Where do you draw the line?
Unclaimed Mysteries
viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
"post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
the image until ...
... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
merely raw material?
Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Stacey
>
> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
in the instant the shutter was open.
As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
representation of what was seen through the finder.
Soften, sharpen, clean up, dodge/burn, contrast and exposure tweaks etc are
just normal photography tools. As far as the distortion/swirl tools, I
never saw any use for them in my work, YMMV..
--
Stacey
Randy Berbaum
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
: With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
: "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
: dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
: and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
: the image until ...
: ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
: image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
: merely raw material?
: Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
I generally don't worry about the distinction. But my personal take is
that there was always a bit of blurring between "photograph" and "Graphic
Art". But with the advent of digital photography, the blur has gotten
wider.
A photo that has had some color/brightness/contrast adjustment to bring
the captured image more in tune with what the eye saw (or wished it saw)
is still photography. Also changing the photo to another color format,
such as B&W or Sepia can still be photography. But when we start making
composite photos (layering multiple images) or replacing colors, we are
getting into the blur. Of course when non photographic elements, such as
using a paint brush to add color or adding text, we are fully in the range
of Graphic Art. Of course the lines are very fluid. Sometimes just adding
some text (like the photographers name for copyright purposes) to a photo
does not make it less of a photo. I even count stitching together a
panorama or compositing of a group photo out of a series of individual
photos to still be a photo. While some special effect images, like making
a ghost with a long exposure and a moving subject, can be as much Art as
photo even tho the Art is coming directly out of the camera that way.
So, as I started out, I generally don't try to delineate which is which.
As with many pursuits that involve the interpretation by the viewer, I
know what I like. Or in this case, I know what _I_ would think is the
divide, but it is more a feeling than a rule. :)
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Rick
> <theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
> : With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
> : viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
> : "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
> : dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
> : and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
> : the image until ...
>
> : ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
> : image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
> : merely raw material?
>
> : Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
It's not all that complicated. A photograph is what a camera
produces. Graphic art is what a graphic artist produces.
I suppose things do get a little blurry when it comes to camera
hardware and firmware designers, but past that point it's all
graphic art.
BTW this isn't a new question with digital photography or
editing software... Analog is (or was) just a higher resolution
version of digital, i.e. film grain is the effective resolution of
analog photography, as opposed to pixel count in digital.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
>
>>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>>
>
>
> I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
> in the instant the shutter was open.
>
> As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
> dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
> imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
> phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
> representation of what was seen through the finder.
>
> Soften, sharpen, clean up, dodge/burn, contrast and exposure tweaks etc are
> just normal photography tools.
Thanks. Interesting take. You insist on the fidelity of the recording of
the actual objects in the field of view, over the fidelity of their
outline or colors formed upon the film/sensor. Kind of a journalistic
perspective, no?
> As far as the distortion/swirl tools, I
> never saw any use for them in my work, YMMV..
So I guess this sensitive, interpretive portrait of Microsoft Chairman
Steve Ballmer is out of line, eh?
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/images/redmondian.jpg
Spoilsport.
rafe bustin
>Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
>>
>> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>>
>
>I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the camera
>in the instant the shutter was open.
>
> As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up some
>dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
>imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
>phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
>representation of what was seen through the finder.
Would it have been acceptable to pick up
the garbage first, before snapping the
shutter?
Apropros phone lines, saw this yesterday
and didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
<http://www.crumbmuseum.com/history1.html>
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Keith Sheppard
>>artwork using a photograph as merely raw material?
any other name, etc.
To my mind, anything which started off as a photographic image is, to some
extent, still a photograph whatever embelishments you choose to add.
I guess we've all seen those amusement arcade booths which produce a "sketch
portrait". By my definition the output from those is still a photograph
because the image was produced photographically.
What if I drew some work of art (unlikely, given my lack of talents) and
then grafted the photographic image of someone's face into a small part of
it? Is that a photograph? I'm not sure that I care, but maybe it isn't.
Perhaps I have to modify my previous definition to say that the main image
must have been photographically produced.
Keith
Neil Pugh
Unclaimed Mysteries
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> writes
>With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
>viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
>"post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could
>only dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes,
>mashups, and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and
>mutilate the image until ...
>
>... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
>image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph
>as merely raw material?
>
>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
>
>Corry
I'll generally take things out of photographs quite happily,
particularly things that wouldn't have been there in the first place if
I'd been able to exclude them by using a different viewpoint or lens, or
times when I should have had my brain in gear before pressing the
button!
I rarely add things into photographs, occasionally interesting sky &
clouds when I have a washed out, blank sky.
I think many of the original old masters you mention above did a lot of
modifications in their black and white darkrooms, it was only with the
advent of colour (chemical) photography that we generally lost the
ability to manipulate the image, now that we have digital we've got that
ability back again.
Does anybody remember the sheer unadulterated hell of trying to get a
Cibachrome print from a slide in an amateur darkroom? Huge waterbaths,
trying to maintain the temperature to within a degree or two,
condensation and sweat trickling down every surface, and then the print
had such weird colour casts that the only place for it was the bin. Not
to mention the cost. Happy days.
--
Neil Pugh
ch...@go.com
Maybe I'm odd, but the process is *important*. So if you lay face down
in the icy mud for hours, over many days, waiting for that grizzly bear
to walk in front of that sunset-lit tree and you finally nailed it,
then say so. I respect those sort of images greatly.
But if you just photoshop a couple of images together, and then instead
of saying that, you PRETEND that you did all of the above in order to
gain some sort of twisted respect... then you're going to *hell*, I
reckon.. (O;
Sadly I see this type of behaviour all too often on some photography
sites, and there are some very notable examples where it all ended in
tears...
(O;
Don't get me wrong, I'll photoshop it with the best of them, but I
don't hide it. And I have no problem with
color/saturation/contrast/dust removal, and even a bit of garbage
removal without admission. But anything much beyond that (eg removing
telephone or power lines) and I think you should come clean. Unless it
so bleedingly obvious that no sane person could believe it...
Graham Holden
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
>
>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
For those that care about the distinction between a "photograph" and
"generated images"/"photographic art" (or whatever it might be called), I'd
broadly agree with Stacey; if the image still basically represents the
scene as I did/could have seen it, it's still a photograph.
Panoramic stitching is fine (it's what we would have seen if we let out
eyes roam or turn our heads); layering of multiple exposures (e.g. of a
sunset) is fine (it "mimics" the eye/brain's better ability to adjust
exposure "on the fly"). A _little_ touching up (e.g. dust/dirt etc.) I
would still be happy calling a photograph.
I'd probably not be too unhappy about removing a powerline (I can think of
it as an extended smear of dirt). However removing "bags of rubbish" or
the pylons that hold up a powerline I think crosses the line, since you're
having to "invent" much more of the image. (I'd probably call this a
"Retouched photograph").
Starting to use two or more photographs (or other image sources) to make
composites (putting a person in a scene they never were in; adding an
interesting looking tree to an otherwise "plain" landscape) are all firmly
into the "photographic art" or "generated image" categories.
I'm not saying I've anything _against_ doing any of these things; just
where I'd start using different names (off the top of my head; probably not
exhaustive):
Photograph (basically exposure tweaks)
Retouched Photo (aesthetic tweaks; e.g. rubbish-bag removal)
Photographic Art (essentially composites of photos)
Generated Image (the photographic starting point is only a minor
component of the end product)
Whether I'd be _bothered_ by people not using the "right names" is another
matter; I don't think I'd like someone trying to "pass off" a heavily
doctored image as a "real photo"; but I wouldn't get het up if someone
forgot to mention that they cloned-out a lamppost.
Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
SimonLW
and digital, I'll crop, adjust contrast & gamma and/or adjust color. That's
about the extent of it. I try to get everything the best at the original
exposure (was weaned on film). I don't use unsharp mask unless I resample.
Psp5 has very limited histogram functions. I'd like something with more
control over that. I never migrated to Psp7. We got it at work and it was
very slow.
-S
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:sdfke.6129$uR4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Larry
says...
I clone out horse manure from my horse show photos all the time.
Dropping "road apples" is something you cant train a horse not to do.
If I spend 20 to 30 minutes setting up a posed shot, and in the meantime, the
horse takes a little "break" I simply clone it out with whatever Im using for
ground cover. (usually wood shavings).
I have never considered this a "cheat".
I have, however, been asked by customers to "fix his ears" or "remove that
mark", and since these shots are sometimes used to represent the horse in a
"for sale" add, I refuse to alter the horse in any of my shots. "What he
looks like, is what you get", and this includes dirt marks, sweat, scars,
blotches, and whatever else the horse may bring to the posing area. The only
thing I will alter or remove is what the horse may drop (or spill) while
posing.
It takes too long, and its too hard to re-pose a horse while having someone
clean up.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Philip Homburg
>... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
>image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
>merely raw material?
>
>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
I draw the line at adding material to a photograph. If you start with a
photograph and you remove items in the picture you don't like, I would
still consider it to be a photograph.
Adding material from another photograph, or if you color a b/w photo
(not just duo-tone, but coloring selected parts of the image), would make
it something different.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Marvin
> With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
> viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
> "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
> dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
> and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
> the image until ...
>
> ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
> image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
> merely raw material?
>
> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
>
> Corry
Sometimes I want to represent something accurately. Other times I want a pleasing image.
Or I may want to represent how a subject would look if some changes were made. I have
added people to a photo because they couldn't be present at the shoot, but belonged there.
All the above are legitimate, and there are surely others reasons that are equally
valid. But I won't deceive for illegal or immoral purposes.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> You are drawing lines in a world where there are no lines.
>
I just asked the question, dude.
Unclaimed Mysteries
>
> To my mind, anything which started off as a photographic image is, to some
> extent, still a photograph whatever embelishments you choose to add.
>
Now we have the other end of the spectrum from Stacey's definition
staked out.
Would this definition even include sufficiently detailed camera obscura
drawings? Instead of film or electronic capture you got <agent86voice>
yer ol' opto-bio-neural-mechanical-feedback capture trick. </agent86voice>
What would y'all say about defining what we do as two distinct operations?
1) Using some kind(s) of optical device(s) to generate the image itself,
regardless of what it is recorded onto, and
2) *Everything* else, including capture, darkroom, studio, and/or
computer manipulation right on up to what you print the thing on for a
final product.
Or should I just say fsck it and use the word "photograph" to mean what
most folks expect when they use it? Yes, maybe go out and take some
pictures instead, I heard that. Heh.
Ron Hunter
> With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
> viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
> "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
> dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
> and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
> the image until ...
>
> ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
> image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
> merely raw material?
>
> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
>
> Corry
It is a matter of personal preference, but unless I am just playing with
an image, or intend it for artistic expression, I limit changes to those
that make it look more like what I SAW when I took the picture.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Unclaimed Mysteries
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:39:40 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
> <theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John A. Stovall wrote in part:
>>
>>
>>>You are drawing lines in a world where there are no lines.
>>>
>>
>>I just asked the question, dude.
>
>
> A poorly framed question.
>
Possibly, but that's another issue. Have a beautiful day.
Ron Hunter
If the intent is 'art', great. If the intent is deception. BAD!
I have been known to clone out something I didn't notice when I took the
picture (like a smoke stack, or power line). However, I wouldnt' claim
the picture was 'unretouched'. Certainly adding elements, such as
clouds in the sky, or people not actually in the original, would cross
the line to 'deception', in my thinking, and render the work, graphic art.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
I once cloned out the birthmark on my great niece's face, and my wife
had a FIT. She wouldn't allow the picture to remain on the computer.
She said that was 'HER', and the birthmark went with her. Fortunately,
it faded over time...
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Paul H.
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:sdfke.6129$uR4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
> "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
> dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
> and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
> the image until ...
>
> ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
> image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
> merely raw material?
>
> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
>
> Corry
I do mostly nature and landscape photography. When I take a nature
photograph of a bee hovering about a flower, for example, I might enhance
the sharpness to make the bee's cilia, wings, and markings stand out better
and I'd probably bump up the saturation a bit, too. Maybe I'd apply a
slight gaussian filter to blur out the background a tad in order to bring
more "focus" to my subject. Or maybe not. Not realistic? Perhaps not, but
how realistic is it to have a human eyeball one inch away from a flying bee,
anyway? When I do landscape photography, I often do a lot of subtle
post-processing like dynamic range enhancement, contrast adjustment, etc.,
since I'm NOT interested in making a schematic representation for a land
survey; instead, I'm trying to capture the "feel" of a place in time, a
sensation that can be evoked later on when someone views the print. And
while I would probably not add an element to a photo which was not in the
original scene, I have no qualms whatsoever about cloning out a stray bit of
paper or detritus whose presence might spoil an otherwise excellent photo.
I'll become an exposure purist the day when sensors can capture the full
dynamic range of the human eye and when the camera's computer can duplicate
the integrative and discriminatory functions of the human brain. The idea
that the unmodified output of an electronic sensor or piece of film somehow
captures reality is utter nonsense--all that is captured by such technology
is a biased representation of a small subset of the photons coming from
whatever the camera is pointed at. Reality--or our subjective sense of
it--is captured not on film or CCD's, but in that three-pound mass of jelly
between our ears.
In short, I like post-processing. And I don't miss standing around looking
at a thermometer and a timer as I slosh my film around in a cannister full
of developing solution. Well, maybe I miss that a little, now that I think
of it >>Sigh<< When I think back on all the times I've experienced
nostalgia, a odd feeling of meta-nostalgia washes over me.
Frank ess
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 07:01:44 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
> <theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>>
>
> For those that care about the distinction between a "photograph" and
> "generated images"/"photographic art" (or whatever it might be
> called), I'd broadly agree with Stacey; if the image still basically
> represents the scene as I did/could have seen it, it's still a
> photograph.
<snip>
>
> Whether I'd be _bothered_ by people not using the "right names" is
> another matter; I don't think I'd like someone trying to "pass off"
> a
> heavily doctored image as a "real photo"; but I wouldn't get het up
> if someone forgot to mention that they cloned-out a lamppost.
>
Way I figure it, there is a limited amount of "truth" available to the
population. Every time someone uses a bit, the supply is diminished,
and can only be refilled by the application of deception and artifice,
thereby freeing-up some previously-tasked selection.
That's why I feel so useful in the community, and don't hesitate to
pump up the saturation, lay on the USM, layer them suckers into
submission: your "gots to be right, righteous, and correct if you
expect _me_ to value it" agitators get freer rein, and I add "smug" to
my Personal Information.
No, really, I _do_ feel like a cheater, even when using a reflector or
a wind-shield to brighten or deepen a bud's image. My most satisfying
images take no pre- or post-processing prior to printing or posting,
BUT (and it's a really big one) there are muchas formas de
satisfaction. My most satisfying images' satisfaction quotients are
based on a satisfying _process_ as well as a satisfying _outcome_.
Multiple satisfactions.
As goes the Gaussian curve, so goes the blend of _process_ and
_outcome_: at one extreme we have the excruciatingly pure,
unmanipulated photo of that sunset-lit bear/tree captured at great
sacrifice and with great crystal-fused simplicity; at the other, the
technique-ly perfect, plastic representaion of the idea of sun, set,
light, bear, tree, matrix, Noise-Ninja'd to an unfamiliar dimension by
application of Wows and Flourishes, puro graphic Echh; the majority
pile up in the middle latitudes, combining virtues and constituting
nourishment sufficient to ensure continuation of energy investment.
You may be wondering if, at bottom, I believe in messing with images
obtained through photography. Yup. Before, during and after. But I'd
rather not.
--
Frank S
"Verbing wierds language."
-Calvin
ASAAR
> I once cloned out the birthmark on my great niece's face, and my wife
> had a FIT. She wouldn't allow the picture to remain on the computer.
> She said that was 'HER', and the birthmark went with her.
A wise wife you've got there, Ron. Did she ever tell you any more
of her reason for preferring the birthmark than it was "HER"?
David Dyer-Bennet
> With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
> viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
> "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could
> only dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes,
> mashups, and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold,
> and mutilate the image until ...
>
> ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is
> an image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a
> photograph as merely raw material?
>
> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
Mostly I don't care, unless the issue is fraudulently presenting such
a modified image as representing reality.
I'm willing to go to the point of removing inconvenient people,
doorways, electrical outlets, and such from images and still consider
them essentially photographic. Nobody would complain if I set up a
white background; if I shoot against the existing wall instead, and
then edit out some details, I consider it about the same thing. This
is further than a lot of people will go, I think.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Frederick
> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>
> in the instant the shutter was open.
>
If that is the case, then using PC lenses, fisheye lenses, using
aperture to control depth of field, polarising filters, freezing motion
with high shutter speeds/flash - or conversely using motion blur /
panning to create a sense of motion, shooting monochrome, and other
"photographic techniques" considerd part of the "art" are also "cheating".
I would only draw the line if digital manipulation was used in forensic
photography or photo journalism for the purpose of deliberate deception.
Anything else goes.
Tony
channel - making it pretty much useless for modern digital camera output.
Don't know about GIMP, but if I weren't using Photoshop I would use Corel
Photo-Paint which is unde 100 dollars and at least as functional as the
PhotoShop 6 I do use.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Randy Berbaum" <rber...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:d6s1i5$12d$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> Unclaimed Mysteries
> <theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
> : With software such as the 800 lb gorilla Photoshop, the still quite
> : viable Paint Shop Pro, and the noble The Gimp, we can make the kind of
> : "post-production" modifications to our photos the old masters could only
> : dream about in the darkroom. We can even make total remixes, mashups,
> : and soften, sharpen, watercolorify, OILIFY, spindle, fold, and mutilate
> : the image until ...
>
> : ... until it's not really a photograph anymore. But at what point is an
> : image still a photograph and not a graphic artwork using a photograph as
> : merely raw material?
>
> : Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>
> I generally don't worry about the distinction. But my personal take is
> that there was always a bit of blurring between "photograph" and "Graphic
> Art". But with the advent of digital photography, the blur has gotten
> wider.
>
> A photo that has had some color/brightness/contrast adjustment to bring
> the captured image more in tune with what the eye saw (or wished it saw)
> is still photography. Also changing the photo to another color format,
> such as B&W or Sepia can still be photography. But when we start making
> composite photos (layering multiple images) or replacing colors, we are
> getting into the blur. Of course when non photographic elements, such as
> using a paint brush to add color or adding text, we are fully in the range
> of Graphic Art. Of course the lines are very fluid. Sometimes just adding
> some text (like the photographers name for copyright purposes) to a photo
> does not make it less of a photo. I even count stitching together a
> panorama or compositing of a group photo out of a series of individual
> photos to still be a photo. While some special effect images, like making
> a ghost with a long exposure and a moving subject, can be as much Art as
> photo even tho the Art is coming directly out of the camera that way.
>
> So, as I started out, I generally don't try to delineate which is which.
> As with many pursuits that involve the interpretation by the viewer, I
> know what I like. Or in this case, I know what _I_ would think is the
> divide, but it is more a feeling than a rule. :)
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
Ron Hunter
as she was. I felt it was an unsightly blemish on what was the beauty
within. Now, thankfully, they are one and the same. No more birthmark.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
That is because you see photography as 'art'. I see it as craft, with
potential to be art. Both are equally valid.
I just prefer my 'art' to be more in the area of 'realism', than
'impressionism'...
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
ASAAR
> > A wise wife you've got there, Ron. Did she ever tell you any more
> > of her reason for preferring the birthmark than it was "HER"?
> >
> She just said she felt it should be left there, as it represented HER,
> as she was. I felt it was an unsightly blemish on what was the beauty
> within. Now, thankfully, they are one and the same. No more birthmark.
I guess you're more bothered by appearances than your wife. You
never know how someone might react if they sense that others think
they're somehow "blemished" or disfigured. If there's real beauty
within, birthmarks shouldn't matter. If your great niece asked for
her photos to be retouched that's one thing. But doing it without
her having requested it might have unintended consequences. She
might even have liked it, but it probably would be best to have
asked first. And if she said that retouching wasn't necessary,
you'd have one more reason to be proud of her. :)
Stacey
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:28:53 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>>>
>>
>>I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the
>>camera in the instant the shutter was open.
>>
>> As soon as the clone brush comes out to do anything more than clean up
>> some
>>dust etc, it's a goner as far as being a "photograph". I've done some
>>imaging like this but I don't call them photographs when trees, garbage,
>>phone lines etc are removed.. What I've created isn't a realistic
>>representation of what was seen through the finder.
>
>
> Would it have been acceptable to pick up
> the garbage first, before snapping the
> shutter?
For me, yes it would be. For some people it isn't..
I guess I feel photography is "recording a moment in time" and if the trash
was there and was picked up in photoshop, was it really capturing a moment
in time that actually ever existed? If I picked the trash up to make it
look nicer, the scene did look nicer when I photographed it and looked
nicer after I left, unless of course I put the trash back where I found it.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Stacey wrote:
>> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Where do _you_ draw the (unsharp) line?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I draw the line when it no longer represents what was in front of the
>> camera in the instant the shutter was open.
>>
>
> If that is the case, then using PC lenses, fisheye lenses, using
> aperture to control depth of field, polarising filters, freezing motion
> with high shutter speeds/flash - or conversely using motion blur /
> panning to create a sense of motion, shooting monochrome, and other
> "photographic techniques" considerd part of the "art" are also "cheating".
>
Hmm I don't feel that way because what was there in the image did exist in
front of the camera. I might should rethink about all the PS distortion
filters (I don't personally like most of them) but I suppose the one thing
that I don't agree with is in keeping with a "photograph" is cloning things
out, like trash or phone lines etc. I draw the line there as you are
removing things that were in front of the camera at that moment in time
digitally. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "cheating" but it defeats my
purpose in photographing most things.
Another example, http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fly.jpg
If I took a picture of this flower then added this fly to it, that wouldn't
be a "photograph" to me because when I snapped the shutter, that fly wasn't
on this flower in that instant in time. Same would be true if I cropped him
out, he was there but I digitally removed him.
I'm not judging anyone but myself here, it's just where I draw the line.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Actually Paint Shop Pro does not handle images at more than 8 bits per
> channel - making it pretty much useless for modern digital camera output.
> Don't know about GIMP, but if I weren't using Photoshop I would use Corel
> Photo-Paint which is unde 100 dollars and at least as functional as the
> PhotoShop 6 I do use.
>
But the question was about where you draw the line as far as editing
"photographs", not what hardware/software technical specs we should be
looking at....
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Keith Sheppard wrote in part:
>
>>
>> To my mind, anything which started off as a photographic image is, to
>> some extent, still a photograph whatever embelishments you choose to add.
>>
>
> Now we have the other end of the spectrum from Stacey's definition
> staked out.
You're right, I probably was a little too far right...
I think the main "joy" of photographing things for me is I feel I'm making
a recording of a moment in time. When you create a scene that never existed
in a given point of time in front of the camera, it's not a photograph but
something (some form of art?) you've created that never actually existed.
Nothing wrong with that (I've done this myself and liked the results..) but
it doesn't fit what I personally consider a photograph.
>
> Or should I just say fsck it and use the word "photograph" to mean what
> most folks expect when they use it?
Of course that's what you'll do as people will always call anything that
looks like a photograph, a photograph!
--
Stacey
Jer
The universal truth is everybody has something about their physical
appearance that somebody else doesn't particularly like. The modern
human condition is rife with subjectiveness that is ill-placed and
considered shallow by those that have risen above such platitudes.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Ron Hunter
had been told the birthmark would fade, I thought I would get rid of it.
She is about 3 now, and it is gone. She is beautiful, but then I am
biased.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
photograph. As long as one doesn't use the editing for intentional
deception, I see nothing wrong with it. I prefer to leave most of my
photographs exactly as they came from the camera.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
granddaughter has a bit of a 'pixie face', and I used PSE to make her
chin longer and more pointed, and give her pointed ears, and a pointy
nose. She loved it!
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
distraction. At that point, it does stop being a photograph, and become
an artistic work.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
David Dyer-Bennet
> Hmm I don't feel that way because what was there in the image did exist in
> front of the camera. I might should rethink about all the PS distortion
> filters (I don't personally like most of them) but I suppose the one thing
> that I don't agree with is in keeping with a "photograph" is cloning things
> out, like trash or phone lines etc. I draw the line there as you are
> removing things that were in front of the camera at that moment in time
> digitally. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "cheating" but it defeats my
> purpose in photographing most things.
>
> Another example, http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fly.jpg
>
>
> If I took a picture of this flower then added this fly to it, that wouldn't
> be a "photograph" to me because when I snapped the shutter, that fly wasn't
> on this flower in that instant in time. Same would be true if I cropped him
> out, he was there but I digitally removed him.
I'm fairly comfortable taking some kinds of things out digitally. The
example that made it really clear to me was some bridal party
portraits. I was using a white wall as a background, except it had an
outlet in it at one point. I retouched the outlet out (trivially
easy, since I made sure it wasn't at the edge of a person ever).
Nobody would have thought twice if I'd hauled in the background stand
and the roll of paper and set that up, that'd still be
"photographic".
> I'm not judging anyone but myself here, it's just where I draw the line.
And it's clearly one of the reasonable points to do so. As I said
earlier, I suspect my own rule goes further than most photographers
are comfortable with, and so far this seems to be true.
Oh, one question -- do you extend this rule to dust on the sensor or
the film? What about lint on somebodies clothing?
ASAAR
> The great niece in question was only a year old at the time. Since I
> had been told the birthmark would fade, I thought I would get rid of it.
> She is about 3 now, and it is gone. She is beautiful, but then I am
> biased.
One of my nieces had a large birthmark which also eventually
faded. Even if it never faded it wouldn't have been noticed by many
people, as it was on the top of her head. Her twin sister didn't
have one. I'm not sure that I share this bias of yours. I find
most very young children are lovely, whether related or not. :)
Ron Hunter
If you want to see the niece in question, go to www.webshots.com and
search for rphunter42. Then look at album 'Shields Family Christmas
party 2003' and picture DCP_1332. Girl and birthmark are there.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Frederick
Of course you can choose where to draw the line for yourself, and I have
absolutely no problem with that (nice photo BTW).
But, what the camera records is not reality from a human perspective.
Our eyes might work in a similar way to a camera, but it's our mind that
creates what we call an image from what our eyes capture.
I'm not sure that it is entirely inappropriate to "clone out" things.
Looking at many "snapshots", one of the most common errors is to include
background features like telegraph poles growing out of peoples heads
etc. This happens because the image that the photographer sees in
his/her mind does not register the offending item as a distraction, as
we see in three dimensions, and our mind is selective in what we "see".
So, cloning a telegraph pole out can be seen as genuinely working to
restore what the photographer saw in their mind - which is reality from
a human perspective, if not a record of physical reality.
I'm not even sure if adding things that weren't there is crossing the
line. A stunning photograph, one of the few photos on display at my
home city gallery, is a shot of a model in an old theater. It is very
large (1m or more wide?)image, and appears to have been shot on a large
format camera with the shutter open while the model (the photographer?)
has moved to every visible seat in the theater, and illuminated himself
in different poses(set off a small flash on his lap maybe?). It is
extremely effective, but very far from a representation of reality. Art
does not have to represent physical reality. Early on, photography at
least partly displaced painted art as a means to record physical
reality, which probably gave rise to impressionism when unemployed
artists had to try other ways to make a buck because people with cash
were getting family photo portraits instead. If digital manipulation of
photographic raw material allows greater creativity -
"photo-impressionism" - then do it. If you deliberately "deceive"
gallery viewers, then good on you - it's been done before without
computers - and accepted as legitimate photographic art. It is IMO very
pedantic to allow technological manipulation using some older tools and
methods, and disallow others because they are new.
Stacey
>
> Oh, one question -- do you extend this rule to dust on the sensor or
> the film?
No, that's a technical issue to me.
> What about lint on somebodies clothing?
It would depend on if I was doing this "professionally" or for me. And if I
did do this (or like what you did with the wall socket) I might not
hesitate to do it, just might feel different about the end results?
Another example. I scanned something for a friend that was taken of their
child years ago. I saw a red streak on the childs face in the scanned image
and assumed it was a technical flaw and cloned it out. When I showed them
the results, they asked "Where is the scratch on his face" and she went
into detail about how the cat had scratched the child before the picture
was taken and a funny story behind it. So was the "perfect" cleaned up shot
a capture of that point in time? I don't believe it was.. BTW I redid the
work and this time left the scratch on his face.
--
Stacey
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Oh, one question -- do you extend this rule to dust on the sensor or
>> the film?
>
> No, that's a technical issue to me.
Makes sens to me.
>> What about lint on somebodies clothing?
>
> It would depend on if I was doing this "professionally" or for me. And if I
> did do this (or like what you did with the wall socket) I might not
> hesitate to do it, just might feel different about the end results?
Yep, I understand that as a possible end-point.
> Another example. I scanned something for a friend that was taken of
> their child years ago. I saw a red streak on the childs face in the
> scanned image and assumed it was a technical flaw and cloned it
> out. When I showed them the results, they asked "Where is the
> scratch on his face" and she went into detail about how the cat had
> scratched the child before the picture was taken and a funny story
> behind it. So was the "perfect" cleaned up shot a capture of that
> point in time? I don't believe it was.. BTW I redid the work and
> this time left the scratch on his face.
It *clearly* wasn't a capture of that point in time, no.
In formal portrait work, a significant degree of retouching is fairly
standard and expected, but in snapshots, not. And sometimes, like,
apparently, the case you ran into, the "flaw" is the point of the
photo.
Stacey
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Another example. I scanned something for a friend that was taken of
>> their child years ago. I saw a red streak on the child's face in the
>> scanned image and assumed it was a technical flaw and cloned it
>> out. When I showed them the results, they asked "Where is the
>> scratch on his face" and she went into detail about how the cat had
>> scratched the child before the picture was taken and a funny story
>> behind it. So was the "perfect" cleaned up shot a capture of that
>> point in time? I don't believe it was.. BTW I redid the work and
>> this time left the scratch on his face.
>
> It *clearly* wasn't a capture of that point in time, no.
>
> In formal portrait work, a significant degree of retouching is fairly
> standard and expected, but in snapshots, not. And sometimes, like,
> apparently, the case you ran into, the "flaw" is the point of the
> photo.
Actually it was a formal portrait setting and mom"was upset about the child
having this flaw on the day of the setting but years later fondly
remembered the ordeal of getting the child to the photographer in one
piece. At the time she probably would have liked the flaw removed to have
the "perfect" picture but later on she liked the shot as it was a capture
of that slice in time. Something to think about when editing what we think
today as 'being a flaw' out.. Sorta like the child with the birthmark she
grew out of. If no unedited images were saved, that time of her life is
lost forever.
Here's another funny example (to me). My sister was getting married outdoors
and RIGHT before she came down the isle, a neighbors dog came up and in
front of the crowd took a crap right next to where they were going to
stand. Of course all the shots of the wedding ceremony had this pile of
dog crap in them. Should it be edited out in the shots?
Later my sister said "All I could think about standing up there is 'why does
it smell like dog crap'"! ;-) Since this was part of that day, would it be
better: as it really looked in these shots years later or should it be
recorded/edited as "perfect"?
--
Stacey
Ron Hunter
ASAAR
> Just trying to be fair, since we aren't allowed to post pictures here.
> If you want to see the niece in question, go to www.webshots.com and
> search for rphunter42. Then look at album 'Shields Family Christmas
> party 2003' and picture DCP_1332. Girl and birthmark are there.
The one on the left with the red sweater? I was expecting
something more than a pencil-eraser sized spot. Rugrats have no
business being so cute. :) Speaking of which, I found one of my
nieces wearing a Rugrat t-shirt among a bunch of pictures and
wallpapers I had on the computer. She's the one that had the
birthmark, but it was pretty large, the size of her ear or slightly
larger. Since I don't have a website, I followed your lead and put
a bunch of shots up on http://community.webshots.com/user/basaarx
where she that wore the T is in 64.jpg and 65.jpg, if it's of any
interest. Either the Webshot search engine could stand a little
improvement or it's not intuitive enough for mere mortals like me.
Ron Hunter
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:33:11 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Just trying to be fair, since we aren't allowed to post pictures here.
>>If you want to see the niece in question, go to www.webshots.com and
>>search for rphunter42. Then look at album 'Shields Family Christmas
>>party 2003' and picture DCP_1332. Girl and birthmark are there.
>
>
> The one on the left with the red sweater? I was expecting
> something more than a pencil-eraser sized spot. Rugrats have no
> business being so cute. :)
Yes, that is the one. The other girl in the picture is her older
sister. Also quite a pleasure to look at, and to be around.
Speaking of which, I found one of my
> nieces wearing a Rugrat t-shirt among a bunch of pictures and
> wallpapers I had on the computer. She's the one that had the
> birthmark, but it was pretty large, the size of her ear or slightly
> larger. Since I don't have a website, I followed your lead and put
> a bunch of shots up on http://community.webshots.com/user/basaarx
> where she that wore the T is in 64.jpg and 65.jpg, if it's of any
> interest. Either the Webshot search engine could stand a little
> improvement or it's not intuitive enough for mere mortals like me.
>
I have written Webshots several times regarding their search process,
which gives preference to the OLDER pictures, rather than the newer
ones. So far, no joy.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Paul Revere
(in article <3ffv9sF...@individual.net>):
From my perspective, "recording a moment in time" is called a "taking a
snapshot". It's a mechanical process a child can accomplish with the only
decision required being which "moment in time" to record.
"Photography" is the use of photographic equipment and technique to create a
composition to which chemical and/or digital "development" is applied to
produce an end product that evokes an emotional response. It's a creative
process that can be improved with practice but which is limited by personal
talent, like any other art form.
David Dyer-Bennet
Ooh. That's an even better story.
> Here's another funny example (to me). My sister was getting married
> outdoors and RIGHT before she came down the isle, a neighbors dog
> came up and in front of the crowd took a crap right next to where
> they were going to stand. Of course all the shots of the wedding
> ceremony had this pile of dog crap in them. Should it be edited out
> in the shots?
>
> Later my sister said "All I could think about standing up there is
> 'why does it smell like dog crap'"! ;-) Since this was part of that
> day, would it be better: as it really looked in these shots years
> later or should it be recorded/edited as "perfect"?
I suspect people will have very different opinions -- and, as with
your portrait above, quite possibly different opinions at the time
vs. later.