D7100 - Wildlife Digital Art (not everyone's cup of tea)

Started Jul 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Brev00
Brev00 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,205
Re: So, true photography isn't art Rudy?

RudyPohl wrote:

TFergus wrote:

RudyPohl wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

And if you paste an image on a fake background it is art? I'm not sure where you're going with this one. I think I'd have to go with Ovid here: "Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art."

I respond in fear and trembling about continuing this thread but what the heck... of course true photography is real art, yes. yes yes!

What I was trying to say was that it is not true photography when you take that bird, and put another real-life photographed background underneath it - the result is not true photography. In order words, if your were to take a Heron shot at Mud Lake (with presumably with a crappy background) and go and photograph another background (one more flattering), or worse, steal one off the web, and then place that new background under the bird. This "untrue" photography would be made a hundred times worse if you didn't disclose what you did and let people think you shot a great bird in a great setting and you did a great job on creating a photo.

However, if you cut out the bird and paste it on top off some kind of background that is clearly some kind of digitally-created artwork that anyone viewing it could tell immediately that you are not holding this up to be a real photographed creation. I looked at a few covers of wildlife magazines today regarding this and some have issues where the animal, like a moose has been removed from his natural background in Photoshop and has been incorporated into the cover design of that issue. That cover clearly isn't a photograph although it contains a photographic element.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents..

I ask my question again:

What is the difference between your 2 photos if you simply blurred the "real" background until it was indistinguishable ?

Nothing. So you have to decide at which point does blurring the background suddenly turn it "fake"... if you care enough. Thing is, you shouldn't care, you should just make images you like.

Read the quote Edispics posted. It's perfect.

Whatever happened to the days when people just tried to make nice looking images and didn't politicize it with words like "true" or "fake" or "real".

Art is art. It doesn't matter how it gets there.

However, if "true photography" is your ambition... you need to figure out a way to print true RAWs, without processing them. And good luck with that.

Hi T...

Can you clarify, is your post addressed to me or to Jim?

If it is addressed to me, here's my answer... To me the image becomes "art" once the blurred background is long longer distinguishable from the actual setting that was in the original photography. Where exactly that line may be is open to discussion, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

"True" photography is my goal sometimes (99% of the time), but I like fooling around with my images from time to time just to see how some stylizing may look. No big deal to me personally.

Rudy

Drawing lines is not one of the reasons I take pictures (got my lowest grade in high school in Art). In fact, I don't really have too many distinctions other than the main one:   aesthetics.  Does the image please me aesthetically?  I will sometimes process a pic in a straightforward way and then make a copy and go in a completely non-realistic way altering hues, lines, tones until the original is  almost unrecognizable.  I even started a thread in the Open Talk Forum asking for a forum for abstract and other non-representational images.  Some liked the idea.  Others called it graphic art, not photography. Others said to go join a flickr group.   As you can see, there is no such forum yet today.  I took this image with the others in my High Line thread.  Just went another way.  Some experimentation:

I can't tell you what it was except it was definitely not an osprey.

If you sell an osprey image for a wildlife mag and you took it at a zoo and replaced the background, that is pretty unethical.  But, you are not selling your image plus it is recognizably altered in a way that does not need an explanation.  People like the altered background more than the original.  If I were you and thought about making money from this, I would put out a whole line of osprey images with altered backgrounds.  They would sell like hotcakes.  You would become famous for your signature move.  A few years from now, when you introduce a pic with a real background, everyone would flow with that hot, new trend.  It would be:  I just got the latest Rudy!  The content will no longer matter.

 Brev00's gear list:Brev00's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon D610 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
GPW
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow