timothy_eberly Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I see a number of images that appear to be nothing more than photoshop artwork. In fact, finding anything that resembles an actual photo is tough to do on occasion. Could you explain to me why these images are allowed on "PHOTO".net ? <br> Thanks, <br> -- Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Who draws the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 So maybe they're not allowed. It's not like the good folks here sift through each and every photo, making sure it's a genuine photo. I HAVE seen actual paintings displayed here by people that just didn't get the concept. Anyway, email photo.net and let them know specifically which images you're looking at. Things can be awfully abstract and still be a photo.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_mobbs Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 There are a lot of ways to view the question but first, I think, one has to ask, "who is being satisfied?" I recently blended two photographs that were taken moments apart and all I did was take the right and left halves of a scene and make them one. For my purposes it is perfectly acceptable. To enter it in competition is quite another matter. I don't mind removing distractions from photos but if I post anything here where anything is added I prefer to reference the image as an illustration rather than a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 What's an "actual photo"? Have you ever worked in a darkroom? Do you know what can be done there? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 "finding anything that resembles an actual photo is tough to do on occasion." you must be typing on a braille keyboard if you cannot. why do you care so much about the infintessimal few that are artwork? skip 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 thomas, to be fair to you, i took your comment at first to mean artwork without an image. if you mean composites, photos with things added or cloned out, etc., i admit that is a different story. but having been around here for about three years, i can tell you its long been accepted practice to do that kind of thing. there's a box about manipulation in the details section of each photo, and definitions that people are supposed to follow. but digital cameras have brought the composite into the world of photography, and certainly the world of photo.net, in great abundance for better or for worse. there was a photo of the week a couple of weeks ago, i think called smoker, that raised the issue, worth reading the discussion if you haven't already, to see where photo.net participants seem to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dai_hunter Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 If you subscribe to the theory that photography is "light (photo)" + "writing (graphy)" >AND< a computer screen is a tablet upon which electronically / electrically generated light is used to create a graphic image... then is it photography or isn't it? example 1<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dai_hunter Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 example 2<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dai_hunter Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 example 1 and 2 are Avatars - completely synthetic computer generated images. OTOH here is a computer manipulated image derived from a conventional photograph... Is it still a photograph?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Timothy you aren't the only one that notices that. :+( Jeff please some of us have worked in a darkroom and still don't have to manipulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 For me a photo is not about how much manipulating is acceptable, it is about how an image was recorded <i>and</i> if there exists some kind of physical original that can be looked at by the human perception apparatus without technological extensions. <p> A photo is an <i>physical image</i> created by actual photographing, e.g. light-tight box and developing. The best examples for this are a nice color slide or a polaroid. Although digital files can be written on film so that they look like a "real" slide or negative, even then they are no photographs because they were created in a software environment. <p> A digital image is just <i>machine-readable information</i> that may or may not be interpreted by some microprocessor-controlled device running the appropriate software to show or print this information in some kind of pre-defined image file format standard. Feel free to try to open and print your digital "photos" by other applications than your picture software (e.g. a text editor). You will see "that there is no picture".<p> What happens in a darkroom is making a print. Printing is another craft (or fine art) that is quite different from photography, although they have a lot of technical stuff in common. An excellent printer and an excellent photographer are very seldom the same person as these two arts require different skills and different creative approaches. By the way, a good darkroom "technician" is a lot harder to find than a good photographer. These people have my utmost respect, but what they do is not photography and they are not needed for photography, because the photo <i>is already there</i>.<p> But I know lots of you folks might disagree with making a distinction between "taking the shot" and "printing the shot". Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_eberly Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 I thought one could use common sense regarding this topic, but I guess that is not possible. A photograph is taken with a camera. Some of the stuff I have seen on Photo.Net does not resemble anything a camera could produce. Is it really that tough to figure out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Timothy, there is no such thing as common sense when it comes to what is a photograph and what is not so don't even bother trying to figure it out. Ignore what you don't think meets your criteria and spend your time viewing the things you are interested in. PN is the wild, wild west of photography, with viewers that half know something about image making to complete numbskulls that would not know a good photo if it bit them in the butt. Don't take things personally if someone makes a nasty comment or low rate and don't get a big head if the opposite occurs. Crank out some interesting photos and eventually a few like-minded people will appreciate your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_eberly Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 <i>"there is no such thing as common sense when it comes to what is a photograph and what is not..."</i><br><br> Oh, is that how it is? A select few are incapable of comprehending the nature of a photograph, so therefore there is no such thing? You know, there are idiots that insist on breaking the speed limit. Should I assume therefore that the speed limit doesn't exist? What a bunch of nonsense. <br> Understanding what a photograph is, isn't personal either, so why you bring that into this conversation is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Timothy, I love your attitude! You seem like a pretty rigid type of guy and have a pretty narrow view of what a photograph is. You should lighten up a bit and let your creative subconcious take over and make some interesting images that transcend the seriously structured state of your current mind. I think you will find it quite liberating when you no longer have to worry about what a photograph is or isn't. That's my story and I am sticking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_eberly Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 I am glad you love my attitude. What I don't understand is what my attitude has to do with it? <br><br> It's not about me, or my attitude. It's about images that don't look anything like photographs. It's really that simple. Let's not try to cloud the issue, and take it off topic by discussing anyones attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 is it a photo or not a photo?<BR><BR><img src="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-263.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 It's certainly not a photo, it's a camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Kelly, that is a flatbed scan (<i>digital image</i>) of a classic photo camera and therefore no photo in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 When it's a painting presented as a photograph and not as an example of how to photograph paintings. I griped about this months ago. Nobody cared then, nobody's gonna care now. For anyone who enjoys painting, as I do, I can recommend a couple of great forums for painters. (Nudge, nude, wink, wink, say no more...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Since this was shot with a cell phone; Is it therefore not a photo?<BR><BR>Since this actually published about 2/3'rd size in a newspaper; does this make it more legit?<BR><BR>If it was down with an 8x10 camera and glass plates; would it be more of a "real photo"?<BR><BR>If the camera listed was a Canon EOS; would that make it more of a photo or not?<BR><BR><img src="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-361.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 This is a combo of two images; shot with many stops different in exposure; one for the ice; one for the crowd in the nose bleed section. The 1.3 megapixel camera cost 80 dollars. Is this a photo? Would it be more legit if the girl was lite by a strobe or exra light?; and only one image was shot?<BR><BR><img src="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-371.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Is this a photo or not: ?<BR><BR><img src="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-310.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_eberly Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 Gee Kelly maybe everything is a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now