APPA : Ken Duncan finally says what a lot of us have been thinking [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

ricktas

07-09-2016, 7:27pm

Ken has decided enough is enough and that photography should be about photos taken, not manipulation

https://www.facebook.com/kenduncanphotographer/photos/a.392496671432.168255.40435036432/10153702019366433/?type=3&theater

If you are unable to see FB, then here is a copy of Ken's post:

**************************************************
Ken Duncan

As an honorary life member of the AIPP I am concerned about the regulations and judging criteria of their Photo Awards after seeing the results from this years competition.
Congratulations to Lisa Saad for winning the 2016 Australian Professional Photographer Awards with a series of illustrations.
With no disrespect to Lisa who is obviously a very talented person I just personally don't get it. How these illustration could be considered photographs as lovely as judges may think they are.
The word Photography comes from the Greek words Photos: Light and Graphos: Drawing so photography is 'drawing with light'.
This illustration and the others from the series have little to do with reflected light but more about creation by manipulating and creating pixels.
I believe the AIPP have lost their way with the APPA awards as they seem to be hijacked by manipulators. Now I don't have a problem with post processing to a degree but when it gets to to point of having no connection to reality it then enters the world of illustration. If this trend is going to continue unchallenged and not looked at then may be the awards should really be renamed. The initials obviously no longer stand for the Australian Professional Photography Awards so maybe they really need to call them what they have become the 'Australian Professional Photoshop Awards'.
*********************************

And here is a link (http://www.aippappa.com/appa-2016/2016-aipp-appa-category-winners) to the 'photo' he is talking about. It is the top left image (click in it to see it in full). However Ken's article refers to all the winner's images and how he sees them as illustrations. Not photos.

Thoughts?

Cage

07-09-2016, 7:55pm

I'm with Ken. I don't get it either.

And looking through the various categories, I don't get them either. :confused013

Glad I'm not alone in my confusion.

I think it's taken Ansel Adams quote (per Gazza), "You don't take a photograph, you make it" just a tad too far. :nod:

mikew09

07-09-2016, 8:00pm

Me also - did those pictures even start as a photo - looks more like an artist created them in some graphic program.

Hawthy

07-09-2016, 8:06pm

Maybe a new category - Pixelography?

wayn0i

07-09-2016, 8:07pm

Interesting i think categories with clear lines of delineation are appropriate. I find purist arguments tiring and dated, ironically most proponents like me own a computer which takes photos, a DSLR, which filters light, interpolates etc etc.. before it even hits the camera memory.

Yes before i get smashed, i know theres levels and a range, categories for me

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawthy

07-09-2016, 9:21pm

Wayne raises some interesting points. Photography is an art and art is subjective. Where is the line between photography and illustration?

MarkChap

07-09-2016, 10:02pm

Ken has decided enough is enough ................ snipped a big bit out........................................
However Ken's article refers to all the winner's images and how he sees them as illustrations. Not photos.

Thoughts?

So does this include the documentary (single image, real life, minimal manipulation) categories
These categories are all documentary
Birth
Sport
Documentary
Travel
Science, Wildlife, Wild Places

ricktas

07-09-2016, 10:06pm

So does this include the documentary (single image, real life, minimal manipulation) categories
These categories are all documentary
Birth
Sport
Documentary
Travel
Science, Wildlife, Wild Places

No, he is talking about all the photos that were entered by the winner (overall). See the link, it shows the entries of the winner of the APPA overall photographer of the year. The question is, do you feel they are photographs or digital illustrations?

Boo53

07-09-2016, 10:07pm

To me thing winning "shot", and the 3 other shots on that page, are graphic art, and very reminiscent of advertising art works from the 30's-60's.

Doesn't seem like there was a "starting image" that has been worked on/with

John King

07-09-2016, 10:11pm

I agree far more with Ken than I disagree.

For me, a photograph represents something that has existed in the real world, in some way or another. I have no problem with people who take manipulation to extremes, however, the resulting thing may be a form of art, but it is no longer photography IMNSHO ...

Hamster

07-09-2016, 10:38pm

It's funny, I've been saying a similar thing having followed the WA competition and now the national. Don't get me wrong, as Wayne says, I view landscape photography as art not documentation, I have no problem altering colour, tone or even cloning out aspects, but until recently I never realised the extent of the manipulation in the landscape section. I was talking to Aaron Dowling only last week about his entries and he was telling me how they were created. But created is the appropriate word rather than taken. That's not to say I don't like the results, I love them. The thing that I think is a shame is that there is now no credit given for actually capturing a moment. Having the skill to time things so there is a bird in the right part of the sky. No need, one can be inserted later. The judges spent ages debating whether one of his had a texture added (it didn't, but was manipulated in other ways). In the state awards I heard judges taking points off for something that wasn't perfectly aligned and also for something that was too perfectly positioned. All with the knowledge that neither was captured that way.
I think there should be a category for landscapes where minimal cloning and no added elements are permitted. These days I think that's called travel photography.

farmmax

08-09-2016, 12:36am

I have to confess I enjoyed looking at all the "images". To me most of them belong in a Creative/altered reality section.

I was pretty shocked to find out that you can pay a professional photoshopper to work on your photos for these awards. In that case, why doesn't the photoshopper's name appear in conjunction with the photographers? Surely the photoshopper has had as much influence in the shaping of the finished article as the original photographer?

Glenda

08-09-2016, 7:14am

I also enjoyed looking at the images but agree with Ken Duncan's comment. It certainly seems to be more of a photoshop comp than a photography one. Also agree with farmmax's comments re being allowed to have a pro photoshopper work on the images.

ricktas

08-09-2016, 8:00am

it is interesting on FB to see the people attacking Ken for his views. They are saying it is within the rules etc, when he is saying that those rules need to change. They are attacking him for sharing the photo without permission, when 'fair dealings (http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/fair-crack-criticism-and-copyright/)' under copyright allow him to do so.

Rather than discuss the actual issue raised : Photography or Illustrations

I hope he wields enough influence to get an intelligent discussion started within the AIPP and that the rules for entry to APPA (and the State awards) are amended due to those discussions.

I agree with much that has been said above, that the APPA no longer represents good photography, but rather good photoshopping. Your skills (or someone else's) on a computer far outweigh your skills as a photographer when you enter APPA.

It would be interesting to take the winning images onto the street and ask the general public if they are a photo or an illustration. Then I suppose those that argue against change to the rules would be saying the general public are not in a position to judge photographs cause they have not completed judging courses etc.

The winner, Lisa is very skilled at what she does. There is no doubt she knows her way around photoshop. But is it photography? For me, No!

MissionMan

08-09-2016, 8:33am

I actually agree with him 100%. I think these awards have become a farce. Winning these awards is not longer about the best photographer, it's about the best photoshopper

NikonNellie

08-09-2016, 9:16am

I love creativity but I have to agree with Ken as well.
My youngest son is a talented Landscape/Travel photographer who has entered a few well known photography competitions but lately he has been discouraged to enter them because of the amount of manipulation that is required to have a winning entry. He has often commented on how the judging of "photos" has become more about the judging of "photoshopping".

I love manipulating images whether they be a composite or single work of art. Sometimes I enjoy the photoshopping of my images more than the actual taking of the photos. Having said that, I still think that highly manipulated images belong in a "Graphic Art" competition not in a "Photography" competition.

feathers

08-09-2016, 9:35am

junqbox

08-09-2016, 9:40am

I'd suggest this argument is coming about as a result of the new technology we all use, where because it's a 'digital file' it could conceivably (by some) be regarded as a 'photograph' I don't see them as photographs in this case, as they are obviously illustrations, no matter what they started out as.
One thing to consider is, would they have been able to be produced using film? Other than as a photograph of the illustrated work.

PixelvandalPav

08-09-2016, 10:42am

Agree with Ken, while lisa has some great photographs, that particular image, while a beautiful piece of art, is not a photograph, it's just ridiculous that people even consider it to be one. anything thats a digital image in this facebook day and age gets called a 'photo'. I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. There is a difference between using software as a 'digital darkroom' for minor retouching of a photo captured with real subjects and light, and using software to create graphic art.

MissionMan

08-09-2016, 11:57am

The thing I do find sad is the amount of attacks on him for raising the issue about AIPP and saying that AIPP should rethink his membership. I'm confused as to when AIPP became a dictatorship and members were not allowed to speak their thoughts. I'm also confused as to how they see this as a personal attack on Lisa which is ludicrous

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hamster

08-09-2016, 12:21pm

The issue he seems to have is with the illustrative works being judged alongside the more "traditional" photography in order to determine the outright winner. There are already sections that have differing amounts of post processing and themes. Images are judged on their merit within each.
Calling the awards "digital art and photography awards" or similar would solve the issue to some extent. For me it's no different to having an art competition that has categories for charcoal drawings, painting, collage etc, and then choosing a best in show. If a painting wins best in show, the collage people can't protest that it shouldn't win because it's not a proper collage, because everyone entered an art competition. So the issue is with the word "photography" and it's context in this competition. Currently the illustrative end of things qualifies under the banner of "photography". Those that don't like that are free to not enter because of that, or state their thoughts as Ken has.
As an aside, I do think he should have, and could have made his point without referring directly to the winner. The winner has entered in good faith, followed the rules set by others and won fair and square. I doubt that she wants to be dragged into this, she probably just wants to relish a moment of success without being told that really her work doesn't compare to a "proper photograph". No, it's not a personal attack, but it's clumsy and ill thought out in the way that Lisa has been directly referred to.

bcys1961

08-09-2016, 1:02pm

To be fair the the "photo's " were entered into the advertising section where a high degree of manipulation is expected and allowed under the rules . She won that section . But I agree with Ken , that if the judges then decided to ward her the best overall photographer award , I think they have lost the plot . If you look at some other categories , like the Portrait prize winner for example , you will see photoshop is pervasive. The portrait prize winning submissions included the Highest Scoring Print award and it was a circular panorama type thing only possible with photoshop. I'm not a member of AIPP but if I was considering joining , in order to enter the comp's I would be discouraged when looking through the winners as I don't have a desire to develop this level of photoshop skill.

Ken has started up his Real Photo awards which are certainly more realistic , but even here over - photoshopping is evident.

http://kenduncanphotoawards.com/

ricktas

08-09-2016, 3:25pm

...
As an aside, I do think he should have, and could have made his point without referring directly to the winner. The winner has entered in good faith, followed the rules set by others and won fair and square. I doubt that she wants to be dragged into this, she probably just wants to relish a moment of success without being told that really her work doesn't compare to a "proper photograph". No, it's not a personal attack, but it's clumsy and ill thought out in the way that Lisa has been directly referred to.

I think the issue of generalising without referring to particular images, would have eventually had the same result. People would have asked him if he meant Lisa's images, or they would have asked him to clarify which images in particular he was referring to.

If I posted on AP and said something about particular photos entered into our comps without naming the entrant or entries, it would only be some time before someone asked me to point out which ones, or even post links to the ones they thought I was referring to.

Perhaps it is time for APPA to do away with photographer of the year, and simply stick to winners in their genre? After all being known as the APPA Landscape Photographer of the Year, or the APPA Wedding photographer of the Year, or the APPA advertising/illustrative Photographer of the Year is certainly an accolade to be proud of. And this simple move would remove the issue as being debated at present.

Hamster

08-09-2016, 3:59pm

I think the issue of generalising without referring to particular images, would have eventually had the same result. People would have asked him if he meant Lisa's images, or they would have asked him to clarify which images in particular he was referring to.

If I posted on AP and said something about particular photos entered into our comps without naming the entrant or entries, it would only be some time before someone asked me to point out which ones, or even post links to the ones they thought I was referring to.

Yes, you're right of course. Although my reply would be "I understand you're curious/looking for context but the issue is a general one related to ....... it is the concept of.....I do not want to bring a specific person into it because it is an issue for everyone in the industry/site to consider..."

Perhaps it is time for APPA to do away with photographer of the year, and simply stick to winners in their genre? After all being known as the APPA Landscape Photographer of the Year, or the APPA Wedding photographer of the Year, or the APPA advertising/illustrative Photographer of the Year is certainly an accolade to be proud of. And this simple move would remove the issue as being debated at present.

That would work.

- - - Updated - - -

Ken has started up his Real Photo awards which are certainly more realistic , but even here over - photoshopping is evident.

http://kenduncanphotoawards.com/

Unless there are more rules/definitions somewhere "minimal post -processing" isn't very clear. To someone who uses PS to the extreme "minimal post-processing" could be more than others would even dream of.

Also that third place shot by IP I really like. But I can't see how an aerial abstract (I assume that's what it is) can show a "quintessential Australian landscape". Tell me what is quintessential about that (note - synonyms of quintessential include typical (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+typical&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIHzAA), prototypical, stereotypical, archetypal (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+archetypal&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIIDAA), classic (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+classic&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIITAA), model (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+model&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIIjAA), essential (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+essential&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIIzAA), standard (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+standard&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIJDAA), stock (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+stock&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIJTAA), representative (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+representative&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIJjAA), true to type, conventional (https://www.google.com.au/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=define+conventional&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcuICl_f7OAhXBlJQKHeEVCI4Q_SoIJzAA)) or maybe I'm just not opening my eyes enough when I'm out walking in the countryside ;)

it's easy to criticise isn't it.....:) (not aimed at anyone, just pointing out that it's hard to please everyone)

Ionica

08-09-2016, 4:41pm

wayn0i

08-09-2016, 5:53pm

Much like different film emulsions?

Yes to filters i guess, but no to interpolation, yes to sensor signal amplification.......interesting

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MarkChap

08-09-2016, 7:09pm

The editing by another person can only be done under the direct supervision and direction of the commissioning photographer.
They can't just send off an image with the instruction to "make this a gold"

I have to confess I enjoyed looking at all the "images". To me most of them belong in a Creative/altered reality section.

I was pretty shocked to find out that you can pay a professional photoshopper to work on your photos for these awards. In that case, why doesn't the photoshopper's name appear in conjunction with the photographers? Surely the photoshopper has had as much influence in the shaping of the finished article as the original photographer?

arthurking83

08-09-2016, 7:24pm

.... I find purist arguments tiring and dated ....

I don't think the arguments are really about puritanical endeavours.

The argument is; there should be a line clearly marked out with respect to over manipulation of the pixels.
That is, it's so easy now(for capable folks) just to create an image purely using any graphics manipulation program.
How is that related to photography(as described by KD's definition of photos : graphos)?

it's an age old definition, and in reality you don't need a camera to take a photograph(see definition above).
Graphical illustrations such as those, using Ps are not photographs!

If the purist's arguments are tired and dated now, then what stops a professional photographer taking to brushes and pencils, or crayons or whatever and painting an image?
When they allow that kind of artwork to compete too .. then all's fair.
Then the system devolves from a photography award, into an art award(of which we already have enough!).

So the old and tired argument becomes circular and we're back to the original question .. where does the line get drawn! ;)

The line is so easy to demarcate .. it has to be a photograph .. not a digigraph.

MarkChap

08-09-2016, 7:26pm

I see a lot of people/posts, both here and on Ken's FB post saying that "APPA" doesn't reward the "photographer"

I agree with much that has been said above, that the APPA no longer represents good photography, but rather good photoshopping. Your skills (or someone else's) on a computer far outweigh your skills as a photographer when you enter APPA.

That may be true for SOME categories, but as I listed above there are multiple categories with in "APPA" that do not allow, or rather only allow for minimal, manipulation.

I think it is very wrong to generalise and to suggest that the whole thing is broken.
I do personally think that all categories should be more representative of the work that is actually presented to clients on a daily basis rather than a highly worked composite image, the like of which is never shown/presented to clients.
But in saying that, the entries in those categories are more representative of the real world final use of the original image, so why should that not also be rewarded.

And for the record,
yes, I am a very proud member of the AIPP, and yes I did enter APPA this year, and yes I did enter into one of the documentary categories.

ricktas

08-09-2016, 10:19pm

I see a lot of people/posts, both here and on Ken's FB post saying that "APPA" doesn't reward the "photographer"

That may be true for SOME categories, but as I listed above there are multiple categories with in "APPA" that do not allow, or rather only allow for minimal, manipulation.

I think it is very wrong to generalise and to suggest that the whole thing is broken.
I do personally think that all categories should be more representative of the work that is actually presented to clients on a daily basis rather than a highly worked composite image, the like of which is never shown/presented to clients.
But in saying that, the entries in those categories are more representative of the real world final use of the original image, so why should that not also be rewarded.

And for the record,
yes, I am a very proud member of the AIPP, and yes I did enter APPA this year, and yes I did enter into one of the documentary categories.

I have no issue with the entries being awarded the win in their categories at all, as you say they are representative of the advertising industry. I also agree that other categories show photos with minimal manipulation. As you say reward them.. in their category.

I don't think the whole thing is broken, just parts of it. And it may be as simple as changing the title to 'APPA Imager of the Year'.

If you took the winning images into a Mall in any of our major cities and asked people to vote on if they were photographs, graphic art, modern art, digital creations. The results of those votes would be quite interesting, and I suspect most people would not vote them as photographs. The title 'Photographer of the Year' need consideration, as Ken has stated.

arthurking83

09-09-2016, 7:19am

.... The title 'Photographer of the Year' need consideration, as Ken has stated.

+1.

I used to do courier work for Lisa Saad many moons ago, so I've seen her photography up close .. she had a studio in Richmond.
Back in those days tho, the work she did was film, and we did the courier work from the processing lab back to her, back to the lab .. etc.

So she is a great photographer .. just not 'photographer of the year' based on that work ;)

Hamster

09-09-2016, 10:05am

A couple of people have mentioned that the images don't represent what clients get. For some I'd agree, but I tend to look at the competition a little like a fashion show or a car show. People display their concepts/designs at such events and no, you're not going to see the huge collar and open front of the dress seen on the catwalk, on the high street. And no you'll not be able to buy the concept car in the form it was displayed on the stand. By the time they get to the client things are a bit more palatable to the average joe public.

ricktas

09-09-2016, 10:21am

+1.

I used to do courier work for Lisa Saad many moons ago, so I've seen her photography up close .. she had a studio in Richmond.
Back in those days tho, the work she did was film, and we did the courier work from the processing lab back to her, back to the lab .. etc.

So she is a great photographer .. just not 'photographer of the year' based on that work ;)

i too, believe she is a great photographer and well done on her win in the advertising category.

However, if you showed those images to people on the street and told them they were photos, most people would laugh at you. Perception means a lot. The Art of Photography is no longer about the photograph. The blurred distinction of what is a photo and what is graphic art has become interwoven. Where do we call 'time' on this? At what point are we going to see an image entirely created on a computer with no photographic components, bar the seagull 'dot' in the sky, allowing the entrant to become 'photographer of the year'? Ken has stated his views, and I agree, somehow a line in the sand has to be drawn.

jim

09-09-2016, 10:45am

i too, believe she is a great photographer and well done on her win in the advertising category.

However, if you showed those images to people on the street and told them they were photos, most people would laugh at you. Perception means a lot. The Art of Photography is no longer about the photograph. The blurred distinction of what is a photo and what is graphic art has become interwoven. Where do we call 'time' on this? At what point are we going to see an image entirely created on a computer with no photographic components, bar the seagull 'dot' in the sky, allowing the entrant to become 'photographer of the year'? Ken has stated his views, and I agree, somehow a line in the sand has to be drawn.

Maybe not. The whole meaning of the term photograph seems to be changing. Witness the fact that Facebook calls any illustration a "photo".

Cage

09-09-2016, 12:06pm

What is a photograph?

I'm sure we all have a different idea of what constitutes a photograph.

For me, a photograph freezes, and records, a moment in time. We use our equipment's tools to capture that moment as faithfully as possible, using the available light to record what we see as accurately as we can.

If our pristine scene is marred by a carelessly discarded plastic bottle, so be it, we have recorded that moment in time. If we remove the bottle prior to taking the shot we are still keeping the faith somewhat. However, if we remove the bottle in PP our photograph then becomes a mere representation of the scene, not quite kosha.

There is nothing new about photo manipulation. I've read some fascinating articles about the darkroom tricks the gun photographers used in the early 35mm film days.

So when does a photograph cease to become a true picture of what we saw? When we do some sharpening because we missed the focus a tad, or when we lighten or darken our shot because we were juggling ISO, shutter speed and aperture, and didn't get it quite right? Or is it when we use anything but pure 'Manual Mode' and let the in-camera PP work it's 'magic'? And even Manual Mode has it's in-built skulduggery.

Modern DSLR's give us the tools to assist us in displaying an image of what we saw. How we decide to present that is an individual choice. However I'm bloody sure the photographers linked in the OP never actually eyeballed the images that they presented, but only 'saw' them in their minds eye. To me, they have become an illustration, and no longer a photograph.

OK, confession time. I recently won my first comp on this forum, POTW #526. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?148180-Photo-of-the-Week-526-OPEN-(No-Theme)-Winner&p=1372305#post1372305

It was a shot of a Brown Thornbill sitting on a climbing rose. In the original shot the subject was pretty good, just needed a bit of lightening, but the background was a horrible mish-mash of blown out highlights. So, I replaced the background with another shot, ie combined two images. Manipulation? Definitely. Was my entry within the spirit of the rules? I don't know. Do I feel I bent the rules ? Probably. Do I feel guilty? Yes.

Do with me what you will.

thegrump

09-09-2016, 1:05pm

When I first joined AP, I was told I had to do this, do that, etc. I was reluctant to manipulate my photos, because I believed a photo is what comes out of a camera, not a computer. Reluctantly I began slowly manipulating my photos as I began to realize it was pointless sharing them, as I would just receive negative results. Now I do not know when to stop. It certainly has it's place in cleaning up unwanted areas and restoring old film. BUT going to the point of rebuilding entire pictures on the computer is a bit ridiculous.

sanger

09-09-2016, 2:03pm

Two years ago I bought a DSLR and started learning about photography beyond point and shoot.
I was a bit surprised when posting photo's here that a large amount of advice was aimed at "fixing in post" rather than in camera advice, ignorance on my part maybe.
Landscapes is my thing and for me the the activity of getting out there and just having a bit of fun is what's in it for me.
Give me natural colours any day and not over the top added colours later.

wayn0i

09-09-2016, 4:20pm

Ok so how much PP 'manipulation' (i can hear the screaming already) is acceptable for an image to be a photograph?

Loving this thread Rick!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hamster

09-09-2016, 4:46pm

Ok so how much PP 'manipulation' (i can hear the screaming already) is acceptable for an image to be a photograph?

Loving this thread Rick!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Expect answers ranging from nothing (some people think that a jpeg SOOC is "unprocessed/unadulterated") to "it's art and whatever is needed to get the mood/emotion/art/pretty colours across."
In the middle will be ill defined comments about "a bit of colour and contrast changing" (localised or global? is global more acceptable) "minor cloning". etc. My guess is the older the photographer the more they lean towards minimal post processing (and start waxing lyrical about the excitement of seeing an image materialise on a sheet of paper ;)).

For me it depends on the purpose of the photo. This article gives some good thought on the subject surrounding the Steve McCurry debate. A well thought out commentary IMHO
http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cameras-dont-make-photographs/

piczzilla

09-09-2016, 4:49pm

I'm another one of the guilty manipulator :o

My first comp win was actually a result of stitching
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/apcompetitiondisplay.php?entryid=21148

I had this image in mind, but was unable to produce it because I don't know anyone who has magic hands with cards. Can't say I didn't try, I spent half my day picking cards more than flicking them. So in the end I photographed the moving cards separately (they're actually dropped vertically).

My other comp entry (which didn't win) was also a result of stitching - model was shot in my living room, then stitched into grass BG (reason being, it was in the middle of winter, she wouldn't last 1 second outdoor with that dress)
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/apcompetitiondisplay.php?entryid=21060

At first I started manipulating because I had the image in my head but circumstances just didn't allow me to produce it the traditional way. These days I enjoy it too much, and am not sure where to stop. Reading this thread does make me feel guilty though.

Please don't hate me :action53:

wayn0i

09-09-2016, 4:50pm

John King

09-09-2016, 5:17pm

My guess is the older the photographer the more they lean towards minimal post processing (and start waxing lyrical about the excitement of seeing an image materialise on a sheet of paper ;)).

That's me ... :nod:.

I try very hard to photograph something that exists IRL. IOW, if someone else goes back to that spot, they will be able to take a somewhat similar photo to the one I have taken.

I also try very hard to achieve accurate colours.

Thanks for the link - I'll read it shortly.

[EDIT]

Read it. A clear perspective on the subject IMHO.

ricktas

09-09-2016, 5:22pm

Ok so how much PP 'manipulation' (i can hear the screaming already) is acceptable for an image to be a photograph?

Loving this thread Rick!

It depends...

No seriously, it does!

Whether you are playing with manipulation for fun, entering a competition, creating an abstract, or taking a photo for the news, how much manipulations depends on the reason for photo in the first place.

News photos have very strict guidelines about editing, so the editing of a photo for news is entirely different to the editing of a photo in a photo manipulation competition for example. There is no guideline that can apply to all aspects of photography.

What Ken is saying in his FB post is that there should be a line drawn for the APPA Photographer of the Year as to what defines a photo for that competition, nothing more.

Cage

09-09-2016, 5:46pm

JDuding

09-09-2016, 9:24pm

From the moment I purchased a camera that could produce a RAW image, I have been trying to improve my PP to a level that can produce an image that is a truer representation of the scene than what the "grey balance" in camera JPG processing does.

Recently I have turned off the RAW/JPG setting for my second memory card and it is now only used for overflow.

I feel that My photo requires Me to process it. (But due to time constraints and efforts required in excecive processing of an image, I'd still like to improve my skills so that my images actually require less manipulation. :rolleyes:)

Now... regarding full on manipulation.
I love it.
Been manipulating images for much longer than I've been photographing them.

And I feel that any image we take for the purpose of presenting/displaying for others is art and any level of manipulation required to achieve the results we want is acceptable.
Whether it be removing a power line or a dead leaf to the extreme of exchanging backgrounds and adding additional elements to the image...
... as long as it's within the rules.

If the rules of a competition are adhered to. then all is fine.

With the subject of this thread and the competition in question, I'd agree that the rules should be altered to better reflect the title of the competition or the title adjusted to suit the judges desired scope of eligible images.

Nick Cliff

09-09-2016, 11:04pm

Rick I agree it is really photo manipulation taken to extreme levels, some is inspired certainly, however a lot of this level of photography can feel very arty and cold, I would not want to look at it every day, I imagine a lot of this work is fine for adds or scientific photography.

MissionMan

10-09-2016, 9:19am

So can I come out of the naughty boy's corner? :o

I believed my photo was all about the subject and I wanted to show that as cleanly as possible. Instead of changing the background I could have spent many, many hours cloning and blurring and smudging and not come up with something I was pleased with.

I still think the main difference is you are enhancing a photo, rather than building a photo from 50 different photos. What the photographer has done in this case is a collage.

I have no issue if a photographer photoshops in sky, but what we see with the winner here is an image that was created rather than taken. There are no enhancements to an existing photo, it is an image (not a photo) that was created from multiple photos, with no definitive single image being the subject. You can't call something a painting if someone has stuck together 50 different paintings into a collage. It's not a painting. The individual pieces might be paintings, but not the final result. No one is arguing it isn't art, a painting and a collage are both ART, but a painting isn't a collage and a collage isn't a painting. I also think people aren't arguing about the quality of her work, she's obviously an incredible artist, but being an incredible artist isn't the same as being an incredible photographer. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "If you showed this to the public and told them it won photographer of the year based on this image, they would be confused". The definition of photographer needs to be clear enough for the public to get it. If you have lost the public, you've lost the new photographers coming in and you've lost people like us. What we don't need is a set of judges that are so up their own asses that they become like some of these art critics that rank films high that the public hate.

Incidentally, I don't blame the artist who won, the rules were clear and I don't think its her fault, but I think the AIPP needs a serious wake up call.

Kym

10-09-2016, 9:22am

Incidentally, I don't blame the artist who won, the rules were clear and I don't think its her fault, but I think the AIPP needs a serious wake up call.

Which in essence is what Ken wrote.

MarkChap

10-09-2016, 9:41am

So you are saying that a collage of 2 elements is okay.
But a collage of 50 is not okay
So where do you draw the line 2, 3, 4, 10, 15 ????

I have no issue if a photographer photoshops in sky, but what we see with the winner here is an image that was created rather than taken.
As soon as you add in an extra element you have created and not take the image
You can't add in a sky and the claim to have "taken" the image, when in fact you "created" the image.
The very process that you don't believe should be allowed ??

I still think the main difference is you are enhancing a photo, rather than building a photo from 50 different photos. What the photographer has done in this case is a collage.
I have no issue if a photographer photoshops in sky, but what we see with the winner here is an image that was created rather than taken. There are no enhancements to an existing photo, it is an image (not a photo) that was created from multiple photos, with no definitive single image being the subject. You can't call something a painting if someone has stuck together 50 different paintings into a collage. It's not a painting. The individual pieces might be paintings, but not the final result. No one is arguing it isn't art, a painting and a collage are both ART, but a painting isn't a collage and a collage isn't a painting. I also think people aren't arguing about the quality of her work, she's obviously an incredible artist, but being an incredible artist isn't the same as being an incredible photographer. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "If you showed this to the public and told them it won photographer of the year based on this image, they would be confused". The definition of photographer needs to be clear enough for the public to get it. If you have lost the public, you've lost the new photographers coming in and you've lost people like us. What we don't need is a set of judges that are so up their own asses that they become like some of these art critics that rank films high that the public hate.

Incidentally, I don't blame the artist who won, the rules were clear and I don't think its her fault, but I think the AIPP needs a serious wake up call.

MissionMan

10-09-2016, 10:32am

So you are saying that a collage of 2 elements is okay.
But a collage of 50 is not okay
So where do you draw the line 2, 3, 4, 10, 15 ????

As soon as you add in an extra element you have created and not take the image
You can't add in a sky and the claim to have "taken" the image, when in fact you "created" the image.
The very process that you don't believe should be allowed ??

Yup. Exactly what I am saying. If you change the sky, the overarching theme of the photo doesn't change. It's still a photo of someone running through daffodils or whatever the photo was. Wedding photographers have been doing it for years and most people looking at the photos wouldn't know. Maybe it comes down to the percentage of the image that changes. Can you even tell what the original image was in the Lisa's case? I doubt it. In fact most of the average people in the street wouldn't even know it was a photo collage due to the extent of the post processing.

Personally I'm not a fan of drastic changes like this, partially because I'm very lazy when it comes to post processing, so I maybe do it once or twice a year if I find an image I really like. But even then, if we are going to confine competitions to show the best "photographer", then I think the majority of categories should be confined. But if we don't draw the line in the sand somewhere, where do we go to next? Before you know it, everything will be done without actually having to take a photo.

hanro

10-09-2016, 1:36pm

I am also with Ken 100%.

King regards,

Peter

ameerat42

10-09-2016, 2:11pm

Well, it just goes without saying... - so as Slim Dusty sang... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urfRVQ5824o)

MarkChap

10-09-2016, 4:18pm

It is either a collage, therefore created
or
It is a photograph, therefore taken

You can't have it both ways

Yup. Exactly what I am saying. If you change the sky, the overarching theme of the photo doesn't change. It's still a photo of someone running through daffodils or whatever the photo was. Wedding photographers have been doing it for years and most people looking at the photos wouldn't know. Maybe it comes down to the percentage of the image that changes. Can you even tell what the original image was in the Lisa's case? I doubt it. In fact most of the average people in the street wouldn't even know it was a photo collage due to the extent of the post processing.

Personally I'm not a fan of drastic changes like this, partially because I'm very lazy when it comes to post processing, so I maybe do it once or twice a year if I find an image I really like. But even then, if we are going to confine competitions to show the best "photographer", then I think the majority of categories should be confined. But if we don't draw the line in the sand somewhere, where do we go to next? Before you know it, everything will be done without actually having to take a photo.

Glenda

11-09-2016, 7:35am

I just went and scrolled through the Ken Duncan post and was reading some of the replies. One stated that the winner's entries received really high scores in her category, which was advertising, and she had followed all the rules within that category. Therefore her portfolio received the highest marks overall when compared with the portfolios from the winners of other categories, and so she was awarded the title of Photographer of the Year. If that is the way it works, rather than the judges comparing the winning photograph of each category and choosing what they considered the best photograph, then she deserves the title. I agree the title Photographer doesn't fit the winner's entries but changing it to the Photoshopper of the Year wouldn't either if someone from a documentary category had the highest portfolio points.

Hamster

11-09-2016, 12:39pm

Yup. Exactly what I am saying. If you change the sky, the overarching theme of the photo doesn't change.

What if it's a mediocre sunset and the sky is swapped. Surely that's significant?
Whatever the reason for the sky change it must be significant for the photo, or why do it? The line is a very hard one to draw.

John King

11-09-2016, 1:46pm

MissionMan

11-09-2016, 2:38pm

What if it's a mediocre sunset and the sky is swapped. Surely that's significant?
Whatever the reason for the sky change it must be significant for the photo, or why do it? The line is a very hard one to draw.

It's significant and as I said, it should be categorised separately but it's an interesting line. For example, the brenizer technique is a method of combining multiple photos. Would you still consider it a photo? Most people would. But if you combined multiple photos to create a picture of a person via a mozaic, is that a photo? Same thing, different outcome.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

feathers

11-09-2016, 3:31pm

Oooo !.. l love the brenizer method:nod:

agb

11-09-2016, 4:01pm

Not much exif data to be extracted from most of the images in the awards. You would be hard pressed to get a raw image for any of them.

Hamster

11-09-2016, 4:19pm

Ham, that's why I tend towards being a total purist. Getting it as right as possible in camera is my approach. If you cannot aim for this at least, IMO one is not even playing at being a 'photographer'.

That's the easiest, but even that's not clear. How much saturation, highlight, shadow, contrast adjustment. Only global adjustments allowed, or local like dodging and burning. If dodging and burning, then surely localized saturation, contrast, sharpening is also ok. Can you clone out a distracting spot of white bird poo on a foreground rock? Before you know it there's masks and layers and you're getting accused of not being a photographer.
Even if you say you try and replicate exact conditions you saw, that can be tricky to get right back at home as memories are pretty poor and trying to exactly reproduce the tone of the sunset is impossible.
And what about dynamic range? The camera can't capture what your eye saw, so bracketed photos combined in layers are needed in many cases.......etc
What is "pure"? No need to answer, because really it's whatever you want it to be, within limits already mentioned in answers by Ricktas and myself and also that article I linked to.

It's significant and as I said, it should be categorised separately but it's an interesting line. For example, the brenizer technique is a method of combining multiple photos. Would you still consider it a photo? Most people would. But if you combined multiple photos to create a picture of a person via a mozaic, is that a photo?

Agreed. For me I'm looking at art unless the purpose is education/documentary.

I could even argue with Kens point of manipulating pixels not being in line with the original Greek meaning of drawing with light.
There's always been an intermediate stage between light hitting a sensitive medium (film CMOS sensor, whatever) and light hitting your eye from the display medium (paper, a screen, whatever).
The intermediate might be chemical or digital but the final image is still a manipulation of something to once again make photons hit your eyes in a specific way. It's till drawing with light.

Bottom line, I reckon follow your own rules to produce what makes you happy, and if you enter a competition, be bound by the rules others have decided on.

I @ M

11-09-2016, 6:55pm

For me it depends on the purpose of the photo.

Amen.

- - - Updated - - -

My guess is the older the photographer the more they lean towards minimal post processing (and start waxing lyrical about the excitement of seeing an image materialise on a sheet of paper ;)).

I'm ancient but I enjoy seeing well done image manipulation.

I do find 30 year old hipsters, single speed bicycles and polaroids hilarious though. :rolleyes:

Hamster

11-09-2016, 8:26pm

I do find 30 year old hipsters, single speed bicycles and polaroids hilarious though. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I've told all my team if I see any of them riding a fixie I'll get their engineering degree revoked.

John King

11-09-2016, 11:25pm

That's the easiest, but even that's not clear. How much saturation, highlight, shadow, contrast adjustment. Only global adjustments allowed, or local like dodging and burning. If dodging and burning, then surely localized saturation, contrast, sharpening is also ok. Can you clone out a distracting spot of white bird poo on a foreground rock? Before you know it there's masks and layers and you're getting accused of not being a photographer.
Even if you say you try and replicate exact conditions you saw, that can be tricky to get right back at home as memories are pretty poor and trying to exactly reproduce the tone of the sunset is impossible.
And what about dynamic range? The camera can't capture what your eye saw, so bracketed photos combined in layers are needed in many cases.......etc

Ham, I do not do any of those things, unless attempting to restore a photo of an old photo ...

What is "pure"? No need to answer, because really it's whatever you want it to be, within limits already mentioned in answers by Ricktas and myself and also that article I linked to.

What I consider to be "pure" is global adjustments of around the minima that can be achieved in camera. For example, one cannot adjust cameras in 1/10 or 1/20th of a stop; one cannot remove specular glare;

I neither add nor subtract anything from any photo I take, with a couple of rare exceptions - e.g. a portrait where I was constrained to shoot from the audience and my flash caused a shadow of an out of frame microphone to be cast on a light coloured wall in the background.

I only very rarely crop images I take. The exception to this is slight rotation when I don't pay sufficient attention to how level I hold my camera/s.

Bottom line, I reckon follow your own rules to produce what makes you happy, and if you enter a competition, be bound by the rules others have decided on.

Like most things in life, there are rarely absolutes, much as some may think otherwise. However, one can attempt to attain closeness to such ideals. In this regard, and with this caveat, I try to ensure that my images reflect, as far as possible, what I saw in real life. This includes composition, framing, colour, use of a suitable FL lens, aperture and exposure. Sometimes I get closer than I do at other times. However, at no time do I consider that I "can fix things in post". Rather, I acknowledge to myself at least that I have cocked things up to a greater or lesser degree, and try to learn from those mistakes. Better that than heroic editing to try to pass off a pig's behind as a silk purse ... Just FWIW, and IMHO.