Where does photography stop and painting begin?

[cporten]

I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years. I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera. And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now. Film required me to be much more precise.

 

[Ysarex]

I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years.

Then you shot only color transparency film? Even then arguments can be made that you manipulated the image, but setting that aside many photographers would support your claim to "pure" as long as you never shot negative film.

I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera.

I very frequently take photos in which there are no proper settings on the camera that could produced a passable image. The options on the camera are quite limited. Would "pure" require that I accept those limits? Why?

Joe

And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now. Film required me to be much more precise.

 

[Ysarex]

I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years. I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera. And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now. Film required me to be much more precise.

Interesting. Digital requires me to be much more precise than film ever did.

Joe

 

[AlanKlein]

Until digital, all my photography was slides that were projected unchanged from the camera shot. Even when I shot negative film, all the4x6" prints came back from the processors printed without my input. When I started shooting medium format thirty years ago and enlarging them to 16x20", I only had the printer crop in some cases to my liking. If he did anything special beyond that, which I doubt, it was without my input.

Regarding changes to the original shot, since the camera is limited in catching dynamic range, contrast, etc., minor adjustments in the darkroom or on your computer is reasonable to adjust exposure. But that's different than changing the objects that were recorded by the camera to a scene that did not reflect the elements in the original picture.

I also think people get sloppy thinking that PS will save their lousy shots. Post processing cannot change the angle of the shot, where it was shot from, ambient lighting, etc. If you needed to step two feet to the right to get the elements in the right way to excite the picture, post processing will not help you rearrange those elements afterwards. You get sloppy in arranging the scene when you shoot it leading to unexciting photos.

 

[Jeff G]

Enhancing a photo is normal in the digital age, adjusting color, exposure, general clean-up etc. I remember retouching photos by hand and with an airbrush when I worked in advertising before the computer era.

I would say the following image qualifies as a digital painting. I took a photo of my cat, then used the smudge tool to make "brush strokes". I think the work that went into this was definately closer to painting the old fashined way, but technically it's just an enhanced photo.

 

[AlanKlein]

Jeff that's digital art and it is obvious to anyone who has look at an unedited photo in their life. The problem is when the adjustments are not noticeable and change the elements of what was captured by the camera. People are fooled. Nice photo by the way.

 

[Jeff G]

I absolutely agree, I used to think it would be fun editing photos for the national enquirer and such.....people are so gullible, the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on.

 

[Ysarex]

Jeff that's digital art and it is obvious to anyone who has look at an unedited photo in their life. The problem is when the adjustments are not noticeable and change the elements of what was captured by the camera.

Why is that a problem?

Joe

People are fooled. Nice photo by the way.

 

[Ysarex]

I absolutely agree, I used to think it would be fun editing photos for the national enquirer and such.....people are so gullible, the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on.

Standards exist and have long existed for journalism (not that the Enquirer qualifies). Since those standards came into existence violations have been a constant occurrence. The same applies to spoken/written claims. Want to take a bet on whether or not Trump will lie today?

But this is introducing a different topic than the OP presented and that cporten recently presented. You're suggesting that all photos are held to some standard of factual depiction of the subject photographed? Really?

Joe

 

[smoke665]

the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on

Photoshopping Abraham Lincoln at a computer surfing the internet is unbelievable. Retouching an aged, cracked and yellowed photo of him is not, nor do I see anything out of place with it. As to the op question, I see photography and paintings as different mediums, nothing more nothing less. Whether you "manipulate" a digital photo, or whether you alter your brush strokes in an oil painting, it's the same thing, it's the artistic vision of those manipulations that makes it art. To assume otherwise, is to somehow assume that photography is less art than a painting, which would deny the claim of art to any other medium as well.

 

[Ysarex]

the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on

Photoshopping Abraham Lincoln at a computer surfing the internet is unbelievable. Retouching an aged, cracked and yellowed photo of him is not, nor do I see anything out of place with it. As to the op question, I see photography and paintings as different mediums, nothing more nothing less. Whether you "manipulate" a digital photo, or whether you alter your brush strokes in an oil painting, it's the same thing, it's the artistic vision of those manipulations that makes it art. To assume otherwise, is to somehow assume that photography is less art than a painting, which would deny the claim of art to any other medium as well.

Uh oh -- that's an idea!

Joe

 

[cporten]

I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years.

Then you shot only color transparency film? Even then arguments can be made that you manipulated the image, but setting that aside many photographers would support your claim to "pure" as long as you never shot negative film.

I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera.

I very frequently take photos in which there are no proper settings on the camera that could produced a passable image. The options on the camera are quite limited. Would "pure" require that I accept those limits? Why?

Joe

And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now. Film required me to be much more precise.

I try to take photographs that which my eyes are seeing at that moment. To basically capture what I am feeling when I view whatever it is. I am looking right now at a maple tree in all of its yellow and golden glory. I don't want more yellow or red or a darker trunk through editing. And if I have to wait to get the sunlight on it better, I will, I should. I am not understanding what you are saying when you say that you 'very frequently take photos' that the camera can not capture because of its limitations. Again, I do not know the complete capabilities of my D5500, but I would think that I am able to capture what I am seeing without additional off camera editing. Or even in camera editing beyond the basics. Maybe I think a basic point and shoot camera can easily bring forth a very decent clean image I am looking at. And that post editing can make things 'dirty', But maybe more aesthetically pleasing.
Age old discussion and I am sounding ancient. I completely understand the arguments. I looked at whether Ansel Adams used manipulation in his photos, he did, in exposure time, cropping and burning. Adams may be credited with making a statement that equated the negative to a score and the print to a symphony, or performance.

 

[Ysarex]

I try to take photographs that which my eyes are seeing at that moment. To basically capture what I am feeling when I view whatever it is.

So just before I click the shutter I say to myself, "I'd feel a lot better about what I'm seeing if___________________

That bleepin' no parking sign and the worst of those utility wires weren't there." Why not photograph what I wish I could see? Sometimes the traffic department comes along and sticks a sign in your photograph. Do you have to let that stop you?

I am looking right now at a maple tree in all of its yellow and golden glory. I don't want more yellow or red or a darker trunk through editing. And if I have to wait to get the sunlight on it better, I will, I should. I am not understanding what you are saying when you say that you 'very frequently take photos' that the camera can not capture because of its limitations. Again, I do not know the complete capabilities of my D5500, but I would think that I am able to capture what I am seeing without additional off camera editing.

You are not. In some cases yes but in other cases no. That garden photo above is a good example. I was out working in the garden with my wife and she asked me to snap a few photos to send to her sister. As you can see it was sunset and the sun sets behind the garden. Here's the photo that the camera software created:

Film would have done a similarly abysmal job unable to manage the extreme dynamic range of looking directly into a sunset. Your camera would behave like mine as both our cameras are designed to emulate film. If I decreased exposure to keep the sky from blowing out the foreground gets darker. If I increased exposure to lighten the foreground the sky blow out gets worse.

Now what was I seeing and what would you have seen if you were there? It wasn't really that dark as I was pulling weeds at the time and had no trouble seeing. And if I glanced up to view the sunset I saw the color in the sky. We have excellent ability to see in and adapt to high dynamic range conditions. The aperture in your eye adapts very quickly as you shift your vision.

So what I'd like to do is use my camera to capture what I'm seeing and feeling at the moment. Our cameras can save raw data files -- basically the full data set from the sensor before the camera software produces the butcher job you see directly above. I made sure when I took the photo that the sky wasn't blown out in the raw file and I hand processed the raw file to capture what I really felt about how my garden looked to me.

Or even in camera editing beyond the basics. Maybe I think a basic point and shoot camera can easily bring forth a very decent clean image I am looking at. And that post editing can make things 'dirty', But maybe more aesthetically pleasing.
Age old discussion and I am sounding ancient. I completely understand the arguments. I looked at whether Ansel Adams used manipulation in his photos, he did, in exposure time, cropping and burning. Adams may be credited with making a statement that equated the negative to a score and the print to a symphony, or performance.

Yes, Adams was a very heavy image manipulator.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

. I am not understanding what

I've seen differing opinions on the dynamic range (ratio of the brightest luminance to the darkest luminance) of the human eye of anywhere from 15 to 25 stops. By comparison at best, about 15 stops is all you'll get in a modern digital camera, even less with film. So, in uncontrolled lighting, the only way you'll be able to approximate the scene you see in an image, is by following steps like Joe pointed out above, and recovering in post.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I am currently reading a book that discusses the use of the Camera Obscure to trace the projected images for centuries of fine art.

The authors clam is it was a preferred technique for tracing drawing details to be painted later. Pinhole lens, mirror and paper, evolved into lens, light sensitive matrix and flat screen.