Reading mode: Light Dark

neg. fill etc.- philosophical question

Go to last post
B

BarrytheB

Senior Member
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
427
Location
TX, US
I loved Dominic's post with negative fill on flowers so I started playing around with it and generated the image below.
http://www.westexas.com/sd9/cactusFill.htm
Exif data shows negative fill and corresponding exposure increase.

Here's the question,

As photographers given the power of SPP and PS is there a point at which image manipulation becomes not true photography and turns into something else? If so where is the cutoff point? This image is certainly more interesting than the original but is this manipulation with/without disclosure still true to our discipline?

I have been playing around with some pretty radical image manipulation for a couple of years just because it's fun and makes beautiful prints but sometimes I wonder if I have crossed an ethical/artistic boundary.
Here's a sample gallery called photo art:
http://www.westexas.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=2&pass=public&lang=eng

Thought this might be an interesting discussion

Barry Byrd

'If it won't go don't force it.'
 
BarrytheB said:
Here's the question,
As photographers given the power of SPP and PS is there a point at
which image manipulation becomes not true photography and turns
into something else? If so where is the cutoff point? This image is
certainly more interesting than the original but is this
manipulation with/without disclosure still true to our discipline?

I have been playing around with some pretty radical image
manipulation for a couple of years just because it's fun and makes
beautiful prints but sometimes I wonder if I have crossed an
ethical/artistic boundary.
Here's a sample gallery called photo art:
http://www.westexas.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=2&pass=public?=eng
Click to expand...
I think the link works better like this:

http://www.westexas.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=2&pass=public

At least I couldn't get in with the first link (it absorbed the language field into the password)

Now, as for the question...

I think for me the line between photography and the nebulous "art" space is crossed when the primary subject becomes stylized in such a way that you can't really say anymore "that's about what I think that looks like in real life". So Photo collages, or even shots like your solarized bird on a wire are for me still photography (though that bird is right on the line...)

Even adding content to photos (like clever photoshop work) I still consider photography - just because it was not taken in the real world does not mean the same rules of composition and focus do not apply to create a nice image!

However, I think a lot of people would insist that photography is an image adjusted to as faithfully reflect exactly what the person on the scene saw as close to the limits of technical capacity as possible. Anything else (including heavy negative fill) is art. I think by that definition, even macro shots that really defocus the background are more art than photo which is why I'm not sure I like it.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
Spring Shoot - http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/sigmaseason1
 
From film times, photographers use all means to achieve their own vision of the picture - a variety of filters (both for lens and for printing), a variety of chemical processes, allowing to achieve, say, "high key" or "low key" images, color masks, multi-exposure and so on.

So I think any manipulation is possible as long as it serves to achieve your vision of a subject - except, maybe, some hand-paint work.

You captured some light, you can freely sculpt that light into desired shape.
 
dr.noise said:
From film times, photographers use all means to achieve their own
vision of the picture - a variety of filters (both for lens and for
printing), a variety of chemical processes, allowing to achieve,
say, "high key" or "low key" images, color masks, multi-exposure
and so on.

So I think any manipulation is possible as long as it serves to
achieve your vision of a subject - except, maybe, some hand-paint
work.

You captured some light, you can freely sculpt that light into
desired shape.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%! For me, SPP and PS is some kind of a digital dark room, taking or better say making images is a combination of having a vision and using tools (cameras, film, sensors, dark room, paper, neg fill flash).

Popart i.e. would not have been possible if artist restrict themselves to the possibilites of the medium. What would happend if Andy Warhol had the idea of coloring pictures of MM, but restricted himself not to do, because it isn't pure photograpy any more.

--
SIGMA SD-10, Powershot G2
 
I captured a single image and applied auto SPP settings to it and produced an image. I then applied a large amount of negative fill and produced a second image. Both of these are photographs of the same scene, both are also art. Its just that one is more abstract than the other. Both have been manipulated, the raw file with no SPP settings doesn't look as good but isn't that truly what I captured?

http://www.pbase.com/ryoung/sd9

IMG01232.jpg - Auto SPP, looks nice

IMG01232x.jpg - Lots of negative fill light, also lloks nice but in a different way
hiesve said:
dr.noise said:
From film times, photographers use all means to achieve their own
vision of the picture - a variety of filters (both for lens and for
printing), a variety of chemical processes, allowing to achieve,
say, "high key" or "low key" images, color masks, multi-exposure
and so on.

So I think any manipulation is possible as long as it serves to
achieve your vision of a subject - except, maybe, some hand-paint
work.

You captured some light, you can freely sculpt that light into
desired shape.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%! For me, SPP and PS is some kind of a digital dark
room, taking or better say making images is a combination of
having a vision and using tools (cameras, film, sensors, dark room,
paper, neg fill flash).

Popart i.e. would not have been possible if artist restrict
themselves to the possibilites of the medium. What would happend if
Andy Warhol had the idea of coloring pictures of MM, but restricted
himself not to do, because it isn't pure photograpy any more.

--
SIGMA SD-10, Powershot G2
Click to expand...
 
Hello Barry

IMHO one can perform art before and until the point where you press the shutterbutton and there is the art in postprocessing. Both can be used in any possible ways by the artist to carry the intended message, expression or interpretation.
So why draw a borderline and limit yourself from the beginning.

regards

wiki
 
Good point. Looking at a film negative (in comparism to x3f-files) isn't very exiting isn't it? Therefore the image must be post processed, to get an exiting result. Btw, if you're looking into magazines, calendars even exibitions your hardly find images not "manipulated" or "tweaked".
R Young said:
http://www.pbase.com/ryoung/sd9

IMG01232.jpg - Auto SPP, looks nice
IMG01232x.jpg - Lots of negative fill light, also lloks nice but in
a different way
hiesve said:
dr.noise said:
From film times, photographers use all means to achieve their own
vision of the picture - a variety of filters (both for lens and for
printing), a variety of chemical processes, allowing to achieve,
say, "high key" or "low key" images, color masks, multi-exposure
and so on.

So I think any manipulation is possible as long as it serves to
achieve your vision of a subject - except, maybe, some hand-paint
work.

You captured some light, you can freely sculpt that light into
desired shape.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%! For me, SPP and PS is some kind of a digital dark
room, taking or better say making images is a combination of
having a vision and using tools (cameras, film, sensors, dark room,
paper, neg fill flash).

Popart i.e. would not have been possible if artist restrict
themselves to the possibilites of the medium. What would happend if
Andy Warhol had the idea of coloring pictures of MM, but restricted
himself not to do, because it isn't pure photograpy any more.

--
SIGMA SD-10, Powershot G2
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
SIGMA SD-10, Powershot G2
 
I've done some reading posted by purists that claim any manipulation other than focus, exposure, standard filters and lens length is crossing the line between Photography with a capital P and getting into computer imaging. I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I plan to continue doing what I do because I enjoy the workflow and the results.

I majored in photography for a couple of semesters in college back in the 70's before I changed to geology and so much has changed in the last 30 years, it is interesting to see if the advances in technology have changed attitudes. In those days there were folks that thought 35mm was less "pure" than medium format or 4x5".

All of you have very valid points- I am simply interested in others opinions- mainly is there a point with digital image manipulation where we cross an invisible line between a two dimensional representaion of reality and begin to create an image that is more computer generated and less reality. Thanks so much for your input.
wiki said:
Hello Barry

IMHO one can perform art before and until the point where you press
the shutterbutton and there is the art in postprocessing. Both can
be used in any possible ways by the artist to carry the intended
message, expression or interpretation.
So why draw a borderline and limit yourself from the beginning.

regards

wiki
Click to expand...
--
Barry Byrd

'If it won't go don't force it.'
 
Well I'm always trying to be a purist as much as possible.
It is good when much of the art is done even before you press the shutter.

But in some cases, the art, the mood that you see (or imagine) and that you want to represent is not always captured by technical means. So it becomes useless without postprocessing.

So I would say - where it is possible technically, be a purist, elsewhere be an artist by all means.
 
Hi,When does it become something other than photography? I guess for me it's when you add or subtract part of the image. Doesn't make it not photography for someone else.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,an image is in the mind of the mind of the photographer, manipulation is a means to an end. Besides I'm not very good with PS.
--
Rick Wilkinson
From Gobblers Knob
http://www.pbase.com/short243
 
Let's see, if you're a painter - you take some paint and modify it, you make strokes with it, mix with other paints, etc, finally getting what you wanted to get.

If you're a sculptor, you take some clay and modify it, you make forms out of other forms, finally getting what you wanted to get.

If you're a photographer, you take some light...
 
dr.noise said:
Let's see, if you're a painter - you take some paint and modify
it, you make strokes with it, mix with other paints, etc, finally
getting what you wanted to get.

If you're a sculptor, you take some clay and modify it, you make
forms out of other forms, finally getting what you wanted to get.

If you're a photographer, you take some light...
Click to expand...
Very well put!
 
Agreed. And lets not forget where the majority of image manipulation occurs: in the viewers mind.

Take an arbitrary mix of light/shadow combinations that have no intrinsic value, but filter them through a mind, and voila!

Kurt Vonnegut talked about this idea in his book TimeQuake, although he used written language as his example.

I guess for me, the question is it true to my experience? It's kind of like writing fiction - lie truthfully.

tjh
dr.noise said:
Let's see, if you're a painter - you take some paint and modify
it, you make strokes with it, mix with other paints, etc, finally
getting what you wanted to get.

If you're a sculptor, you take some clay and modify it, you make
forms out of other forms, finally getting what you wanted to get.

If you're a photographer, you take some light...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/tjhanlon/
 
Personally I dont think it really matters and is up to the artists personal taste.

A lot of purist get their panties in a wad and think everything should be in B+W and look like an Ansel Adams print. Sorry Ansel (I love his work). Also major art galleries still want B+W so I guess that says something.

IMO - I guess I would say purist type/normal photography captures a moment or a mood, but photographic art is more about form and composition. Ansels work to me was very artistic, but would fall in the middle somewhere. Towards purist photography but on the art side also would be B+W nude photography. Its a fine line of separation I guess, but as far as photographic art, I consider composition #1.

As far as one of the original photographic manipulators you have to go back to Man Ray the surealist photographer and one of the great tradition breakers. He was the artist that photographed the womans back with the violin "F" holes on her back. He is probably my favorite B+W photographer. He was also the first to solarize a print and the first to airbrush a photo. Very interesting work.

I got into a long debate on computer art recently with an Art teacher friend, and if it should be considered real art and my opinion was a strong yes. Art is in the mind, and all our cameras, computers, brushes etc are just tools to acheive the desired results.

Personally I like anything that is out of the ordinary and makes you look at things in a different way and light fill is a great tool. I like it so much that in the future even if I wanted to shoot a diferent camera system I would still want to keep the SD_ just for that.

You can come up with some pretty bizzare results especially if you start off using it and combine it with layering, splitting channels etc. I like it so much I even requested that foveon extend the range of exposure and FL from 2 to 3, for even more extremes, but I doubt they will.

I revised a couple of my exhibit photos. One is pretty bizzare, but it looks really good in print. I dont think anyone at the library will be able to figure out what it is though, but thats okay. I like to keep them scratching their heads.

http://www.pbase.com/image/27424921

BTW, I like your photos. Very nice. Keep up the good work !
BarrytheB said:
I loved Dominic's post with negative fill on flowers so I started
playing around with it and generated the image below.
http://www.westexas.com/sd9/cactusFill.htm
Exif data shows negative fill and corresponding exposure increase.

Here's the question,
As photographers given the power of SPP and PS is there a point at
which image manipulation becomes not true photography and turns
into something else? If so where is the cutoff point? This image is
certainly more interesting than the original but is this
manipulation with/without disclosure still true to our discipline?

I have been playing around with some pretty radical image
manipulation for a couple of years just because it's fun and makes
beautiful prints but sometimes I wonder if I have crossed an
ethical/artistic boundary.
Here's a sample gallery called photo art:
http://www.westexas.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=2&pass=public&lang=eng

Thought this might be an interesting discussion

Barry Byrd

'If it won't go don't force it.'
Click to expand...
--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com
 
Hi tammons

Very nicely put.

about your pic - for ME it is a seal playing with a big wave (he actually seems to jump out of it.

This part looks like it´s layered on a beach scene and some dramatically sky added.

I do like pics that develop in your imagination

thx

wiki
 
I believe that photography is what the photograher wants it to be. In most cases it is not a group decision process, it tends to be very individualistic by nature. The exception to the rule is when stardards have been set for consistancy, i.e. aerial photos for inventory purposes.

I prefer to stay closer to what I believe I saw, but I may manupulate the saturation and contrast for effect. I do put a fair amount of thought into the original composition or at least like to think that I do.

I do greatly enjoy the artictic styles also, like Troy's recently displayed Gallery.

Mike
BarrytheB said:
I loved Dominic's post with negative fill on flowers so I started
playing around with it and generated the image below.
http://www.westexas.com/sd9/cactusFill.htm
Exif data shows negative fill and corresponding exposure increase.

Here's the question,
As photographers given the power of SPP and PS is there a point at
which image manipulation becomes not true photography and turns
into something else? If so where is the cutoff point? This image is
certainly more interesting than the original but is this
manipulation with/without disclosure still true to our discipline?

I have been playing around with some pretty radical image
manipulation for a couple of years just because it's fun and makes
beautiful prints but sometimes I wonder if I have crossed an
ethical/artistic boundary.
Here's a sample gallery called photo art:
http://www.westexas.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=2&pass=public&lang=eng

Thought this might be an interesting discussion

Barry Byrd

'If it won't go don't force it.'
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/mjmorrison
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_sd10
 
It seems to me that the tools available today are different, but the basic premise is the same as when we had no choice but coatings and chemicals and working in the dark.

When I'm looking at Weston's "Pepper", I certainly don't think, "yeah, but that's not really 'photography', it didn't look like that in real life."

The processes, old and new, are all manipulation. Granted, things can be manipulated more quickly, and experimentation takes seconds instead of hours.

--
fjohn
 
Thx troy

Thats also a very dynamic shot. Very creative idea with that "wave" of sand.
And a very good example for this thread.

Two totally different messages carried within the "same" pic crafted by the artist.

I still like to fantasize my little seal into it :-)

wiki
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top