Photo of the Week #167 27.07.13-02.08.13

TTWNF

thebaz wrote: »

I agree most people today pp in some way or another , but possibly the most renowned photographer , Cartier Bresson , never edited/ adjusted any of his photos in any manner in the dark room , he believed the image should be arranged and shot in the camera and hated darkroom techniques for manipulation - something to think about, and some man.

but we live in a different era to Bresson... we have technology that allows us to make photos in a digital darkroom. I think it all comes down to the rules of what 'photo' of the week is. Don't get me wrong i'd prefer that photos were created in camera as much as possible however when the technology is there that allows this form of creative expression people can utilise it and all the photos for POW *167 are amazing especially Loki's.

thebaz

TTWNF wrote: »

I think it all comes down to the rules of what 'photo' of the week is.

and the rules for POW are very democratic , whoever gets most likes is selected , and Loki fully meritted his selection (as did the others) - maybe it should be in a seperate thread , the pros & cons of pp images

secman

I personally blame the full moon , it makes us do and say things which we would not normally say or do . ;-)

Weevil

I'm surprised that people don't distinguish between photo editing/enhancement and photoshop-ing.
Here's two pictures, both edited/cropped/enhanced. However, the second is photoshop-ed.

http://omg.wthax.org/8dH9tV.jpg
http://omg.wthax.org/7Y8LA4.jpg

magicbastarder

thebaz wrote: »

Cartier Bresson , never edited/ adjusted any of his photos in any manner in the dark room

would you count controlling exposure or dodging and burning as processing?

thebaz

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you count controlling exposure or dodging and burning as processing?

as I said , I don't believe he used any darkroom techniques - just a thought , not criticising those that do.

magicbastarder

he *had* to control exposure - i.e. to decide how light or dark to print his work. printing *is* a technique in itself.

thebaz

magicbastarder wrote: »

he *had* to control exposure - i.e. to decide how light or dark to print his work. printing *is* a technique in itself.

i do know he disliked the printing process, so perhaps someone else developed for him , though i don't know, i was just giving an example ...

superflyninja

Hmm I honestly hadnt thought to not regard my "picture" as a photo. When looking at the original later on at home on the computer, i thought that with the colours and the lines it would make a great minimal intentional movement "picture". So I did the usual pp and then blurred it. The end result achieved using software would have been fairly similar to using hardware(the camera).
So in my eyes its still a photo. Heavily modified certainly but still a photo.

pete4130

HCB used a camera with a fixed shutter speed of 1/125th of a second so he didn't have much control over exposure to start with. He was an artist originally who used photography as his medium for a while. He saw composition. He didn't like the darkroom because he had no interest in it. Somebody else printed his images, someone skilled in darkroom techniques to produce prints.

jpb1974

I honestly don't care that there's a picture with a fake moon (where the scene is concerned), not my cup of tea personally, but it seems that people have different opinions on what is and isn't acceptable... and that's fair enough.

But it has to be said that there's a significant difference between dodging & burning and dropping a moon from another photo into a scene.

Dodging and burning should be about manipulating details that already exist in a scene.. same with things like saturation and sharpening. Dropping a moon is just creating a scene that didn't exist in the first instance... to me, that isn't photography... it's digital image manipulation and I see a clear distinction between the two in so far as d&b, saturation tweaks, sharpening etc., used in a measured manner, should be just polishing tools.

Sir Gallagher

Would there be any debate here if one of the photos of the week here were a double exposure? Seen as that's a more "classic" technique.

amdgilmore

jpb1974 wrote: »

Dodging and burning should be about manipulating details that already exist in a scene.. same with things like saturation and sharpening. Dropping a moon is just creating a scene that didn't exist in the first instance... to me, that isn't photography... it's digital image manipulation and I see a clear distinction between the two in so far as d&b, saturation tweaks, sharpening etc., used in a measured manner, should be just polishing tools.

I don't know if the distinction there is as clear as you think. I regularly see shots of sunsets that have had their colour palette so extensively altered that they bear little resemblance to what the actual scene looked like. In many cases, the final result is a scene that simply can't exist anywhere on earth.

Is there really such a huge difference between using colour and saturation to create an impossible scene, and shopping in a slightly bigger moon with essentially the same result?

I'm not arguing pro or against photoshopping here, I just wonder where the line is drawn.

Weevil

amdgilmore wrote: »

I don't know if the distinction there is as clear as you think. I regularly see shots of sunsets that have had their colour palette so extensively altered that they bear little resemblance to what the actual scene looked like. In many cases, the final result is a scene that simply can't exist anywhere on earth.

Is there really such a huge difference between using colour and saturation to create an impossible scene, and shopping in a slightly bigger moon with essentially the same result?

I'm not arguing pro or against photoshopping here, I just wonder where the line is drawn.

Until last year I had cataracts in both my eyes, which lead to difficulties in perception that can lead to blurring, light diffusion etc.. If it lead to two suns turning up on my horizon I wouldn't consult an optician, but a psychiatrist.

DaireQuinlan

amdgilmore wrote: »

Is there really such a huge difference between using colour and saturation to create an impossible scene, and shopping in a slightly bigger moon with essentially the same result?

I think so :-D I'm with jpb1974 on this one, as I've said before. I think it's a fairly clear line. Once could argue similarly that by shooting in black and white you're creating an 'impossible scene', or by shooting Velvia or something, but there's a fundamental difference between doing that and actually compositing an image, or removing or adding elements to an image.

superflyninja

In my view, dropping in a bigger moon was an attempt to recreate the scene that he saw(optical illusion included). So in a way inserting the bigger moon results in a more accurate representation of the scene he was present with when shooting
Its not like he was shopping dragons and lolcatz into the scene. So yeah its a manipulated photo but a photo nonetheless!

Zillah

While we're having the discussion I may as well chip in my two cents.

I think adjusting an image to give it more oomph is fine (contrast, saturation, sharpness etc), or stylising it a bit (B&W, sepia, muted tones etc). I don't think there is any point in trying to define what counts as a photo, you're either comfortable with the level of post or you're not. If I see a sunset with ridiculous colours that do not happen on the planet Earth I skim right past it, as I'm not interested in a scene so artificial.

I absolutely don't think an image where someone adds a key element, such as an outlandishly large moon, is of any interest to me, or deserving of the praise that a photo taken that required skill and patience deserves.

I think the key difference between something like this and a composite/double exposure is that that moon snap is clearly trying to masquerade as something it isn't.

Or to put it this way; how many people that clicked 'thanks' would have done so if they knew the moon had been plonked into an empty sky in photoshop? Far fewer, I would think.


EDIT: Looking at it again, it's actually a lovely image with great composition even without the moon!

dinneenp

From The Matrix "There is no spoon moon."

jpb1974

Next Olympics someone could make an absolute mint if they take a great photo of Usain Bolt crossing the line in the 100 metres final, taking the gold and breaking the world record in the process, and then add some lightning into the sky above.

How good would that be?

(All assuming he competes, wins, breaks the record etc.)

dinneenp

In a way one could argue that taking something out of a photograph (using clone/content aware fill or similar) is similar to adding something (lets say, just for arguement sake a moon).

DaireQuinlan

dinneenp wrote: »

In a way one could argue that taking something out of a photograph (using clone/content aware fill or similar) is similar to adding something (lets say, just for arguement sake a moon).

Well yes, you'd be hard put to argue differently. Anything from adding an entire planetary body, or cloning out a cigarette butt on the ground. Once you've done it, that's that, you've fundamentally altered the scene that you took a photograph of.

magicbastarder

generally, adding something is usually much more intrusive (and frequently visibly jarring too).

Zillah

There's a difference between cloning out something that could easily have not been there (cigarette butt, seagull in the sky, etc), and adding something fundamentally impossible or extremely rare (gigantic moon).

If someone did a series where they caught different people and objects silhouetted by solar eclipses, do you not think it would ruin it to discover they were all photoshopped into place more than if you discovered someone had cloned out a errant pigeon on a street shot? The pigeon wasn't there a moment earlier and was gone a moment later, its removal is hardly a betrayal of the reality of the scene.

DaireQuinlan

Zillah wrote: »

If someone did a series where they caught different people and objects silhouetted by solar eclipses, do you not think it would ruin it to discover they were all photoshopped into place more than if you discovered someone had cloned out a errant pigeon on a street shot? The pigeon wasn't there a moment earlier and was gone a moment later, its removal is hardly a betrayal of the reality of the scene.

And so the line blurs ...

thebaz

Zillah wrote: »

If someone did a series where they caught different people and objects silhouetted by solar eclipses, do you not think it would ruin it to discover they were all photoshopped into place more than if you discovered someone had cloned out a errant pigeon on a street shot?

I remember being shocked & disappointed to find out that famous shot of D'oisneau of the couple kissing had been staged - same for that shot of Cappa - i kind of hoped they were shot in real time, rather than a stage production - ther you go , the up and downs of photography.

TTWNF

thebaz wrote: »

I remember being shocked & disappointed to find out that famous shot of D'oisneau of the couple kissing had been staged - same for that shot of Cappa - i kind of hoped they were shot in real time, rather than a stage production - ther you go , the up and downs of photography.

yeah same here.... i've read too that some people say that HCB photos were staged and his theory of the decisive moment is a load if b***x! For example number two photo here where the guys just seems to step into a huge pool of water http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/08/22/10-things-henri-cartier-bresson-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/

amdgilmore

TTWNF wrote: »

yeah same here.... i've read too that some people say that HCB photos were staged and his theory of the decisive moment is a load if b***x! For example number two photo here where the guys just seems to step into a huge pool of water http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/08/22/10-things-henri-cartier-bresson-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/

I can believe that one. You can tell from the bits of debris lying around that it's just a bit of surface water and not particularly deep.

magicbastarder

i've heard rumours about steve mccurry too.

thebaz

TTWNF wrote: »

yeah same here.... i've read too that some people say that HCB photos were staged [/url]

never heard that , i think there was much better street photographers than HCB , his portraiture work for me was where he stood out.

Reoil

Loki98's image is NOT a photograph. It is now a digital image made up of photographs. It is faking. Cheating, if you will.

General photo editing - dodge, burn, contrast, etc can all be done in a dark room. That's fine and has always existed.
Once you start fcuking about and adding in things that weren't there, then it distorts the truth of what was in front of the camera lens.

Hell Loki98, why not make the next one entirely from CGI software?