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.
What could be more plain?
I *think* I know what you mean, Neil. But I have to point out that, taken literally as rule the way you wrote it, it would preclude any manipulation once the film or digital sensor were exposed to light. After that happens, you no longer are directly involved with that light and can't do anything with it anymore
So it's plain, BUT does it mean what you intended it to mean?
Okay ... is it just the method that bothers you or the result as well, or both? Is it that these images don't LOOK real or authentic? What do you appreciate? Listenin' ...
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.
You know, I've been thinking a lot about this and I think we're comparing two art forms - that blur in the middle somewhere with no true defined line.
On the one hand we have basic photography which (hopefully) strives to capture what is seen and how that photographer inteprets it. And with very little or not post processing.
On the other hand, we have composite photography which does much of what the first does, but then reassembles what is in the photographer/artists mind.
And comparing the two is so hard. I don't consider either one cheating in any way - they are both artists trying to convey their view through photography - one just does more at the end than the other.
Besides, I've seen many photographers that capture what they see and yet it's completely staged and lit completely artificially - and yet we don't argue that, although I think that manipulation is just as intense as the composite artist/photographer.
But my main point is that by lumping the composite photographer/artist with the "true" photographer (who does little/no processing) actually causes us to lose sight of what they are accomplishing.
We overlook the difficulties inherent in trying to capture things as we see them with little or no post processing, we lose how difficult capture our vision can be.
And we overlook how difficult it is to take many photos, layer them together and make them believeable - and capture our interest and more.
We end up discussing which is the true form, why each is "more" or equally as valid, but truly, I see them as different. Where the line that divides them is is anyones guess, though.
But they are both true art forms and both equally as beautiful or striking or moving in the right hands.
The light (data) you capture with your camera (in the allowed timeframe) is the material you work with, in whichever way you like, or not. You manipulate this data and this data only, by whatever means (or not), it's your material, it's like the marble block to the sculptor. What you present in the end, the product, was already present in your data, in essence, in embryo, potentially, right from the beginning, when it was first captured by your camera. Like the statue was already in the sculptor's unworked marble block the moment it was hewn. The statue is nothing but the marble block. Your photo is nothing but the light that was captured by your camera (on one or more occasions during the timeframe).
Any processing of either material involves only the data it contains. Photo editing software can be used for that kind of conservative processing of light data. So can developing chemicals etc in the case of film, or scissors for that matter in the case of prints. The form the data is in - photons, electronic bits, screen pixels, paint dots, photosensitive molecules on film and paper - is irrelevant. But it is the form which allows you to work, and determines how you work, with the data. So, Photoshop for example, presents your original data (photons) in workable form.
Imagine the sculptor takes his marble block to Mercury. It's liquid, he can now paint with it. Still contains the same original data, but looks very different.
I *think* I know what you mean, Neil. But I have to point out that, taken literally as rule the way you wrote it, it would preclude any manipulation once the film or digital sensor were exposed to light. After that happens, you no longer are directly involved with that light and can't do anything with it anymore
So it's plain, BUT does it mean what you intended it to mean?
Imagine the sculptor takes his marble block to Mercury. It's liquid, he can now paint with it. Still contains the same original data, but looks very different.
I was ridin' with you 'till that Mercury bit, then I got bumped off. Guess I wasn't holding on tight enough.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I was ridin' with you 'till that Mercury bit, then I got bumped off. Guess I wasn't holding on tight enough.
:giggle :giggle :giggle See, now I have this image in my mind of a frosted bear hanging onto a block of marble with one forepaw hurtling in space towards Mercury.
"Just because no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist."
Andi, I think you have beautifully expressed the fluidity in which photography lives like a marine creature!
The issue which confronts us in the LPS contests is the integrity of the data which is presented in an entry.
My point is that if the data in the entry was captured by your camera during the allowed period then it is an eligible entry, no matter that in some form or other (in Photoshop, for example) that data has been manipulated in some way. So, if you have original data quantum x and in Photoshop you put it in form X and then manipulate it to X', this X' has integrity because of its relationship with x.
You know, I've been thinking a lot about this and I think we're comparing two art forms - that blur in the middle somewhere with no true defined line.
On the one hand we have basic photography which (hopefully) strives to capture what is seen and how that photographer inteprets it. And with very little or not post processing.
On the other hand, we have composite photography which does much of what the first does, but then reassembles what is in the photographer/artists mind.
And comparing the two is so hard. I don't consider either one cheating in any way - they are both artists trying to convey their view through photography - one just does more at the end than the other.
Besides, I've seen many photographers that capture what they see and yet it's completely staged and lit completely artificially - and yet we don't argue that, although I think that manipulation is just as intense as the composite artist/photographer.
But my main point is that by lumping the composite photographer/artist with the "true" photographer (who does little/no processing) actually causes us to lose sight of what they are accomplishing.
We overlook the difficulties inherent in trying to capture things as we see them with little or no post processing, we lose how difficult capture our vision can be.
And we overlook how difficult it is to take many photos, layer them together and make them believeable - and capture our interest and more.
We end up discussing which is the true form, why each is "more" or equally as valid, but truly, I see them as different. Where the line that divides them is is anyones guess, though.
But they are both true art forms and both equally as beautiful or striking or moving in the right hands.
Comments
I *think* I know what you mean, Neil. But I have to point out that, taken literally as rule the way you wrote it, it would preclude any manipulation once the film or digital sensor were exposed to light. After that happens, you no longer are directly involved with that light and can't do anything with it anymore
So it's plain, BUT does it mean what you intended it to mean?
On the one hand we have basic photography which (hopefully) strives to capture what is seen and how that photographer inteprets it. And with very little or not post processing.
On the other hand, we have composite photography which does much of what the first does, but then reassembles what is in the photographer/artists mind.
And comparing the two is so hard. I don't consider either one cheating in any way - they are both artists trying to convey their view through photography - one just does more at the end than the other.
Besides, I've seen many photographers that capture what they see and yet it's completely staged and lit completely artificially - and yet we don't argue that, although I think that manipulation is just as intense as the composite artist/photographer.
But my main point is that by lumping the composite photographer/artist with the "true" photographer (who does little/no processing) actually causes us to lose sight of what they are accomplishing.
We overlook the difficulties inherent in trying to capture things as we see them with little or no post processing, we lose how difficult capture our vision can be.
And we overlook how difficult it is to take many photos, layer them together and make them believeable - and capture our interest and more.
We end up discussing which is the true form, why each is "more" or equally as valid, but truly, I see them as different. Where the line that divides them is is anyones guess, though.
But they are both true art forms and both equally as beautiful or striking or moving in the right hands.
www.tippiepics.com
Charlie
Any processing of either material involves only the data it contains. Photo editing software can be used for that kind of conservative processing of light data. So can developing chemicals etc in the case of film, or scissors for that matter in the case of prints. The form the data is in - photons, electronic bits, screen pixels, paint dots, photosensitive molecules on film and paper - is irrelevant. But it is the form which allows you to work, and determines how you work, with the data. So, Photoshop for example, presents your original data (photons) in workable form.
Imagine the sculptor takes his marble block to Mercury. It's liquid, he can now paint with it. Still contains the same original data, but looks very different.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I was ridin' with you 'till that Mercury bit, then I got bumped off. Guess I wasn't holding on tight enough.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
www.feliciabphotography.com
The issue which confronts us in the LPS contests is the integrity of the data which is presented in an entry.
My point is that if the data in the entry was captured by your camera during the allowed period then it is an eligible entry, no matter that in some form or other (in Photoshop, for example) that data has been manipulated in some way. So, if you have original data quantum x and in Photoshop you put it in form X and then manipulate it to X', this X' has integrity because of its relationship with x.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
"All I knew how to do was to keep on keeping on..." Bob Dylan
http://www.behance.net/brosepix