Photo of the Week #167 27.07.13-02.08.13

Reoil

dirtyghettokid

Reoil wrote: »

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?

that's a bit harsh :mad:

secman

New moon by john Sexton57, on Flickr

couldn't resist posting this................. almost straight out of the camera......... in Bray of all the places ..... but using a 300mm lens

Sir Gallagher

Reoil wrote: »

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?

Loki contributes enough to the random photo thread to give a "digital image" a pass. Images like this one pop up frequently enough on the random photo thread with no issue whatsoever, it's only when said image makes the photo of the week thread that these arguements arise. I know that an image of mine which was heavily manipulated got into the potw thread and i was delighted.

As somebody said, its a democratic process and it's a bit of fun and a pat on the back for someones good work. These tedious arguements about what does and doesnt count as photography belong elsewhere imo.

I'll look forward to seeing your eventual contribution to the random thread anyway Reoil.

jpb1974

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

These tedious arguements about what does and doesnt count as photography belong elsewhere imo.

For the most part this has been a fairly reasonable debate.

The forum is like a grave yard at the best of times... I'd prefer the interaction.




<Granted it'll change absolutely nothing like 99% of the debate on forums>

Sir Gallagher

jpb1974 wrote: »

For the most part this has been a fairly reasonable debate.

The forum is like a grave yard at the best of times... I'd prefer the interaction.




<Granted it'll change absolutely nothing like 99% of the debate on forums>

I just think it's bad form to start scrutinising and getting in sly digs(and not so sly digs as we've seen above) on a potw. I do think it's a valid arguement by the way bit it's just a re-hash of the same film-v-digital one that pops up time and time again.

amdgilmore

I think I could do the film v digital argument indefinitely. It's great craic.

jpb1974

Unfortunately repetitive debate and equipment questions are the lifeblood of photography forums...

ado100

Reoil wrote: »

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?

Dear oh dear- you really need to get out of the darkroom more!

bldwalsh

Not to be funny or antagonistic but the above image was done in a darkroom by Jerry Uelsmann in 1983. Long before the use of photoshop came around and into the public eye. It took multiple neg's to create said image. So i think an image is an image no!!

Mjollnir

I asked a woman from Paraguay.

She gave me a hat.

magicbastarder

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

As somebody said, its a democratic process and it's a bit of fun and a pat on the back for someones good work. These tedious arguements about what does and doesnt count as photography belong elsewhere imo.

no time or place like the present.
it's exceedingly boring if everyone agrees with each other all the time.

my tuppence - i think the photo would have been better without the moon anyway.

Mjollnir

Reoil wrote: »

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?

But, of course, it actually IS a photograph, and every single thing posted here is a digital image.

There is no truth other than what the creator chooses to show.

Bloviate empty truisms less, try getting out and shooting more.

jpb1974

There is no truth other than what the creator chooses to show

Wouldn't there be the original without the fake moon... or am I missing something Delboy?

Loire

Hi all,

Just my 2c if I may..I have an interest in photography, follow this forum, but have not posted any photographs (as I'm not nearly at the races!:o)

I don't think most people have a problem with someone using PS to adjust their photographs for tones, saturation, converting to B&W etc...Over-adjustment can leave photographs (especially a lot of landscapes/sunsets) looking unreal/ridiculous anyway. I think where I have an issue is that is a photography forum. As such, I think the adding / removing objects is a bit dis-ingenous, particularly if the photograph ends up in a photo-of-the-week. I sincerely do not want to insult anyone and the photographs here are infinitely better than what I could muster. However, the advent of PS to me is akin to drugs in the Tour the de France / 100m Olympic final.....many a really good photograph I see now, I can't help wonder if they are just PS.

I don't have a solution by the way, other than maybe requesting those posting their photographs to outline any PS "improvements" they have made.

Loire.

Mjollnir

jpb1974 wrote: »

Wouldn't there be the original without the fake moon... or am I missing something Delboy?

Sure there would be.

But that's irrelevant to what I actually stated.

jpb1974

Mjollnir wrote: »

Sure there would be.

But that's irrelevant to what I actually stated.

All sounds a bit Matrix to me...

Mountainsandh

hhmmm...

Heavy photoshopping is not my cup of tea, especially when it's tacky, but I don't mind a bit of "playing around" with an image once in a while. It's still an art form.

But you do get a sense of being "betrayed" as a viewer, if for any reason you realise something has been stuck in or taken out, or drastically changed. And that's not a feeling I personally like to have when I look at an image.

I love coming on here to look at good quality stuff, you know, I like to be impressed, spurred on to try and do better. But in my case it's really doing better at photography that I'd like to achieve, not so much Photoshop, so it would be disappointing for me to realise some shot I really liked was heavily manipulated.

If the manipulated shots get POTW, they have proved their worth, as far as I'm concerned, and deserve to be in here. My own personal expectations and tastes are just that, and if I find it's too photoshop oriented here for me, I'll look for some other spot to view photographs.

I would have liked the shot better without the moon, fwiw.

edit : and the discussion about it is nice actually, never mind where it happens.

AnCatDubh

I need a *sigh* emoticon

http://fstoppers.com/how-photos-were-edited-in-the-darkroom-days

:eek:

dakar

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I need a *sigh* emoticon
:eek:

The camera never lies. Photographers, on the other hand, are human...

dirtyghettokid

the fact is photoshopped images are popular. they get the highest votes/thanks. in fact the only pics that i've had win a POTW or HM were photoshop composites.

it's fair to have an opinion that you don't like photoshopped images, but what can you do?

unless you want a separate 'random thread' for non-photoshopped images for a separate non-photoshopped POTW.....?

Zillah

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I need a *sigh* emoticon

http://fstoppers.com/how-photos-were-edited-in-the-darkroom-days

:eek:

As awesome and superior as sighing makes you, it's not exactly very communicative. Those photos might have a lot of marks on them, but as far as I can see it's just a guide for how they're going to dodge and burn, which is hardly comparable to adding an impossible moon to your photo.

amdgilmore

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

the fact is photoshopped images are popular. they get the highest votes/thanks. in fact the only pics that i've had win a POTW or HM were photoshop composites.

Were they clearly composites? Or were they like the photo that sparked this, in which the untrained eye might be led to believe that the photographer through skill/patience/luck had captured an incredible scene, when in fact he didn't?

It's the latter scenario that bothers the anti photoshoppers, I think.

For the record, the only photo of mine that ever won was shot on film with only minor dodging and burning applied. So it's not as though you can't get recognition without photoshopping.

jpb1974

anti photoshoppers

It's not anti photoshop (for me anyway)... it's reality vs. computer generated dreams.

Even the film composite posted in this thread does nothing for me.

dirtyghettokid

amdgilmore wrote: »

Were they clearly composites?

took the moon from the sky by jbredrebel, on Flickr

this is the only image of mine to win POTW. clearly composites :P

amdgilmore

Yes, the real moon is slightly bigger than a man's head.

Your story checks out.

jpb1974

this is the only image of mine to win POTW

I don't have an issue with this.. but it's definitely a case of good photoshopping rather than good photography, it's obvious it's a computer generated fantasy (for the want of a better word) and it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

dirtyghettokid

here's another one. this one got HM. it seems people on boards.ie love moons. all my moon pics seem to be popular...


moon lake by jbredrebel, on Flickr

this scene did not exist whatsoever. i took the original image at 6.30 am on a morning a few years ago. the moon is from another pic i took, and the stars are from another one. but still it got the votes, even though it was a completely made up scene.

not the same pic, but one taken a few minutes later than the 6.30... so you can see what way the original light was like. and no moon in sight!


tranquil morning by jbredrebel, on Flickr

amdgilmore

jpb1974 wrote: »

Even the film composite posted in this thread does nothing for me.

Personally I have no problem with surreal images, film or otherwise. They're great when done well, and can be used to good artistic effect.

I'm distinctly less impressed by photoshopped images being presented as though they are unaltered, but that raises the question, as I mentioned earlier, about where we draw the line. At what point do you declare that your beautiful, impossible image is the result of post-processing? I still don't think the distinction is as clear as 'when you start adding or removing things', as people have argued here.

So mostly I keep my mouth shut about it, continue doing what I'm doing, and let others do the same.

challengemaster

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

this scene did not exist whatsoever. i took the original image at 6.30 am on an october morning a few years ago. the moon is from another pic i took, and the stars are from another one. but still it got the votes, even though it was a completely made up scene.

Hence why photography falls under art, not historical evidence creation or documentation.

Photoshop (image manipulation) is more a part of photography now than most people would like to believe. Any manipulation is manipulation, and you can bet if half of these things were achievable in a dark room, they'd have been done. It's the natural technological evolution of the photographic process - either take it or go hide in a dark room somewhere, because its not going away any time soon.