[Banded Drake]

I am on here almost everyday, and look at almost every picture posted . I read what is said ( good and not so good ). Then try to see what everyone else is seeing. But here is what i am confused about. There are a few " pictures " that get posted that have been digatally alterd ( sp ) to make them look like paintings. I dont get it .
I know that i am new to photography and all that but whats wrong with pictures? I am not saying that they dont look good as " paintings " but i would like to see the real picture .

I havent posted many pictures for one reason , my camera is in the shop . But when i get it back i will be posting alot , to see what you think.



Thanks in advance for you input , Shawn ( aka B.D. )

[shuttertalk]

Hey Shawn,

I think there are different styles with digital photography and manipulation. Some like their photos unaltered as much as possible (like me), while some take artistic liberty to produce works of art (Toad is a good example). Because digital photos are easily manipulated (as opposed to film based ones), it opens itself to more creative expression.

It also depends on the purpose of your photo. If it's for reportage or journalism, then obviously an unaltered photo would be the best fit. If it's for creative art, then it's no holds barred.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with digitally altered pictures, but personal preference also comes into play.

Look forward to seeing more photos from you!

[slejhamer]

Hey Shawn (I'm sure I'll call you Drake from now on),

You raise a point that is common on many photo forums - at what point is a processed photo no longer a photo, but rather a "digital image" or some other form of "artwork."

This group (if I may be so bold as to speak for all or at least most of them) takes a fairly laid-back approach, and we tend to welcome all types of digital imagery without distinguishing.

For example, Don tends to push most of his images so that they fit his particular vision. Toad has a background as a professional graphic artist (I think?) and has done some literally fantastic work that has won him much acclaim. Petographer's pet portraits can be pure photographs, though even he sometimes shoots with a chromakey background and makes a composite in Photoshop. I tend to like a diffusion effect here and there.

The point is, it's all okay and all welcome here. Photographers have been fudging things in the darkroom since the advent of photography; it's just a bit more accessible in the digital world.

We also have forums to discuss musical instruments and Christian topics - how many other photo forums can say that?

[Toad]

Warning: rant ahead!

First of all , I agree with the previous posters - I will probably repeat some of their points.

My opinion is that it all depends on intent and personal taste/style:

Are you attempting to pass your work off as reality - i.e. photojournalism? If so, as little post processing as possible is the ticket - cropping or subtle exposure correction "might" be OK

Is it advertising? Photo manipulation is standard in that industry.

Is it art or fantasy or "display" imagery? Go for it - anything goes.

Strangely enough, only the digital photography medium feels the need to question itself in this way.

- Movies don't worry about it - they have always used whatever technical tricks were necessary to make their point

- Paintings don't either - VanGogh and Picasso do not suffer for being non representational. It is common in painting to put false backgrounds in portraits, and to paint fantasy or mythological scenes

- Sculptures - lots of abstract sculptures and again no issues with fantasy or mythological imagery

- Even analog photographs don't have this stigma - do you think that Ansel Adam's photos came out of the camera like that? They were EXTENSIVELY manipulated in the chemical darkroom.

Possibly the whole debate is a backlash against computers. Because it is relatively easy to manipulate photos in a computer - it is somehow considered cheating. I never really heard this debate before PhotoShop came along. If you did a significant manipulation in a chemical darkroom, everybody thought it was pretty cool

But why manipulate photos anyway?

Cameras are not as good at capturing images as my eyes - I see much wider ranges of exposure, have much more selective focus, and have instantaneous capture capabilities. Why should I settle for the limitations of the camera?

My brain doesn't necessarily see what my eyes see - everything I see is filtered through my internal perceptions - the patterns of light captured by my eyes are "manipulated" by my brain - sometimes a lot. Why should I settle for the limitations of the camera?

Cameras already manipulate images before you ever see them. Ever notice the qualitative differences between various brands of film (Velvia is a good example).

At the end of the day - if you want to manipulate images - go right ahead - if you don't want to - don't. There is nor right or wrong answer - just taste.

Enough rant....

Toad

[Banded Drake]

Toad i wasnt stepping on your toes . To be honest wit hyou i have really enjoyed looking at your work and Dons . This was really just a question. I havent been into photography long ( and not at all into digital ) and was really just wondering about manipulation. I am sure that i will be playing with it my self once i get Photoshop.

So let me throw this out in the air. When i look at a picture how can i tell it has been manipulated?
I ask this because i look at the pictures and wonder " howd you do that"?

And i want to say it again I wasnt trying to step on any toes plaese understand that.

[Toad]

I didn't think you were, Drake - no problemo.

I guess I just rant that line without thinking - didn't mean to give the impression I was annoyed or anything - its just discussion.


...oh btw: I forgot my key reason for manipulating photos: I don't know how to paint!!

[Petographer]

So let me throw this out in the air. When i look at a picture how can i tell it has been manipulated?
I ask this because i look at the pictures and wonder " howd you do that"?

I suppose the longer you have been playing around with photography and knowing what a person is capable of capturing with their camera you will get to have a good idea what has been manipulated and what hasn't. However, some manipulation may have been done to correct things that is not intended for the viewer to pick up on. Personally I believe that if the editing of an image is not of an obvious nature then it is up to me the photographer to reveal that certain things have been done. I have a choice. I don't have to say a thing, but here in a photo forum most are here to learn from each other so revealing secrets don't hurt. That might be a different issue when selling a print. As Sleg mentioned, I sometimes use a chromakey background when taking portrait shots. In case you are not familiar with chromakey it is the same thing the weatherman uses to project his images on for tv. More info can be found out through Google. Anyway, with my chromakey portraits I can add any digital background I want and being able to pick up on the fact I have done so is very difficult.

[EnglishBob]

I prefer the nautral look for the most part, though some manipulated images do look absolutely wonderful.

My own images I tend to do little post processing on, cropping, a little exposure manipulation sometimes and if the picture is for a specific purpose, there may be some cleaning with the clone brush.

[guerito]

I do a lot of photoshopping with my pictures. Not with bird shots, for example, in these I just remove noise, sharpen a bit and that's it.

But when I'm seeing a beautiful scene and take a picture, a lot of what I see is going on in my mind, I actually think only 50% of what I visually perceive is "reality". Alas, my camera doesn't have brains and just sees what's there. So what I do in PS is that I make the picture look more like what I've seen and imagined, rather than reflect this poor thing called reality, which is just a bad substitute really for the power of imagination.

This imagination thing is perhaps most obvious to me when I take pictures of people who are not photogenic. For me and my imagination they are beautiful, but the camera just sees the reality. Which I doubt is real if it doesn't show the beauty I can see with my mind.