A technical (and probably stupid) question and some random thoughts: I see many images in ESS which have been converted through post processing to B&W. Should these images be posted in "Photo Art?" According to the posting guidelines, the PA forum is for "Digitally manipulated ...images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions." The world obviously is not monochrome, and a B&W image is clearly an "artistic rendition." In this regard, I sometimes see the comment that images in which the saturation or colors are exaggerated or unnatural should be considered PA. Why wouldn't this apply even more to images which are desaturated or de-colorized to monochrome? Is it because of photographic tradition? A related comment: I sometime get the comment (not here, but just in general conversation)that only B&W photography is art. These same people tend to be critical of any digital manipulation. Anyone else find this ironic? Isn't B&W photography, even if film based, an extreme manipulation of reality? I apologize if this has been asked/discussed before.
That's the reason such guidelines are impossible to nail down and why we should allow the poster some freedom in deciding how they want their work evaluated.
All images posted on NPN are digitally manipulated. It's really a question of where to draw the line, which is greatly subjective.
Guy
Posted by David Bostedo on April 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Scott - This general topic ("how much manipulation is too much?") has been discussed many times in many different ways. But there's nothing wrong with asking again, specific to how you're thinking about it.
As Guy pointed out, the definition of "manipulation" is definitely subject to interpretation. I think what you said though is right - photographic tradition plays a part. Things that could be fairly easily done with film - tonal adjustment, saturation changes, B+W - are generally pretty well accepted as not being "Photo Art" as this site calls it. (Of course, that definition is also subject to change... )
There have been some long rambling discussions on many sites that I've read. Some on here, Naturescapes, Luminous Landscape, The Online Photographer, etc. The common thread between them is that there's no clear answer.
(As for the "B&W is the only art" comment, that's just very naive, or overly pretentious in my opinion.)
In the closest sense I think you are right, Scott. In the closest sense everything that ends up here as a .jpg that was originally a photon hitting a pixel on a sensor is a heavy manipulation.
I think it is due to historical and traditional reasons why bw is not considered as photo-art (in the sense of heavy photoshopping or other manipulation). In line with this tradition, bw-work is categorized as non-photo art - which I think is ok.
Regarding the perception of the public - here's my view:
For me the bad reputation of touching an image in the digital darkroom comes from lack of knowledge of non-photographers. The "ordinary" viewer does not know how much "manipulation" was done in the age of black and white photography. I do not want to abuse good old Adams all the time, but my father - he has some respect for him and his work - was kind of dissapointed when he found out (by a documentary film) how much Adams worked on his images.
I was more concerned about my own "manipulation" this as I started using raw, but I ve now learned a thing or two about photography and this does not bother me at all anymore. The thing is, we expect non-photographers to be as "educated" on this topic as we are...
But as David mentions - they are naive... But their naivety is also our asset: Because of this they are more impressed by crazy colors and exquisite light because they do not spend ours and their intellectual powers to actually notice and observe that these conditions do exist in reality. Coupled with a well designed composition some scenes just appear unreal (in a positive sense - a sense of wonder and a wow-effect is granted) - and we are considered the great artists and they pay...
Edit: with "we" I mean the photographers in general, not me.
I for sure wasn't trying to again bring up the topic about the ethics of digital manipulation. I asked the question because I was playing around with a couple images, and, being fairly new to posting, I was curious as to where they should be posted based on the posting guidelines and comments I have read. I certainly don't have an issue with posting them in forums other than Photo Art based on either tradition or plain common sense. My question then simply reminded me of something I had thought about before, but never seen specifically discussed, which is the contradictory positions of purists who advocate BW photography as the only true form of photographic art yet disdain digital altering of images. These comments have always left me scracting my head because BW photography, regardless of the medium, involes extreme altering of what is seen with the human eye. I agree, David, that their seemingly contradictory view is probably a product of naivete and arrogance.
Scott, as long as your image is of landscape and doesn't have obvious man-made elements it will not be removed from ES&S.
Really, any photograph in any genre can be considered "photo art". I'll let the PA moderators struggle with the definition for their gallery. I only get a vote on ES&S
Guy
Posted by Basil Greber on April 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I think the observation you're making is extremely interesting. I've never looked at it that way, but in fact, you're right - B&W photography is, in spite of it having been "first" (meaning before color photography), more of a manipulation of reality than color photography. So, the view that "older" also means "less manipulation" is clearly naive.
On a broader scale, B&W is clearly a form of artistic treatment of a given scene (as is the use of a long shutter speeds to blur flowing water, and basically everything else you do when making a photograph - always remember, you don't take a photograph, you make it ).
Basil
Posted by Lon Overacker on April 22, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Scott,
Yeah, if you want to discuss the virtues of b&w or strictly film-based photography, you can visit apug.org. You might find a number of purely traditionalists views. Personally, I don't see those kinds of views here on NPN, after all, we have to "manipulate" our images to post here anyway.
With regards to deciding on where to post, I think you have a good understanding and as a moderator I appreciate that you're even making these considerations before posting.
Guy said it well, but in general really the only things that would keep an image out of ES&S would be "hand of man" and of course the sizing limitations. Even with that, we try and be flexible and Guy, Marc and I agree we don't want to be heavy-handed. After all, we want this to be a friendly community - and at the same time try to adhere to the concept of this forum of "nature photography."
My personal view is that images created with techniques such as camera movement, composites and even the use of the Orton technique, belong in Photo Art. Having said that, and as Guy indicated, I won't move those images unless there's clear evidence of HOM. Techniques such as HDR or multiple exposure/focus blends are simply techniques to address exposure and dynamic range issues to create an image that reflects what the photographer saw - or thought they saw or felt.
Although you didn't specifically address HOM (hand of man,) let me just say that even this becomes subjective and we don't always catch something or find it worthy of moving. In the end, I try and be consistent and fair to the members when deciding on whether or not to move an image.
One last comment on b&w and manipulation. For many, Ansel Adams is the God of photography, right? IMHO, Ansel was the quintessential example of manipulation. He was the Master of "The Negative," darkroom and print processing. He captured, developed and printed using lots of traditional manipulating, including things like masking, to produce his final works. Where do we think the term "masking" came from in the first place?
Anyway, thanks for bringing this up Scott, it's a good discussion.
I would actually urge you to keep posting these in the std forums Scott. I see the Photo Art forum as more of a heavy manipulation area or obvious alterations and use of effects, although we do see the odd B/W, grey scale image as well. You will get more views and comments in the std galleries Scott, simply because there will be more interest in the view of your subject.
I don't really want to go into what art is in photography, because we all have totally different ideas on that, so for me personally, B/W images belong in the std forums to be honest. Not being picky and yep, its hard to know and draw an exact sharp line, but for me, I would post them where you think and want them to go. IMHO.
Photo Art and Series - Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature. Also a series of photos taken in succession
I mean its all a bit mute really folks, work wise that is.
If we look at a scene and decide to use a 35mm instead of an 85mm, we have already manipulated the image before we have even gone "Click". Same with changing ISO or my favourite, white balance. They are all manipulations really before the shutter button is even pushed.
Here's my personal take, as someone who equally posts in PA and ESS (come join us in PA sometime guys, the water is fine!): My ESS posts i view as art, but my intention is to portray reality in an artistic sense (hence, B&W belongs). My mind may view 'reality' differently than the eye or the camera, but its still reality. PA i intend as an alteration of reality, its my fantasy dreamland. Comprendez, Amigos? Scott, to answer your question (in)directly, i always dream in color
Discussion
14 repliesAll images posted on NPN are digitally manipulated. It's really a question of where to draw the line, which is greatly subjective.
Guy
As Guy pointed out, the definition of "manipulation" is definitely subject to interpretation. I think what you said though is right - photographic tradition plays a part. Things that could be fairly easily done with film - tonal adjustment, saturation changes, B+W - are generally pretty well accepted as not being "Photo Art" as this site calls it. (Of course, that definition is also subject to change...
There have been some long rambling discussions on many sites that I've read. Some on here, Naturescapes, Luminous Landscape, The Online Photographer, etc. The common thread between them is that there's no clear answer.
(As for the "B&W is the only art" comment, that's just very naive, or overly pretentious in my opinion.)
I think it is due to historical and traditional reasons why bw is not considered as photo-art (in the sense of heavy photoshopping or other manipulation). In line with this tradition, bw-work is categorized as non-photo art - which I think is ok.
Regarding the perception of the public - here's my view:
For me the bad reputation of touching an image in the digital darkroom comes from lack of knowledge of non-photographers. The "ordinary" viewer does not know how much "manipulation" was done in the age of black and white photography. I do not want to abuse good old Adams all the time, but my father - he has some respect for him and his work - was kind of dissapointed when he found out (by a documentary film) how much Adams worked on his images.
I was more concerned about my own "manipulation" this as I started using raw, but I ve now learned a thing or two about photography and this does not bother me at all anymore. The thing is, we expect non-photographers to be as "educated" on this topic as we are...
But as David mentions - they are naive... But their naivety is also our asset: Because of this they are more impressed by crazy colors and exquisite light because they do not spend ours and their intellectual powers to actually notice and observe that these conditions do exist in reality. Coupled with a well designed composition some scenes just appear unreal (in a positive sense - a sense of wonder and a wow-effect is granted) - and we are considered the great artists and they pay...
Edit: with "we" I mean the photographers in general, not me.
Really, any photograph in any genre can be considered "photo art". I'll let the PA moderators struggle with the definition for their gallery. I only get a vote on ES&S
Guy
On a broader scale, B&W is clearly a form of artistic treatment of a given scene (as is the use of a long shutter speeds to blur flowing water, and basically everything else you do when making a photograph - always remember, you don't take a photograph, you make it
Basil
Yeah, if you want to discuss the virtues of b&w or strictly film-based photography, you can visit apug.org. You might find a number of purely traditionalists views. Personally, I don't see those kinds of views here on NPN, after all, we have to "manipulate" our images to post here anyway.
With regards to deciding on where to post, I think you have a good understanding and as a moderator I appreciate that you're even making these considerations before posting.
Guy said it well, but in general really the only things that would keep an image out of ES&S would be "hand of man" and of course the sizing limitations. Even with that, we try and be flexible and Guy, Marc and I agree we don't want to be heavy-handed. After all, we want this to be a friendly community - and at the same time try to adhere to the concept of this forum of "nature photography."
My personal view is that images created with techniques such as camera movement, composites and even the use of the Orton technique, belong in Photo Art. Having said that, and as Guy indicated, I won't move those images unless there's clear evidence of HOM. Techniques such as HDR or multiple exposure/focus blends are simply techniques to address exposure and dynamic range issues to create an image that reflects what the photographer saw - or thought they saw or felt.
Although you didn't specifically address HOM (hand of man,) let me just say that even this becomes subjective and we don't always catch something or find it worthy of moving. In the end, I try and be consistent and fair to the members when deciding on whether or not to move an image.
One last comment on b&w and manipulation. For many, Ansel Adams is the God of photography, right? IMHO, Ansel was the quintessential example of manipulation. He was the Master of "The Negative," darkroom and print processing. He captured, developed and printed using lots of traditional manipulating, including things like masking, to produce his final works. Where do we think the term "masking" came from in the first place?
Anyway, thanks for bringing this up Scott, it's a good discussion.
Lon
I don't really want to go into what art is in photography, because we all have totally different ideas on that, so for me personally, B/W images belong in the std forums to be honest. Not being picky and yep, its hard to know and draw an exact sharp line, but for me, I would post them where you think and want them to go. IMHO.
All the best Scott.
Danny.
Thats the guidlines for Photo Art & Series
Danny.
Guy
I mean its all a bit mute really folks, work wise that is.
If we look at a scene and decide to use a 35mm instead of an 85mm, we have already manipulated the image before we have even gone "Click". Same with changing ISO or my favourite, white balance. They are all manipulations really before the shutter button is even pushed.
Just IMO anyway.
Danny.
Danny.