When does a photo, stop being a photo?

Eirebear

Some PS experimentation, not really for C&C, more to start a discussion......for all you night hawks, and a nice wee one to wake up to .

MooseJam

it looks like a painting

dazftw

its when it doesn't look like a photo anymore?

Fenster

Don't these threads usually devolve into a flame war where we all call each other pretentious ****?

Eirebear

Probably fenster...ive kinda realised that after posting it.
It was a crap photo to begin with really....something didnt work right for me with it, and the filters applied in PS make it work a lot more for my eye, but if i tried to tell someone it was a photo.....
Thats why i was wondering really.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I get the feeling this thread has been done a few times before and everyone's sick of beating a dead horse, but I'll throw in my 2c anyway.

When does a photo, stop being a photo?

I suppose it's a personal thing, but for me it's anything beyond minor tweaks to brightness / contrast / gamma / sharpness / saturation / white-ballance / size.
I like natural-looking photos and feel it important to maintain as much of the documentary integrity as possible.... leaving them objective.
I know there's a whole other arty side to it, but that's not what interests me... at least not at the expense of capturing what actually was.
I've spent the past few months scanning old family negatives... I know I'd feel cheated if I knew someone had messed with them in an attempt to achieve some arty ideal.
It doesn't bother me what other people do to their photos, but I'm very strict with my own.

Ruu_Old

I started a thread on this a few months ago following a photo competition I attended. The winner applied a sepia tone in photoshop and a few people complained that it should not have been allowed.
I am pretty much along the same lines as DonkeyStyle \o/ but it is different for everyone.

Eirebear

sorry guys, didnt realise it was such an old issue on here, was pretty much just wanting to guage peoples opinions.

I'm probably along the same lines as ruu and donkey tbh, maybe not quite as strict, but i suppose it depends on the situation.

odonnell

should old issues never come up again though? same old issues, not same old members.

Eirebear

odonnell wrote:

should old issues never come up again though? same old issues, not same old members.

yes!...Imean NO! maybe......umm what was the question again?

Oh yeah, I suppose when you have a fairly small number of people falling out over the same thing on a regular basis it can get a little tedious.
But on the same token, if your gonna debate things on a photography forum there is only going to be so many contentious issues without getting into Camera V Camera (which we know bores everyone) and photographer v photographer debates which are every bit as futile IMO

odonnell

dunno about you mate but personally speaking, after hanging around with a few of these nutballs.... id pay to see a camera v camera dispute...like get everyone in a ring and let them go for it... Nikon! no! Canon! AAARRGGGHHH you FIEND!!!

elven

Oi.

Eirebear

odonnell wrote:

dunno about you mate but personally speaking, after hanging around with a few of these nutballs.... id pay to see a camera v camera dispute...like get everyone in a ring and let them go for it... Nikon! no! Canon! AAARRGGGHHH you FIEND!!!

hehe, t'would be a marathon of a fight.

Canon obviously seems to have the numbers, but the Nikon side are a wily bunch who have had their backs against the wall for a while, just waiting for the chance to go for canon's throat.

I'm off to buy an olympus!

odonnell

elven wrote:

Oi.

wha? he started it.

they truly are a wiley bunch mate - theres one main difference though that your average joe, who doesnt live with a photography nut, wouldnt normally spot.

in my experience - a canon user doesnt plaster themselves with things that say CANON. They generally try to fade into the crowd as demure and as faceless as possible, safe in the knowledge that they, and they alone, are superior in every way possible.

whereas.. NIKON users are like the advertisement for camera shops you see on TV. They love to have the proverbial Nike Swoosh (swoosh isnt it?) the Adidas stripes, the Reebok...uh... thing, plastered across their foreheads, a strap that says LOOK! A NIKON!, and they generally can be found behind the goal posts of the Glasgow derby, taking that awe inspiring shot of Andy Goram and his huge belly flying gracefully through the air, like a 'leaf on the wind' ...graceful as a swan, speedy as a swallow - NIKON says you WILL capture this moment, and everyone should know about it dammit! IM THE KING OF THE WORLD, and this, this is my nikon... this is my nikon this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun!

THAT is the difference between the two as far as i, in my non photography eyes, can see.

Please tell me if im wrong, if ive embarassed my wife, or if i now deserve a lifetime ban.

Eirebear

did not!

pfft....your always getting me into trouble man

bigeoino

odonnell wrote:

...and they generally can be found behind the goal posts of the Glasgow derby, taking that awe inspiring shot of Andy Goram and his huge belly flying gracefully through the air, like a 'leaf on the wind' ...graceful as a swan, speedy as a swallow ...

Showing your age, methinks?
(is there an appropriate collective noun for canonites (?) or nikoners (?) ?

Eirebear

odonnell wrote:

wha? he started it.

they truly are a wiley bunch mate - theres one main difference though that your average joe, who doesnt live with a photography nut, wouldnt normally spot.

in my experience - a canon user doesnt plaster themselves with things that say CANON. They generally try to fade into the crowd as demure and as faceless as possible, safe in the knowledge that they, and they alone, are superior in every way possible.

whereas.. NIKON users are like the advertisement for camera shops you see on TV. They love to have the proverbial Nike Swoosh (swoosh isnt it?) the Adidas stripes, the Reebok...uh... thing, plastered across their foreheads, a strap that says LOOK! A NIKON!, and they generally can be found behind the goal posts of the Glasgow derby, taking that awe inspiring shot of Andy Goram and his huge belly flying gracefully through the air, like a 'leaf on the wind' ...graceful as a swan, speedy as a swallow - NIKON says you WILL capture this moment, and everyone should know about it dammit! IM THE KING OF THE WORLD, and this, this is my nikon... this is my nikon this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun!

THAT is the difference between the two as far as i, in my non photography eyes, can see.

Please tell me if im wrong, if ive embarassed my wife, or if i now deserve a lifetime ban.

Pretty much what i was trying to get at mate....although i would probably lose the Andy Goram analogy simply because nikon these days are more of the "downtrodden victim" types,constantly having to tell you how great Nikon really is, and how it has far more history than your poxy canon, kind of like the other football team in that glasgow derby.

Im away for a year now to dodge the gunfire.
At least mines will only be virtual though.... you need to go home to your wife

odonnell

bigeoino wrote:

Showing your age, methinks?
(is there an appropriate collective noun for canonites (?) or nikoners (?) ?

Nikoners = Daily Record Employees [ www.dailyrecord.co.uk ]

gandalf

odonnell wrote:

taking that awe inspiring shot of Andy Goram and his huge belly flying gracefully through the air, like a 'leaf on the wind' ...graceful as a swan, speedy as a swallow

Jaysus I bet thats the first time someone has called Andy Goram graceful and as for the "leaf on the wind" stuff did you just come from reading one of Julies soppy Mills & Boon novels.

(also 95% of Nikon users are known to be perverts, its a scientific fact that!).

elven

Oi, again, 'leaf of the wind' is a reference to Firefly/Serenity...

Go back to your guns and leave us people who actually take pictures alone

odonnell

but darling....you ARE perfect and superior in every way.

Eirebear

odonnell wrote:

but darling....you ARE perfect and superior in every way.

pfft! Wuss, i always knew it!

gandalf

elven wrote:

Oi, again, 'leaf of the wind' is a reference to Firefly/Serenity...

Go back to your guns and leave us people who actually take pictures alone

Ah but you're better half said "leaf on the wind", plus I see no denial on your reading habits

Hey now I shoot with and without a camera

odonnell

yes... now youre a war photographer!

Spyral

I started a thread on this a few months ago following a photo competition I attended. The winner applied a sepia tone in photoshop and a few people complained that it should not have been allowed.
I am pretty much along the same lines as DonkeyStyle \o/ but it is different for everyone.

I tihnk sepia should be allowed as it is easily possible with 35mm - just use a sepia type film (illford xp2 super set for sepia) for example..

what I don't agree with is extensive use of photoshopping filters. Aside from a contrast change and a tonal change if necessary I dont photoshop things in or out of pictures. anything more than balancing contrast (which you could do IF you had a studio and $$$$ for lights and etc..) I dont belive in it as then the hobby enters digital art territory..

Fenster

Bunch of pretentious ****...

Fajitas!

Bloody Scot's tbh!

My favourite description of when a photograph is no longer a photograph is when the subject of the image is the manipulation, rather than the photograph itself.

But then... That changes with each image.

ThOnda

Amen, said the Fajitas!
In my opinion, the picture is not a photograph when it doesn't look like a photograph anymore.
But it is neverending story, discussion like this. In my opinion, the picture at the beginning of this thread looks a little odd to me and I don't like it a lot, so I wouldn't have bothered talking about it if I had any other picture in a competition or in a poll. I mean that the effect itself is more visible in the picture than the subject. I have feeling of the effect, not feeling of the picture.
I wish I could explain my opinion/feeling better :-/

Eirebear

ThOnda wrote:

Amen, said the Fajitas!
In my opinion, the picture is not a photograph when it doesn't look like a photograph anymore.
But it is neverending story, discussion like this. In my opinion, the picture at the beginning of this thread looks a little odd to me and I don't like it a lot, so I wouldn't have bothered talking about it if I had any other picture in a competition or in a poll. I mean that the effect itself is more visible in the picture than the subject. I have feeling of the effect, not feeling of the picture.
I wish I could explain my opinion/feeling better :-/

But you see thats what got me thinking about it....not that i want to drag it up again...
The picture was mince in the first place, so i decided to use it in terms of messing about with the different filters etc that i wouldnt normally use (hell isnt that what theyre for?) and discovered that the effect was in fact more easy on the eye, albeit still not very good, than the original crap picture.
Anyway just thought id clear that up.