The art of digital photography

This debate has been going on for decades. I still love to discuss it. Those of you who worked in film may remember a technique that was popular years ago where the photographer would grind out the negative holder when enlarging so that there was a visible black border showing the edges of the negative surrounding the printed image. This was done to prove, so to speak, that the image was not cropped, and therefore a "pure" image. My instructors at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design were also not fond of cropped or altered images. My opinion now is the same as it was then: Hogwash. While I appreciate this form (and have produced many images in this way myself), I also feel there is a place for experimentation in the darkroom, be it digital or otherwise. I personally prefer images that are not over processed, but that's just MY opinion. I love to tinker in the darkroom and love the ease with which I am able to do that using the digital format. While I don’t think the importance of capturing a moment can be overstated in photography, I also believe that the process that takes place in the dark is an art, so to speak, in and of itself. Ok, Ok, enough already. My opinion falls somewhere between that of “Timo” and “Eastsaltwater”. I say it’s a 60/40 split.
Cheers,
STS
 
My instructors at the Nova
Scotia College of Art and Design were also not fond of cropped or
altered images. My opinion now is the same as it was then: Hogwash.
Aha, another east coaster! I took a continuing ed course at NSCAD, and it was the same thing - full frame, printed full size on 8x10. I got heck for heavily cropping and leaving a large border on one print (didn't want to enlarge too far on account of grain, plus I figured it looked cool) but that image was the one that most people oohed and aahed over. Other than the instructor!

It's very satisfying when the captured image is exactly what you were aiming for. But sometimes it's just not possible - you're too far away at the critical moment, the light's wrong, etc., and then you need post processing to achieve your goal. You still have an "artistic vision", you just need a few more tools to get there.

Whether it's actually art or not is another question, but whatever it is, I don't think messing around in the wet or digital darkroom invalidates it.
Julie
 
It should mostly be with the camera. Someone that shoots bad pictures and then corrects them in post processing is not a photographer. If your any good with the camera there should be very little to do post process.

Things like...

1. Minor sharpening - Every image needs at least a small amount it is just the nature of digitizing a 3D world in to a digital 2D one.

2. Cloning out things like light poles, signs and the like. Sometimes especially in this day and age there is just no way to get a shot without things like this.

3. Very minor color correction is ok, but by and large this should be done at the time of taking the photograph.

4. Exposure correction is like #3 above.

Where it really gets messy is when you deal with RAW, there is usually a lot of post processing involved with these formats and so the above doesn't really apply. The above does for JPG and TIF.

Just my 2 cents,

Robert
 
I'm afraid you're daft.

You only need to look at hand made print made by a skilled printer. Look at the all the stuff that Ansel Adams wrote on processing film - and shooting with a view to tweaking the process.

The more important part of the process making the exposure - no amount of processing is going to turn a bad picture into a good one. But to decry the work that is done afterwards is usually a sign of ignorance. Every black and white print involves tweaking of gamma curves (choice of paper grade), every colour print involves decisions about colour balance. Once upon a time we used to put filters on the front of the lens to acheive effects and people said that was cheating. Now we can do it in software
 
When friends view and like my photos I usually get the comment
"You must have a really good camera" to which I now usually reply
"Yes, and Michaelangelo had some fantastic paint brushes when he
painted the Sistine Chapel". Usually shuts them up and educates
them a little.
I've seen this analogy on this forum before; "It's like asking Mozart what make or model of piano he played." I guess Mozart's 'post-processing' was the way he played the music.
--
Zion Frost
Less talk, more photos...



http://www.pbase.com/zionfrost
 
Depending on the definition, "photography" may well end with the press of the shutter button. But "art" has no clearly defined end or beginning, neither in the digital nor the analog world.

Why are you interested in that question? If photographing digital images and processing them into something is what you want, why do you care about how many people call it "X", "Y" or "Z"...

In art, definitions are a helping tool for those who need to categorise everything.

Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.jensroesner.de/
--=! Condemning proprietary batteries since 1976 !=--

Currently hosting Bandwidth Challenge #2 'So Sweet It Hurts'
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20152045
 
It is only art if the viewers perceive it as art and that has
nothing to do with the process whatsoever.

--
This is true but not all viewers will consider the same thing as
art. Some will say that photography is not art, since it does not
entail the work and creativity of painting or other forms. IMHO, it
is art and the creation of the final image uses both camera and PP.
For me, even a multi shot combination picture is only half PP.
Planning and getting the shots are still half the work.
What I meant was that it is not up to the "artist" to define what art is.

In this regard I don't see any difference between a photo (digital or film) or a painting for instance. Either some people see it as art or they don't. We do not all have to agree about it. That is why it is possible for some people to earn money by telling others what they consider as art,

However talent and skill will allways separate the artists amongst photographers from the non talented and non skilled and that goes for PP too but both require different skills and talents.

Still in my mind the difference between an artistic image and non-artistic image is creativity. Anybody with a camera can make a perfect image by accident and I have seen many perfect images I was moved by but I would defenitely not call them art because there is not a single sign of creativity in them. Also PP is not just PP. There is what I would call developing PP, healing PP and finally creative PP. However regardless of what PP is performed it is still talent and skill that determines whether the result can be called art.

IOW from the moment where the photographer was inspired to make a photo (saw the scene) to the moment where it is hanging on the wall there must have been a creative phase and it does not matter where that phase is in the process. Some might imagine the final outcome in advance and plan the shot carefully inclusive PP while others are able to see the creative possibillities instantly at location.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
Hi Jim and Ben,

Ben wrote:

"I still see digital photography as photography. To me, using the digital format allows for a much faster turn around in seeing images then processing them and basically having far more control than we had/have with film. Of course those who home-processed B&W images hand their hands into it all along, but now there's an even broader array of possibilites across colour and B&W.

Anyone can PP to their hearts content, but if the artistic value isn't in the capture, ie the actual "photography" side of the product, then it's kinda not art for me."

This is mostly how I viewed photography before last weekend.
In this regard I don't see any difference between a photo (digital
or film) or a painting for instance. Either some people see it as
art or they don't. We do not all have to agree about it. That is
why it is possible for some people to earn money by telling others
what they consider as art,

However talent and skill will allways separate the artists amongst
photographers from the non talented and non skilled and that goes
for PP too but both require different skills and talents.

Still in my mind the difference between an artistic image and
non-artistic image is creativity. Anybody with a camera can make a
perfect image by accident and I have seen many perfect images I was
moved by but I would defenitely not call them art because there is
not a single sign of creativity in them. Also PP is not just PP.
There is what I would call developing PP, healing PP and finally
creative PP. However regardless of what PP is performed it is still
talent and skill that determines whether the result can be called
art.
Now although you're not going to catch me trying to give some kind of definition on the question "what is art," I now see PP in a very similar way to Jim. What was the difference? Seeing how Manny Librodo works. I have truly admired his images ever since I saw them. I assumed the whole time that the look and the light were 80% photographic skill and maybe 20% post processing, if that. Wrong. My personal opinion of Manny's creative process, based on what I had an opportunity to observe this past weekend, is that his creativity and skill in Photoshop rivals if not exceeds his artistic vision during the shoot. This was a shock. I had always assumed that the magic in his images came from the photo shoot, not the post processing. But seeing his and others images from the workshop and realizing the endless possibilities available in digital post processing in contrast to the handful of parameters under one's control when shooting film, I have gained new appreciation for the creativity and work involved in producing digital images. It's opened up a whole new world to me that I didn't even realize was there. My main goal now is to really learn Photoshop - it's an amazing tool, much more powerful than my camera. I don't discriminate between tools. If a camera alone gives me what I want, then I wouldn't care about any software programs. The fact is, however, that the software gives me opportunities far beyond what I had imagined possible and excites my creativity much the way shooting does.

It's difficult to imagine Manny's art in a non-digital world. Although I don't doubt he would still produce stunning images, he does create his unique vision thorugh digital processing. The kinds of things he does would have been difficult to impossible with film,

-Matt
 
Depending on the definition, "photography" may well end with the
press of the shutter button. But "art" has no clearly defined end
or beginning, neither in the digital nor the analog world.

Why are you interested in that question? If photographing digital
images and processing them into something is what you want, why do
you care about how many people call it "X", "Y" or "Z"...

In art, definitions are a helping tool for those who need to
categorise everything.

Jens
Well Said Jens!
STS
 
There has to be that creativity and vision present and this can be done in both the taking of the picture and the processing of it. I believe it all can be art.

For some reason, I am reminded of our state fair, where the best photograph award went to a snap shot taken of a baby splashing in a tub. The flash froze the drops in the air and somehow, the judges thought this was highly artistic. Most thought it was an unispired snapshot of junior taken in the tub. I did go and view all of the art and almost all of the other photos there were considerably better artistically.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=19778904

Is this art?
 
It is only art if the viewers perceive it as art and that has
nothing to do with the process whatsoever.
Hmm, don't buy that completely. The process of developing an image or play or park can transform the creator. The act can be art. Married to an artist, I see this happen.

The pieces no one sees, still worked thier magic on one person at least.

Cheers, Alistair
 
It is only art if the viewers perceive it as art and that has
nothing to do with the process whatsoever.
Hmm, don't buy that completely. The process of developing an image
or play or park can transform the creator. The act can be art.
Married to an artist, I see this happen.
I agreei in the sense that all the attempts performed by the artist is considered a creative phase or art if you like even if they result in a finished work or not because that is the way most artists work but a work of art to me is only when the experience from those attempts combined with new inspiration result in an image made for viewers because only then the artist is communicating and some kind of communication must be present before I would consider the result to be art.
The pieces no one sees, still worked thier magic on one person at
least.
Well others might see that as therapy instead. ;-)

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top