passage

IMO, using digital imaging technology as a means of working around the technical limitations of film-based photography doesn't make the resulting image any less of a "photograph." Likewise, using digital imaging technology as a more expedient or exacting way of accomplishing something that could have been achieved using conventional methods doesn't automatically make the resulting image any less a photograph, either, as some people would have you believe.

It's only when digital imaging technology is used to create something that never was or never could be that I believe the connection with photography is severed.

That's not to say the resulting product isn't art or that it isn't good art but merely that, IMO, it's no longer photography. Just as a painting becomes a mixed-media piece when the artist attaches pieces of wood to the canvas, photographs become digital art, for lack of a better term, when the original image is manipulated beyond reality or in ways that can't be duplicated using traditional photographic techniques.

In this case, because the image in question could have been created using conventional methods (but only with considerable time and effort), it falls within my definition of photography. That I don't particularly care for it -- there are other images in Maurice's portfolio that I like much better -- is neither here nor there when it comes to determining whether it should be properly classified as a "photograph" or "digital art."

;)

Eerie, beautiful, striking, haunting...I don't really have 1000 words, but I'm sure there are that many out there to describe what you've captured...Love the touch of color. Wonderful!!!

Regardless of the medium, regardless that I look at it and think "horizontal motion blur, perhaps a color layer set to multiply" and regardless to the digital vs film debate... what is this picture of?

 

To say it exists merely as "art" is a cop out.. Andy Warhol said something to the point that you only call your work "art" if no one will buy it.

 

I see a girl with green skin and a pale yellow dress on a blurry background, I don't see beauty, I don't see any contrast of sorts, doesn't convey emotion, what is the idea behind it, what is trying to be communicated?

 

photo.net really needs a description field where the photographer can share a bit of what he was thinking, a one word title isn't enough and there are just too many comments to read to try and get the summary.

Frankly, speaking I dislike any digital manipulation on photos (although I deal with digits every day). But I have no objection to this one because similar effect is to be achived by traditional methods in a darkroom. My point is that I do not understand such strong opposition to digital manipulation. At first glance it's obvious that there was manipulation involved and everything is clear. Much more puzzling are pictures manipulated in more realistic way as for instance: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=120574

To reproduce thoughts of any substance in a graphic media it is no triviality, it requires, most importantly a tremendous intellectual effort. An esthetical self appreciation of a pictorial object we may produce does not elevate it to general interest. This obliges us to question the validity of each manipulation we generate.

So when we add, in any form, elements to a photograph we have to ask ourselves if we are not mainly decorating it.

In a complete work of art any part of it is necessary, and if we suppress any of its components the overall result loosens by it, (someones elses saying in my bad English).

To add or modify photos digitally has inherent the dangers of its own potential, one is able to produce substantial changes rapidly, but not always for the better. A perfect example of this are last weeks grotesque frame, and this weeks, somehow tasteful, but completely avoidable coloring of the dress.

 

 

Another questionable POW choice (although last week's took the cake).

 

Underwhelming photo (and yes, I have seen the original), dressed up as surreal digital evanescence. Just because Maurice used "PHOTOshop" doesn't automatically make this a PHOTOgraph.

 

 

I think the admission standards for "POW candidate" need to get a little tighter here. Some of the comments above (and on other photos lately) indicate a loosening of standards and a blurring of definitions as to just what is "photography", at least as it pertains to a site proudly named "photo.net". I have my own preferred genres, but claim no special status for them as "true" photography. But ask yourself....

 

Q. "How far is this removed from the camera and the lens?".

 

A. "Too far"(?)

 

A bit of feathered lasso around the girl, invert the selection, motion blur and desaturate does not constitute rocket science. Can this really be said to be a "photograph" eligible for photo.net? Or is it a piece of graphic art out of the "Cool Tips" chapter of the Photoshop handbook?

 

Have a look at the original here http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=361759 and by all means ask whether it says anything particularly original, interesting or challenging. Does it say anything new about models on catwalks or NYC? Did the photographer capture some defining "decisive moment"? Is there some subtle social comment, or even social wit about it? Is the result of the motion blurring a photograph?

 

Go back to the mirror and have a good look at yourselves and, while you're at it, your critical faculties. Nothing against Maurice, but this is really an example of manufactured image generation, with only a hint of genuine photographic content.

 

 

I don't divide photography into film vs digital. Instead I divide it into capturing feelings in scenes that already exist, creating scenes to capture feelings and non-feeling.

 

It takes a lot of talent to get on film (or in pixels) what you want. Just because a scene is naturally there, doesn't mean that it is any easier to capture. Just because a scene isn't there, doesn't mean that it is any harder to capture. The art and genius of photo and pixel - ographies lies in getting your vision out. That is where I think discussion should lie.

 

I belong to a photo chat group that meets every Thursday. We spent an entire session last month discussing a painting. The rules of art are the same no matter what the visual media. The only difference is the techniques used to manipulate the elements.

 

That said, I can fully understand why there is a debate whether pixels are photos. I come to places like this to learn and see techniques to make my vision reality. There are some shared techniques between digital and film, but there are also a lot of differences. It is frustrating when I flip through magazines and a big portion is devoted to digital. That takes space away from what I want to see.

 

I think this particular art work is interesting and manages to show the feelings the artist wanted. Is it a photography? I wouldn't necessarily call it that, but art is art and does the media really matter?

 

Jeanie

Sorry to say I like the original better.

Not art for me. I don't get it. As a photo, it is OK, but way over done. To each his/her own.

For me, Nick's original comments hit the nail on the head and, unfortunately, since his and a some other measured and thoughtful musings on the "digital art" debate, the argument has turned into a clash between film vs digital when surely this is an issue of photography vs art.

 

I'm a film devotee but I have no problem with photographs taken in digital format or digital darkroom techniques, provided the goal is to recreate the effect at the moment of exposure.

 

However, just because a certain filter in Photoshop can also be recreated in a real darkroom (blurring as explained above, for example) doesn't mean that the final product of the darkroom can still be considered a photograph either. To me, whether the effect that Maurice has attained was achieved in in PS or in a darkroom, the final product is *art* and no longer a photograph in the true sense of the medium because it is not what was there at the scene. That is not to say it isn't a pleasing image, it just isn't a photograph and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

*That* is where the suggestion that we should somehow differentiate between art images and photographic images on photo.net (a la PhotoCritique) comes in to play; not through any opposition to digital art, but through a desire to evaluate each art-form in its own right.

 

Perhaps this issue raises the suggestion that photography and photographic art should have their own area of photo.net devoted to them so that they *can* be appreciated on their own merits.

...to be honest i wish this week's pic could've been a bit more patriotic.

I like the picture very much. The only thing that would have made it feel more comfortable to me would be different shoes or no shoes at all. Those shoes look uncomfortable (though the model looks very relaxed and comfortable). Given the airiness and dreaminess of the picture, I would prefer different footwear or none at all and to see some space below her feet.

As it is, it has a more commercial feel to it, though beautiful it is.

 

Regarding the digital/film thing. I think the argument that manipulation removes the image from what was originally seen through the viewfinder is not adequate to separate digital images from film. What you see through the viewfinder is often not what you want to see on the film. What you see in your mind is what you want the image to look like and more often than not it doesn't come out that way straight out of the cannister or flash card, unless you have control of all the variables involved. We crop and intensify and dodge and etc. etc. and that is OK. If digital images or manipulation can take me to a place where I can't get with film and an an enlarger and a bunch of chemicals then fine. If digital can allow me to get the image I see rather than the one the tech at the photoshop sees then good for me, I'm closer to my vision than before.

If I want to blow up my film picture to focus on one little halide then great, If I want to do that with pixels on my computer, then great again.

 

I don't use digital cameras because I don't like the results of most affordable consumer-grade cameras, though this POW may change my mind, and because I think digital equipment is grossly overpriced. I will get into it and will have fun learning and experimenting when I do and I won't be trying to produce replicas of film pictures because I can do that now, with film. I don't take enough pictures to justify the switch based on cost either.

 

I use a neat program called painter classic and produced some digital paintings that I doubt I could ever do with the real stuff, but it is no less real or enjoyable. Photoshop (also overpriced) allows me to do the same thing with scanned pictures, things that I could not do otherwise. I don't think I should have to leave this forum to share my work or enjoy other's works when the products and results are so closely intertwined and similar.

 

Finally, for those wanting to understand this picture and really know the message being sent, relax and just enjoy it, don't fret over who thought what or what the deeper meaning is. I almost wish you hadn't posted the original, this picture stands up just fine without explanation.

Congratulations

For me the best an artist can accomplish is to ensure zero or minimal distortion between his/her impression and its expression in their preferred medium. For that, salutations to Maurice.

 

For the rest, read David Butler 2's critique....poetic rather than yet another prosaic soliloquy or conspiracy theory.

 

Behind the facade of digital v film (yawn) lies the real division in this community : experimental artists versus the fears of straitjacketed photographers. And just behind that........the delightful pealing of Posterity's laughter.

 

They are laughing with and for you Maurice.

 

 

I think Phil and Co. should sell T-shirts - to support the site, of course - that say "I Survived Being Chosen Photo of the Week".

I'd buy one...

I like your humor, Amy... But I think that wearing the T-shirt would only bring you more trouble, as people would start debating whether or not it was a "photo". And maybe if it's really a T-shirt, after all. Are T-shirts supposed to be 100% cotton or is some polyester acceptable? ;-)

 

On a more serious level, I find the debate over photo (on film or numeric support) vs manipulated image fascinating. I tend to agree with those who see Photoshopping as a distinct (but valid) art form, but my mind is not absolutely set.

 

I wonder if there's any historian of art around? I'd like to know how painters reacted to photography in the 19th century and how photography finally became accepted as an art form on its own right. Maybe we're going through a similar process right now.

 

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.........I like the pic. There I said it. Why you ask? Why not I say.

 

And for Jeanie R. "The rules of art are the same no matter what the visual media"

 

Rules?

 

 

I entered to the PhotoNet in April and found that there were many photos manipulated in a Photoshop.

As time passed by I've got used to it.

There was even POW manipulated: Red ball water line (CBX04)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=194739.

And now I am astonish to find that there are so many eager to disscuss film versus digital matter.

Have you ever guys seen a photo from an electron microscope. They are lovely B&W contrast photos

showing what no one could imagine. But they are obtained by means of electrons (electron waves are much shorter that ligth ones). My question is: Are they photos any more? You're going too far I guess. We're all living in a world based on technology .

"I wonder if there's any historian of art around? I'd like to know how painters reacted to photography in the 19th century and how photography finally became accepted as an art form on its own right. Maybe we're going through a similar process right now."

 

A thought-provoking comment, Philippe.

 

So was this, from --Dennis--

 

"Photography is writing with light."

 

All my pictures have been through Photoshop. I've tried to do no more than could be done in a darkroom (only more thoroughly) and with a retouching brush. No extra heads, no motion blurring, no telephone poles removed (well, a white lie: I DID do this in one of my pictures here, but I told my wife, who was with me at the time of exposure, that I would be doing so and she agreed [no small concession, I assure you]).

 

May be the question is: did Maurice envisage his final result at the time of exposure?

 

I still don't like the picture much, but the comments have been thought-provoking, at least.

 

From the Old Dog,

 

 

Let me congratulate you on your acumen regarding the precise technical details you provided on how i manufactured this image (A bit of feathered lasso around the girl, invert the selection, motion blur anddesaturate does not constitute rocket science). Resourceful butunfortunatly, wrong. wrong on all counts save for the motion blur bit.While i wish it had been that easy, it is not my intention here to digin the boring and dirty bowels of my "teknotekniks"

I'm glad you left your second comment as i was ready to embark on anreply focusing on why you centered the bulk of your criticism on an original image i've choosen to expose only to show what i thought were even more serious flaws than the ones here. You must have noted that it's not uploaded for public viewing but can only be accessed through the link i provided. The fact that the original was never intended to be uploaded at all might also be a point you'vemissed

Your second comment made things so much easier for me: "(May be the question is: did Maurice envisage his final result at the time of exposure?"

Tony, i wasn't even looking in my viewfinder when i shot the original, how could i have known what to expect??? All i know is that i wanted that woman on my digital card. I wanted her face, her dress and part of the veil behind her... I understand that you are a photographer. And a damn good one. it is your life. For me at best, photography is just starting to be a little more than a hobby... my life and death are not yet hanging at that precise, forever gone millisecond. You have a superbly trained eye, the brain to follow or guide that eye and you master your equipment almost like no one else here at photo.net... and you shoot to kill. Every single time. i can tell that you are relentless and determined in your pursuit of the perfect shot where you see, i couldn't care less about mine... that should be obvious enough in my all-over-the-place-photos and nothing against your noble pursuit, far from it...

One thing i'm bad at, which could have helped, is explaining and defending my choices. I'm worse still at defending my motivations for, so often, i have absolutly none: no social commentary, no artistic statement, no predicated theory, no story only the desire to capture what is there, in front of my camera...

In the case of this particular image however, the funny thing is that i did have some specific, deep personnal motivations. And, believe me if you will but they were never about saying something new on models catwalking in NYC. Others have the desire and can do that a thousand times better then I would ever be able to and I will be the first to cheer when it is well done. But this image is not and has never been, in my view, a happy image, even in its raw format. I thought my choice of these very colors (as well as my conscious choice of leaving that dark cloud around her face when I could have so easily dodged it) was enough to convey that. Apparently not, but look closely to the right here, Tony, and you will see the arrows that are about to pierce her heart (I did try to add emphasis/contrast to that particular area though maybe, not enough)... these were the thoughts I was having, waving around my magic wand, manufacturing that particular image And yes, images of St Sebastian were my departure point

Different paths for different trains, different threads for different brains now as far as the result is concerned, what can I say? You've got your views and I've got mine

Cheers again
Maurice

I've recently rejoined the photography world after selling my AE-1 11 years ago... I haven't regained the experienced for detail but first sight of the photo catured my attention... It's a trully great photograph...

The background is quite distracting, and the motion-blur seems to be too much, as if she's moving faster than possible (given her pose).

A point of clarification and then a reply to your comment. I found the original by just visiting your portfolio. No special links as far as I could see (but maybe I wasn't looking for them either).

 

I apoligise about the trivialisation of your post-exposure photoshopping technique. ARE you a rocket scientist?

 

The statement that you "couldn't care less about" your original images worried me, as did the later comment about your motivations in making a photograph: "no social commentary, no artistic statement, no predicated theory, no story..." (especially as you go out into the streets and come back with so many pictures of the people in them).

 

So, you don't care about your photographs' subject material, and you so often have nothing of import to say in them? Can you tell me, just what are we supposed to be critiqueing here then? A document written with light that means something (to someone), or a random exposure born of nihilism with some overlayed special effects added later?

 

If it's not the original exposure you're interested in (and therefore can't in conscience claim any personal credit for) then all we're left with are the special effects, which may have a place on a web site somewhere else, but not on a site dedicated to the authentic and considered photographic efforts of its members.

 

There are so many good and earnest photographers here on photo.net who DO care about what they're doing when they make a photograph, who DO have something (even if trivial) to say with their images. Although I can't prove it, I think this image (given your admissions as to its origins) goes at least one step too far away from the original to qualify as a photograph. It is an image, yes. A piece of graphic art, yes. But a photograph? No.

 

I'm not accusing you of being a fraud or anything like that, Maurice. Please don't misunderstand me on this. You neither picked this image as a "winner", nor did you attempt to be anything but completely frank about your thought processes in making it. It's just that there are so many people who visit this site and care about what they do when they have a camera in their hand. I'm asking, why do we have images such as this, that derive most of their appeal from post-processing, taken by contributors who care little about the original scene or image, selected as Photograph Of The Week?

 

(...and the above comments have nothing to so with silver-gelatin versus CCD, which in this context is of monumental unimportance).

I think that this image is a good image.  Whether others agree with me or not, it does deserve to be POW simply because of the amount of conversation it has generated.

I AM one of those people who stays away from digital photography - I like being in the darkroom.  But, just because I don't use digital it doesn't mean that I can't admire other people's work.  With many professional photographers moving from traditional to digital, I think that disqualifying digital medium from falling under photography is a bit narrow minded.  After all, music played on a record player or CD player is still music.

And yes, I still have my record player.  I sometimes enjoy the pops and clicks.  Congrats on POW (or image of the week or whatever it should be called).

Casey.

 

If you upgrade to a better turntable, it will sound quieter than a CD player.