Posted by Charlie Baugh on July 25, 2011 at 11:48 AM
I haven't thought this through to any great degree but I had the thought that Photography, to me, has always had that wonderful advantage over art in that a split second of life is captured with all it's wonderful beauty and it's warts as well. Art for the most part presented a smoothed over, brightened, warts removed, image that was very often beautiful, but not quite how the world really is.
With Photo Shop and all the other post exposure programs we can now make minor and major alterations to our images and I'm ever grateful for this opportunity. The balance of artistic alterations to more realistic presentations of what was exposed is the point I'm wondering about. Have any others here thought of where photography is going?
I think critique is so often made on images posted here, based on artistic expectations and that documentary photography is sometimes thought of as less worthy.
I think most of us here think a lot about those questions, Charlie--I know I do! It's a basic question that comes up in discussion time and time again, but I like the way you have framed it (pun intended).
I think foremost, that I (and most of the nature photographers here, although maybe not all) would not differentiate between art and photography--they're one and the same. Painting (another art form) has evolved over the years with various styles and schools, some hyper-realistic, some beautiful but complete with warts and all (Picasso and van Gogh come to mind...). As you point out, one great advantage of photography is that it can capture that fleeting moment in time and preserve it for eternity. That to me is something special (unique) and It's what personally attracted me to photography as a media. I think its important to respect that quality.
To get right to the point, I don't think photogrpahy is "giving up its uniqueness" unless it surrenders it. By that I mean when a photograph becomes surreal, a fantasy. That's why I draw a rigid distinction between my 'Photo Art' and my 'Nature Photography'.
But the tools you mention are good ones, and add rather than subtract from the potential of photography as an art.
I think the toughest part of your question to answer (and the reason it fills up volumes of discussion in this forums and others) is how you determine where the line is crossed? When does it cross from an 'artistic' or emotional interpretation of a 'true-to-life' scene, into the realm of fantasy? That's a tough question, since we are all individuals with our own unique way of seeing things, so who is really to say? It's a personal decision. I think there's certainly plenty of room for a broad range of styles, encompassing both the hyper real and the fantastic. I think we can embrace these opportunities rather than fear them.
And since my response was pure 'stream-of-conscious', ill probably return to this post after i've had time to steal some of the other responses (and after I've had a couple beers...)
Posted by Jim Sabiston on July 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM
"The balance of artistic alterations to more realistic presentations of what was exposed is the point I'm wondering about."
Charlie,
This is something I think about constantly and it will be interesting to see how others respond. I have touched on this very subject in various ways in my blog posts over the last year or so, but let's take it on a bit more directly here.
First: Photography is unique in the arts in that all other mediums start with a concept within the artists mind who then assembles that idea in the medium of their choice (sculptor, paintor, writer, etc.). The photographer (artist?) starts with reality and then distills reality in a particular way to convey a look, a feeling or even a message. The medium of photography is profoundly different in this respect. We actually work 'backwards' compared to other mediums.
Second: in 'art' photography, the same rules should apply as to the other arts. The photographer can alter what he wants in the image to get his/her point across. These alterations can be as minimal as a black and white conversion to wholesale modifications to the original. In this digital age, this spectrum of options can be pushed to the point that the image ceases to be a photograph and becomes 'digital art'. There is no way to say at exactly what that point is, unfortunately. Art photography is fundamentally different from documentary photography in this critical point. alterations to documentary images should be limited to b&w conversions and the more typical sharpening/contrast processing that we all do. To do more brings into question whether an image is truly 'documentary' in the sense that we generally use that term to imply it represents reality. I, for one, think no more or less of a documentary photographer than any other artist. A gifted documentary photographer requires a unique and challenging collection of talents and abilities and can produce truly remarkable work.
My recent work has gradually shifted away from the subjects compatible with NPN (unfortunate in that I know of no other comparable group to offer such quality evaluation and commentary on my work) and part of that drift is related to your question. Like many of us here, I am completely self educated in the arts and photography. This does not mean I do not study the medium intently, however. Over the last year or so I have immersed myself in the study of the origins of photography as an art medium. It is my strong opinion that in order to understand the ART of photography, one must understand the history of its beginnings. to that end I have relived the early days of Alfred Stieglitz (google 'The Key Set' - my wife gifted me with a copy of the original publication last Christmas) and I am currently on the 5th chapter of Edward Steichen's autobiography "My Life in Photography'. I will make the bold statement that anyone who ever expects to be taken seriously as an art photographer MUST become familiar with the history of the medium and in doing so, you must become intimate with these two masters and others.
The knowledge I have gathered in this process has changed both my photography and myself in a fundamental way. I recently received a bit of unexpected recognition in this regard from an equally unexpected source. I recently had a solo show of my work at the Terrence Joyce Gallery in Greenport (we just did the show take down yesterday morning). I had on public display for the first time a number of images, but most notably my limited edition Cityscapes Series. A local gentleman stopped by (turns out we have a mutual friend who told him of the show) and made a point of seeking me out: Michael Edelson, professor and world class photographer - (retired). Mr. Edelson then invited my wife and myself to his nearby home where we spent a delightful afternoon looking at his work and discussing photographer in general. Mr. Edelson gave me a copy of one of his books, "The Concerned Photographer 2", and we spent the next hour or so as he told stories of each of the historic documentary photographers within, whom he knew personally. It was just a stunning afternoon and I realized I had just entered another world. I'm still digesting the whole experience.
What is accepted as photography has changed much in recent years with the advent of digital technology and the powerful software to modify the images. That said, certain fundamentals do not change. I am personally convinced that photography either as a documentary medium or as an artistic one is here to stay, but the horizons for the latter have broadened considerably.
My own approach to the matter is along the lines of the old Zen saying: "The greatest carver does the least cutting."
I seek out those scenes and subjects that will stand alone with only the most minimal refinement on my part to 'polish' and help focus and augment what I see in that image. My goal is to communicate a certain essence within the subject to the viewer without changing in any material way the essential reality of the subject.
This is my expression of my love for the medium of photography and what it can be. I only hope I can do it justice.
Very well put, Jim! (I knew i could count on others to do the hard work for me )
I can relate to your journey cause I studied fine art at SB, and had paintings on display in N Shore galleries long before i picked up a DSLR.
One slight clarification: There is no way to say at exactly what that point is, unfortunately.
I would argue that there is no way for others....
IMO, the photographer ought to know when he or she reaches that point, because that goes to the question of what it is the photographer is trying to accomplish--to immerse the viewer in fantasy or a sense of real experience. There is a distinction--no?
AWESOME photo BTW--i think it fits in perfectly with NPN personally--would be a pick of the week in M&N if you ask me.
Thanks for these very "meaty" responses gentlemen. Even before you mentioned Steiglitz, I had the feeling that scenes I've seen of his are the earliest in my memory of what I think of as art photography. His flat iron bldg. and snow scenes of NYC were, I guess well before others did similar.
I threw that question togeather on the spur of the moment and did not mention what really is the reason for it being on my mind. Critique by a member that has photographic art, or at least what I'd call a heavily refining view of what a photo should be, often, perhaps always, misses what the image was intended to convey by the posting member. AND, a member critiqueing an very artistic image in a documentary frame of mind often misses the mark there also.
I'm a high school drop out and feel that I'm not conveying my thoughts well. Hope you get my gist.
Charlie, I have been a photo journalist and now I'm a landscape photographer. I don't view photojournalism as "less" anything. It is different though and applying the principles of one to the other doesn't make sense IMO. FWI I don't try to "perfect" my subject matter in Photoshop so much as I use Photoshop to direct the viewer's experience to what I saw in the subject.
As for "what a photo should be" I try to avoid defining "photo" too tightly. I had a gallery director ask me once (upon seeing one of my more heavily altered photos) "Can you still call it a 'photo' after manipulating it that much?" to which I answered "If a painter paints in a photo-realistic manner do you tell him/her that they can't call it painting?". In fact most of the time I refer to my creations as "images" because it is a term that does not raise objections however I still call myself a photographer (one with an open mind). I'd rather focus (pun intended) on making meaningful images than on self-imposed limitations to what I can create.
The thoughts here are all great and should be pondered. But in the end, does the image move you? That's what it's all about. If Saturation makes my shot look better, I'm firing up Photoshop and adding Saturation. The great thing is that if somebody doesn't like it, great, they move on. Others who like it will not. Didn't Ansel said you don't take a photograph, you make one? Look at the multi-exposure techniques and chemical bath alterations he made to get his prints where he wanted them. It has to go back to this: if you make a compelling image, then you made a compelling image.
OK, so let's quickly look at Jim's Snowy Morning image: cowabunga, that is a gorgeous image. The comp and the tones are totally mesmerizing (Jim, seriously, I'm nuts about this photograph). Big problem though: that's not how it looked when he was there, because we don't see in black and white. I think you get the point. Seriously, could it be improved? If it were my image, first I'd be excited that I even got something this good, but I would defintely use Photoshop and obliterate the cone on the sidewalk. I want to look at the sufferting pedestrian trying to keep warm, but my eye keeps seeing that cone in the way. Plus, this could be a timeless image, maybe even taken in 1938 for all we know, but the cone messes that up. I see it and get a little disappointed that it's there and tells me "modern". So you may say, "but the cone was there, it was part of the image". I say, who cares, fire up Photoshop and rip it out. Create your art and make it perfect. BTW Jim, if I had the funds, I'd probably contact you for a print, so please don't take offense to my whining and complaining about the cone, I love this image. It just turned out to be a perfect object lesson so I could explain my jaded bigotted one-sided hard-headed point.
I guess my point is: we have to do post processing, you lose 13% saturation and 25% sharpness just in the capturing process. On a limited medium like photo paper or an LCD screen, the tonal and luminance range are WAY narrower than our greatly designed eye, so things are just going to have to get seasoned to taste. PLUS, everyone on NPN is quite conscience about not overdoing it, I don't think we could be accused of that. Search Google for images of Photoshop mistakes made in the fashion industry, it's hilarious: covers of magazines where models are missing a limb are actually quite common. NPN'ers aren't guilty of THAT kind of stuff. Y'all are so pure sometimes I feel like I'm the black sheep, lol.
As a closing thought, when Photoshop is used to damage the self esteem of a young girl, then that's a problem. Spend 73 seconds watching this and you'll see what I mean. It's freaky what they do to this model, especially pay attention at 0:40 seconds.
Thank you all for letting me blab this out. It's OK if you don't agree, opinions make the world go round (or at least some interesting conversation). Jim Sabiston put it best: "What is accepted as photography has changed much in recent years with the advent of digital technology and the powerful software to modify the images. That said, certain fundamentals do not change."
As a closing thought, when Photoshop is used to damage the self esteem of a young girl, then that's a problem. Spend 73 seconds watching this and you'll see what I mean. It's freaky what they do to this model, especially pay attention at 0:40 seconds.
Paul, Is that your opinion or has the Girl said that her self esteem was damaged somewhere ? Why is bumping up saturation or cloning something in or out (see Kevin McNeal's Advanced Cloning using Sapphire Pool in the Outdoor Photographer magazine) assumed as leading to great work of Art whereas working on a Girl to make her look more beautiful not ?
Spirited debate. It is good, and though new, I find it stays very nicely inbounds here. So I must ask Paul why when mentioning Jims image is there no comment as to the sweet slant of the snow flurries, the enhancing coating of snow on the tree and other pleasing things, but a cone, a rather small part of that image has taken your attention?
I believe it *IS* because we *can* alter these things. Eye of the beholder is totally it. I didn't even see the cone. Has (oh, hell it obviously has) PS become the standard to what is a great image? If there is something in the image that could easily be eliminated, it *MUST* be eliminated? And if it is not eliminated, is it, as has been described so often, "a deal breaker"?
Charlie
Posted by Jim Sabiston on July 25, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Paul and Charlie,
The image on my Facebook page posted after the first pass of processing. It is still a bit 'raw', so to speak. I do this so friends and fans can see what I'm working on and comment. I often find it good practice to finish the processing and clear the image from my mind for a day or three, then return to re-evaluate it once I've put some emotional distance between myself and the original processing. In this case, I removed the cones for the very reasons Paul mentioned.
This sort of modification was once the sort of thing I agonized over. It was one of Stieglitz's early photographs that finally settled the matter for me: 'Winter, Fifth Avenue', taken in 1893. Stieglitz made and displayed a number of variations of the original plate. The variations were of two types: different compositional comps and a single specific modification - seen on some prints, but not all. I had the opportunity to personally examine several original prints (breathtaking!) and in some, in the lower left middle ground are a series of wooden beams, an unloading platform for carriage passengers. At some point, Stieglitz realized that this detail was a distraction and altered the plate to remove it. This was over a century ago, long, long before digital tech and Photoshop. It was this discovery that led me to understand that certain freedoms exist in art photography that do exist in what we consider documentary photography. I breathed easier and went to work!
In keeping with my minimalist 'zen' approach, when I capture an image, I try to do most of the work in camera. I took the 'Morgan' photograph one morning while walking to work, using my little Leica D-Lux 5 which I always carry in case such an opportunity presents itself! The snow highlights in the tree branches were the first thing to catch my eye and I knew this would be the defining characteristic of the image. Shutter speed was kept slow enough to streak the snowflakes. The rest was composition and timing. I moved along the sidewalk, even trying opposite corners until the comp was 'right', then waited until the right pedestrian moved thru the frame. Click.
Processing was done with Silver Efex Pro, with particular attention to maintaining the luminosity of that snow in the tree branches. The rest was texture and sharpening. In the end, proper camera usage does the real work and processing completes the journey. Minor refinements, such as the removal of the cones, takes the photograph from what might be considered 'pure' documentary, and offers that more timeless aspect that, hopefully, moves the image closer to what might be considered art.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on July 25, 2011 at 9:27 PM
Jim,
The idea of a 'Not Nature' gallery would get my vote! I gather this was tried before?
I would love the opportunity to have my 'Not Nature' images critiqued here.
Posted by Ramamohan Pai on July 25, 2011 at 10:26 PM
Jim, Why would your photo not fit into Man and Nature Gallery as it exists today ? I feel instead of creating another Gallery we could modify Man and Nature to include Urban Scapes, Travel Photos, Culture etc.
Ram, the intent of the M&N Gallery is for landscape photos with some HOM evident. From the posting guidelines;
"Landscapes, seascapes, or rural scenes that contain evidence of hand-of-man (HOM) such as a path, crops and domesticated animals. People and/or man-made structures may be part of the scene but not exceed 25% of total area of the frame."
The proposed Not Nature Gallery would be for any subject, as long as it remains "G-rated." For example, who would have thought that like me, Alain Briot is an avid car photographer? Or that Jim Sabiston is now enjoying cityscapes? In fact, many "nature photographers" photograph a lot more than just nature, but are unable to share their work on NPN.
While nature will always remain the primary focus of NPN, allowing our members to share their work (and critiques) of non-nature photos I think could be a good thing.
Thanks, Jim. I later realized the differences. My only thought was traffic. As it is, the traffic in M&N is lesser than in other Galleries. Combining it (from a rather narrow 25% HOM for Landscape definition) with other things would lead to a richer and diverse content and hence might drive more traffic there is what I thought.
While nature will always remain the primary focus of NPN, allowing our members to share their work (and critiques) of non-nature photos I think could be a good thing.
I particularly like seeing the work of "nature" photographers in other disciplines, going so far as studying their images to see where I can find techniques or "sensibilities" from nature that have carried over.
As to Charlie's original point about the potential loss of the documentary element through post processing (if I've paraphrased accurately): It's alive and well in editorial and event photography, even wedding photography and more. None of those have much "place" in this nature site or any other, but in our experience the parameters of the genera have become more rigid due to computer manipulation rather than less.
How many times have you read about editorial photographers that lost their jobs or publications that wore face eggs because of manipulation? And due to publishing and corporate time constraints in the modern era, photographers are expected more and more to hand over photos directly from the camera to the client, whether on a disc or on a wire. No more waits for film processing and no time whatsoever for post processing.
Nature photography certainly could be accused of losing its documentary uniqueness, but I'd stop short of making that a generalization about all photography.
Nature photography certainly could be accused of losing its documentary uniqueness, but I'd stop short of making that a generalization about all photography.
...Photography, to me, has always had that wonderful advantage over art in that a split second of life is captured with all it's wonderful beauty and it's warts as well...
The medium of photography continues to offer this advantage. In fact, technological advances (in both capture and post-production) have ensured that this is more true today than ever before.
I must confess that I am saddened to see so many photographers, especially those whose primary subject matter is the natural landscape, abandoning this very crucial aspect of the medium. It seems as if nature is suddenly not good enough and must be embellished (sometimes to a large degree) before being presented to the viewing public.
Anil, it is that, by some, of nearly abandoning the spontaneity of the moment to remove very natural items from an image, that I originally got thinking of this change in photography. And more specifically it is the criticism of naturally occuring things being not "artistic" and suggesing they be removed. For instance a bug or a leaf with evidence of bug activity.
I feel there is not a thing wrong with having a personal standard about these things and applying that stansard to their own work. To suggest that others should accept and apply those individuals standard is the crux of my anguish here.
It seems it is the purity of the moment that was photographies uniqueness that is changing rather dramatically. Few of us try to be strictly documentary, without useing post processing to some degree. On the other side of this is the growing group of photographers who consider many naturally occuring things not worthy of remaining in a photograph.
Charlie and others, the part that's confusing to me about this is the thing that you hear often (here, anyway) that if it doesn't add to the image it shouldn't be there, and of course that's preferably accomplished by framing the image optimally and if not then in post processing if it's doable. So do you feel that guideline is questionable, or do you feel that everything that was there in the scene could or should be considered as adding to the image? Or am I missing the whole point?
Posted by Charlie Baugh on July 27, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Barbara, please don't allow me to confuse. This kind of discussion is about eliminating "guidelines". Each individual, I feel, should develop, if it is not naturally ingrained in them, a personal feeling of what they want in a photograph. We all naturally vary greatly here and that is just great. This was intended by me to bring out what I felt was a *general* trend, to feel that many natural occuring things in a photo should be cloned, because we now have the ability to easily clone them. That, taken to it's extreme would eliminate that "slice of time" uniqueness that photography has enjoyed.
I don't think anyone is right or wrong about this. Understanding that some wish to retain more natural occuring items in our images is something that will be felt differently by many.
Discussion
20 repliesWith Photo Shop and all the other post exposure programs we can now make minor and major alterations to our images and I'm ever grateful for this opportunity. The balance of artistic alterations to more realistic presentations of what was exposed is the point I'm wondering about. Have any others here thought of where photography is going?
I think critique is so often made on images posted here, based on artistic expectations and that documentary photography is sometimes thought of as less worthy.
Any thoughts?
I think foremost, that I (and most of the nature photographers here, although maybe not all) would not differentiate between art and photography--they're one and the same. Painting (another art form) has evolved over the years with various styles and schools, some hyper-realistic, some beautiful but complete with warts and all (Picasso and van Gogh come to mind...). As you point out, one great advantage of photography is that it can capture that fleeting moment in time and preserve it for eternity. That to me is something special (unique) and It's what personally attracted me to photography as a media. I think its important to respect that quality.
To get right to the point, I don't think photogrpahy is "giving up its uniqueness" unless it surrenders it. By that I mean when a photograph becomes surreal, a fantasy. That's why I draw a rigid distinction between my 'Photo Art' and my 'Nature Photography'.
But the tools you mention are good ones, and add rather than subtract from the potential of photography as an art.
I think the toughest part of your question to answer (and the reason it fills up volumes of discussion in this forums and others) is how you determine where the line is crossed? When does it cross from an 'artistic' or emotional interpretation of a 'true-to-life' scene, into the realm of fantasy? That's a tough question, since we are all individuals with our own unique way of seeing things, so who is really to say? It's a personal decision. I think there's certainly plenty of room for a broad range of styles, encompassing both the hyper real and the fantastic. I think we can embrace these opportunities rather than fear them.
And since my response was pure 'stream-of-conscious', ill probably return to this post after i've had time to steal some of the other responses (and after I've had a couple beers...)
Charlie,
This is something I think about constantly and it will be interesting to see how others respond. I have touched on this very subject in various ways in my blog posts over the last year or so, but let's take it on a bit more directly here.
First: Photography is unique in the arts in that all other mediums start with a concept within the artists mind who then assembles that idea in the medium of their choice (sculptor, paintor, writer, etc.). The photographer (artist?) starts with reality and then distills reality in a particular way to convey a look, a feeling or even a message. The medium of photography is profoundly different in this respect. We actually work 'backwards' compared to other mediums.
Second: in 'art' photography, the same rules should apply as to the other arts. The photographer can alter what he wants in the image to get his/her point across. These alterations can be as minimal as a black and white conversion to wholesale modifications to the original. In this digital age, this spectrum of options can be pushed to the point that the image ceases to be a photograph and becomes 'digital art'. There is no way to say at exactly what that point is, unfortunately. Art photography is fundamentally different from documentary photography in this critical point. alterations to documentary images should be limited to b&w conversions and the more typical sharpening/contrast processing that we all do. To do more brings into question whether an image is truly 'documentary' in the sense that we generally use that term to imply it represents reality. I, for one, think no more or less of a documentary photographer than any other artist. A gifted documentary photographer requires a unique and challenging collection of talents and abilities and can produce truly remarkable work.
My recent work has gradually shifted away from the subjects compatible with NPN (unfortunate in that I know of no other comparable group to offer such quality evaluation and commentary on my work) and part of that drift is related to your question. Like many of us here, I am completely self educated in the arts and photography. This does not mean I do not study the medium intently, however. Over the last year or so I have immersed myself in the study of the origins of photography as an art medium. It is my strong opinion that in order to understand the ART of photography, one must understand the history of its beginnings. to that end I have relived the early days of Alfred Stieglitz (google 'The Key Set' - my wife gifted me with a copy of the original publication last Christmas) and I am currently on the 5th chapter of Edward Steichen's autobiography "My Life in Photography'. I will make the bold statement that anyone who ever expects to be taken seriously as an art photographer MUST become familiar with the history of the medium and in doing so, you must become intimate with these two masters and others.
The knowledge I have gathered in this process has changed both my photography and myself in a fundamental way. I recently received a bit of unexpected recognition in this regard from an equally unexpected source. I recently had a solo show of my work at the Terrence Joyce Gallery in Greenport (we just did the show take down yesterday morning). I had on public display for the first time a number of images, but most notably my limited edition Cityscapes Series. A local gentleman stopped by (turns out we have a mutual friend who told him of the show) and made a point of seeking me out: Michael Edelson, professor and world class photographer - (retired). Mr. Edelson then invited my wife and myself to his nearby home where we spent a delightful afternoon looking at his work and discussing photographer in general. Mr. Edelson gave me a copy of one of his books, "The Concerned Photographer 2", and we spent the next hour or so as he told stories of each of the historic documentary photographers within, whom he knew personally. It was just a stunning afternoon and I realized I had just entered another world. I'm still digesting the whole experience.
A sample of the Cityscape Series:
Snowy Morning at the Morgan
What is accepted as photography has changed much in recent years with the advent of digital technology and the powerful software to modify the images. That said, certain fundamentals do not change. I am personally convinced that photography either as a documentary medium or as an artistic one is here to stay, but the horizons for the latter have broadened considerably.
My own approach to the matter is along the lines of the old Zen saying: "The greatest carver does the least cutting."
I seek out those scenes and subjects that will stand alone with only the most minimal refinement on my part to 'polish' and help focus and augment what I see in that image. My goal is to communicate a certain essence within the subject to the viewer without changing in any material way the essential reality of the subject.
This is my expression of my love for the medium of photography and what it can be. I only hope I can do it justice.
I can relate to your journey cause I studied fine art at SB, and had paintings on display in N Shore galleries long before i picked up a DSLR.
One slight clarification:
There is no way to say at exactly what that point is, unfortunately.
I would argue that there is no way for others....
IMO, the photographer ought to know when he or she reaches that point, because that goes to the question of what it is the photographer is trying to accomplish--to immerse the viewer in fantasy or a sense of real experience. There is a distinction--no?
AWESOME photo BTW--i think it fits in perfectly with NPN personally--would be a pick of the week in M&N if you ask me.
I threw that question togeather on the spur of the moment and did not mention what really is the reason for it being on my mind. Critique by a member that has photographic art, or at least what I'd call a heavily refining view of what a photo should be, often, perhaps always, misses what the image was intended to convey by the posting member. AND, a member critiqueing an very artistic image in a documentary frame of mind often misses the mark there also.
I'm a high school drop out and feel that I'm not conveying my thoughts well. Hope you get my gist.
Charlie
Not to digress from Charlie's OP, I'm thinking of trying (again) a Not Nature gallery for our members to post their non-nature photos.
As for "what a photo should be" I try to avoid defining "photo" too tightly. I had a gallery director ask me once (upon seeing one of my more heavily altered photos) "Can you still call it a 'photo' after manipulating it that much?" to which I answered "If a painter paints in a photo-realistic manner do you tell him/her that they can't call it painting?". In fact most of the time I refer to my creations as "images" because it is a term that does not raise objections however I still call myself a photographer (one with an open mind). I'd rather focus (pun intended) on making meaningful images than on self-imposed limitations to what I can create.
OK, so let's quickly look at Jim's Snowy Morning image: cowabunga, that is a gorgeous image. The comp and the tones are totally mesmerizing (Jim, seriously, I'm nuts about this photograph). Big problem though: that's not how it looked when he was there, because we don't see in black and white. I think you get the point. Seriously, could it be improved? If it were my image, first I'd be excited that I even got something this good, but I would defintely use Photoshop and obliterate the cone on the sidewalk. I want to look at the sufferting pedestrian trying to keep warm, but my eye keeps seeing that cone in the way. Plus, this could be a timeless image, maybe even taken in 1938 for all we know, but the cone messes that up. I see it and get a little disappointed that it's there and tells me "modern". So you may say, "but the cone was there, it was part of the image". I say, who cares, fire up Photoshop and rip it out. Create your art and make it perfect. BTW Jim, if I had the funds, I'd probably contact you for a print, so please don't take offense to my whining and complaining about the cone, I love this image. It just turned out to be a perfect object lesson so I could explain my jaded bigotted one-sided hard-headed point.
I guess my point is: we have to do post processing, you lose 13% saturation and 25% sharpness just in the capturing process. On a limited medium like photo paper or an LCD screen, the tonal and luminance range are WAY narrower than our greatly designed eye, so things are just going to have to get seasoned to taste. PLUS, everyone on NPN is quite conscience about not overdoing it, I don't think we could be accused of that. Search Google for images of Photoshop mistakes made in the fashion industry, it's hilarious: covers of magazines where models are missing a limb are actually quite common. NPN'ers aren't guilty of THAT kind of stuff. Y'all are so pure sometimes I feel like I'm the black sheep, lol.
As a closing thought, when Photoshop is used to damage the self esteem of a young girl, then that's a problem. Spend 73 seconds watching this and you'll see what I mean. It's freaky what they do to this model, especially pay attention at 0:40 seconds.
Thank you all for letting me blab this out. It's OK if you don't agree, opinions make the world go round (or at least some interesting conversation). Jim Sabiston put it best: "What is accepted as photography has changed much in recent years with the advent of digital technology and the powerful software to modify the images. That said, certain fundamentals do not change."
Exactly.
Paul, Is that your opinion or has the Girl said that her self esteem was damaged somewhere ? Why is bumping up saturation or cloning something in or out (see Kevin McNeal's Advanced Cloning using Sapphire Pool in the Outdoor Photographer magazine) assumed as leading to great work of Art whereas working on a Girl to make her look more beautiful not ?
I believe it *IS* because we *can* alter these things. Eye of the beholder is totally it. I didn't even see the cone. Has (oh, hell it obviously has) PS become the standard to what is a great image? If there is something in the image that could easily be eliminated, it *MUST* be eliminated? And if it is not eliminated, is it, as has been described so often, "a deal breaker"?
Charlie
The image on my Facebook page posted after the first pass of processing. It is still a bit 'raw', so to speak. I do this so friends and fans can see what I'm working on and comment. I often find it good practice to finish the processing and clear the image from my mind for a day or three, then return to re-evaluate it once I've put some emotional distance between myself and the original processing. In this case, I removed the cones for the very reasons Paul mentioned.
This sort of modification was once the sort of thing I agonized over. It was one of Stieglitz's early photographs that finally settled the matter for me: 'Winter, Fifth Avenue', taken in 1893. Stieglitz made and displayed a number of variations of the original plate. The variations were of two types: different compositional comps and a single specific modification - seen on some prints, but not all. I had the opportunity to personally examine several original prints (breathtaking!) and in some, in the lower left middle ground are a series of wooden beams, an unloading platform for carriage passengers. At some point, Stieglitz realized that this detail was a distraction and altered the plate to remove it. This was over a century ago, long, long before digital tech and Photoshop. It was this discovery that led me to understand that certain freedoms exist in art photography that do exist in what we consider documentary photography. I breathed easier and went to work!
In keeping with my minimalist 'zen' approach, when I capture an image, I try to do most of the work in camera. I took the 'Morgan' photograph one morning while walking to work, using my little Leica D-Lux 5 which I always carry in case such an opportunity presents itself! The snow highlights in the tree branches were the first thing to catch my eye and I knew this would be the defining characteristic of the image. Shutter speed was kept slow enough to streak the snowflakes. The rest was composition and timing. I moved along the sidewalk, even trying opposite corners until the comp was 'right', then waited until the right pedestrian moved thru the frame. Click.
Processing was done with Silver Efex Pro, with particular attention to maintaining the luminosity of that snow in the tree branches. The rest was texture and sharpening. In the end, proper camera usage does the real work and processing completes the journey. Minor refinements, such as the removal of the cones, takes the photograph from what might be considered 'pure' documentary, and offers that more timeless aspect that, hopefully, moves the image closer to what might be considered art.
The idea of a 'Not Nature' gallery would get my vote! I gather this was tried before?
I would love the opportunity to have my 'Not Nature' images critiqued here.
"Landscapes, seascapes, or rural scenes that contain evidence of hand-of-man (HOM) such as a path, crops and domesticated animals. People and/or man-made structures may be part of the scene but not exceed 25% of total area of the frame."
The proposed Not Nature Gallery would be for any subject, as long as it remains "G-rated." For example, who would have thought that like me, Alain Briot is an avid car photographer? Or that Jim Sabiston is now enjoying cityscapes? In fact, many "nature photographers" photograph a lot more than just nature, but are unable to share their work on NPN.
While nature will always remain the primary focus of NPN, allowing our members to share their work (and critiques) of non-nature photos I think could be a good thing.
I particularly like seeing the work of "nature" photographers in other disciplines, going so far as studying their images to see where I can find techniques or "sensibilities" from nature that have carried over.
As to Charlie's original point about the potential loss of the documentary element through post processing (if I've paraphrased accurately): It's alive and well in editorial and event photography, even wedding photography and more. None of those have much "place" in this nature site or any other, but in our experience the parameters of the genera have become more rigid due to computer manipulation rather than less.
How many times have you read about editorial photographers that lost their jobs or publications that wore face eggs because of manipulation? And due to publishing and corporate time constraints in the modern era, photographers are expected more and more to hand over photos directly from the camera to the client, whether on a disc or on a wire. No more waits for film processing and no time whatsoever for post processing.
Nature photography certainly could be accused of losing its documentary uniqueness, but I'd stop short of making that a generalization about all photography.
Nature photography certainly could be accused of losing its documentary uniqueness, but I'd stop short of making that a generalization about all photography.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Good statement and one I agree with.
Charlie
I must confess that I am saddened to see so many photographers, especially those whose primary subject matter is the natural landscape, abandoning this very crucial aspect of the medium. It seems as if nature is suddenly not good enough and must be embellished (sometimes to a large degree) before being presented to the viewing public.
I feel there is not a thing wrong with having a personal standard about these things and applying that stansard to their own work. To suggest that others should accept and apply those individuals standard is the crux of my anguish here.
It seems it is the purity of the moment that was photographies uniqueness that is changing rather dramatically. Few of us try to be strictly documentary, without useing post processing to some degree. On the other side of this is the growing group of photographers who consider many naturally occuring things not worthy of remaining in a photograph.
Charlie
I don't think anyone is right or wrong about this. Understanding that some wish to retain more natural occuring items in our images is something that will be felt differently by many.
Charlie