Where do you put the line?

Clseeper

Only very new to photography but an avid follower of the advise and tips on this forum. Have yet to take a pic I would be happy to post.

Anyway I am interested in what you think is an acceptable level of ‘photoshopping’? Is a simple contrast/sharpness tweak enough? While a photo is used to capture a moment, does all this editing distort this view. Basically which is more important, to be visually pleasant or convey an emotion/message/snapshot in time.

I have spent a good bit of time viewing other people’s work for inspiration and styles. One link for http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ , are brilliant pictures, look like a scene from a fantasy film, are obviously a lot different from the raw images taken.

Basically where do you draw the line between digital art and photography?

Sorry for the ramble but I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Fajitas!

Hmmm, it's really hard to say, because the line moves from image to image, manipulation to manipulation.

I guess the manipulation line (for me) would be drawn where it's no longer the same image being shown, for example, if you have a really nice portrait, you can manipulate it to make it a better one etc, until you actually change the image. For example, put it into something else, completly change an aspect of it etc. As I said at the start, it's very hard to describe in words, sorry for that being so vague, but i don't have any examples to hand...

Flipflip

Theres been a few threads on this before if you search for it.

But I think the general feeling is that Photoshop is as essential as the darkroom for film.

Fajitas!

Well obviously most shots need post processing. I guess the line draws at where common sense and acceptence see's it drawn.

Borderfox

I think too much PS changes from a picture from photography to art. I generally use PS for processing raw pictures and cleaning up a background for a portrait imo

Fajitas!

What would be too much PS though (I know it's fairly hard to define)

Clseeper

Well what do you think of the photo's in the link? thats what got me thinking about it.

There are excellant pictures but is is too much. Its seems a bit unnatural.

Fajitas!

Hmmm...They're HDR's which is actually a very realistic type of photography. There wouldn't be a large amount of photoshop, other than stitching several images together, followed by simple fixes like contrast/saturation et al!

Cl, the technique is basically trying to make the photograph as close to reality as far as the eye can see.

ChityWest

I think thats down to personal taste - some HDR shots can go too far in my opinion -but I wouldnt call them digital art as opposed to photography.

On Dev Art there is a lot of mixing and matching between different mediums and this crops up quite a bit - in my opinion unless somone has added an outside element - like say a 3d image, or an airbrushed spaceship (as a wacky example) or portions of different photographs together - then its pretty much still a photo.

I think a lot of people dont think about the amount of darkroom tweaking & trickery which used to go on in classic film photography/developing/printing - the way I look at it is Photoshopping a picture is the modern equivalent for digital photos. I do think there is a thin line between the 2 mediums sometimes.

elven

I'm sure there have been plenty other threads but it's always good to start another discussion and maybe get new views on the subject.

I showed the husband a picture that I was working on in photoshop the other night. It was a scanned negative that I started with, and the original was really quite bland. I made the comment that I was pleased I could do something with it now because my photoshop skills have improved, and I showed him the new one next to the original to compare. I had used levels, hue/saturation, burned and dodged and added a vignette. He then said that he was struggling to see how I could still comfortably call it 'photography' and not digital art, or something like that, and I started my usual speech about ansel adams working on a print for days blah blah blah - but it did start to grate on my conscience so I’ve been thinking about it recently.

I used to use slide film, not just because I loved the saturation (aaah, Velvia...) but because with print film I was always so disappointed with the bland results that I got back from the standard high street labs. Maybe my exposures were off, I don't know, but they always seemed quite thin and drab to me. The slides, however, would come out as I took them and not be subject to any external manipulation, so I felt like I had more control. That being the case, isn't my digital manipulation simply a case of having as much control as I would have choosing the film - for grain, tone and saturation, and then controlling the processing - push or pull as required, then the printing – where you can dodge and burn?

So, the people who have a problem calling PS manipulation a part of photography, as such, would theoretically then have a problem with different film being available, with push processing, and with any kind of printing that isn't automated.

I think the line comes when you start adding things that were never there, and possibly taking things away as well (although I can't deny cloning out unwanted distractions fairly often which was beyond most darkroom processes) but if you're just working with the image as is and changing the contrast, hue and tones then I can't see where the problem would be.

The quandary with photography in general is that we're all struggling to try and capture something we've seen – with our eyes, which are pretty sensitive, finely tuned, infinitely complex organs – which is then translated into an image in our minds, using our perceptions of light and dark and colour – and our interpretation by the brain that can be influenced by our experience and imagination – and we’re trying to represent it on a piece of paper or a monitor with a limited resolution, range of colour and tone and is two-dimensional! I have noticed scenes like the ones in the pictures on Cambridge in Colour before, and really wanted to try and get a picture of them. I never have managed but the pictures I have seen either a) just don’t do it justice or b) don’t look real and are more like a fantasy film, as you say. This is simply because we don’t have the capacity to replicate the scene faithfully with the tools available and when we really try to push it, it goes beyond reality and looks fake.

I’ve strayed far off topic I think but ach. It just makes me wonder where photography is going to go, beyond my lifetime. Will we ever be able to really replicate reality in a picture? And if we do, will it still have the magic we know from the pictures we see today?

Far too philosophical for this early in the day... :rolleyes:

Borderfox

I tihink too much PS means straying far enough away from the original picture not to recognise it. It's a bit of how long is a piece of string. Personally I do as little PS as I can get away with, which to me means processing raw pictures and thats that.

Clseeper

No that def helps elven. I though it was just my lack of experience, knowing when to stop or what might improve the photo.

Zillah

I'll point out that not using photoshop results in unrealistic photos



I'd draw the line where the photoshopping becomes the feature, not the photo. Its very much a matter of personal taste. When it comes down to it, we're creating an arrangement of pixels, nothing more, so what exactly is allowed to be done to those pixels is highly subjective.

Fajitas!

Zillah wrote:

I'd draw the line where the photoshopping becomes the feature, not the photo.

Brilliant, I'll be remembering that one!

That's pretty much it spot on!

Borderfox

Well done Zillah, Quote of the week

Valentia

From the bowels of the web somewhere - Photography: [SIZE=-1]a term which comes from the Greek words photos (light) and graphos (drawing).

That's it for me. Photoshop helps the process of manipulating light, as does negative film, transparency and processing in the lab or darkroom. I don't really go with the realism arguement. As I've said before here I have never seen a photograph that captured reality. It captures one person's perception of reality. That reality is not necessarly a purely visual experience. Have a look at Greysoul's work. It is so real but the real world is not a contrasty monochrome.

I also thing that if you restrict yourself to the "minimum" Photoshopping that you are putting a straight jacket on your creativity. I don't know if that is a reflection of our repressed religious upbringing but it really is wrong to do that I think. It stops a person from thinking laterally and even leads to a creative frustration. I have often felt that way myself anyway.

Jazus I'm rambling but let it rip is what I say and go with your own instincts. Some people will love it others will not. Such is life.

Be free.
[/SIZE]