Is it a photo or computer art work

[thegrump]

I have been pursuing another site, were you just add your photo and people like and/or vote on it. I am starting to realize I am out of the game because I do not have thousands and thousands of dollars worth of computer graphic equipment. What happened to the photograph. I am all for cleaning and touching up, BUT

[sanger]

The integrity etc regarding this was discussed at length not long ago and I must say I agree with you.
I'm may be wrong but it seems to me that some Landscape photographers seem to stretch things too far.
Some of the differences between before and after are staggering and don't represent the scene photographed.

[Kevvy]

I was just having this exact same conversation with someone a few hours ago and I agree I'm all for subtle exposure and editing changes but when it comes to dropping in things that are not even in the original shot that's going too far.
i would like a look at said web site can you add a link?
Cheers Kevvy

[ameerat42]

But Y WURRY?

Do what you like to a picture, depending on what you expect it to stand for.

Here on AP there are a number of sub-forums to post into. One is Photo Manipulation.

You would hardly get much appreciation if you posted a very manipulated bird pic in the
Birds forum, but in PM...

-- And not to mention the POPular Creative Processing Challenge...

[thegrump]

am ... If it is under photo manipulation, and headed that way.... fair enough. We all know it is subject to computer corruption. But under general photo competition or just appreciation, then how do we know.

Kev ,,, there are plenty of terrible photographs on this site as well as plenty of pure art work. https://gurushots.com

[Glenda]

Most photography competitions have rules as to how much editing can be done. eg Nature is usually minimal and restricted to cropping and basic adjustments. I'm sure more than that happens in some of the images in the bird section on the forum. Social documentary is another area where even removing something distracting is frowned upon. Landscapes and portraits seem to be a free for all and I agree it sometimes comes down to who has the best editing skills. I guess nowadays with everyone being a photographer, people are just trying to make their images stand out from the crowd.

[Hamster]

Produce images that make you happy, leave others to do what makes them happy, and only enter comps and go to sites that align to your philosophy if others bother you.

[Mark L]

Kev ,,, there are plenty of terrible photographs on this site as well as plenty of pure art work. https://gurushots.com

That site seems to start with what you would consider a standard photo and asks others to do what they will, so be it. (I'm not going to sign up to find out anything different) Seems don't complain with what happens to the photo there?

[arthurking83]

....

Kev ,,, there are plenty of terrible photographs on this site as well as plenty of pure art work. https://gurushots.com

Seriously funny site there.

They mix photography with graphic arts, and what it then does is create an air of acceptability that graphic art and manipulation is photography.
The (collective)human psyche then simply accepts that this is the norm and that image created in graphic manipulation software is photography.
Before long art of making image via the use of a camera is going to be lost.

The issue is a bit of a parallel to the food industry, in that you ask any young-ish person(up to a teenager) where meat comes from, and they'll almost certainly reply "from the supermarket".
And you get more specific and ask where the meat 'actually' comes from, and they have no idea that it's a dead cow/pig/sheep/etc!

This is why camera sales are declining .. they simply aren't needed by the upcoming generation!
Why would you even spend $500! for a device to capture an image, when you can spend $10/mnth (for the rest of your life! ) .. to make them for free!

I think there's a distinct and clear difference between capturing a photograph (and the planning/serendipity/execution/competence of using a camera to expose a scene that is needed to make a great one), and using some automated method for making it in software.
And they really should be separated in terms of genre .. just like a great painting isn't directly compared to a great photograph.
That is, you wouldn't see a Picaso/Van Gough/etc directly compared too or displayed as art in the same space(real or virtual) to a Bresson/Adams/etc.

[ricktas]

I agree that editing has overtaken some photographers, they spend hours going over an image editing every aspect of it. It has gotten to the point that even a good well taken photo gets questioned about how much it has been edited. Photographers have created this, and it is interesting watching those who do process their photos a great deal discuss why and try and justify their results. But ask one of them to show you their original RAW file, is often deflected and you never get to see it. So even they realise that perhaps they are pushing it to far, but are not willing to admit to themselves, let alone others.

Most photography competitions have rules as to how much editing can be done. eg Nature is usually minimal and restricted to cropping and basic adjustments. I'm sure more than that happens in some of the images in the bird section on the forum. Social documentary is another area where even removing something distracting is frowned upon. Landscapes and portraits seem to be a free for all and I agree it sometimes comes down to who has the best editing skills. I guess nowadays with everyone being a photographer, people are just trying to make their images stand out from the crowd.

But how do the judges or anyone else know how much editing is done, and how do they work out what is 'too much' ?

Take something like HDR, which can now be done in camera. The photo comes off the memory card 'as is', so has it been edited? Setting limits as to how much editing can be done is only possible if entrants have to submit the original RAW file and the end result. I have not seen many competitions that ask for that. And then the rules about how much editing would be pages long, to cover all scenarios. "You can brighten a pixels by 20% maximum, you can saturate a pixels colour by 25% maximum, You can clone out 3% of the image, you can sharpen the overall image, but not selectively sharpen..." I would not want to be a judge on a competition that meant I needed to spend hours assessing how much an entry had been altered from the original RAW file. Judging professional photography competitions has become a minefield. Much prefer our method of simply rating them 1..10

[arthurking83]

I personally don't have any issue with push processing as such, that is in Ricks reply above re 20% or 25% or whatever.

What I don't like to see is the addition of elements and layers of things in an image that weren't there.

In the link that Grump posted to gurushots, there was an image of a woman in a yellow field. It's obvious that many elements in that image were layered onto each other, and I doubt that the woman was even in the field at all.
There are multiple DoF situations in the image, which is impossible to do in camera!
The blur of the lower background is completely different to the blurring of the sky(obviously layered in) .. yet it's trying to look like a photograph!
It's clearly not an image out of a camera, and something in the image looks wrong and that the woman looks to have either been layered into the yellow field, or the yellow field has been layered around the woman.

Whichever way you look at it, it's clearly not a photo(as in captured by a single camera or shot) and almost certainly a montage or manipulation.

Then there's the (so called) sports photography where the headline image is of a group of women playing indoor soccer. It's obviously a staged scene, as the game isn't a game at all, and just some girls posing in front of a camera for all the world looking as though they have no idea on how to play soccer!

Again, it brings into question what the genre is trying to portray! Sports photography is about capturing images in a competitive sports environment!
Does a 'staged stock photo shoot set up' constitute sports photography nowadays?
If yes, then why do most of us agree with a wolf jumping a gate in a field getting disqualified in a photography comp for nature?

[Hamster]

Much prefer our method of simply rating them 1..10

The rating still takes into account all the post processing that has been done, as does an international competition rated to 100. This is achieved quite simply by assessing the finished photo. Raw shots are only requested to check rules have been adhered to. I guess there could be comps where a raw and a processed are compared and the processing judged in that way, but international,say, landscape comps are about the finished image.
There are no rules on here re the amount of post processing allowed and that's great. People can just judge it on whether they like it or not and that is exactly as it should be.
Maybe AP should start a competition for raw shots. The only processing allowed being a conversion to jpeg. No input sharpening, no output sharpening, no exposure adjustments etc.
In the mean time some of you might like this competition.
http://www.rockingham.wa.gov.au/getm...ions).pdf.aspx
There is a raw section where no amount of processing is allowed. Any format of camera is ok so I guess that means it's ok to shoot with film and then just hand the exposed roll of film in.

Edit-re the wolf photo. If it was a tame model then it broke the rules of the competition and that was why it was disqualified. Those are the rules that were broken, not what another photographer chooses to say is a wildlife shot. Outside a competition the rules are the ones you yourself choose to apply or those imposed by their expected usage.

[Mark L]

In the mean time some of you might like this competition.
http://www.rockingham.wa.gov.au/getm...ions).pdf.aspx
There is a raw section where no amount of processing is allowed.

I like the idea but how can they verify that no PPing has happened?

[Hamster]

I like the idea but how can they verify that no PPing has happened?

Presumably by asking for the raw file. Or developing the film for themselves

[Steve Axford]

some magazines, eg Geo magazine in Germany, will only publish your photos if they can see the RAW files. No RAW files, no publish. I can see why they do it, though it is a pain for the photographer, especially if you do focus stacking like I do.

I think that many people over do the pp in order to gain recognition, either in comps or simply in views or likes. What they don't realise is that none of these over cooked photos either last or sell very well. Very few magazines or broadcasters will ever publish them. Certainly not the ones I have dealt with.

[ricktas]

Maybe it could be called the 'facebook effect'. Up the saturation and get Likes and Wows. Click Bait Photography.

[Hamster]

Here we go again. These discussions always end up in people denigrating forms of the topic in hand that don't conform to their own version of what is "true". It's amazingly "human", how people seem to think that the pure version of the art is the version that they endorse/practice and anything else is inferior.
It's like road rules where the ones that should never be broken are the ones other people break.
Calm down and take a leaf out of Axel's book.
http://youtu.be/6D9vAItORgE

[ameerat42]

Opinions vary in a thread like this, but I think...

This one qualifies
SDIM8328ac-lr.jpg

[PhotoHunter007]

It's a difficult one to tackle and to simplify there are probably only a four categories that 95% of photographers fit into, exceptions being photography that isn't attempting to emulate a natural look (astro shots, macro etc.)

1. No PP

If you can take eye catching photos or interesting photos consistently with no PP, then bully for you.

2. PP to achieve a 'natural' look (this is already subjective!)

I think most people are trying to achieve this, and with a great photo and scene it's very achievable. Issue being when maybe it was a bit lack luster.. and you still want a really good end shot.

3. PP to achieve what you consider the best look

Overlaps with 3, but you're not 'pretending' that you want a natural look

4. PP to finish with a WOW image

I was certainly in this category when I started, and to be honest it's probably what got me interested in photography. Taking a photo, going to town in LR and then ending up with an image that wouldn't look out of place in a tourism magazine (in retrospect it mightn't have been that nice..) is pretty darn exciting for an amateur photographer.

At the end of the day a nice catch all statement would be along the lines of; do whatever keeps you interested in photography.

[ameerat42]

Well disserted, PH