Blåvand

David is actually saying the same thing I was saying ... photography vs photography art - you have the thing itself and then the thing altered. It's a pretty simple concept that I see many here already comprehend.

Best, Simon.

You are right about the fact that images manipulated in PS doesn't necessarily mean they can't be done in the darkroom, but that image cannot be done in the darkroom. Period. The only process that could possibly increase sharpness through color and filters is via dye transfers, MAYBE with orthochromatic films. But then you lose so much else. I guess you can do it with contrast, but then you have a whole other slew of other problems afterward. It sounds like you have some kind of magical tool which I think just about any professional would give their left leg for. As it is, if an image isn't in focus, it isn't in focus. That said, you can't make a sharp image sharper. Focus is done in the camera, not the darkroom. Same reasoning. Find me a tool, that without reducing the size of the image, can actually hyper sharpen the image while still maintaining full contrast, luminosity, tonal, and zone range. You should read any literature about Zone System Technique. When you take your meter reading in a zone 3, how do you then keep your total separation increment between zone 7, 8, and 9 without your zone 10 overwhelming your high values? As a master printer, you should have no trouble answering this, but if you can answer this, you will then understand why this can't be done in a darkroom.

As for Adams, White, and Weston, among many others, they are but a few of the pioneers that blurred the lines between art and photography. Please excuse the old adage, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps you need to read the full post though. I would assume you did already since I also posted the link. Very rarely, VERY RARELY, did they ever represent ANY of their work as a faithful replication of what was really there. That even said, most of what they did produce, can be seen with the naked eye. I also think you need to reread and reinterpret my use of the words context and content. If you need me to, I can explain in further detail what was meant.. As for your personal comments, send me an email and we can go head to head in private. This is not the place for it. I am not a fan of photoJ (as again, is clearly illustrated in my porfolio on here), but I think you tend to bend the rules of image fidelity and ethics to justify something that I haven't quite figured out yet.

PS, you keep using terms like "approximate." The term approximate implies not the same, but only similar.

My apologies for the triple post, I am fully aware that it is taboo.

I don't think throwing out names of previous greats is really a good comparison for this image that was created very recently. We all know that the very first image was highly distorted by today's standards, but was, at the time, still considered a faithful capture of reality. That reasoning holds very closely to the standards and full capacity of photographic equipment then. The bar today is far higher as technology is greatly superior. By today's standards, those far older images look so vastly different from what is created today that it would be photographic blasphemy to call them photoj if they were created recently. But wasn't it photoj back then? If I used photoshop now to create an aged image in the likeness of something from 1900, it would probably be considered art, rather than photography because I'm changing context. The change in technology has changed the context inherent in viewing an image/photo. Understanding that an image is 150 years old establishes the context. We understand then why the image isn't the quality we expect today, but still accept it as a faithful representation of reality THEN. Civil War photography for example. I also think the semantic boundaries need to keep closing in as technology increases our ability to capture life. I agree with Simon's sand line location.

The intent of the final image also changes whether it is art or photography as well. Ansel Adams, among others, knew they were changing the context. And I'm not talking about the context of the content in the image, but the context of the viewer's understanding of it. I think most everyone considers his work photo art and not reality.

Am I to understand that you don't feel that photography can be art? That there is a distinction between the two? If I want to be a photographer then I can't be an artist? Maybe you should read people like Michael Fried's "Why photography matters as art as never before" but hey, it was published by a secondary publisher, Yale University Press, and he is known as an art critic, so probably useless to this conversation?!?

The arguments the two of you are making just don't fall into the mainstream art world, although there are many who find this sort of post processing distasteful, it is part of photography. To separate photography from art is certainly not where I sit or want to sit!

To each his own, I suppose?

A. There is no reason to yell at us.

B. Who said photography can't also be art? When does art become photography? Exactly. Photography becomes art. Not the other way around. But when that photograph becomes art, it is art, even if only by the slightest most disillusioned definition. Art encompasses photography, not the other way around. Adding the word "photography" to the beginning or the end of "art," doesn't remove it from the realm of art. The moment "art" is added to "photography," the photograph is removed from the realm of photography, and falls into either the ambiguous range between art and photography, or just art alone. It is no longer represented as photography, but rather art. A piece of paper is a piece of paper, but when anything is written on it, it is no longer just a piece of paper. It IS still paper, but obviously falls into a new paradigm. It becomes literature, scratch, or ANYTHING but just a piece of paper. It becomes something special (which goes back to my original argument about what it should be represented as based on context).

C. The original argument was when a PHOTO becomes ART and whether this "photo" should have a different nomenclature attached to it. We suggested "image" rather than "photo." Obviously, photography is part of it.

D. By abandoning your entire original argument, are you saying that this image can't be done in the dark room?

E. By your all encompassing definition of what photography is, I suppose I can take your portrait, perform a swirl filter, motion blur filter, make you green and blue in skin tone, cut out random sections of the "photo," add some random daisies, and still call it a photograph... Right? OF COURSE NOT. So back to the original question. At what point does a photograph, after a certain amount of post processing and manipulation, it become something other than a photo--not just art, but SOMETHING OTHER than a photo?

F. Michael Fried? Really? He's about as unoriginal and cynical as Robert Hughes and regurgitated about as much as that faux philosopher Confucius (I'm a literary snob and I embrace that). I'm quite familiar with him. Like I asked before. Please post specific examples and methods, and define what you think "art" and "photography" are. Otherwise, this argument is pointless. I mean come on, it's photo.net and we're arguing ethics and philosophy here. Not writing legal documents. It's not finite. Simon and I only expressed when WE think the photo falls into another dialogue.

And thank you to the Elves for creating a site that embraces discourse and gives us the opportunity to light up some long heated debates. Kudos to you all for a job wonderfully done.

I've said my piece and now bowing out of this argument.

Also, my apologies to you Christian for this argument taking place on your portfolio. I hope you got something out of it though. I know I did. He he.

--David Kilper

I completely agree with Davids analysis ... it is exactly what I was stating myself though I baulked at further exposition of the subject knowing that the results may lead to further debate mired in futility. David made those very same points in a cogent and sober manner ... as I said myself ... there is photography and then photographic art - the thing and the thing altered. Nobody is suggesting you can't be an artist AND a photographer at the same time, but it must be understood that while the person might be both, there is a point where the work is not both but rather two separate things. This is achieved by way of a transformation of the work, in process. To me, the image we are looking at started out as a photograph and has now been transformed into graphic art or something more akin to poster art - it is no longer a photograph but rather an image. Thank you David for pursuing the topic in the manner you did - it saved me a lot of typing.

Best regards, Simon.

I think one of the beauties of this forum is that at the end of the week, we do have the opportunity push off into areas of discussion that are stimulated by an image but maybe more philosophical.

My problem with this discussion, and it is a rather endless one on the internet, is that nobody who takes this stand can ever cite anything other than their opinion or that of others who chime in. There is no authoritative voice that supports this limitation of the field of photography, to this extent, except in the specific world of photojournalism. To say that Ansel Adams, Minor White and Brett Weston blurred the line between photography and art is inexcusable and ignores the entire history of photography. Such unsupportable statements are one of the travesties of the internet--because it is written, it must be true?!? As I guess David's link was also supposed to point out?

It is a wonderful thing to have a strong opinion, however, it is just troubling when it is spouted as fact and yet never has any authoritative support. But opinion doesn't have to as long as it remains clear that it is opinion--and at least Simon did own it as such!

And to David explicitly, I don't see where I ever made any personal remarks/attacks here to you. If my reference to having relatives that were engineers is what you meant, it was only to point out that being something or being related to something is not the same--doing something for 30 years means a bit more I think. Even your comments regarding the zone system and containing disparate zones ignores many, and I mean many, commonly known techniques for doing just the thing you suggest. ( Compression developing, water bath developing, selective developing, two bath developing and flashing--let alone burning and dodging and there are more) And suggesting there is no way to sharpen a print in the darkroom ignores the unsharp masking that I mention several times, which is commonly known. Not all Master Printers got so deeply involved to get into pin registered enlargers, film holders and masking and sophisticated densitometer work, not even Ansel Adams, but they are techniques that were used by many in the industry and allow for some pretty phenomenal results--if you have the patience for it.

Please reread my posts so that you can correct the numerous assumptions and errors in your reply John. Thank you.

PS,
I don't understand how any more specific I have to be, and more detailed for you to understand my argument. You have cited no specific examples and the only one you did cite, was written. Yet you accuse me of regurgitating the written as if it MUST be fact and accuse me of not being specific (I never even used a specific written text like you accuse me of). I used algebraic equations, mathematical logic, specific darkroom techniques, and a flurry of other real world practical examples. You also might consider not using low brow English or an absurd amount of exclamation points if you don't want people to take offense to what you say. This critique has detoured into the stupid.

Coming here kind of late and seeing that so many comments had been already posted and trying to absorb at least some of the gist of the entire colloquium, I would just like to add that I really like this image. I think it is engaging and entertaining. Perhaps not extremely deep and sublime, but certainly noticable. For example: I could see something like this being very effectively used in some advertisement.

I can express only my subjective feeling looking at this photo. I think as well that each member that is writing a critique ,positive or negative,is still writing his personal/subjective point of view. And I don't know why many of the POW ends up with bad digression of unpleasant tones ....

I don't find this photo amusing, which I think was one of the reason it was chosen, but over done and kind of a
gimmick. For me it has not any significance .Maybe for sport's wear advertising it may work out.

Nice capture...The gesture is very good and I can feel his feeling inside!
Good tones and worthy shot for discuss.
Regards(Bobby).

Images like these are exactly why the more I dive into photography, the less I like digital. This really is not photography, though- more like someone saying "this is what I can do with PhotoShop". And in that regard, it barely even qualifies as a photograph. I do not think the image works at all.
-Arthur

I agree with Arthur, and this photographer should put down his cameras take up brushes and canvas. The only moment this image captures is the one of indecision as to what his art and his software techniques are trying to achieve.

Arthur:
I see what you mean. I didn't notice it at first. You're completely right. This is a heavily digitalized, reworked image. It is not a photograph.

Don't like it, don't get it ! This is not an interesting photo !

Arthur Smith and Keith Robinson are on such a different planet from me that I cannot find words by which I would expect them to comprehend my contempt for their responses.
Christian, ignore them. They are narrow-minded dinosaurs. Continue to express yourself in whatever way you choose, using whatever tools or processes enable you and satisfy you, whether they be photographic, digital, chemical, wet, dry, sticky, organic, hairy, edible or whatever.
The comments I see on this website, photo.net, are, with a few exceptions, so smug, self-righteous and annoying, and ignorant of what consistutes art, whether of photograohic origin or not, that I will never cross this threshold again.
I shake the dust of you from my sandals. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

A very skilled and cool look in this image. But the figure looks posed and a bit awkward. If he is supposed to be falling/slipping and showing fear, it does not work for me. It bugs me a bit that the detail of hair on one leg is handled differently on the other leg.

But again, great processing.

C'mon, Bettie. Quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think.

I find the photograph far too over-processed to work for me. In fact, the edges around the central character suggest to me that this is a composite work... not that there is anything wrong with that. However, the sharply defined edges detract from the photograph. The face is so overdone as to be almost cartoonish in contrast to the rest of the body. Nonetheless, interesting application of Photoshop mods to the pic.

Sorry Havent read all the other comments but to me the discussion here should be less about photoshop Vs photography and more about bad photoshop with respect to this image.
Everyone agrees the image is heavily post processed. Look at how the hair on the legs are treated, its different on each leg. Look at the sides of the pinky finger on the hand, clear white matte lines are visible (defringe my friend, defringe), it looks like a sloppy cutout. And then whatever that object on the right of the image with the grafitti (isabel ??) is from another shot but looks like it is of much lower resolution than the rest of the image, anyone else see the pixellation at the edges and bluring

I do like this picture, it has humor, there is a lot of attention, even if it is overdone, I am not sure what it means if it is photography or art, for me it is a connection between those two, I would not have this on my wall, but it doen't mean I don't like it.
congrats with this POW ... more people will look at your portfolio, and that is quit interesting

-Els, Netherlands

What is this photoshop effect/handling called?

Im looking for some tutorials.

Postprocessing is good if it serves a reasonable purpose.

IMO this photo could be funny for photographer and for the model. I do not find it funny at all.  What means of expression uses the model? Is he yelling, is he kicking photographer all of joy? What means of expression uses the photographer, what is the outcome of this work? Does the photoshop trick stress the joy of life? This is nonsense.