Is such a photo any less a photo? If Ansel Adams had set up his camera for the perfect shot only to find someone had dropped a foreign element within the frame, whould there be an outcry of fakery should he remove the unwanted item? I sincerely doubt it, but the fact remains that he's altered what appeared in the viewfinder.
And along those lines, but slightly skewed ... if a painter copys what he sees so exactly that it is indistinguishable from a photograph taken from the same vantage point, is it still a painting? To some painters it is because of the tools he used, to other painters it isn't because of the end result.
I don't know how to define the line, myself. I know empirically that such a line exists and is recognizeable or we wouldn't classify things as either paintings or photographs. I do think it matters at some level that if we are participating in a photography contest, we should be submitting photographs and not 'non - photographs'. I haven't seen an entry yet that I personally don't consider a photograph, but I do see the point of view of someone who has.
Much is lost in translation over the internet...articulaing concepts get lost often times. Some have suggested that it's only a particular percentage of entries, or its digital, or its interpretation, or or or. The point being exactly that a photo is a photo.....a photo altered (no matter how fabulously) adding things in from addtional frames takes on a different form.....ART.
Some have suggested that I nullify one's skill or downplay one's creativity when I make such a statement...calling this an art contest.....on the contrary..it takes a great deal of imagination and execution to create a composite...but I only wish it would be called what it is rather than trying to beat it six ways till Sunday....it's art, plain and simple. Not every artist is a photographer is indeed the point.
My personal take on the matter is that a person who composites his or her own photographs is a photographer. A person who composites someone elses photographs is not. Most of the digital artists I know spend their time browsing stock photo libraries looking for elements of a composition. They usually have a vast personal library of elements, textures and the like. However, if the artist is out in the field or working the lights in a studio capturing images with his or her own vision, hand and camera, he's earned the right to call himself a photographer in my book no matter what he or she did after the fact in Photoshop.
As for the question of what is a photo and what isn't, I don't think you are going to ever get a consensus on that question. But then, I also don't think you need to. As long as the judging looks for images which demonstrate the skills of a photographer, then I think the competition has lived up to its name.
The argument of constructed art vs reality takes us yet further down the slippery slope and we don't even need to discuss digital manipulation. One could argue that a potographer assembling props and lighting in a studio is constructed art. Is such a photo any less a photo? If Ansel Adams had set up his camera for the perfect shot only to find someone had dropped a foreign element within the frame, whould there be an outcry of fakery should he remove the unwanted item? I sincerely doubt it, but the fact remains that he's altered what appeared in the viewfinder.
When I took up intentional photography a year ago, I really struggled with the concept of "staging a photo." For some reason, I had it stuck in my mind that if I altered what was naturally there, I was cheating.
Participating in and observing the LPS has helped me loosen up a bit and let my creative juices flow. I now understand that what makes a great photographer is one who has a vision and seeks to reproduce it through the photographic medium using whatever tools are at one's disposal. Since I can only draw stick figures, and people have never really understood me, photography seems such a natural fit.
"Just because no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist."
I keep deleting my drafts. I'll just say ... there is an awful lot of folks living in glass houses throwing digital cameras at each other ... when of course film is the only one true god.
I'm sure that will be grossly misinterpreted. What the hell.
one must live and die to become a God, so i guess its true:D
and as far as my glass house, well i never rebuilt it from the last time it was broke:D
i hope nobody thought i was throwing digital cameras,
(heck id never do that....maybe a film camera though:D )
When I took up intentional photography a year ago, I really struggled with the concept of "staging a photo." For some reason, I had it stuck in my mind that if I altered what was naturally there, I was cheating.
Participating in and observing the LPS has helped me loosen up a bit and let my creative juices flow. I now understand that what makes a great photographer is one who has a vision and seeks to reproduce it through the photographic medium using whatever tools are at one's disposal. Since I can only draw stick figures, and people have never really understood me, photography seems such a natural fit.
When I took up intentional photography a year ago, I really struggled with the concept of "staging a photo." For some reason, I had it stuck in my mind that if I altered what was naturally there, I was cheating.
Participating in and observing the LPS has helped me loosen up a bit and let my creative juices flow. I now understand that what makes a great photographer is one who has a vision and seeks to reproduce it through the photographic medium using whatever tools are at one's disposal. Since I can only draw stick figures, and people have never really understood me, photography seems such a natural fit.
I like what you said here - I can relate. Time to add my thoughts to this collage. Last week I watched a show on the history of photography on some obscure channel on my Dish network. A huge portion of the show was on "MONTAGE". Photographers taking numbers of their own photos to a pair of scissors, then re-constructing it, THEN photographing it. Caveman photoshop. It was an art form then, as it is now. Proof that it is considered photography was that it was the subject of a show on photography. Well, IMO, that's the same as today, people are still taking digital scissors to their photos, etc. Is it for me? Jury's still out.
This really IS a mute argument. It really just came down to what is a good stock image.
You can be as artistic and puritan as you want, but in the realm of the internet, it came down to what is stock appealing. That can be anything from a very good photo of a garden to a 10 pic composite.
There is no point arguing it. It isn't PS, it isn't talent, it all boiled down to taste over a year and it came down to stock photography.
It seems to have become a genre and that genre, can actually earn some coin for those that are inclined and there is not one thing wrong with that!
This really IS a mute argument. It really just came down to what is a good stock image.
You can be as artistic and puritan as you want, but in the realm of the internet, it came down to what is stock appealing. That can be anything from a very good photo of a garden to a 10 pic composite.
There is no point arguing it. It isn't PS, it isn't talent, it all boiled down to taste over a year and it came down to stock photography.
It seems to have become a genre and that genre, can actually earn some coin for those that are inclined and there is not one thing wrong with that!
Sorry, not sure what you are referring to as "stock photography"? Do you mean the LPS-SF4 entries are in that genre?
There will never be an agreement on this subject. Everyone has a different perspective.
From my time on dgrin - the community in general seems to be both very technical oriented (shoot by the numbers) and very open to any and all post process work.
I have a different view but still find some of the work very inspiring. Just as there had to be different styles of painting as it evolved - photography is going through those same challenges now and will continue to do so. In time it will sort itself out.
The most important thing is to have your own beliefs/standards but not impose judgement on those that are different. It is all art in some way- all photography in some way. We are all right and all wrong.
Enjoy your own unique journey.
"The Journey of life is as much in oneself as the roads one travels"
I keep deleting my drafts. I'll just say ... there is an awful lot of folks living in glass houses throwing digital cameras at each other ... when of course film is the only one true god.
Yes indeed. No other medium gets closer to the film plane image than the direct positive. I worship at the altar of Provia F.
Today's digital SLRs are designed primarly to complex digital simulation of the 35mm color slide experience. That, of course, is why I bought my 5D; it gives me the best digital simulation available of my old EOS 3. The simulation is good enough that if I don't look too closely and I stay away from the boundaries of the medium I can pretend my 5D is a 35mm film camera with some added convenience features. Art, though, is about pushing boundaries and when you push the boundaries of film and digital you end up in different places. A digital photography competition should push the boundaries of the digital medium rather than pretend that everyone is shooting film. A film photography competition ought to use film rather than a digital facsimilie.
Well, not quite. I agree that film is still better than digital for some things, especially black and white, and you can't quite duplicate 8x10 or 4x5 either with digital, or ... lots of qualifiers, many open to debate. But really, I was just trying to be ironic. (some) Large format photo photogs look down on medium, medium look down on 35mm, 35 mm film look down on digital slrs, digital slrs look down on digicams, raw shooters look down on jpg shooters, straight from camera (more or less) look down on folks who crop, others look down on people who add anything to the frame, others look down on people who composite, etc, etc, etc ....
I have my personal preferences, as does everyone, and i'll even admit that i personally prefer more street/photojournalism/documentary/storytelling images that "move me," but that is me ... and these personal preferences don't prevent me from appreciating (or even exploring) other types of photography ... i just get frustrated with these kinds of debates ... the kind of "my god is the one true god" and your beliefs are not to be respected type of arguments ... the "your photography sucks" type of arguments because it isn't this or that, or wasn't done this way, that way, or my way, hit the highway ... people are moved or appreciate things in their own way and tastes differ ... photography is a big tent, you can saddle up to the buffet that suits your taste, or you can sample others, maybe even wrinkle your nose 'cause you hate guacomole or whatever, but don't tell the cook he sucks or he isn't working hard enough just because you don't like the ingredients or because he used a gas grill and not charcoal. It's just close-minded and rude ... photography is about freedom and life.
That said, it is interesting that LPS is not categorized like so many contests ... it tends to set up conflicts (not in a negative sense) between genres so if your intent is "to win" this can be frustrating because some genres are just more popular than others ... notice i DID NOT say "better" ... although i believe a truly stunning image can, and has, cut across boundaries of class popularity. This diversity is also a good thing because it IS a large tent and gives people many dishes to sample, an opportunity to explore new avenues, both in terms of appreciation and perhaps personal attempts (and failure), i.e "grow" ... and i don't mind feedback, even harsh feedback, relish it in fact, if it is constructive ...
Congrats by the way on the win, seriously ... it wasn't my style but it IS a great image ... and i still love the lightbulb in the wetlands, one of my favorites, so smart )
And good luck in the final ... personally, i am completely falling on my face like never before, figures since the stakes are like never before, but that's okay because i am working very hard ... probably trying too much ... and sweating the unbelievably bad winter weather here in the Northwest but knowing that bad weather can make great pictures (if i can find it, completely lost). Do i sound frustrated, lol? Hmmm, maybe that's why i'm so un-Zen right now.
Perhaps we should lose the ambiguity next time round by renaming the competition, 'Last Digital Artist Standing.'
Some advocate that the only way to solve the drug problem in athletics is to allow a free for all.
Perhaps similarly, the rules should be changed to anything goes for digital manipulation (as long as it's good enough to deceive the viewer,) at least then we could stop pretending it's purely a photographic contest.
Perhaps we should lose the ambiguity next time round by renaming the competition, 'Last Digital Artist Standing.'
Some advocate that the only way to solve the drug problem in athletics is to allow a free for all.
Perhaps similarly, the rules should be changed to anything goes for digital manipulation (as long as it's good enough to deceive the viewer,) at least then we could stop pretending it's purely a photographic contest.
Charlie
so if it were a last digital artist contest where would they get their photos from? the seperete contest held for the purely photographic?
Perhaps we should lose the ambiguity next time round by renaming the competition, 'Last Digital Artist Standing.'
Some advocate that the only way to solve the drug problem in athletics is to allow a free for all.
Perhaps similarly, the rules should be changed to anything goes for digital manipulation (as long as it's good enough to deceive the viewer,) at least then we could stop pretending it's purely a photographic contest.
It's not in the rules because there really shouldn't be an artificial limit placed on what the photographer wants to do. If a photographer goes over the edge into mostly illustration or something, then they better make it really good to make it in a photography contest
Well that statement is either ambiguous or suggests anything goes, if anything goes, rename the competition 'Last Artist Standing' and stop pretending it's primarily a photographic competition.
Well that statement is either ambiguous or suggests anything goes, if anything goes, rename the competition 'Last Artist Standing' and stop pretending it's primarily a photographic competition.
Charlie
its labled a "last photographer standing contest".
a photographer uses more than a camera....
heck if this was a film forum would you suggest that there can be no darkroom technique?
I'm not going down that route again. Suffice to say that the logical conclusion of the argument is if I can render a 3d scene in software so well you can't distinguish it from a photograph then I can enter it in this competition, correct?
I'm not going down that route again. Suffice to say that the logical conclusion of the argument is if I can render a 3d scene in software so well you can't distinguish it from a photograph then I can enter it in this competition, correct?
Charlie
digital is what it is.
if i take a photograph of that 3d image and enter it in a purely photograpic contest will that be ok? oh ya, can i develop the film? or is that a different contest?
k, well its the weekend,,,see ya all next week!...im out of here!:D
I'm not going down that route again. Suffice to say that the logical conclusion of the argument is if I can render a 3d scene in software so well you can't distinguish it from a photograph then I can enter it in this competition, correct?
Charlie
If, in fact, every texture mapped to every surface in that scene was captured by your hand and camera during the contest window and every mesh in used is your own work, then yes. No one is going to win that way. I have a number of friends who are artists in computer gaming industry and they never start from scratch. Creating a complex photorealistic scene starting with just an asset-free install of Maya and Photoshop would take months of full-time effort.
Does anyone care how much is pure photo and how much is PS? I am simply in complete awe of the results. I just want to know how I can get this good!
Look, enjoy, weep.
Actually yes-
I agree that these are amazing images and I too- one day hope to be able to create such work.
In my own eyes and the way I view art and photography I would not advertise these as photographs though. For me there is too much PP (with maybe the exception of a handfull) so if it was my work - I would advertise these as fine art.
Just my view-
"The Journey of life is as much in oneself as the roads one travels"
I agree that these are amazing images and I too- one day hope to be able to create such work.
In my own eyes and the way I view art and photography I would not advertise these as photographs though. For me there is too much PP (with maybe the exception of a handfull) so if it was my work - I would advertise these as fine art.
I'm not going down that route again. Suffice to say that the logical conclusion of the argument is if I can render a 3d scene in software so well you can't distinguish it from a photograph then I can enter it in this competition, correct?
Charlie
No, I don't think so.
The following essentials would not be there:
you get a camera, you stuff light inside, you get the light out again and you show it to folks.
I'm not going down that route again. Suffice to say that the logical conclusion of the argument is if I can render a 3d scene in software so well you can't distinguish it from a photograph then I can enter it in this competition, correct?
Charlie
Not without using photography. No.
It's not my camera's fault, I'm just visually illiterate
It's one of those arguments that leaves one completely bewildered by the lack of others to understand your point (though I accept that maybe I'm not articulating well what seems extremely transparent to me.) We're also now straying into an argument of semantics.
Take a photograph, crop it or convert it to black and white or blur it or enhance the saturation or contrast or dodge and burn it etc etc and still call it a photograph.
Take a photograph, remove an item, change the composition by adding an element from another photograph, add a fake ray of light, change the sky, add another person etc etc, don't call the end result a photograph.
As far as I can tell the ratio of photographs to digital art posted on the forum greatly leans towards photography, therefore to my mind it would be better if the competition reflected this.
Those who go looking for "semantics" will surely find them!
It's just plain English and ordinary thinking I'm using. If you use anything other than the light you put in your camera to produce your entry (you can do what YOU like WITH that light!), or anything that was not put in your camera during the contest period, then it's first not a photograph and second it's ineligible.
<...> We're also now straying into an argument of semantics.
<...> change the composition by adding an element from another photograph, add a fake ray of light, change the sky, add another person etc etc, don't call the end result a photograph.
Comments
And along those lines, but slightly skewed ... if a painter copys what he sees so exactly that it is indistinguishable from a photograph taken from the same vantage point, is it still a painting? To some painters it is because of the tools he used, to other painters it isn't because of the end result.
I don't know how to define the line, myself. I know empirically that such a line exists and is recognizeable or we wouldn't classify things as either paintings or photographs. I do think it matters at some level that if we are participating in a photography contest, we should be submitting photographs and not 'non - photographs'. I haven't seen an entry yet that I personally don't consider a photograph, but I do see the point of view of someone who has.
My personal take on the matter is that a person who composites his or her own photographs is a photographer. A person who composites someone elses photographs is not. Most of the digital artists I know spend their time browsing stock photo libraries looking for elements of a composition. They usually have a vast personal library of elements, textures and the like. However, if the artist is out in the field or working the lights in a studio capturing images with his or her own vision, hand and camera, he's earned the right to call himself a photographer in my book no matter what he or she did after the fact in Photoshop.
As for the question of what is a photo and what isn't, I don't think you are going to ever get a consensus on that question. But then, I also don't think you need to. As long as the judging looks for images which demonstrate the skills of a photographer, then I think the competition has lived up to its name.
When I took up intentional photography a year ago, I really struggled with the concept of "staging a photo." For some reason, I had it stuck in my mind that if I altered what was naturally there, I was cheating.
Participating in and observing the LPS has helped me loosen up a bit and let my creative juices flow. I now understand that what makes a great photographer is one who has a vision and seeks to reproduce it through the photographic medium using whatever tools are at one's disposal. Since I can only draw stick figures, and people have never really understood me, photography seems such a natural fit.
www.feliciabphotography.com
I keep deleting my drafts. I'll just say ... there is an awful lot of folks living in glass houses throwing digital cameras at each other ... when of course film is the only one true god.
I'm sure that will be grossly misinterpreted. What the hell.
hah! A camera obscura is god you heretic, and the benefit is your glass house IS a camera
and as far as my glass house, well i never rebuilt it from the last time it was broke:D
i hope nobody thought i was throwing digital cameras,
(heck id never do that....maybe a film camera though:D )
I like what you said here - I can relate. Time to add my thoughts to this collage. Last week I watched a show on the history of photography on some obscure channel on my Dish network. A huge portion of the show was on "MONTAGE". Photographers taking numbers of their own photos to a pair of scissors, then re-constructing it, THEN photographing it. Caveman photoshop. It was an art form then, as it is now. Proof that it is considered photography was that it was the subject of a show on photography. Well, IMO, that's the same as today, people are still taking digital scissors to their photos, etc. Is it for me? Jury's still out.
www.tessa-hd.smugmug.com
www.printandportfolio.com
This summer's wilderness photography project: www.tessa-hd.smugmug.com/gallery/3172341
But I reckin ya get a camera, ya stuff light inside, ya get the light out again and ya show it to folks.
That's PHOTOGRAPHY. That's TECHNOLOGY.
The way you do that is skill and art. That's YOU.
As long as you start and end with only and nothing but the light you put in that darn camera of yours in the first place!
All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things...
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
You can be as artistic and puritan as you want, but in the realm of the internet, it came down to what is stock appealing. That can be anything from a very good photo of a garden to a 10 pic composite.
There is no point arguing it. It isn't PS, it isn't talent, it all boiled down to taste over a year and it came down to stock photography.
It seems to have become a genre and that genre, can actually earn some coin for those that are inclined and there is not one thing wrong with that!
Sorry, not sure what you are referring to as "stock photography"? Do you mean the LPS-SF4 entries are in that genre?
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
From my time on dgrin - the community in general seems to be both very technical oriented (shoot by the numbers) and very open to any and all post process work.
I have a different view but still find some of the work very inspiring. Just as there had to be different styles of painting as it evolved - photography is going through those same challenges now and will continue to do so. In time it will sort itself out.
The most important thing is to have your own beliefs/standards but not impose judgement on those that are different. It is all art in some way- all photography in some way. We are all right and all wrong.
Enjoy your own unique journey.
Aaron Newman
Website:www.CapturingLightandEmotion.com
Facebook: Capturing Light and Emotion
Yes indeed. No other medium gets closer to the film plane image than the direct positive. I worship at the altar of Provia F.
Today's digital SLRs are designed primarly to complex digital simulation of the 35mm color slide experience. That, of course, is why I bought my 5D; it gives me the best digital simulation available of my old EOS 3. The simulation is good enough that if I don't look too closely and I stay away from the boundaries of the medium I can pretend my 5D is a 35mm film camera with some added convenience features. Art, though, is about pushing boundaries and when you push the boundaries of film and digital you end up in different places. A digital photography competition should push the boundaries of the digital medium rather than pretend that everyone is shooting film. A film photography competition ought to use film rather than a digital facsimilie.
Is that what you were after Seastack?
I have my personal preferences, as does everyone, and i'll even admit that i personally prefer more street/photojournalism/documentary/storytelling images that "move me," but that is me ... and these personal preferences don't prevent me from appreciating (or even exploring) other types of photography ... i just get frustrated with these kinds of debates ... the kind of "my god is the one true god" and your beliefs are not to be respected type of arguments ... the "your photography sucks" type of arguments because it isn't this or that, or wasn't done this way, that way, or my way, hit the highway ... people are moved or appreciate things in their own way and tastes differ ... photography is a big tent, you can saddle up to the buffet that suits your taste, or you can sample others, maybe even wrinkle your nose 'cause you hate guacomole or whatever, but don't tell the cook he sucks or he isn't working hard enough just because you don't like the ingredients or because he used a gas grill and not charcoal. It's just close-minded and rude ... photography is about freedom and life.
That said, it is interesting that LPS is not categorized like so many contests ... it tends to set up conflicts (not in a negative sense) between genres so if your intent is "to win" this can be frustrating because some genres are just more popular than others ... notice i DID NOT say "better" ... although i believe a truly stunning image can, and has, cut across boundaries of class popularity. This diversity is also a good thing because it IS a large tent and gives people many dishes to sample, an opportunity to explore new avenues, both in terms of appreciation and perhaps personal attempts (and failure), i.e "grow" ... and i don't mind feedback, even harsh feedback, relish it in fact, if it is constructive ...
Congrats by the way on the win, seriously ... it wasn't my style but it IS a great image ... and i still love the lightbulb in the wetlands, one of my favorites, so smart
And good luck in the final ... personally, i am completely falling on my face like never before, figures since the stakes are like never before, but that's okay because i am working very hard ... probably trying too much ... and sweating the unbelievably bad winter weather here in the Northwest but knowing that bad weather can make great pictures (if i can find it, completely lost). Do i sound frustrated, lol? Hmmm, maybe that's why i'm so un-Zen right now.
Uh oh, didn't erase it this time ...
Some advocate that the only way to solve the drug problem in athletics is to allow a free for all.
Perhaps similarly, the rules should be changed to anything goes for digital manipulation (as long as it's good enough to deceive the viewer,) at least then we could stop pretending it's purely a photographic contest.
Charlie
so if it were a last digital artist contest where would they get their photos from? the seperete contest held for the purely photographic?
Who is pretending that???
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=501268&postcount=16
Charlie
its labled a "last photographer standing contest".
a photographer uses more than a camera....
heck if this was a film forum would you suggest that there can be no darkroom technique?
Charlie
digital is what it is.
if i take a photograph of that 3d image and enter it in a purely photograpic contest will that be ok? oh ya, can i develop the film? or is that a different contest?
k, well its the weekend,,,see ya all next week!...im out of here!:D
If, in fact, every texture mapped to every surface in that scene was captured by your hand and camera during the contest window and every mesh in used is your own work, then yes. No one is going to win that way. I have a number of friends who are artists in computer gaming industry and they never start from scratch. Creating a complex photorealistic scene starting with just an asset-free install of Maya and Photoshop would take months of full-time effort.
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=2231437&include=all
Does anyone care how much is pure photo and how much is PS? I am simply in complete awe of the results. I just want to know how I can get this good!
Look, enjoy, weep.
Actually yes-
I agree that these are amazing images and I too- one day hope to be able to create such work.
In my own eyes and the way I view art and photography I would not advertise these as photographs though. For me there is too much PP (with maybe the exception of a handfull) so if it was my work - I would advertise these as fine art.
Just my view-
Aaron Newman
Website:www.CapturingLightandEmotion.com
Facebook: Capturing Light and Emotion
Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.
The art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)
hmm no mention of pp, crops or photoshop.
http://asundi.smugmug.com
No, I don't think so.
The following essentials would not be there:
you get a camera, you stuff light inside, you get the light out again and you show it to folks.
That's PHOTOGRAPHY. That's PHOTOGRAPHIC technology.
The way you do that is skill and art. That's YOU.
As long as you start and end with only and nothing but the light you put in your camera in the first place!
Surely this is pretty straightforward?
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Not without using photography. No.
Take a photograph, crop it or convert it to black and white or blur it or enhance the saturation or contrast or dodge and burn it etc etc and still call it a photograph.
Take a photograph, remove an item, change the composition by adding an element from another photograph, add a fake ray of light, change the sky, add another person etc etc, don't call the end result a photograph.
As far as I can tell the ratio of photographs to digital art posted on the forum greatly leans towards photography, therefore to my mind it would be better if the competition reflected this.
And don't forget, this is just my opinion.
Charlie
It's just plain English and ordinary thinking I'm using. If you use anything other than the light you put in your camera to produce your entry (you can do what YOU like WITH that light!), or anything that was not put in your camera during the contest period, then it's first not a photograph and second it's ineligible.
What could be more plain?
http://www.behance.net/brosepix