Would you process a photograph to this degree?

[tom_rittenhouse1]

<p>There is fine art photography, and there is documentary photography.</p>

<p>Never the twain shall meet, for the first is an attempt to produce what the photographer sees in his head, while for the second he attempts to capture what his eyes sees. In my experience, most photographers work in one field. and do not understand those who work in the other.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well I would not really be bothered with the stiching but I am not against creating images that are not reality.<br>

I made some images involving a traveling toaster a number of years ago. They are in my PN portfolio here.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=659047</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>What difference does it make what <em><strong>I</strong></em> would do? The fact that the original photographer chose to do it that way is all the justification necessary.</p>

<p>No one has to conform to anyone else's standards in any part of photography. That's the Art part.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It is the difference between the documentary approach and the creative ..I would do things like that if I felt it improved the look of the image ... and recently did re-arrange the subjects, and imported another from an adjacent file, and created an image which the judge approved of.</p>

<p>Even in a documentary situation I can think of an example where the journo/photographer's straight shots did not tell the correct story but his manipulated one told it perfectly. Sadly he got the sack for merely manipulating rather than his errors in manipulation technique. </p>

<p>It is sad IMO that we do not trust the honesty of the photographer and rely on the honesty of the camera, which we all know frequently lies.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The photo left the building a long time ago. Its a collage now. It would look fine over the bar at Castille Belmonte Iberian Bistro to cover the <em>Naked Maja</em> mural. Oh wait! The<em> Naked Maja's Playing Cards </em>mural. I'd not call it "processing" I'd call it "arting". When I art a photograph it becomes another class of object in my mind.</p>

[dan_south]

Fred, what if perfect sunlight fell on two gentlemen kissing passionately on a bench in Golden Gate Park? Would the appealing light render that scene "schlock" in your eyes? Must photos be gray and shadowy in order to be taken seriously?

[richard_john_edwards]

Dan, Peter Eastway is a very successful photographer. I have been following his work since 1998. he holds the title of

master of photography, a title bestowed upon photographers by the AIP ( Australian institute of Professional

Photography). This title is awarded to person achieving consistent recognition for photographic excellence for their work over many years. Peter

started a photographic magazine in 1998 called better photography, well worth looking at. The magazine provides

beginners and experts with technical advise gear and manipulation. Peter demonstrates techniques in the magazine,

same as the article but sometimes to greater detail. Others works are also demonstrated, and technique shared. I think

something like that on PNet would be very helpful to some ( a page dedicated to the sharing of technique )

Peter use to manipulate his film based images with similar results. Showing that it is not only the digital media that

allows us to get some of the results he gets. Some of his work is really quite dramatic and amazing when seen

hanging on a wall.

So in summary, manipulation of an image is part of the process of photography, to the extent of that manipulation

depends on individual skill and desired outcome wanted. It's a choice thing. I personally don't, because I don't possess

the PS skills sufficient to do this, also I don't possess the desire either.

Regards RJE

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, what if perfect sunlight fell on two gentlemen kissing passionately on a bench in Golden Gate Park? Would the appealing light render that scene "schlock" in your eyes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd have to see it. It certainly could be schlock. I've seen a lot of schlock when the content is two men. Hallmark greeting card kind of stuff masquerading as "art." Then again, I've seen two men shot in a certain kind of sunlight done really well. There's a lot of different kinds of "perfect" sunlight. I have no idea what you mean when you say "perfect sunlight" without further description. Perfect for what?</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Must photos be gray and shadowy in order to be taken seriously?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It's not so much about the kind of light or whether it's shadowy or brilliant. It's about how the light is used, what it says, how and what it illuminates. Usually, for me, it's about being something more than pretty, something beyond pleasing and easily or superficially palatable. Schlock is an equal opportunity employer, gay or straight.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>"Would you process a photograph to this degree?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I would, then it is my fervent hope that I would end up with a more convincing result.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter Eastway... consistent recognition for photographic excellence</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everyone is allowed to have a bad day once in a while I assume....</p>

 

[richard_john_edwards]

Deiter, he may well have on that day, here is his website http://www.petereastway.com/AboutPeter01.php

[john_a5]

<p>Is whether the subject image is schlock or not even the point? It seems a sidetrack to me. The benefit of such illustrations is that one does have certain tools at their disposal and demonstrates how they might be used. Use them or not is different than having an understanding of what can be done and maybe learning and mastering of skills one might use or use on a more limited basis.</p>

<p>I have spent many hours working out how someone did an image. How they lit something or how they created an effect. In most cases, I wouldn't use the information or techniques I have figured out but I end up with some knowledge I didn't have before I started. I may use some part of it or I may find myself in a situation where I will end up seeing something I might have missed because I know something now I didn't before. As a commercial photographer, this can make a session a success that otherwise might have been for not. For personal work, it just gives me a tool I can choose to use if it makes sense sometime in the future.</p>

<p>Having knowledge has never hurt me, at least that I know of, but I do know that such things open one's eyes to things that might have never been seen.</p>

<p>Having skills honed, even if not used, often makes what we choose to do that much better.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>No, but I think Portrait Professional is an obscenity so that gives you an idea where my head is at on the subject of image/ subject modification.</p>

[dan_south]

> Is whether the subject image is schlock or not even the point? It seems a sidetrack to me.

 

Agreed. I didn't bring up the schlock angle. That gets into matters of taste which are always subjective.

 

Richard, I acknowledged that this fellow is accomplished, successful, and well-known. Apparently his highly manipulated

style strikes a chord with many viewers. It's just not my cup of tea.

[randrew1]

<p>Where does an image start? Does it start with the objects being photographed or in the mind of the photographer? For those cases where it starts in the mind of the photographer, there is no limit on post processing (assuming the photographer is not working as a photojournalist). Jerry Uelsmann was creating ethereal images decades ago with uprooted trees floating in the air. His work was regarded as fine art. </p>

[Mike D]

<p>Everyone has their own vision but I agree with those that think this particular image is a little strong, to put it mildly. Personally, my own vision is to post process an image until it emulates the experience of the original scene. Sometimes, this takes a lot of post processing. I remember when I was 7 years old with a Brownie and the pictures simply didn't look like the original scene. My whole goal since then has been to reproduce what I saw and experienced in that original scene. </p>

[dan_south]

To me this image goes beyond the bounds of photography. It's more like the digital rendering of a background for a

video game, which also might have been based on a photograph originally. Inventing trees that didn't exist. Squeezing

the image to make the trees and castle look taller. That's pretty extreme. It's not like removing a bird from the sky or a

freckle from a model's shoulder. It's too far removed from the original capture to be called a photograph IMO. It reminds

me of Andy Warhol's paintings based on soup can labels.

[MichaelChang]

<p>I'm surprised no one has posted a picture yet. </p>

<p>Dan, this is a picture of mosquito larvae. I don't know how it "should" be represented but here's my take on it. The entire "scene" was about an inch wide.</p>

<p>I'd be interested in how you might render a similar image?</p>

<p>[<strong>Disco Larvae</strong>]</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8308717-lg.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="422" /> </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>How about removing a bird from a model's shoulder or a freckle from the sky? or is <em>that</em> going too far.<br>

Those pesky lines in the sand... not sure what we're suppose to do with them, so I mostly ignore them.</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>If we were dealing with paintings, we'd basically be talking about realism vs. impressionism. For better or worse, most photography doesn't get labeled with a "school" like painting does. There's some "abstract" photography, but most seem to more or less take for granted that photography implies realism.<br>

Looking at the general question, I have no problem with that amount of manipulation at all. I've done a fair amount of work at focus stacking, panoramas, etc., that involve some pretty heavy manipulation (albeit, much of it automated with current tools). Much of that manipulation is often nearly invisible except to another photographer who knows (for example) that if you stop down far enough to get that much depth of field, you're not going to get anywhere close to that sharp of a shot.</p>

<p>For another example, fashion photography often involves pretty heavy manipulation giving a result that often looks little like reality. Even though many may not consider it "art", I'll go on record as saying that whether it's art or not, the result can be quite beautiful.</p>

<p>This shot, however, strikes me as rather the opposite in a couple of ways. The manipulation is heavy-handed enough that it's difficult to suspend your disbelief long enough to look at what's supposed to be there instead of what really is. Even if you do manage that, you're stuck with the fact that even the manipulated version of the subject matter isn't particularly special in itself, nor is it portrayed particularly well.</p>

<p>By analogy, this isn't Jessica Alba with makeup and lighting making her look better than any normal woman every could -- this is Roseann Barr with on-camera flash, with slimming and tanning done by a four year-old with crayons.</p>

[dan_south]

Michael, awesome pic! I wouldn't change a thing. Bravo!

 

Gordon, very clever. For the record, I have never removed a freckle from a sky, but I would if I felt that it supported the

image. ;-)

 

Jerry, brilliant (albeit nauseating) analogy.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It's too far removed from the original capture to be called a photograph IMO</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Where's the exact break point on this?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> Portrait Professional is an obscenity </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I seriously doubt the Justice Department would agree with you. Software is just a bunch of lines of code. Unless there's a secret message embedded in there that pops up on people's screens, this is quite absurd as comments go.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It's just not my cup of tea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge that and move on to things that are your cup of tea? What exactly is posting about it supposed to do? When I don't like photos, I just look at other photos. It's not like I'm trapped in a padded cell with a photo I don't like, and I doubt you are either.</p>

[dan_south]

> Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge that and move on to things that are your cup of tea? What exactly is posting

about it supposed to do? When I don't like photos, I just look at other photos. It's not like I'm trapped in a padded cell with

a photo I don't like, and I doubt you are either.

 

By that measure this entire forum would be useless except for matter of fact questions such as "Do they make card

readers for SD cards?"

 

Discussion helps us fine tune and clarify our own positions. Other viewpoints, opposing and sympathetic, expose us to more

information on a topic. Sometimes, I modify or even reverse my position on something when exposed to other viewpoints.

 

By the way, when I don't like a discussion, I move on to other discussions. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

[JDMvW]

<p>For some reason that I don't care to analyze here, this reminds me of, and prompts me to post one of the finest commentaries on professional images by well-known photographers (<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html"><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html">link</a>)</a>.</p>