG are jsut getting a "canned" processing algorithm applied to the shot in-camera... they are letting the software do the work for them. If that works for you, that's fine... other photographers prefer to make the decisions for themselves.

That's where RAW comes in... and if you've ever looked at a RAW image without any adjustments, at all, you've certainly seen that post-processing isn't just preferable... it's absolutely necessary.

 

[Petraio Prime]

What would you do to this to make it 'better' through manipulation?

Well... I suppose that what is meant by 'better' and 'manipulation' is really rather subjective. There's the opportunity to apply some output sharpening, at the very least. If you wanted to tweak the tone curve (for a shapely 'S'-curve) you could do that... you can subtly adjust the exposure or white balance if you saw fit.

I mean, if you are satisfied with the photo as it is, then of course you don't have to do anything to it in post-processing. But I'm sure that if the photo were given to ten different people, they would all process it in ever so slightly different ways.

What I can say is that I make a concerted effort to capture any given shot the best I can... but I also never 'force' myself to accept the in-camera shot as the final image merely out of principle. Every photograph goes through Lightroom, every photograph gets a certain degree of sharpening appropriate to the content, and many get tweaks in white balance, exposure, and tone curve. Sometimes the final result is only barely changed from the in-camera shot... other times it is much improved.

'Manipulation', which is really just kind of a loaded way of saying 'post-processing', is only detrimental to a photo if the individual doing the processing doesn't have a good enough eye to distinguish between 'just right' and 'over-the-top'.

Bad post-processing is not to be blamed on the practice of post-processing, but the person doing the processing. In the hands of an experienced photographer, post-processing applications only improve and refine photographs.

Those who shoot JPEG are jsut getting a "canned" processing algorithm applied to the shot in-camera... they are letting the software do the work for them. If that works for you, that's fine... other photographers prefer to make the decisions for themselves.

That's where RAW comes in... and if you've ever looked at a RAW image without any adjustments, at all, you've certainly seen that post-processing isn't just preferable... it's absolutely necessary.

In case you didn't know: this was shot on film (Fuji Pro NPH 400) and scanned.

By 'manipulation' I mean anything that involves altering the image substantially after exposure, using film or digital means.

 

[JG_Coleman]

In case you didn't know: this was shot on film (Fuji Pro 400H) and scanned.

By 'manipulation' I mean anything that involves altering the image substantially after exposure, using film or digital means.

Okay... well, by "subjective", I mean that what's good enough for one person is not necessarily good enough for the next.

My point is simple: There is really no more merit to an in-camera shot left as-is than there is to a tastefully-tweaked version of the same shot. Unless, of course, you can actually see old-school, rutted concepts within the photograph.

Your insistence to apply absolutely no processing whatsoever, if at all possible, leads one to believe that there is actually something inherently 'better' about doing things that way. In actuality, the quality of the finished product is the only thing that matters.

Sure, one should strive to get the best shot possible in-camera... but not because of some fanatical insistence on avoiding post-processing. Rather, because the higher quality the shot is in-camera, the better it will be after adjustments, as well.

Viewers of our photographs really don't care whether or not a given photograph came directly off the camera the way it looks now. It's entirely irrelevant. The overall quality of the finished work dictates the quality of the photograph... the path taken to get any given finished image has no real bearing, at all.

 

[Petraio Prime]

In case you didn't know: this was shot on film (Fuji Pro 400H) and scanned.

By 'manipulation' I mean anything that involves altering the image substantially after exposure, using film or digital means.

Okay... well, by "subjective", I mean that what's good enough for one person is not necessarily good enough for the next.

My point is simple: There is really no more merit to an in-camera shot left as-is than there is to a tastefully-tweaked version of the same shot. Unless, of course, you can actually see old-school, rutted concepts within the photograph.

Your insistence to apply absolutely no processing whatsoever, if at all possible, leads one to believe that there is actually something inherently 'better' about doing things that way. In actuality, the quality of the finished product is the only thing that matters.

Sure, one should strive to get the best shot possible in-camera... but not because of some fanatical insistence on avoiding post-processing. Rather, because the higher quality the shot is in-camera, the better it will be after adjustments, as well.

Viewers of our photographs really don't care whether or not a given photograph came directly off the camera the way it looks now. It's entirely irrelevant. The overall quality of the finished work dictates the quality of the photograph... the path taken to get any given finished image has no real bearing, at all.

You miss my point. The photo has to be good to start with, and no amount of 'processing' or 'technique' is going to make it good if it isn't good to start with.

People are out there taking stupid, boring crap and processing it every which way, thinking that makes it a good photograph. It doesn't. This is especially true of that HDR crap.

Staying at home and taking a photo of my bathroom sink and then processing the crap out of it isn't going to be as interesting as going out into the real world and finding a cute girl with red hair.

 

[JG_Coleman]

You miss my point. The photo has to be good to start with, and no amount of 'processing' or 'technique' is going to make it good if it isn't good to start with.

People are out there taking stupid, boring crap and processing it every which way, thinking that makes it a good photograph. It doesn't. This is especially true of that HDR crap.

Fair enough, I suppose. Don't want to turn this thread into another HDR debacle, though I can't figure out why some people are so against HDR techniques. I've tried earnestly to figure it out, really... (Most HDRs do not feature a bathroom sink or the like).

I can only guess it's equivalent to the way that so many established painters thought photography was crap when it first came out... it was different. Which actually relates back to the OP's post... sometimes the genius of a new technique isn't truly realized until long after it has been pioneered. Many artists from many fields over history were shunned by the society of their time for embracing new techniques or interpretations... only to be hailed as great pioneers decades or centuries after their death. The "establishment" is oftentimes slow to catch on to new things.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, any artists that bank on this happening for them should be steeled against the very real possibility of total failure. Most "new techniques" or "revolutionary ways of seeing things" aren't destined for fame and fanfare... they are destined to be forgotten. Such is the way of art in human society.

Though, I have the feeling that HDR is not headed for oblivion... it will undoubtedly continue to evolve and become integral to modern photography... even if it does remain in it's own "school of thought" distinct from non-HDR photography.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You miss my point. The photo has to be good to start with, and no amount of 'processing' or 'technique' is going to make it good if it isn't good to start with.

People are out there taking stupid, boring crap and processing it every which way, thinking that makes it a good photograph. It doesn't. This is especially true of that HDR crap.

Fair enough, I suppose. Don't want to turn this thread into another HDR debacle, though I can't figure out why some people are so against HDR techniques. I've tried earnestly to figure it out, really... (Most HDRs do not feature a bathroom sink or the like).

I can only guess it's equivalent to the way that so many established painters thought photography was crap when it first came out... it was different. Which actually relates back to the OP's post... sometimes the genius of a new technique isn't truly realized until long after it has been pioneered. Many artists from many fields over history were shunned by the society of their time for embracing new techniques or interpretations... only to be hailed as great pioneers decades or centuries after their death. The "establishment" is oftentimes slow to catch on to new things.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, any artists that bank on this happening for them should be steeled against the very real possibility of total failure. Most "new techniques" or "revolutionary ways of seeing things" aren't destined for fame and fanfare... they are destined to be forgotten. Such is the way of art in human society.

Though, I have the feeling that HDR is not headed for oblivion... it will undoubtedly continue to evolve and become integral to modern photography... even if it does remain in it's own "school of thought" distinct from non-HDR photography.

I don't shoot digital. I use film; but if I did shoot digital, HDR is the last thing I would ever do. It's horrid.

If you want to play with that photo of the red-headed girl I give you leave.

 

[white]

Too much photography today is total crap, utterly worthless garbage, with nothing but manipulations, technique for the sake of technique, without an ounce of merit.

I just love it when you talk dirty. You post your average photos as if they are colossal achievements every photographer should aspire to while making sweeping generalizations about photography. Fascinating. All you need to do now is link to Salgado's work and denounce the Zone system and your tirade will be complete.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Too much photography today is total crap, utterly worthless garbage, with nothing but manipulations, technique for the sake of technique, without an ounce of merit.

I just love it when you talk dirty. You post your average photos as if they are colossal achievements every photographer should aspire to while making sweeping generalizations about photography. Fascinating. All you need to do now is link to Salgado's work and denounce the Zone system and your tirade will be complete.

They are certainly not 'colossal achievements', but they are honest, which is more than you can say about 95% of what I see around me. By this I mean what you see is what I saw in the viewfinder, without manipulations of any kind. I'm sorry, but the manipulation frenzy has gotten entirely out of hand. The kitchen-scene processed in HDR just doesn't do it for me.

http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/6/7/2/9/4/ar124733161449276.jpg

I'll take my red-haired punker girl any day over that kind of crap.

 

[Overread]

Just to confirm - but does this mean that (since we are debating the extent of editing) photography can and is art? I seem to recall a certain someone stating that photography was not and could not ever be art (no matter how little or how much editing had been done)

 

[pgriz]

Good art succeeds by moving the spirit, evoking emotion, giving voice to what was mute, lending us eyes tosee what we were blind to. Good art often is technically well executed, but the contrary is rarely true. Good art stands on its own merits, and doesn't need the pedigree of its creator to be good. The mechanics of creation are important, but mainly to accomplish their job, and then get out of the way. Good art is also subjective and individual - what may move you to tears, may leave me indifferent. Neither reaction is "right" or "wrong", nor is it necessary that you experience the idea that the creator wanted you to have. However, most of "us" are insecure in our own opinions and seek validation from others to confirm that "we" are "right". Which opens the door to a forceful personality to sway the group that a particular viewpoint is "good" and the rest is "bad". Currently, there is a fetish-like adoration in photographic circles of sharpness, straight horizon lines, positioning using the rules of thirds, etc. Well, those things can be important, IF they provide the "AHA" or "Eureka" reaction. By themselves, they are just a means to an end. And the end is to open eyes, touch hearts, stimulate brains. If that doesn't happen, it's not good art.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Just to confirm - but does this mean that (since we are debating the extent of editing) photography can and is art? I seem to recall a certain someone stating that photography was not and could not ever be art (no matter how little or how much editing had been done)

A photograph is not and cannot be a work of art.

If you start manipulating the crap out of it, it starts becoming 'art-like' and becomes less and less a photograph.

That doesn't mean it becomes 'better'.

To say a photograph is a work of art means that you don't know how to use and apply the word 'art' properly.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Good art succeeds by moving the spirit, evoking emotion, giving voice to what was mute, lending us eyes tosee what we were blind to. Good art often is technically well executed, but the contrary is rarely true. Good art stands on its own merits, and doesn't need the pedigree of its creator to be good. The mechanics of creation are important, but mainly to accomplish their job, and then get out of the way. Good art is also subjective and individual - what may move you to tears, may leave me indifferent. Neither reaction is "right" or "wrong", nor is it necessary that you experience the idea that the creator wanted you to have. However, most of "us" are insecure in our own opinions and seek validation from others to confirm that "we" are "right". Which opens the door to a forceful personality to sway the group that a particular viewpoint is "good" and the rest is "bad". Currently, there is a fetish-like adoration in photographic circles of sharpness, straight horizon lines, positioning using the rules of thirds, etc. Well, those things can be important, IF they provide the "AHA" or "Eureka" reaction. By themselves, they are just a means to an end. And the end is to open eyes, touch hearts, stimulate brains. If that doesn't happen, it's not good art.

The 'rules' don't make a good photograph good. They allow it to be good.

Crooked horizons, bad focus, poor placement of the subject all detract. The 'rule of thirds' is often misunderstood. It is simply a way of dividing the space in a photograph in a pleasing way.

 

[abraxas]

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought

Do what feels right and natural to you. Give yourself time to learn and develop your personal aesthetic. Keep an open mind while remaining objective about your work. Don't use excuses.

-

 

[JG_Coleman]

A photograph is not and cannot be a work of art.

If you start manipulating the crap out of it, it starts becoming 'art-like' and becomes less and less a photograph.

That doesn't mean it becomes 'better'.

To say a photograph is a work of art means that you don't know how to use and apply the word 'art' properly.

C'mon now, Petraio... this is over the top even for you. Sadly, as only one person out of billions, you don't get the exclusive privilege to define for the rest of the world what constitutes 'art'. Leave that up to the dictionaries, buddy.

According to Merriam-Webster:

art
Pronunciation: \ˈärt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Now... according to definition 4a you're... well... basically wrong. Good photography is conducted through "the conscious use of skill" and "creative imagination"... the end result is certainly an "aesthetic object"...and the "works so produced" are clearly photographs.

Though, if I've pegged you already... and I think I have... you will nonetheless insist that you know better than both I and the rest of the English-speaking world.