Photography v Art

A 'Photography v Art' discussion has been brewing behind the Moderator Curtain, and we'd like to bring it into the public forums and get opinions from the wider TB community.

---

I remember seeing that blog - lots of good "artwork photos" ie: photos that through processing have an added element to them. Begs for a discussion on where art begins and the photograph ends, or if any distinction can/should be made at all.

Stephanie and Andras

And I recognized that this picture had been enhanced, as were many of the other pictures posted on the blog. I just do not believe that using technology to produce art diminshes the results. Indeed, using technology can also go the other way...producing rubbish by overdoing it. We shouldn't descriminate against the technology...just the results.

Home and Away

"We shouldn't descriminate against the technology...just the results."
100%!a(MISSING)gree!

The Travel Camel

I dont mind posed photos, whether groups or individuals. When using Black & White or grey scale, a top photo has a special way of enhancing by way of mood, lighting effect etc...

MargAndRob

---

At what point do you consider a photograph is no longer a photograph, but a piece of artwork?

Should postprocessing be minimal, despite many of the techniques being used in the digital era also having been available to photographers in the darkroom days?

With most cellphones now also being equipped with a camera, and postprocessing applications being readily available, it's easy to 'improve' photos in an instant. Should these get the same kudos as an image caught in camera 'as is'?
Reply to this

I frequently hear the modern day adage that thanks to Photoshop and other similar software, you no longer need to be a good photographer. While in certain circumstances that may be true, I still think that there is a defining line between photography and art.

Camera technology has come a long way over the past 20 years or so, especially with the introduction of digital technology. However, even today, with the exception of top end Hasselblad cameras, it is almost impossible to digitally capture what we initially perceive to be a great picture with our eyes and frequently find ourselves being highly disappointed when we see it on a computer monitor.

I freely admit to using Photoshop, although I limit myself to minor adjustments, such as increasing a picture's saturation, contrast or to remove a colour cast that clearly is detrimental to a shot. It is also great for removing skin blemishes or other small imperfections which could otherwise be embarrassing to someone you have captured. Why not use software to make what is initially an average shot into one that is great?

Just recently, I've started shooting more in RAW format which in my opinion is vastly superior to JPEG. Less post processing is required and the pictures are generally easier to manipulate being as so much more information is available to the editing program.

I think that photo editing is purely subjective, what appeals to one person will certainly not appeal to everyone. For example, I feel that many HDR shots always seem to be over processed, which gives them a rather artificial and almost synthetic appearance, but as they say, each to his/her own.

Where I do draw the line is with the physical manipulation of a photo such as changing the structure of a person's face or body or editing the picture heavily so that it no longer looks anything like the original. Once you get to this stage then the picture is indeed no longer a photo, but art.


Reply to this

Personally, I think this is a false diconomy. A well composed photograph, taken directly from a camera, qualifies as "art" with no post-processing whatsoever. The real question is whether manipulation of an image changes it from a true representation of a scene into a false one.

For me, adjusting things like contrast and color is acceptable; it duplicates what the truly dedicated have done using lenses and filters for decades. Modifying the CONTENT of a photograph crosses the line. National Geographic caused one of the first controversies over Photoshop by professionals when an editor repositioned a pyramid in an Egypian shot by a centimeter to get a better looking cover. Changing facial expressions, removing distant objects, changing the sky, and similar things (all of which modern software can do) turns a photograph into something else. Reply to this

Where I do draw the line is with the physical manipulation of a photo such as changing the structure of a person's face or body or editing the picture heavily so that it no longer looks anything like the original. Once you get to this stage then the picture is indeed no longer a photo, but art.

I would add that this can become deception where the photo is presented as representative of the original subject. Such as; slimming or stretching legs on modelling shots, adding in additional smoke in conflict pictures, or maybe adding a Death Star to a beach shot.







Adobe® Photoshop® is a powerful tool and should be used responsibly. Reply to this

Nick showed me the Death Star whilst I was in Vietnam, and a mighty fine piece of machinery it is. Did you know it can blast out Led Zeppelin songs on unsuspecting persons at 130 decibels?

Just to add to the discussion, this morning I remembered the rules for what many would consider to be the premier photo contests in the world - those run by National Geographic. Their Digital Manipulation Notice states:

A message about digital manipulation from the Executive Editor of Photography at National Geographic magazine:

Please submit photographs that are un-manipulated and real, and that capture those special moments in time. The world is already full of visual artifice, and we don’t want the National Geographic Photography Contest to add to it. We want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography.

Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs (beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness). If you have digitally added or removed anything, please don't submit the shot. We look at every photo to see if it's authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we'll disqualify it. In case of the winners, we will ask for the RAW files, if available, to be submitted for review.

DODGING AND BURNING: Dodging (to brighten shadows) or burning (to darken highlights) is fine, but please don’t overdo it. Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should be to adjust the dynamic tonal range of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw.

COLOR SATURATION: Just as with dodging and burning, your goal should be to make it real. Please avoid significant over- or under-saturation. A lot of photographers make the mistake of over-saturating color, making their images look cartoonish.

SOLARIZATION, MEZZOTINT, DUOTONE, ETC.: These are discouraged as being too gimmicky. There are a myriad of alteration "filters" available in digital photo software; try not to be swayed to use them. They may be cool and fun, but they won’t help you in this contest.

BLACK-AND-WHITE IMAGES: Acceptable

CROPPING: Acceptable

STITCHED PANORAMAS: NOT Acceptable

HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR) IMAGES: NOT Acceptable

FISH-EYE LENSES: Unless used underwater, they are NOT acceptable."

I think the words: "We want to see the world through your eyes" and that adjustments are made to ensure an image "more closely resembles what you saw" are the keys. Major manipulation is definitely artistic and it takes a talent to complete, but I wouldn't term it as traditional photography, nor photography in it purest form.

Reply to this

In response to: Msg #165498

Love that you posted this set of “rules”. I guess it’s a territorial thing, but having the Executive Editor of Photography at National Geographic here in the forum just gets me all excited.

“Please submit photographs that are un-manipulated and real.”…Okay firstly, they are allowed their own definitions of what is “real” because these are the rules to their competition.

But after stating that they, “don’t want to see the world through the eyes of Photoshop”; and that in fact they want “un-manipulated and real” photographs, they proceed to list manipulations they deem acceptable.

“Don’t enhance or alter…beyond the ‘basics’ to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness”.

Then they actually did it, they used the words “authentic” and “deceptive”… (or else) “we’ll disqualify ‘it’”. Brilliant.

Okay, so you think, I get the point: ‘manipulate to make authentic’. Got it!

…So, “dodging or burning is fine, but please don’t overdo it.” (Is it possible to overdo reality…maybe that’s why I don’t watch Big Brother?)

Colour saturation: “your goal should be to make it real” (Reality according to whom: the photographer, National Geographic, or to the philosophically debatable concept of objective reality itself?)

Solarization, Mezzotint, Duotone etc… “‘discouraged’ as being too gimmicky” (implied deception?) try not to be swayed to use them…they may be cool and fun (patronizing?)...but won’t help you win in this contest” (you tell em, sister!)

Then a list of things deemed “Acceptable” or “NOT Acceptable”. Oh and apparently FISH-EYE LENSES are NOT Acceptable, “unless used underwater”. One can only assume that this is because fish ‘authentically’ live underwater, perhaps? Who knows…?

I particularly love this sentence. “The world is full of visual artifice, and we don’t want the National Geographic Photographic Contest ™ to add to it.” They haven’t actually claimed that Nat Geo has never produced visual artifice; rather, they have merely stated that they would like to prevent more visual artifice via the photographic contest. This wonderful list of rules of course fails to mention most of the master-artifice-narrative ‘added’ to the world via their magazine. Non-visual artifice often gets added to photos via captions and the stories they accompany.

As I see it, this debate is simple: what used to be done in a dark room is traditional, real and authentic. What is done on digital in Photoshop is not…unless of course one is only doing what they ‘could have done’ under the old-system. This is totally normal and natural…but as with all traditions it will change; the next generation of photographers will never have used film, or a dark room, tradition will be reinvented as it always has done, as it always will be. And the rules - even these - dare I say it, will change…for better or worse.



This image breaks all their rules. But I swear the Gorilla said "RAW"




Reply to this

Shane.

Maybe putting in the extra work is the answer? I would have to agree that preparation is key and produces great results. Having seen you both at work, I understand why David and yourself always seem to produce such wonderful pictures.

I used to do a lot of portrait work when I lived in Sweden and had access to some rather impressive equipment. One of my favourite bits of kit was a portable Elinchrom Ranger flash unit which produced some fantastic results.

I took the two shots below back in 2006 and they are more or less straight out of the camera. The first required a little work to restore the pleats on the skirt, however the second was the product of a two minute fiddle with minor adjustments. The model's top in the first shot, could have done with a little work, especially around the waist area, but in all honesty I do actually prefer it that way.





Reply to this

What's inauthentic about gorgeous? Nick's Swedish lady with horse genre? No way.

Then there's the gorgeous girl in Saigon Shane & I photographed...you know the one Shane...no manipulation there...only required me to ask her! Reply to this

If I might indulge myself - this discussion seems to prioritize the judgement of sight over the other senses in describing what 'actually was.' While one might manipulate the pixels to create a representation that more closely approximates reality, if other adjustments better represent the sense of warmth/mystique/chaos/tranquility (or any other number of other senses) that the viewer felt at that moment - how is that not also representing a moment in time as honestly as possible?

Regardless of how digitally post-processed a photograph captured with a camera is, it is an image. In that regard, it is both a mere representation of reality, though still very much a real thing in itself. A signifier.

Is authentic photography that which strictly documents and signifies the visual field? Or can it also be used to as a medium for representing emotion, memory, thoughts and/or experience in a visual context? Reply to this

Photographers are not trees falling in an empty woods.

What one chooses to take a photo of, to include or omit, to wait for people to move out of the way, for the sun to be just right, to get permission or to snap away covertly, to be here not there ... whether adjusted before the image is snapped or after, photographs do not just appear from a place of purity and nature, because people make photographs.

Reply to this