Jump to content

Photography or manipulation?


Recommended Posts

A large number of images I see lately in the Top TRP appear to be

more of a manipulation exercise that uses a photograph, or part of a

photograph as the starting point for the image, to the point where

the manipulation is now being passed off as "the photograph" Isn't

there some kind of point where the photograph/transition into a

manipulation (often poorly done)needs to be addressed? While I

understand that the digital darkroom is now the method for adjusting

photographs (I do it myself) I feel that a substantial number of

images are being passed off as photographs when this is clearly not

the case. The severity of the issue can be easily seen by going to

the TOP rated TRP images and then looking at the BOTTOM of the stack

(of) top rated images. The difference is noticable. While the images

at the bottom are often highly diverse, good and bad, crude and not

crude, the presentations appear to be going through a filtering

system that ultimately dumps out everything to finally result in a

large number of monotonously altered images with bright colors and

little else. The same images, and to a large extent the same

photographers are appearing over and over again. The sympton has now

spawned a large number of copycat images also poorly altered. For

those who like to post PHOTOGRAPHS, either film or digital, the

future is starting to look a bit grim....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For those <b>opposed to manipulation</b>, either film or digital, the future is starting to look a bit grim... because it appears this is where the future will take us, and those who drag their feet will be left in the dust. Photography is evolving as we speak. Technology is pushing traditional darkroom technique to its limits, and beyond with ease. This is frustrating for those who have lived most of their lives in the world of the darkroom, meticulously developing and printing by hand for hours just to get it right. Now, digital appears to make a mockery of all those photographers who have worked so hard perfect their skills in the conventional darkroom. But interestingly enough, I believe the same amount of skill and technique is needed to effectively manipulate an image, digitally. The only difference between the manipulation of the past and the manipulation of the future is time. Because it is so quick now, manipulation has become more fun and easy - which often results in aesthetic flaws - but in the long run will save the photographer time. Only through experimentation and practice comes perfection; and since digital manipulation is such a relatively new thing, everyone is experimenting and only a select few have managed to perfect the modern art of digital photography. It's a new set of tools that everyone is eager to learn how to use, because there is the potential to open new doors and rejuvenate your inner creative self.<p>

 

Personally, I am just starting to have fun with digital media... and I admit it is easy to "over do it", but one day, with some practice and failure, I'll get to the point where I can seamlessly combine both the old and the new.<p>

 

One thing I am afraid of is that the past of photography will eventually be forgotten. I'm lucky, growing up in the "transitional generation" so to speak, being exposed to both the conventional and digital processes and techniques... and I think this sort of exposure, knowledge, and awareness has really helped me grow as a photographer, and I hope will continue to aid me in the future.<p>

 

Digital manipulation is currently the new fad imo, and that would explain why the TRP is usually full of it. Deep inside many of us admire (or even envy) those who use DM with such ease and skill; those who manage to fool and/or inspire us with their synthetic renderings of reality... but isn't that what photography is all about? <p>

 

There should be room for both in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the TRPs are full of images that people like? Bright, saturated, manipulated?

 

Yup, that's just what you get with a popular vote.

 

Note that even Popular Photography changed its name to Popular Photography and Imaging.

 

Though Photo.net can't change its name so easily, I guess the Gallery could be named "Photography and Graphic Arts".

 

I don't much like it either, though fighting it seems like a losing battle. I doubt that photo.net could enforce "photography" and manipulation standards, even if it could come up with some and even if it wanted to. If it tried to, it would probably fail and on top of that it would lose traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once took a series of classes in AutoCAD drawing at a local college. The professor, after greeting the class, imparted to us some very fundamental knowledge which, to this day, I find applicable to all manner of software-assisted creative enterprises. Essentially, what he said was that we now possess, with the immense power of AutoCAD, the unrestrained egalitarian ability to create the world's worst drawings in record time, and to multiply the imperfections almost literally to infinity. <p>

A corollary to what he said is the old adage: "Garbage in...Garbage out". Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both postings above are highly valid. And truthfully, there ARE those who paint well, and who post images of their paintings, or others who skillfully use the digital media to compose images that might be abstract, or closer to Art/Painting. I see nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, because these folks present their images for what they are. I find it interesting and exciting to see that kind of creativity, and it certainly makes photo.net more interesting. The manipulation is see as being unfortunately far more successful is of a type that leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of end result. A number of posters appear to have the belief that by altering the photograph, it automatically is enhanced or turned into something exceptional. The attention that the images get proves that at least, they are partially correct. But for those of us who perhaps look for a bit more excitement, a bit more quality, and some more variety, and an image to look at for a while, these tricks just don't wash.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me most about the manipulations in the TRP isn't that they're manipulations, it's that they all seem to be variations on the same, rather kitchy manipulations. But I guess that is the definition of popular art.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree John but wheres the dividing line? With the advent of the wonderous digit seems its not so wonderous. By nature it falls 6X shorter than film resolution and is PS dependant. Gotta be sterilized and "neat imaged" to death...end result is a lifeless manufactured reasonable facsimily of a photograph.

 

This "look" appeals at first as something new and exciting. More jump onboard it becomes the "norm". The candy is wearing off and the degration of photo quality is apparent.

 

Now a master takes a beautiful pic with a 6x7 pentax and it sits on page 5. Not bad...but its not neat imaged...whats wrong with this guy? 4/5

 

A lot now have no clue. They see a real film image they start throwing accusations of PS!!!! its got too much colour!....like your a criminal....then they go process their digit stuff with ps to try attain the same effect.

 

Not anti digit at all, they take great snaps ... after that they are forced into art rather than photography because they just don't have the inherent qualities to take a landscape as a landscape looks...you know...with clear trees 5 miles away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Paul, that's an old assumption, sort of like the "secret carburetor that got 60mph, so GM bought the design and hid it from everybody in a hall closet somewhere and the inventor got paid millions not to tell anybody. (lost count of how many customers and mechanics told me this tall tale when I had my garage) I easily mix digital and film pics and nobody notices and once they're on photo.net they're ALL digital anyway, so that's a moot point. The point I wanted to make in this feedback string is that when an image is manipulated, folks are seeing it as a photograph, when that clearly is no longer the case. And while we don't have Elvis on velvet, a lot of the posted images are essentially just that right down to the blacked out, dodged out backgrounds....(Music...and ahm all shukup....guitars)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John I'm with you just said it in a round about way, maybe a bit offtrack in that high end digit doesn't apply so much but lower end just doesn't produce the results so requires heavy ps work. Should have said this wasn't a prob till the advent of the digit.

 

Then the mentality sets in and progresses from cloning stuff out to complete background switches and smudgeouts, burnouts etc and its becoming more than the accepted norm, but the expected norm. All day long i get comments wish listing objects should be removed and no matter how good its done it ruins the image, it just becomes a matter of tricking peoples eyes to satisfy a sterilized image ideal. A garden in real life doesn't have a lone flower sitting naked on 3 acres...theres stems etc around.

 

The problem really stems, imv, from the simplistic nature of the manipulation box. Theres a guy sandwiching skys and doing very well and i had no clue until reading the details he was honest enough to provide...but he didn't need to do that and he's the exception. Because people can, they will and the very definition of what actually makes a "photograph" on pn is way too loose. As long as it contains one pixel of photo base it qualifys as our ideal of a photograph, on paper...but the photographers don't think that way.

 

Your post John seems to be describing the symptoms and the root of the disease needs fixing. None of this was even an issue much until the advent of digital "darkroom", be it ps or within cam software. The manipulation criteria hasn't changed a bit since its inception although the technology sure has.

 

Either lobby to have those rules changed or go onto the images and question them as you were doing before, oh so well. Most don't have the time to disect and image or the knowledge like you do. Course you can't really do that here without suffering retrobution bigtime from those who want to pull the wool over, so a rule change would be the much prefered method don't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that some of the images on this site do not even resemble a photographic and would more accurately be labeled graphic art. With that said, I would like to comment on photography and image manipulation.<p>

 

This reminds me of the old advertisement, -Is it real or is it Memorex?

The argument as applied to photography would probably equate to, -Is it a photograph or is it image manipulation? The question itself fascinates and amuses me.

<p>

It is my understanding that the only way that man could provide a two dimensional visual representation of his world for centuries was to draw it or paint it. It is also my understanding that when anyone attempted this there were always many willing to critique the artwork. There were those that declared that the composition, proportions, colors and everything else associated with the painting was not a true rendition of the actual scene.

<p>

Then along came photography and the problem was solved. Right down to the last detail of the scene the artist/photographer was able to give everyone what they were looking for, an exact reproduction of what appeared to the eye. We can think of Ansel Adams photographing with such accuracy.

<p>

This method of photography may have been accurate but when you think about it, it wasn?t very creative. Beautiful, dynamic, breath taking yes, but not creative. So, somewhere along the way photographers began to express their creativity by manipulating the image. They did this through technology mostly. Telephoto lenses distorted the sense of proportions. Lenses created depth of field. Timed exposures and panning manipulated the sense of movement. Darkroom techniques were used to manipulate the image further by dodging and burning. Sometimes the photographer would combine two images together. Manufactures jumped on the bandwagon and offered different types of film that aided in the manipulation. High grain, low grain, heavy saturation, low saturation, warm tones, cool tones are some examples. Perhaps the biggest assist came from filters. With these you could really manipulate images. When taking a photograph the sky was really not that blue, the water was really not that clear, the skin was not that soft and the rust on that old nail was not that red.<p>

 

There were purists around at that time too. They cried foul. How could a photograph be a REAL photograph if it were subjected to so many manipulations? To them they wanted to stick with the Ansel Adams type images. Large format, fixed lens, timed exposures that offered a true representation of the scene.<p>

 

I hear the purist grumble today and can only chuckle in response. If you are one of them, then please consider this. How many things were done to enhance your favorite image? This my friend, is manipulation. The only difference between this and digital manipulation is the technology used. Instead of metal, glass, paper and chemicals the digital photographer reaches down to the smallest level of the image, the pixel, and changes that to his satisfaction. This is a lot like an artist with a dab of paint. Quiet appropriate since the inventors of this method of two dimensional image creation referred to it as photo graphic, or painting with light. <p>

 

So, bottom line for me is this. Any image that I see on this site or anywhere else is either well done or not. It is pleasing or not. It elicits an emotion or not. It makes me grateful I had the privilege of viewing it or not. That?s a good bottom line for me. It is why I joined Photo.Net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy thats very well said and totally rational. The cream should and will rise to the top and what dictates that is votes and opinions that influence votes or popular opinion on the images themselves.

 

Most highly manipulated images have no "soul" or feeling and there doesn't seem enough awareness that the O side of the vote concerns that....creativity, feeling, flavour, originality of use of lens or situation (not meaning subject). A of course visual impact...everyone reading this knows probably but the average voter may not, or seem to doesn't really make proper use of it.

 

Won't even mention the ratings system, the post might get deleted...but i just maintain theres not enough leeway in a 7 number vote with 10-15 end results to give a clear definition. If a decimal was added so you could go say ...6.2/5.6... would be 10x more accurate wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it is a matter of taste...I find that I no longer visit the TRP page. I used to experiment with applying watercolour or drybrush filters to my photo images. Now I am trying to use the software to pull detail from shadows, improve tonal range, and other techniques to make a better "traditional" image. Who knows what my interest will shift to by next year. It is too bad that one flavour of photographic image (or in some cases purely graphic images) are dominating the TRP. But still there are ways to find the other flavours on Photo.Net. The recent selection of Ian McEacheran's portfolio as a featured portfolio on the home page of Photo.net was a wise choice....his is some of the best work I have ever found on Photo.net. There is still lots of ways to enjoy photography and to enjoy photo.net.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"His work is rooted in the best tradition of photography. His vision is potential. His work is pure. It is direct. It does not rely upon tricks of process. In whatever he does there is applied intelligence. In the history of photography there are but few photographers who, from the point of view of expression, have really done much work of any importance. And by importance we mean work that has some relatively lasting quality, that element which gives all art its real significance... The work is brutally direct. Devoid of any flim-flams; devoid of trickery and any 'ism', devoid of any attempt to mystify an ignorant public...." -- Stieglitz writing about Paul Strand in Camera Work, 1916<BR><BR>

 

Paul Strand writing on his own methods:

"Objectivity is of the very essence of photography, its contribution and at the same time its limitation..." "Honesty no less than intensity of vision is the prerequisite of a living expression. This means a real respect for the thing in front of... the photographer... this is accomplished without tricks of process or manipulation through the use of straight photographic methods..."

 

<BR><BR> Isn't this issue you raise the old argument between the Pictorialists and the straight photographers. I've always admired Stand's independent vision and I'm grateful he pointed the way to realism. Some people prefer the unreal and some still like the Pictorialist's and now we have the neo-pictorialists. I think there is still much treasure to mine from the field Strand opened for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you forget that an online community is bound to be particularly digital-specific and manipulations are shown here because it's much easier to do them so that you can't tell them in a low-res image.

 

In real life, we look at slides and prints and they're the same as they used to be. Digital cameras bring new possibilities into making prints, they are easier to make and often of higher quality than conventionally made prints. And high-quality results can be made with more compact equipment than before. I'm still looking for ways to make better prints from my slides and negatives.

 

Using a digital capture device makes it easier to adjust images because there is no grain and in the case of good equipment, very little noise. So, it's more likely that a manipulation is attempted. However, at least I have no interest in manipulating my images further than what could've been done in a darkroom.

 

Why should you care what kind of images are exhibited in photo.net gallery pages? You do your own kind of work, and let it stand for itself in your medium of choice. For example, you can use them to make your own website, or a private gallery, or in some cases a public gallery or a book if it's really good or you have the inclination for that. Conventional photography still exists where it has been before. Just because there are new websites that exhibit graphic arts and call it photography doesn't make it so outside of that website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>If you want photography to stay where it was in 1916, it will become a fossil. But Stieglitz and Strand never represented all of photography anyway.</i><BR>

I'm happy with the advances in technology. Pretty soon the full-frame CMOS chip in the Canon 1Ds Mk II that I lust after will be affordable. I'm also happy with the advance in photography. Strand was just the beginning. I think much of photography has continued along the journey he began. Walker-Evans, Capa et. al., Nachteway, Magnum, photo-journalism in general. I've been looking a lot at Gene Smith's work lately. He takes liberties with realism and his pictures are staggering in their gritty emotional content coupled with beautiful light and processing. He has a foot in both camps. My point is that the original question is an old argument that was fought and won almost 100 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>My point is that the original question is an old argument that was fought and won almost 100 years ago</i><p>

 

Hardly. There are a variety of views of what photography is and that's the way it will always be. Put photography in a box and it will become a fossil. Look at classical music - all the experimenters and really creative forces were driven out in the 50s and 60s, and even some die-hard classical fans now complain about the "old warhorse" state of classical music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL VALID viewpoints. You can't live in the past, and the TRP is the NOW. But I was hoping that the TRP wouldn't look like a poster store at the mall..or perhaps those poster stores have a better grasp of the situation than I do...well that's it for me on this string. Good discourse, honest opinions IS possible without argumentation and name calling. Have a good week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the TRP looks like the poster store at the mall has nothing to do with manipulation. Before Photoshop, the most "popular" photos were typically travel brochure sunsets and cute puppies. The tools have nothing to do with the content, people want "simple" and "soothing" rather than complex and challenging. And, as I said, that has nothing to do with manipulation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree there Jeff. Popular art and serious art (thoughtful, challenging, original, grow in stature with time and much viewing) are not necessarily but often mutually exclusive. We want Karen Carpenter not Patty Smith. The audience for serious art has always been small compared to the shoppers of Thomas Kinkade at the mall. Thankfully serious artists follow some inner voice and not popular taste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...